The
avid exchange of comments in the thread under “Post-Truth Con-servatism” has expanded
our study of the American Right’s world view. I sincerely thank our con-servative friends
for their efforts to communicate their beliefs.
We've
explored how debate employing facts and logic, as well as reasoned discussion,
are so difficult for the far Right mindset. We've seen how they regard right
wing opinion as fact. It requires only belief, not supporting evidence.
To
encourage fair discussion and debate, I provided a little tutorial on presenting
evidence to support a position.
~~~~
My
stated position:
"We understand the propaganda system based on lies, blame, false accusations, bigotry, racism, and fear-mongering has been their tool for gaining that power...And most of all they are programmed to deny, demean, deflect, and distort what democrats, liberals or progressives say...We’ve seen it all over their media and in corporate media appeasers. “Brown invaders are coming to join the 'Democrat Party' to spread communism!” and "Libtards hate America and want us to be another Venezuela!"
Evidence offered to support my stated position:
Exhibit A:
“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorship, it led to genocide. These promises are old promises and they invariably lead to bad things.”- Ben Stein
Exhibit B:
“All that is true, it’s absolutely true, but it’s not just Cortez. Folks, this is what the Democrat Party has become.” - Rush Limbaugh
"We understand the propaganda system based on lies, blame, false accusations, bigotry, racism, and fear-mongering has been their tool for gaining that power...And most of all they are programmed to deny, demean, deflect, and distort what democrats, liberals or progressives say...We’ve seen it all over their media and in corporate media appeasers. “Brown invaders are coming to join the 'Democrat Party' to spread communism!” and "Libtards hate America and want us to be another Venezuela!"
Evidence offered to support my stated position:
Exhibit A:
“We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorship, it led to genocide. These promises are old promises and they invariably lead to bad things.”- Ben Stein
Exhibit B:
“All that is true, it’s absolutely true, but it’s not just Cortez. Folks, this is what the Democrat Party has become.” - Rush Limbaugh
This
only seemed to confuse our con-servative readers.
Rex
wondered, “How is Mr. Stein wrong in his
statement?”
It seems logical fallacies such as "slippery slope" and "begging the question" don't register with our friends on the Right.
I explained: “This is propaganda. Stein is essentially saying liberals are commies or Nazis. Same old BS. Stein is ignoring that little “democracy” thing. AOC is not demanding the demise of the Constitution. In fact, she took an oath to defend it. Stalin, Hitler and Mao rose to power by lies, propaganda and brute force, not promises to work for public healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, public education, voter rights, and democracy.
This is classic fear-mongering and demonization. You see red-baiting as “truth”, because you want to see it that way. It is propaganda, you know.
In fact, there is NO link between public healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, public education, voter rights, and democracy to a communist dictatorship. None. Only in the fevered fear-addled minds of the far Right.
Your problem boils down to this. “Providing for the general welfare” is a socialistic concept from the founders. It is not advocating a communist dictatorship.”
I explained: “This is propaganda. Stein is essentially saying liberals are commies or Nazis. Same old BS. Stein is ignoring that little “democracy” thing. AOC is not demanding the demise of the Constitution. In fact, she took an oath to defend it. Stalin, Hitler and Mao rose to power by lies, propaganda and brute force, not promises to work for public healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, public education, voter rights, and democracy.
This is classic fear-mongering and demonization. You see red-baiting as “truth”, because you want to see it that way. It is propaganda, you know.
In fact, there is NO link between public healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, public education, voter rights, and democracy to a communist dictatorship. None. Only in the fevered fear-addled minds of the far Right.
Your problem boils down to this. “Providing for the general welfare” is a socialistic concept from the founders. It is not advocating a communist dictatorship.”
~~~~
We’ve
seen how far they bend words to fit their own definition. Our con-servative contributor
Rex declared, "Obama is just as authoritarian as Trump" for example.
“The authoritarian
personality you so despise is unfortunately not something exclusive to the
right. Obama was just as authoritarian as Trump is now. He forced a horrible
health care reform on the public with bribes to senators and treachery on the
behalf of Justice Roberts. Also, he insisted in no exclusions or conscience
rights for those that did not wish to provide for abortions or birth control,
like groups of nuns for God’s sake.”
