The Squad thread

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, Jul 18, 2019.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #1
    This thread is for posting news about "The Squad"!

    It can be an article about something you find batcrap crazy or you think is a great idea and that the voters will clamor for.

    So the first one is going to be an article about AOC thinking no one will be heartbroken if they lose private insurance:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oc...e-prospect-of-losing-private-health-insurance

    Technically she is correct. I wouldn't be heartbroken, I would be pissed.
     
  2. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #3
    I love the Squad. I think the four of them should run for president as a unit and lead the country as an oligarchy :)
     
  3. chown33 Moderator

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    bedlam
    #4
    Who would get the tie-breaking vote?
     
  4. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #5
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/07/trump-v-the-squad-whos-winning-reader-poll/#more-289543

    “The Squad hold loathsome views — AOC compares our struggle to deal with the humanitarian crisis at the border to the Nazis rounding up Jews into concentration camps, while voting against funding to take care of the very same people; Omar is a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite who plays victim when called out, but succeeds in normalizing her hate; Tlaib lied about her support for BDS to gain money from liberal J Street, and cries racism when people criticize her anti-Israel agenda; Pressley made an incredibly racist statement in response to Trump that she has no need for brown and black people who don’t hold brown and black views.

    The Squad also uniformly are extreme leftists even by Democrat standards.”

     
  6. chown33 Moderator

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    bedlam
    #7
    I'm waiting for an armored worm-like alien creature to emerge from that gaping maw. Perhaps @AngerDanger has a take on this.
     
  7. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #8
    I second the request to @AngerDanger
     
  8. chown33 Moderator

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    bedlam
    #9
  9. realtuner macrumors 65816

    realtuner

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2019
    Location:
    Canada
    #10
    So, SDS is a very real problem now?

    And Trump supporters think people who criticize the idiotic POtuS are the ones who are deranged.
     
  10. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    To me anyone who supports socialism is somewhat deranged. But that's just me.
     
  11. realtuner macrumors 65816

    realtuner

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2019
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    To me anyone who thinks socialism is binary is deranged.
     
  12. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    Yep, the problem of socialism is that it comes in many mutations, like a virus.
     
  13. Number-Six macrumors 6502

    Number-Six

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    #14
  14. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #15
    Yeah but I still see more people escaping from socialist places to capitalist ones than the opposite. Lived my youth years under (light) socialism, wouldn’t repeat the experience (also visited some hardcore ones like the USSR).
     
  15. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #16
    So like 65% of everyone under the age of 30?
     
  16. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #17
    As the tears for fears said, It’s a mad mad world.
     
  17. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #18
    there's more than enough evidence from around the world that some socialist policy, (not outright socialist governance) can lead to higher societal gains when combined with a free market economy than not.

    Things like a healthy robust socialized education system, health care system and basic societal safety nets, all considered "socialist" have all benefitted countries that run market economies.

    screaming that bringing ANY, even basic social programs in because they share some background with socialism is just foolhardy partisanship.

    In virtually every country that provides basic services via socialist policy all see greater, and more equal opportunities for growth and advancement.

    Everytime I see people, especially from the right screaming that anything the government does is "socialism", clearly showcases that they don't have a ****ing clue what they're talking about and are just repeating party line rhetoric.

    you do tend to grasp it better than many others here, But still seem to fall back on the party rhetoric whenever these basic policies come up. Bringing in basic policy like this does NOT equal socialism. unless you believe that asking for Universal Healthcare and Education as a bare minimum somehow equals socialism. But if you believe that, you'd be technically and factually wrong. especially since nobody is looking for a change of government setup.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #19
    I never said that I am against forms of welfare, and I said multiple times that I wouldn’t even mind even a public healthcare system. In the end it all depends on how it is implemented. However, what you’re referring to are social welfare measures (that western countries kinda adopted to prevent the rise of socialism) that might be inspired by socialism. However, that is not socialism, so if you endorse some of those policies, fine for me. I might disagree or agree, but I wouldn’t scream if some are implemented well. However if someone says “I endorse socialism”, he or she is endorsing something much deeper that can’t stop ending up in social (=state) ownership of means of production, education, and everything else. If by “I endorse socialism” they mean some forms of welfare, well... they ain’t endorsing socialism.
     
  19. realtuner macrumors 65816

    realtuner

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2019
    Location:
    Canada
    #20
    Bingo. Trump and the Republicans want to convince people that there are only two choices - capitalism or socialism, and that adding any “social” programs (like healthcare or education) will somehow turn the US into a pure socialist country.
     
  20. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #21
    I agree with the idea that some social services and safety nets are needed and help society.

    But some on the Dem side want full blown socialism, ie the government controls everything. It's a slippery slope and one that will get us into serious financial trouble. Keep in mind, we could have bailed out Greece, but there is no one out there to bail us out of trouble, in fact, I think China would help hasten our demise.

    Now I'm sure someone will come along and say that Dems don't support pure socialism, just as they said the Dems don't support Open Borders. Then there was the debate and that cat is out of the bag. What's next?
     
