How the Poor and Working Class Can Finally Break the Democratic Party.

[Kathryn]

Okay, my bad.

No worries.

 

[LeftyLen]

Compared to the rest of the world, the Democrat Party is right-wing.

Sounds like you've just described Republicans, to me.

I do not are about the rest of the world, American was founded to be separate from European dogmas, ideologies, America is founded as a an anomaly. Republican is the lessor of two evils, the problem is lessor evil is still evil. All statism is parasitic

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not are about the rest of the world, American was founded to be separate from European dogmas, ideologies, America is founded as a an anomaly. Republican is the lessor of two evils, the problem is lessor evil is still evil. All statism is parasitic

Got any evidence for that? Not just some, but all, remember!!!
You are getting a bigger and bigger "tap" on evidence "account". But so for I have you down as a believer, who thinks, that it is not beliefs, because of reasons.

 

[LeftyLen]

Got any evidence for that? Not just some, but all, remember!!!
You are getting a bigger and bigger "tap" on evidence "account". But so for I have you down as a believer, who thinks, that it is not beliefs, because of reasons.

statism is yes parasitic, as government grows freedoms decrease as more rely on government. the principles of limited government are what protects liberty.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

statism is yes parasitic, as government grows freedoms decrease as more rely on government. the principles of limited government are what protects liberty.

Yeah, you haven't explained how to deal with indivudal on individual violence and so on. Nor have you explain what happens with those who can't make it on their own.
Or the difference in freedom to versus freedom from. And again you haven't adressed the problem of luck in morality.

 

[Magic Man]

It actually doesn't, if we could limit the amount of household goods and families we are paying for throughout Europe,

It doesn't what? If we need those troops and those bases there, regardless of what Europe spends, then your point doesn't work.

 

[Magic Man]

That is what I am saying. We need to be there.

During the Cold War, we prepositioned much of the equipment we needed to fight a conventional war in Europe. POMCUS sites. The troops could be brought over by air. The US Government could nationalize airliners to accomplish this.

I hear you. I'm just saying the original reason this was brought up was it was used by Kathryn as a reason Europe needs to spend more on military, but if we need to be there anyway, then that point fails.

 

[Kathryn]

Do you know, @Magic Man, what it costs to move an entire family overseas? For three years? As opposed to moving a single soldier overseas for a year or less?

 

[Valjean]

I was stationed in Europe during the 80's and was involved in two REFORGER exercises. Unless you are advocating for the Nuclear Trip Wire strategy, we need to have boots on the ground in Europe. The logistics of getting them there AFTER hostilities have broken out are extremely fragile. Tanks and other heavy equipment have to be moved by sea, putting them at risk on the high seas. Once there, they need to be supplied with replacement equipment and parts, food, clothing and fuel, nearly all of which would move by sea and take days to arrive on site.

All NATO countries are obliged to defend each other, but few maintain military bases in other countries to the extent the US does.

The US maintains hundreds of military bases and outposts all over the world. Most have nothing to do with NATO and were there long before the current Ukrainian brouhaha developed.

After WWII the world powers were exhausted. The US appointed itself the "world's policeman" -- not primarily to ensure world peace, but to maintain safe world trade relations and corporate advantages for the US. This often involved military coercion or intimidation, when backroom schemes and bribery weren't effective.

For a long time this was pretty effective, albeit expensive. The US dominated markets, coerced favorable trade deals, and suppressed incipient democracies that threatened to share their wealth among their own citizens. The only other world power was kept in its place in an uneasy balance.

Now this is all coming apart. Empires are easier to establish than they are to maintain, and our military adventurism has stirred up hornets' nests so widespread that we're loosing control and and being revealed as vulnerable. Strongmen are emerging worldwide challenging our hegemony.
A military show-of-force sufficient to suppress this would be expensive, impolitic, and impracticable. The Pax Americana seems to be ending, and I see no way to avoid it. I fear the world's in for a rough ride.

 

[Valjean]

Particularly Liechtenstein. Why can't we be like Liechtenstein?

We'd all have to learn German?

 

[LeftyLen]

How is the Democratic Party Neo-Marxist? What Democratic initiatives are Marxist? What does Marxism mean to you?

It's the Republican Party that obfuscates substantive issues with fear-mongering, identity politics, and purity & propriety issues.
It's not the Democrats who are banning and burning books, promoting evangelical religion, and and spying on citizens.

The Democrats promote social services like the ones listed in Post #19.

True -- they are like the Democrats of two generations ago, or the Republicans a generation or two before that.
It's pro-social policies like theirs that created the middle class and the American prosperity we used to have. Republican Neo-Liberalism is rapidly unraveling all that. Many can't even afford a roof over their heads these days.
So how are they loony?

A government is the only institution large and powerful enough to keeping the rich and powerful from running roughshod over the rights and prosperity of the people -- which is what they will do if not regulated and kept in check. It's the Republicans calling for small, effete government.

Libertarianism? You think that's the solution? Libertarians will promote the peoples' and environment's interests, and prevent exploitation by the corporatists?

OK, since I seem to be posting exemplars of party platforms today, here are some exerpts from the Libertarian Party platform from 1980:
“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”

“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”

“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”

“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”

“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”

“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”

“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”

“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”

“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”

“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”

“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”

“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”

“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”

“We demand the return of America’s railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”

“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called “self-protection” equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”

“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”

“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”

“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”

“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”

“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”

“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”

“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”

“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
=======================================================================================
So, every man for himself, no social services, no safety net, everything privatized and unregulated.