My slightly edited response included:
“Yes,
Hillary is a liar and hypocrite. But she comes in a distant second to Trump.
This is readily obvious. Trump openly threatened her with jail in a debate
for God’s sake! If you think Obama was more authoritarian than that, your
understanding of the term is quite different from mine.
If you think Obama was "just as authoritarian" for wanting to expand health care, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think calling Nazis “very fine people” is "just as authoritarian" as Obama, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think calling black NFL protestors “sons of bitches” is "just as authoritarian" as Obama, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think Obama is "just as authoritarian" as the man who denied he was our lawful president, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think calling our free press the “enemy of the people” is "just as authoritarian" as Obama, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. “
If you think Obama was "just as authoritarian" for wanting to expand health care, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think calling Nazis “very fine people” is "just as authoritarian" as Obama, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think calling black NFL protestors “sons of bitches” is "just as authoritarian" as Obama, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think Obama is "just as authoritarian" as the man who denied he was our lawful president, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. If you think calling our free press the “enemy of the people” is "just as authoritarian" as Obama, your understanding of the term is quite different from mine. “
Do
you think my evidence to the contrary registered with them? Post-fact
con-servatism dismisses and discredits all information that contradicts their
opinions and beliefs. This exchange also illustrates their tactic of
unilaterally defining terms.
Another
example.
Rex
stated, “Obama was a tyrant for violating CONSTITUTIONAL rights to freedom of
religion... nobody was imposing Catholicism or any other faith on anybody... a
conscientious objection not to have to fund birth control or abortion-causing
drugs”
My reply: “Um, yeah, it WAS Catholics and fundamentalists who got bent out of shape against insurers, not Catholics directly or specifically, funding birth control. Your definition of “Tyranny” is quite broad. Does it include jailing toddlers, too? No?”
My reply: “Um, yeah, it WAS Catholics and fundamentalists who got bent out of shape against insurers, not Catholics directly or specifically, funding birth control. Your definition of “Tyranny” is quite broad. Does it include jailing toddlers, too? No?”
As
is my wont, I offered more documented supporting evidence:
CBS's
Lesley Stahl asked Trump if he planned to continue bashing the media:
I
said, you know that is getting tired, why are you doing this — you’re doing it
over and over and it’s boring. He said, "You know why I do it? I do it to
discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about
me no one will believe you."
(And the latest post-truth evil madness from the Big MAGAt finds him demeaning and dismissing his own department heads of intelligence as "passive, naive, wrong", and "should go back to school". Exactly what a post-truth authoritarian puppet of Putin would do.)
(And the latest post-truth evil madness from the Big MAGAt finds him demeaning and dismissing his own department heads of intelligence as "passive, naive, wrong", and "should go back to school". Exactly what a post-truth authoritarian puppet of Putin would do.)
There
you have it. Post-fact con-servatism from the Big MAGAt himself. Demean and discredit are listed in my
review of Authoritarian Tactics and Rules of Discourse.
Their
parameters and frames of reference are defined for them, of course. It is
assumed liberals, progressives and democrats are out to make the US another
Venezuela. This is what translates into the "liberals hate America"
and "Liberals are commies" conclusions.
Another
of their fictional parameters offered by Rex was, "The left pits the
have-nots against the haves".
To
their ideology, this confirms our "Marxist agenda". What they cannot
understand is we oppose the far Right wealthy interests that subvert our
democracy to buy politicians in order to write laws and regulations that rig
the system in their favor.
Many
rich people are not in that club, so it is clearly not "class
warfare" on our part. It is certainly class warfare on the part of the
Right's economic elites. Warren Buffet made that clear. "There's class
warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and
we're winning".
Buffet’s
words are dismissed, of course. All they need to do is simply regurgitate what
their propagandists say. That is a lot easier than understanding the true intentions
of their propaganda network. It is pitting have-nots against the
other have-nots. As Trump declared,"I love the under-educated."
