The Squad thread

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

  1. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #26
    The bulk of arguments against things like a national health care service, or welfare style programs always boils down to "SOCIALISM" by republican talking heads. And it's parroted non stop.

    it's a problem because it sets up a mindset amongst many republicans thaat any services that are intended to benefit society as a whole, even if not actual socialism immediately get quashed because screaming "socialism" is a conversation ender. Once many american's hear that word, they will refuse to have further conversation or consideration, even if the programs in question are not socialism itself, but just social platforms.
     
  2. cube macrumors P6

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #27
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #28
    How is that really different from those on the left who scream "racist" at every little thing?

    And yes those things you described are just social platforms and not full-blown socialism. But it is a slippery slope and even if you personally think this is just about healthcare or just about feeding the kids, there is a movement, and if you really read some of what AOC says, she wants full blown socialism where the government controls everything.
     
  4. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #29
    I’d love to know where the anti-socialists draw the line. If government-run healthcare for the elderly, poor and veterans is OK, how many more people can we add to the programs before we end up with the socialist menace? If government-funded K-12 public education is OK, how is it that extending it to K-16 crosses some sort of imaginary socialist line? And how is it that other socialist programs in this country (police, fire departments, highway departments, air traffic control, etc.) have not already pushed us into the socialist hell-hole you are all so afraid of?
     
  5. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #30
    it's a slippery slope? do you have that little faith in your constitution to protect yourself from a reforming of government in socialism by bringing in health care or better school system?

    because social programs do not lead to socialism. You are literally doing the "BUT SOCIALISM" narrative while playing "whataboutism" with "But racist!"

    does Racism get overused. yes. It often gets used incorrectly in place of Xenophobia and other prejudices. But crying Racism as a blanket for those prjeudices don't change that those are prejudices.

    Screaming "SOCIALISM" when it's literally not a cover for socialism is just bad faith.


    This Herdfan is exactly the thought you have just repeated. YOu believe bringing in social programs into a democratic US will suddenly turn that into authoritarian socialism.

    there's no link. Few, if any of the nations who have health care system have suddenly gone off suddenly on the 100% socialism bandwagon. You have been led to believe in a boogeyman to keep your vote captive.
     
  6. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #31
    This x10.. Spot on!
     
  7. LizKat macrumors 603

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #32
    What? "Screaming racist at every little thing" is a construction of right wing propaganda, trying to discredit resistance to Donald Trump's unacceptably racist commentary over the course of his ascension to the Presidency. Please don't bring that in here, you're better than that.

    Slippery slope was letting banks and insurance companies get in bed together in the 90s. First they did it, Citi and Travelers, then they said oops that might have been totally illegal so we need congress to pass a law. Then congress said to their lobby well uh ok but can you help us out with some campaign finance issues... oh and here's the law, no problem. God knows what that cost Citi and Travelers and the American citizen on the street but the merger went through and the planet's been covering the tab ever since.

    Slippery slope was financing the Iraq invasion and its insanely unanticipated aftermath on "emergency appropriations" for years instead of a dedicated war budget and income tax surcharge like got laid on us during Vietnam. At least we knew a war cost money back then, by God. Came out of my paychecks as an itemized withholding. What did Bush 43 do? Tell us to go spend money in the retail stores to bolster the economy, and slap a support our troops sticker on the gas tank of our SUVs.

    Slippery slope was normalizing food insecurity by hammering on the idea that food stamp recipients might actually possess a smartphone and so it was time to crack down on "entitlements" and slash SNAP benefits, tying them to work requirements without providing daycare and also reducing benefits dollar for dollar as wages were earned. Slip'n'slide, that one. Ryan called it something else, like 'climbing the ladder to dignity as a taxpayer' or some similar crock of rice without beans. You notice Ryan's not here any more...

    Beauty remains in the eye of the beholder when it comes to what is a slippery slope in politics. I'm sure you have your views of say Obama's take on health care... not to mention views on those favoring fix ACA up, add a public option to private care or try to swap in Medicare for All.