1. The Libertarian Party suffers most from one problem, relevance. 2. fear-mongering? All statism is parasitic, its the natural tendency of governments that establish liberty to then enact more and more laws, regulations to take away those Libertys. the right fears government, the left fears corporations. Larger and larger 'government ' to protect people from various enemies, real and unreal. Real liberal was about a 'safety net' for the working class. Todays Democrats are woke leftists keeping alive the Marxist paradigm forever of victim-oppressor. Cant afford a roof over their head/ yes, due to mass uncontrolled spending by the democrats. It is the free enterprise system that has uplifted millions out of poverty, not endless parasitic government programs. You cannot spend your way out of recession. look at the mass exodus from California and other blue states, i am one of them.

 

[We Never Know]

All NATO countries are obliged to defend each other, but few maintain military bases in other countries to the extent the US does.

The US maintains hundreds of military bases and outposts all over the world. Most have nothing to do with NATO and were there long before the current Ukrainian brouhaha developed.

After WWII the world powers were exhausted. The US appointed itself the "world's policeman" -- not primarily to ensure world peace, but to maintain safe world trade relations and corporate advantages for the US. This often involved military coercion or intimidation, when backroom schemes and bribery weren't effective.

For a long time this was pretty effective, albeit expensive. The US dominated markets, coerced favorable trade deals, and suppressed incipient democracies that threatened to share their wealth among their own citizens. The only other world power was kept in its place in an uneasy balance.

Now this is all coming apart. Empires are easier to establish than they are to maintain, and our military adventurism has stirred up hornets' nests so widespread that we're loosing control and and being revealed as vulnerable. Strongmen are emerging worldwide challenging our hegemony.
A military show-of-force sufficient to suppress this would be expensive, impolitic, and impracticable. The Pax Americana seems to be ending, and I see no way to avoid it. I fear the world's in for a rough ride.

"brouhaha"

New word to me. Had to look it up lol

 

[LeftyLen]

Yeah, you haven't explained how to deal with indivudal on individual violence and so on. Nor have you explain what happens with those who can't make it on their own.
Or the difference in freedom to versus freedom from. And again you haven't adressed the problem of luck in morality.

secularism. Its not the governments place to take care of everyone cradle to grave

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

secularism. Its not the governments place to take care of everyone cradle to grave

Yeah, again you didn't answer what I asked about.
So again and this yime please answer.
Yeah, you haven't explained how to deal with indivudal on individual violence and so on. Nor have you explain what happens with those who can't make it on their own.
Or the difference in freedom to versus freedom from. And again you haven't adressed the problem of luck in morality.

 

[Valjean]

All that is fine, but it contradicts Kathryn's point. According to this, it doesn't matter how much Europe spends on their militaries; we'd still need to keep our bases and troops there.

Good point. America is often eager to establish bases, but is almost never willing to remove them. This is not only expensive, but can be destabilizing and provocative.
We've got a wolf by the ears.

 

[Wandering Monk]

All NATO countries are obliged to defend each other, but few maintain military bases in other countries to the extent the US does.

The US maintains hundreds of military bases and outposts all over the world. Most have nothing to do with NATO and were there long before the current Ukrainian brouhaha developed.

After WWII the world powers were exhausted. The US appointed itself the "world's policeman" -- not primarily to ensure world peace, but to maintain safe world trade relations and corporate advantages for the US. This often involved military coercion or intimidation, when backroom schemes and bribery weren't effective.

For a long time this was pretty effective, albeit expensive. The US dominated markets, coerced favorable trade deals, and suppressed incipient democracies that threatened to share their wealth among their own citizens. The only other world power was kept in its place in an uneasy balance.

Now this is all coming apart. Empires are easier to establish than they are to maintain, and our military adventurism has stirred up hornets' nests so widespread that we're loosing control and and being revealed as vulnerable. Strongmen are emerging worldwide challenging our hegemony.
A military show-of-force sufficient to suppress this would be expensive, impolitic, and impracticable. The Pax Americana seems to be ending, and I see no way to avoid it. I fear the world's in for a rough ride.

The topic is America and NATO though

 

[Valjean]

secularism. Its not the governments place to take care of everyone cradle to grave

What is government's purpose, to maintain order, or to promote the security, welfare and happiness of its citizens?

 

[LeftyLen]

What is government's purpose, to maintain order, or to promote the security, welfare and happiness of its citizens?

the American experiment was predicated on self government. A central component was limited government, an idiosyncratic notion, free enterprise those are principles the left rejects.

 

[Valjean]

I do not are about the rest of the world, American was founded to be separate from European dogmas, ideologies, America is founded as a an anomaly. Republican is the lessor of two evils, the problem is lessor evil is still evil. All statism is parasitic

Do you really think Fortress America is realistic? Would you follow the lead of N. Korea?

 

[Magic Man]

Do you know, @Magic Man, what it costs to move an entire family overseas? For three years? As opposed to moving a single soldier overseas for a year or less?

What does that have to do with how much Europe spends on their militaries? You're getting off track. You said you want Europe to spend more on "defense". It had nothing to do with America finding ways to make their own military endeavors cheaper.