Divide and conquer is the strategy, and it is made more effective with a
powerful media complex at their disposal. Having an authoritarian celebrity as
their leader is just icing on their cake.
Again
I invite Rex, or anyone, to offer reason, facts and logic that disprove this
analysis.
And as long they are a post-truth cult, they cannot do so.
Posts
62 comments:
Democrat VA. Governor Ralph Northam
What did he do???...attempt to rape a young woman at a Bethesda house party when he was younger?
Let's make Halloween costumes and cosmetics illegal...and beer! ;-)
"(And the latest post-truth evil madness from the Big MAGAt finds him demeaning and dismissing his own department heads of intelligence as 'passive, naive, wrong', and 'should go back to school'. Exactly what a post-truth authoritarian puppet of Putin would do.)" ~~ Dave Dubya
He better be careful. He could end up on the wrong side of a few rifles, like JFK.
Realistically, he does the neo-con's and hawk's bidding. They know he's the perfect patsy to have in office because they're able to manipulate him any way they choose.
More than fifty-five years later the unaccountable intelligence community can twist and mold the highest office holder in the land to do anything it wants. It's the unintended consequence of having a stooge in the White House.
The irony here is that the cold war pitted democracy versus communism. Neither survived. Now, a totally new threat has risen from the ashes. It hasn't adequately been named or labeled, though some call it "corporate totalitarianism", others "inverted totalitarianism", and still others "crony capitalism".
I prefer to refer to it as the corporate state. It has taken over everything in our lives; our culture and our political and democratic processes. It has occurred at essentially a snail's pace over more than a century, gathering steam starting in the Reagan years, and now moving at blitzkrieg speed.
Communism wasn't really the danger all those decades -- it was the corporate capitalism spawned from illegal corporate personhood, with an ample amount of human greed, that has destroyed democracy in this country.
Dave, here's another case study of post-truth con-servatism:
"Dennis Prager arraigned the modern era as 'a dark age' created by the 'left’s control of Silicon Valley, academia, and media.' Prager offered his remarks on the status quo of free speech and expression in a Friday-aired interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow." ~~ Breitbart, "Dennis Prager: 'We Are in a Dark Age' Because Left Controls Silicon Valley", February 2, 2019
As if Prager's comments were not bizzare enough, he summarized with:
"It's an absurdity. Anyway, you don't [publish fake news]. I would never use a website that had fake news. I verify everything over and over again before I broadcast it or write about it."
LOLOL That's priceless!
Welcome, everybody, to another edition of Ground Hog Day!...the same tired and worn-out memes "over and over again"... LOLOL
JTF,
You either agree with my post, or are unable to articulate a rational opposing viewpoint, but you did manage to name your favorite Democrat.
How thoughtful. No more off topic spam. You'll just have to bask in the gratifying comfort that Don the Con loves "the poorly educated". Putin thanks all his Junior Puppets for ending the INF Treaty, undermining NATO, removing sanctions for his oligarchs, and agreeing that collusion and interference in our election are just a hoax.
Well done Komrad. We know who REALLY hates America now.
JG,
Nothing fake about Prager. He "verified", meaning pulled from his ass, his own definitions of liberal and leftist. They are deluded dupes and evil America-hating commies, of course. The cult swallowed it whole.
CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360°" falsely claims that Virginia Democrat Governor Ralph Northam is a member of the Republican Party. Propaganda much?
JTF,
Not propaganda at all.
Thank you for showing how the Right cannot separate a mistake from propaganda. No wonder you are so confused.
This mislabeling by CNN was corrected. Unlike FOX(R), when they have done so numerous times in the past. IOKIYAR, amirite?
Since Northam also voted for Bush Jr. twice, and has a history of racism, we see why he can be confused with a Republican.
Thanks for agreeing with my post, or being unable to articulate a rational opposing viewpoint, but you did manage to name your favorite Democrat. Again.
Can't offer any more thoughts? Cult got your tongue?
I'm afraid JTF has nothing more to offer, apart from his usual comparisons of me to Hitler and Stalin.
Sure would be nice to have input from a SMARTER con-servative.
Are there any out there?