    Anyway let's take AOC of "The Squad": she's doing no more than taking a typical negotiation principle same as Donald Trump's nominal party employs: start north of where you figure you can end up, try to sell it in to the party, settle for what you can get one deal at a time, the party in turn tries to sell it to the opposition in Congress. Et voila at the very least you eventually end up with a caucus capable of annoying the dog if not wagging its tail. So far that little squad's doing aces at that, I must say, even when I'm not in favor of something any one of them may propose.

    The Republicans have done the mirror of that process a day at a time for decades, getting grassroots support, primarying their own to the right, building an ultraconservative caucus, and once the party recovered from Newt Gingrich going overboard with a big shove in "Contract for [heh, on] America", they got incremental traction. They settled into it and shoved us way to the right an inch, a foot at a time over the past 30 years.

    Now the pendulum's swinging back just a bit, thanks to the excesses of the House Freedom Caucus plus the Trump administration's alarming attempts at some really big grabs, the House moves to the blue side with a little margin and the righties are already complaining?

    Well y'all are complaining too soon... way too soon! Decades too soon. Don't forget how Mitch has packed the judiciary for the next 30 years.

    Let's hear the progressives' ideas in more detail for awhile, and whatever the actual 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates have to contribute as well.

    We could all talk about constructive disruptions of the status quo if we quit trying to suppress each other's ideas by slapping hyperpartisan labels on them. But is that the purpose of The Squad Thread? One can wonder.
     
  8. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #33
    Yes, because you will always have people who want to keep expanding the scope further and further.

    For example:

     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #34
    So you’d rather vote for someone who is accused of raping a 13 year old and who is openly racist because of the fear that people might keep expanding socialism further and further.

    What do you think happens when America tires of Trump? Even if he wins re-election how with the republicans/conservatives regain any sense of morality?
     
  10. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #35
    I said it once and I say it again, President Trump is playing everybody the paint the Squad as month piece of the Democratic Party! He knows the will cause division one Democrat party the Socialist will cause the assives to vote Republican or stay home!
     
  11. TheFluffyDuck macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    #36
    They holds some truely nasty views, and I find their faux outrage and press releases to be evident of that disingenuousness.
     
  12. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #37
    And when AOC is at the top of a Democratic Presidential ticket, maybe we'd have something to worry about. But she's not, and not likely to be for some time.

    Remember what Donald Trump promised on healthcare? "Beautiful", saved money, everybody would like it. Except he didn't begin to have a plan. He didn't even understand the first thing about healthcare.

    Republicans, governors and Senators, Presidents and talking heads, like to throw around words like "free market" and "competition" as if they were magic bullets that were going to fix healthcare. But they won't, and can't.

    Because there really is no free-market solution for providing healthcare (which is expensive) to poor children. There isn't a free-market solution for providing healthcare to the elderly. There isn't really a free-market solution to provide healthcare to the merely middle-class. For reasons I'm sure you can appreciate, healthcare just isn't a normal economic good or service.

    Is doing away with private health-insurance the answer? I'd argue it's an answer, probably not a very practical one, given the US' existing healthcare infrastructure and tax system. But it's at least better than Donald Trump's healthcare, which was a lie, based on ignorance, if it even existed at all.

    If I had to choose between quasi-socialism, and complete ******** - I think I'd take AOC's socialism-lite. It might not work in the USA. But it's at least a starting point for the conversation that is based in reality.
     
  13. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #38
    What are “assives”? It sounds to me like a group that would be voting Republican, no matter what.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 19, 2019 ---
    You seriously don’t believe that having the president of the United States leading a mob trying to kick you out of your country is a legitimate basis for genuine outrage?
     
  14. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #39
    Trump on a bad day.
     
  15. TheFluffyDuck macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    #40
    Ha, God no. These people are slimy politicians that would sell their own grandmother for a leg up on the political ladder. They dont care waht he said, just that he said it. Their political enemy dropped a ball, so they capitalised. It's all theatre.
     
  16. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #41
    They are human beings. I’m impressed that it wouldn’t bother you to have the president leading an angry mob chanting to kick you out of your home country, but you clearly are emotionally stronger than me (and just about everyone I know).
     