  21. AngerDanger macrumors 601

    AngerDanger

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    #22
    wormpy.gif

    ;)
     
  22. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #23
    Perhaps it's the implementation, then. I grew up in a military household with military insurance and healthcare. I will never willingly go back to that. It was awful, and I'm not exaggerating in the least.

    Sure, it was free (to us), but you get what you pay for.
     
  23. LizKat, Jul 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019

    LizKat macrumors 603

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #24
    You don't say how you feel about any of that so I guess we're to assume you're in agreement?

    Whatever. But one clue to readers here that we are looking at a biased source is that phrase at the end there: "even by Democrat standards".

    For a long time I thought the use of "Democrat" as an adjective instead of "Democratic" -- was just a matter of carelessness or grammatical ignorance. If I still thought that, I would not even comment about it here.

    But... this usage I'm commenting on in that citation is not about grammar, and the pervasive use of "Democrat" as adjective by Republicans is not a matter of casual grammatical error either.

    I finally realized by reading news and opinion articles across the spectrum of American politics that it's only Republicans, others on the far right or unreconstructed southerners and Appalachian chain denizens who use expressions like "the Democrat Party" or "the Democrat candidate". The terms are intentionally deployed, and meant to be politically derogatory towards members of the Democratic Party, their candidates and the people who vote for them.

    So it's about being rude to the political opposition. In short, the terms are used as epithets.

    My realization was confirmed by bumping into commentary in passing, by a reporter about 35 years ago who noted that the only time he ever used the phrase "Democrat Party" was in directly quoting "some otherwise courtly southern Senator." Hah. That perked up my ears and eyes and I started paying more attention to when and how I saw "Democrat" misused by pols and columnists. There are some more recent journalistic observations along that line... and even a Wikipedia entry that references some of them:


    Herzberg's piece in The New Yorker notes that some right wing news aggregation sites even go so far as to run their picked-up Associated Press wire pieces through a process to convert "Democratic" to "Democrat" before posting them. Herzberg notes that

    "The resulting impression that “Democrat Party” is O.K. with the A.P. is as phony as a North Korean travel brochure."​

    Right. Journalistic guidelines do not use "Democrat" as an adjective.... even if GWBush sometimes dropped that usage two or three times in one piece of correspondence. Bush was nothing if not an adherent to his party's talking points on language, of which more herewith from Herzberg's piece (the bolding is mine):

    "... among those of the Republican persuasion, “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal. This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,” Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book—it’s entitled “Words That Work”—and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of “ic”s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in."​

    Bottom line: It's no more correct to say "Democrat Party" or "Democrat standard" than it would be for someone to call the GOP "The Republic Party" or reference "the Republic standard." You'll not find a professional journalist calling the Democratic Party "The Democrat Party" because that's not how their guidebooks on style say to do it.

    So the deliberate use of "Democrat" as adjective is a baiting kind of thing for a pol or a partisan to deploy in an interview or column. I do rise to that bait only once or twice a year, less from ire than desire to educate and inform those who may not even notice but who perpetuate the far right GOP's petty folly nonetheless. This week somehow seemed like a good time to do that.

    I'm not merely singling out your source. But, at least once or twice a year I do take semi-public note of how profoundly hyperpartisan the Republican Party has long since become, in actively perpetuating among its followers an unwillingness even to call its opposition party and voters by their proper names.

    It is indeed a very petty thing to do, but it's more than petty when it's perpetual. It's a ongoing and hyperpartisan slur that slides under the radar of slur detection because it doesn't in and of itself demean a group specifically protected by the 14th Amendment.

    In short, it's just a perpetual form of rudeness. Or, as Hendrik Herzberg put it in his New Yorker piece cited earlier, it's the "partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign."

    Ah. Thuggish behavior. Got it. Perfect for the Trump era. Newt Gingrich must have been prescient.

    Here endeth the semi-annual lesson.. /a Democrat, and sometime advocate of common courtesy

    As to the sense of the citation you posted: it's all taken out of context, and possibly during stress of being attacked verbally by political foes. I'd think two or three times before boxing those four congresswomen into one-liners cherry-picked to make them look extreme. Their constituents chose them and I doubt those voters are "extremists" either. Just because someone's views are different doesn't make them extreme.

    I'm not a fan of the idea of "The Squad Thread" because I think it's meant to troll the four congresswomen. Still I'm interested in the public dialogue these young and bright women have helped get started. We live now in a country starving for venues in which to discuss political ideas in other than what seems an echo chamber or else a violated DMZ. If this thread becomes a venue for debate of progressive ideas in good faith, it could offer some value to forum members.

    Otherwise it's just a troll thread or a place to park a series of anti-progressive posts when there seems no comeback to what some neverTrumper posts in the Trump Humor Thread. :rolleyes: It could even devolve into an intraparty brawl for Dems alone, if the right-leaning members drop out. We could honor the late Bob Dole after that and call it "The Democrat Wars" thread. :eek: (yeah Bob went there a few times when he was running for prez).
     
  24. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas

Share This Page

69 July 18, 2019