I suppose they may think I'm cheating, using evidence, facts, logic and reason.
I guess they just want to argue beliefs...
Oh, well. We'd better just get back to hammering out the details of our Master Plan to make the USA into Venezuela. ;-)
Meet me in the bunker, comrade. I'll show you the latest plans to turn those filthy capitalists to stone.
LOL
SAN MATEO (CBS SF) – A restaurant owner in San Mateo has apologized after saying he would ban patrons who wear “Make America Great Again” hats to his establishment.
Just like Dave...lol
Say Dave it doesn't take balls to claim I'm not responding to you when you won't publish them, typical authoritarian liberal. Just like Stalin.
JTF,
That's right. I would have apologized to my staff and partners as well. Chef Lopez-Alt certainly didn't apologize to the MAGAts, but for "amplifying the anger". He told them to leave their hate outside.
=
"I want to start by apologizing to my staff and partners at Wursthall. Making a public statement without taking my team's thoughts into consideration was disrespectful and reckless," he wrote. "My goal at Wursthall was for it to be a restaurant where all employees and staff are treated with respect and trust, and by making that public statement without your consent, I failed at that goal. I will work hard to earn back that trust."
"Symbols have power and meaning and can mean different things to different people at different times and in different contexts," he added. "After having seen the red hat displayed so prominently in so many moments of anger, hate, and violence, to me — and many others — the hat began to symbolize exactly that: anger, hate, and violence. This was the context my tweet was meant to communicate. Unfortunately, the way I tried to communicate this ended up only amplifying the anger, and I apologize for that."
Lopez-Alt said his restaurant "will continue, as it always has, to serve all customer regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual preference, gender orientation, disability, or political opinion — so long as they leave hate, anger, and violence outside of the doors of our restaurant."
=
JTF is wrong about something else again. Chef Lopez-Alt never said he would ban anybody.
"It hasn't happened yet, but if you come to my restaurant wearing a MAGA cap, you aren't getting served. Same as if you come in wearing a swastika, white hood, or any other symbol of intolerance and hate," Lopez-Alt tweeted.
So if they left their hats in the car, or removed them from their heads like decent gentlemen do at mealtime, they would be served. Not banned.
I would definitely make a point to dine there, if in town.
And of course we welcome JTF to wear his MAGA hat anytime he stops by here. Hell, he can even wear his MAGA hat, hood, AND swastika if it suits his mood. ;-)
How's that for good old-fashioned liberal tolerance?
Now, what did I say about off-topic dumping?
Chef Lopez-Alt Tweeted a recipe for this delicious soup:
"In case anyone else needs some comfort after @realDonaldTrump’s crazy ranting about Iran, here is a recipe for Iranian gondi soup from @ChefEinat. The dumplings are made with chickpeas and chicken and are delicious. I love it. Especially in the winter."
https://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2012/04/einat-admony-gondi-chicken-and-chickpea-dumplings-passover-matzo-ball-soup-persian-israeli-recipehtml.html
YUM!
JTF,
"Say Dave it doesn't take balls to claim I'm not responding to you when you won't publish them, typical authoritarian liberal. Just like Stalin."
This doesn't respond to anything. It's just you raging like a white nationalist Nazi.
The Chef story wasn't a response either, but thanks for the opportunity to get a great recipe.
Delicious IRANIAN soup for all!
Leave it to the troll to copy-and-paste content unrelated to the post, and then complain and attack the host as being against free speech, or even Stalinist, when the host doesn't publish his trollish material.
As he's been told numerous times before, he's free to start and maintain his own blog. Google, (i.e., Blogger), is available to anyone who wants to start their own blog, so there's nothing to stop him from his objective of publishing his nonsense and illiterate meanderings of an old, over-the-hill, white supremacist.
But, as we all know, this troll's attempt at such a venture would be a colossal disaster.