  17. yaxomoxay, Jul 19, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019

    yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #42
    I don't disagree with what you say. Modern politics has become a game on who shouts louder (ok, it's not really new as a concept, but we have new powerful tools to do that).
    If you look at my original post I said that whoever supports socialism is deranged. Obviously I don't mean literally and I was somewhat joking (being deranged is something more serious), but the bottom line concept that I disagree with socialist ideals remains.

    But here's the problem. As soon as I mentioned socialism you pointed to a few welfare policies. On the policies themselves, I agree that there is lots of room for discussion. I don't buy any definite "yes" or "no" in implementations of ideas. Governing is much more difficult than saying yes or no to something. Sometimes you even gotta go against your own ideals in order to govern properly. However, as I was saying you pointed out some of the most common replies about implementing socialism. But that, as I said, is not socialism. The policies that you mentioned (robust socialized education system, health care system and basic societal safety nets) can be applied to another system: fascism. I am not saying that provocatively or to say that you're a fascist (I'd never do it), but it's a fact that when fascism was implemented the very things you said where fundamental components of it. When Mussolini came to power, he rebuilt the crumbling Italian infrastructure, especially in the post-borbonic South. He built hospitals. He rebuilt schools and made elementary school mandatory, basically reducing analphabetism to zero. He even created the INPS (Istituto Nazionale Previdenza Sociale), which is the Italian public retirement system, a system that is still active in 2019! He got Italy into aviation (Agusta, Fiat, Aermacchi flourished under his government) and so on. Many of the Italian hospitals and schools currently in use were built under Mussolini. Obviously I am not saying that Mussolini was great (he wasn't), but since not only I had to study that stuff in school but had the pleasure to talk to relatives and acquaintances (including many partigiani; an oral treasure I didn't understand at first but that I am now appreciating) I can tell you that it's very difficult to find someone that would disagree with what I said about healthcare, infrastructure, education, and the industry. Franco, Tito and Pinochet weren't much different for example.
    However, if I said "I support fascism" you would certainly say that I am not sound of mind (and you would be right!). I can point to as many infrastructural accomplishments and successful welfare policies, but you'd certainly reply (correctly) that those policies do not justify fascism. Why? Because fascism IS NOT those policies. They might be components of it, but fascism (or any -ism, for the matter) is much deeper, and much more complex, and it often ends in a certain typology of result (often it ends up in a very structured oligarchy).
    This is why I am kinda disturbed to read that 65% of our youth believes that they support socialism. They don't. They support welfare policies. The problem is that by identifying with an "-ism" where the state is strong they are unknowingly supporting something much more dangerous that can't prescind the concept of a somewhat totalitarian/oligarchical regime.
    Sorry for the long post, hopefully this clarifies my position.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 19, 2019 ---
    … or me on a Monday when the alarm goes off.
     
  18. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #43
    Do people think it's the equivalent of Democrats parroting racism in all their arguments against Republicans ?

    One word descriptions may not be true but they work in politics.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 19, 2019 ---
    I'm not sure that Trump is doing it on purpose but, I do think that dividing the Democrat party and showing them as extreme is helping Trump's re-election chances.

    My opinion only but I think that the squad is giving Pelosi and the DNC nightmares :).
     
  19. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #44
    I stand by my opinion that Pelosi wants Trump to win...
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #45
    The 2018 electorate wanted the Democratic Party to be robust centrists. Both sides hit 50% of that.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 19, 2019 ---
    Pelosi wants to win at any cost. And she thinks the way to do that is to be a soft Republican.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 19, 2019 ---
    Hard to deny the republicans are racists now.
     
  21. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #46
    But it doesn't really as your position is still similar to the one i called out. You immediatel fall down a rabbit whole of "if this, than this". Instead of Socialism, you brought up facism.

    The things I've mentioned are not tied to those. those social policies are independent of the type of governance in place. You can have those and remain easily a democracy. There's a thread of thought that is pervasive that is repeated non-stop in the west. That any of these programs will automatically lead to some form of government that is authoritarian.