"[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] is not demanding the demise of the Constitution. In fact, she took an oath to defend it. Stalin, Hitler and Mao rose to power by lies, propaganda and brute force, not promises to work for public healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, public education, voter rights, and democracy." ~~ Dave Dubya
Ben Stein is obviously fine with reeling off more rightwing propaganda, instead of addressing the reasons underlying Ocasio-Cortez's proposals of 70% marginal tax rates on the ten-millionth dollar earned, or the reasons a Green New Deal is imperative in these times of ever-increasing average global temperatures each year.
People like Acasio-Cortez need to be listened to carefully, and their warnings taken seriously. Unfortunately the mainstream-media, not surprisingly, do not adequately address the issue.
Were our con-servative adversaries paying attention, they'd realize this is testmony to a corporate agenda - not the "liberal media" they falsely and stupidly believe it to be.
Trump flings around the now stale "fake news" meme whenever the press or networks call him out on his lies and overly verbous and exaggerated claims. This hurts his delicate feelings (sound familiar?), so he retaliates.
But the real failing of the mainstream media are its sins of omission.
By the way, your observation that "Stalin, Hitler and Mao rose to power by lies, propaganda and brute force..." is very interesting. Donald Trump rose to power on the two former points, and it could be said he supplemented "bullying" for the latter. In 2016, all of these appealed to low-information and minimally-educated types who now comprise Trump's base.
After all, Trump's cadre of deplorables enjoy "the art of being duped". That's very evident.
JG,
Authoritarian con-servatives love to project their Stalinist and fascist authoritarianism onto opponents. Rex wants to believe Obama was "just as authoritarian" as Trump. Obviously this reflects a limited concept of the term, and shows us projection is their favorite defense mechanism.
Someone's being a crybaby for not getting his way, and making this all about his favorite Democrat.
Since he's so angry, hateful, immature, uninformed and misinformed, JTF can't have an adult conversation. This is why he goes all authoritarian and imitates his Toddler Leader. He wants to dominate the discussion, change the subject and insult us. Then he gets angry when his racism and childish anger and ignorance are not welcome.
His racist crap will not get posted. Same for further deflections and distractions. I just gave a sample of his rudeness. It goes much lower, BTW.
I wonder what his censorship standards would be if we stood in front of his church, if he even goes to one, and carried signs that said, "Racist 'Vern' loves a criminal sex predator", which is the truth.
But it's OK for him to call us anything he wants, of course. IOKIYAR.
He is truly a deplorable white nationalist to the core. And that is phrasing it politely.
All the ingredients for HATRED are in a RED HAT.
Don't be going Dr. Seuss on me. ;-)
This is good:
Alyssa Milano: Red MAGA Hats Are the New White Hoods – Let’s Take a Stand
I agree, wholeheartedly, with the author. Under post-truth con-servatism, they are the new White Hoods.
I bet Vern has a few -- probably wears one to bed.
Deflect and deflect some more.
"We’ve seen how far they bend words to fit their own definition. Our con-servative contributor Rex declared, 'Obama is just as authoritarian as Trump' for example." ~~ Dave Dubya
This was one of my favorite gems from "Rex". It was such a precious moment. Surely he was smiling and chuckling when he was typing this.
I hope he was.
Outlining your tactical schemes, I see...
Tell me, Vern, do you prefer the deflection tactic over that of projection? Or does it not matter to you?
Now, go take your old man nap in your MAGAt cap...
Republican KY Senator Mitch McConnell
TB3,
Mitch knows democracy is the greatest threat to his power, his party, and its owners.
JG,
Don't you get it? WE are "deflecting" from HIS thread on Northam. I think he's troubled that Northum has lost so much support from Democrats. But true to his post-truth form, he DOES think the media is "shilling for him".
His brainwashing is the only relevance of Northan to this topic of post-truth con-servatism.
"But true to his post-truth form, he DOES think the media is "shilling for him"." - DD
Unfortunately you can't know this. Because the charactature of himself that posts under the alias Just The Facts! doesn't espouse any original thought. He doesn't even paraphrase an unoriginal thought.
But original thought isn't his function, is it?
"If you actually had a problem with liars, ...you wouldn’t have voted for hillary..."
TB3,
Everyone knows thinking is for commies. Beliefs handed down from their leaders are what's important. All that brain strain on our part looks just foolish to them. Evidence schmevidence. Facts are un-American in post-truth MAGAtland.
I recall how upset they were when educators suggested classes in critical thinking. Horrors!
Actually he DID say the media is shilling for Northam, but I'm no longer publishing his off topic distractions and deflections. Except when it illustrates his post-truth beliefs.
As we know the "liberal media" propaganda is one of their most cherished beliefs.
"Actually he DID say the media is shilling for Northam"
I'd honestly love to be shown where. All of the media I consume from a variety of sources seems to indicate to me that calls from Northam's resignation from the Democrats are universal.
He probably could not actually show me where, as he has this fundamental inability to cite sources or post links to articles outside of random youtube videos.
Again; Not his function. His function is to get us talking about him or whatever his 'fraidy cat bubble tells him to be scared of this hour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM
"Original thought" in quotation marks?
"If you actually had a problem with liars, ...you wouldn’t have voted for hillary..."
Most elections boil down to a choice between the lesser of two liars.
Trumps lies are approaching 9,000 since taking office.
JTF is welcome to show us 10,000 lies from Hillary, so we can be ashamed of voting for her.
TB3,
“Control the conversation” is certainly the authoritarian way. The following “Never Play Defense” and moving the goalposts is a good discussion too.
“The Right sells certainty better than the Left sells truth.” Yes, especially when emotional triggers for resentment, fear and anger are employed. This is how tyrants rise to power.
No groups are more certain of their beliefs than cults. The Cult of Right-wing Authoritarian Personalities prove this truth by their false accusations and lies. Of this, I am certain.
"People like Acasio-Cortez need to be listened to carefully, and their warnings taken seriously." ~~ Jefferson's Guardian, 2/4/2019
and...
Key figures in the Politico/Morning Consult poll:
(1) 76 percent said top-earning Americans should pay more taxes.
(2) 45 percent are in favor of a plan similar to that of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who proposed a 70 percent marginal tax rate on people earning more than $10 million. 32 percent are against it.
(3) 61 percent are in favor of something similar to the 'wealth tax' proposal introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. ~~ Newsco, February 4, 2019
Higher taxes on the wealthy is not a marginal idea. Not even close.
If, as a nation, we don't achieve some semblance of income equality, we're finished.
“Control the conversation” is certainly the authoritarian way. The following “Never Play Defense” and moving the goalposts is a good discussion too." - DD
Glad you liked it. I ran across that video series a couple of months ago and I was so surprised how they were describing the person(?) who posts as JTF so well.
"Higher taxes on the wealthy is not a marginal idea. Not even close." - JG
It's not a marginal idea. But if they keep repeating it, ad nauseum, people start to believe it. Make America Great Again... by making the top marginal tax rate 90% like it was in the glorious '50's? Do it. I guarentee it won't negatively impact any of the commenters that participate on this blog.
"Higher taxes on the wealthy is not a marginal idea. Not even close." ~~ Jefferson's Guardian
Con-servatives and Republicans say Ocasio-Cortez's proposal of raising taxes is a leftist idea that doesn't represent mainstream America.
Yet, over three-quarters of the people say the wealthy should pay more in taxes,
Obviously, then, the vast majority of Americans are leftist in their fiscal and economic viewpoints.
This is basic logical deduction. But, of course, we all know con-servatives and Republicans -- besides not believing in science or the rule-of-law, as just two examples -- do not believe in logic's rules of discourse.
It's only "feelings" that have meaning for them.
TB3,
The video pointed to the most important features of con-servative discourse. The truth is irrelevant, and compromise is out of the question. It is about certainty of belief, false accusations, and dominance. Venting their hate and anger is foremost. "Owning the libs", in other words. So it's not really about the "marketplace of ideas" they invoke after all. It is "catapulting the propaganda" to undermine democracy and consent of the governed, and to attack opponents of neo-liberal corporatism and white nationalism.
JG,
Cons "feel" for the rich. They "feel" taxes are bad, and they "feel" the rich are better than the rest of us. This reverence for wealth and the wealthy has long been nurtured to promote the interests of the elites over the public good. After all, every con-servative "feels" like he will ultimately get what he truly deserves, and will become one of the wealthy elite too.