    It's a ******** argument. There are hundreds of countries around the world, many democratic, who have these policies in place who have not fallen down the facism or socialism rabbit whole. So opposing programs like those over some mythical fear of socialism and facism is absolutely ridiculous. And the reason for such slippery slope fallacious statements is pure propaganda that the republican party has been repeating via fox news and other media outlets for years.

    Simply put, instituting nationalize social programs is NOT a slippery slope to some authoritarian regime. The belief that it will happen is absolutely nonsense and has very little evidence to re-inforce it other than those terms are being used as boogeymans by those who have vested interest in keeping the status quo.

    The liklihood of going from A socialized health care system to replacing the government with a whole new system that throws out the constitution is absolutely ridiculous. Canada didn't throw away it's parliamentary democracy when it brought in it's health care system. Neither did the UK. neither did half the "socialist" countries in the EU.

    Right now, the US has greater chance of falling under fascism with it's current leadership than it has in previous iterations. Trump has shown time and time again that his care for rule of law, and care about the checks and balances of the system aren't there. He talks in double speak constantly, contradicting his own statements from minute to minute and yet the sycopants believe both contradictory statements. And a party behind him that is openly accepting of racist, bigots and even members of KKK or neo-nazi groups. Whose sworn intent is to create a system of laws and governance that can strip citizens of their rights and kick them out of the country (or kill them)

    SO the very idea that socialized health care system will lead to facism, socialism, etc as some default is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous and those repeating such nonsense are either hoodwinked by people who have vested interest in an ignorant populace, or being complicite in the dumbing down of political discourse.

    Now, that's not to say there aren't too many "isms" being thrown around. And too many people identify and repeat "isms" without knowing their full meaning. For example, there was someone today here on the board throwing around the term Communism, when clearly nobody was even talking about communism. It was used as a boogeyman.


    I can buy the arguments (or at least understand them) if the argument against such socialized programs were monetary considerations. That's debatable and that sort of discussion is vastly important to any new system so that it can be considered and done right. But to start using slippery slope fallacies that cannot be defended against because they're non-factual as some sort of discussion ender is just bad faith discussion and evidence that those who are thorowing around the terms do not understand the concepts, and aren't willing to discuss or learn about them before arguing.

    If I see that sort of response "but SOCIALISM!"... I just move on because it's clear that person doesn't udnerstand the very concepts they're screaming about and their opinions (while entitled to them) aren't worth the bits they're written with.
     
  22. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #47
    Win what, that's the question. If anyone but Biden wins, the left-ist side of her party (The Squad or whatever) will claim that they de-throned Trump and that their politics worked, hence Pelosi's rule will end.
     
  23. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #48
    They work in politics because of ignorant voter bases who refuse to think beyond what their news propaganda arm tells them.

    this is an intentional reality of modern partisan politics.


    if someone says "RACISM!" than you better be able to show why it's racist.
    Just like if someone screams "SOCIALISM", you better be able to show why it's socialism.

    Just throwing around these one word rhetoric arguments is bad faith arguing because of lack of critical thought on part of the arguer.
     
  24. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #49
    I agree but it works.

    It's sad to say but I believe that most voters are ignorant.
     
  25. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #50
    Thank you for taking the time to reply.
    Again, that's not what I am arguing. I am not arguing for the slippery slope. I do not believe that if we implement (well) universal healthcare we will automatically have Stalin 2.0 or Mussolini 2.0. That is ridiculous. We all have to always keep our eyes open, but this is true independently on what policies we implement and on which candidate wins the election. The Patriot Act for example was so big-brotherish that yes, we risked a light form of fascism; we didn't keep our eyes open due to 9/11 and fear, and we got a bad deal. The intention was good (prevent terroristic acts) but it ended up being abused while we were distracted.
    Whatever you said in your post does not deny my simple statement, that one can't (or shouldn't) identify some welfare policies with socialism and then proclaim"I support socialism!" for the simple reason that socialism is deeper and requires some important implementations that go touch the economy, means of production, education and so on that are more profound that simply extend policies. You can also put whatever qualifier you want in front of socialism "democratic" "light" "whatever", but the bottom line of my argument doesn't change.
     

Share This Page