Their delusions and dogma are that of a cult.
"promote the interests of the elites over the public good" - DD
I'm not sure how those who claim to be on the Right-leaning side of the spectrum feel about the rich. Those on that side of the spectrum, those who I am empathetic too and willing to consider their point of view, fail to articulate what they think taxes do or why we are taxed or what government is actually for. I get gobbledy-goop about the Constitution and the 10th Amendment and Capitalism because it seems certain individuals who engage in these conversations just trot these things out like it's the puctuation that ends a debate or conversation. They forget that there are things that usually go before that punctuation. Like an explanation on why their perceived way is better for the society we're all a part of.
TB3,
They don't like to answer questions. It is seen as "playing defense" and that is for liberals.
As noted in the video, "explanation" is the trap for loser liberals when the Right promotes a falsehood. The Rightist will ignore evidence and challenge the liberal on a less relevant point in the explanation, thereby "moving the goalposts" to "control the conversation".
JTF's latest unpublished comment is a Hitler quote. That's it. No explanation required.
Interestingly, my last appeal to Rex was, "Please explain". He hasn't commented since. I think we found our punctuation to end conversation with con-servatives.
Let's try it again.
JTF,
Would you please explain how a Hitler quote is relevant to our topic? Or feel free to explain where I am in error on any point presented.
I will publish only an explanation. No deflections.
Cue crickets...
"Like an explanation on why their perceived way is better for the society we're all a part of." ~~ TB3
You've articulated a point that invariably is ignored in these dicussions -- "what is better for [the] society".
Con-servatives and Republicans constantly fall back on capitalism as the panacea for all that ails society (or as I've argued on Mr. Paine's now defunct blog, "civilization"). Capitalism certainly has many positive attributes, but also many negitive ones that can (and do) offset them.
Not unlike pure communism, which in theory sounds like the best man-made idea since sliced bread, pure capitalism evolves (and has evolved) into just another form of feudalism ("neo-feudalism"?) where the spoils are shared by a few who have a seat at the table while the majority fight over the dropped crumbs scattered on the floor.
I'm convinced con-servatives and Republicans do not care about what's best for society at-large, but rather only their small slice of the proverbial pie. The irony, here, is those who believe they have a seat at the table -- or even have a chance to be invited to the table -- are mistakenly over-estimating their status (or chance of status) and are unwittingly playing right into the hands of the very elites and wealthy who have absolutely no intention of asking them to pull up a chair and join them.
Most working- and middle-class Republicans and con-servatives haven't figured this out. This is a part of the cultist aspect of their beliefs.
One of the many problems with communism and socialism is that its proponents fails to take into account human nature. Most people will not work if they do not receive the fruits of their own labors. If the "government" (via other citizens) will subsidize their living, then why put additional effort into any task? It is simply a system that saps energy, dignity, and productivity from a society. In the end, it only creates an equalization of misery, except, of course, for those running the system. They always seem to profit nicely.
Capitalism has its faults; however, it is the only social experiment that has historically proven to work and create the greatest prosperity for a majority of its citizens. Even the vaunted Scandinavian countries are MARKET economies based on capitalism. They simply have agreed to provide collectively for a large safety net, which many in their leadership are realizing is becoming unsustainable.
Every true socialist or communist country has ultimately failed, and usually with the demise of millions of its citizens' lives as a consequence. Capitalism must be properly regulated to prevent monopolies, worker abuses, and true environmental degradation, but in the end it is capitalism that has created the technologies, medicines, and advances that we have in this world. It is not socialism/communism.
TB3 asks an interesting question. In my opinion, taxes should be used on a federal level to provide for our common defense and fund those duties of the federal government enumerated in the constitution ONLY. The states should collect taxes for governing of its institutions, public infrastructure, and necessary public services. Local taxes should be used to provide for schools, fire and police services, and public spaces.
Taxes are a necessary evil. Evil, because they take away the fruits of one's own labor. Necessary, because they provide for things that the private sector cannot or should not be involved with. Each level of government should take care of ONLY those things that a lower level of government could not adequately or feasibly provide for in society. Municipalities cannot fund or maintain interstates or the military. Nor should the federal government be involved with dictating school curriculum and how it is taught in order to meet the needs of a specific municipality. Government is most responsive and typically most efficient the closer it is to the problem. The needs of the Bronx school district are probably considerably different than those of Helena, Montana. As such, the federal government should let those localities address them as they think best. Not to tweak TB3, but those duties that aren't specifically listed as federal duties in the constitution should be better handled at the state or local level. That is how we the people are better served by our government and our taxes are better utilized with less fraud, abuse, and waste.
"Most people will not work if they do not receive the fruits of their own labors. ~~ "Rex"
Most people work because they have to work. The wage workers at Amazon, as just one example, work their asses off to maintain a livelihood that's one illness or catastrophe away from bankruptcy. That's the America most citizens survive in today.
"It is simply a system that saps energy, dignity, and productivity from a society. In the end, it only creates an equalization of misery, except, of course, for those running the system. They always seem to profit nicely." ~~ "Rex"
Your summation applies to communism as practised in the Soviet Union, just as it applies to the maturation of monopolistic-capitalism in Amerixa today.
"Capitalism must be properly regulated to prevent monopolies, worker abuses, and true environmental degradation... ~~ "Rex"
Something we agree upon...with, of course, first an explanation from you of your meaning of "true".
"...but in the end it is capitalism that has created the technologies, medicines, and advances that we have in this world. It is not socialism/communism." ~~ "Rex"
Most societal-changing technologies, medical advancements, etc., of the type you allude to, have developed through socialist practices -- grants and funding by the federal government. The Internet, for example, or vaccinations or treatments for fatal diseases, (i.e., polio, HIV, etc.).
Your last paragraph can be argued to be opinion only, given the Constitution's explicit instruction to "provide for the general welfare".
Yes, taxes are necessary -- for a sustainable society and allowing us to live in and enjoy what we think of as a healthy civilization.
JG, respectfully, I think a logically-based reading of the constitution supports my statement as factual.
Madison and the other founders did not go to all of the trouble to draft our constitution with such specifics to limit the power and scope of the federal government's precise duties and powers only to negate all of that by saying "except you can do whatever you want to promote the general welfare". That is not what that statement means in the preamble, despite the modern-day argument to the contrary.
I would argue that by the federal government diligently doing their constitutionally-enumerated duties, they ARE providing for the general welfare. The general welfare clause was not a "catch all" for the government to do whatever good things it thought it should do in addition to their listed duties and powers.
Nearly universally, the founders were very much concerned and even fearful of replacing the weak articles of confederation with the constitution if they could not successfully limit the size and power of it. They did not want to substitute the power and tyranny of King George with a new power of an overbearing federal government in America.
As you must well know, Thomas Jefferson himself was supposedly credited with the warning, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." Whether the attribution to him is actually correct or not, the sentiment behind it is quite accurate.
"One of the many problems with communism and socialism is that its proponents fails to take into account human nature." - Rex
Not saying I am disagreeing with you, but this isn't necessarily a counter-point in favor of Capitalism. You're insinuating that it's better to trade in one sin (Socialism's Sloth) for another (Capitalism's Greed). This is assuming that-
"Most people will not work if they do not receive the fruits of their own labors." - Rex
-is correct. I do not believe it is, otherwise the welfare programs and unemployment that we already have, however tattered and threadbare that safety net is, would be completely overburdened with the lazy. Anecdotally; I despised relying on government assistance programs when I needed it and worked tirelessly to get off of it. I have to believe I am not a unicorn and that there must be many others like me with similar beliefs.
"then why put additional effort into any task?" - Rex
Dignity? Again, I have to believe the majority of people on assistance programs would rather not have to be.
"It is simply a system that saps energy, dignity, and productivity from a society. In the end, it only creates an equalization of misery, except, of course, for those running the system. They always seem to profit nicely." - Rex
First part: How did you come to this opinion? Without such programs you are saying there would be more energy, dignity and productivity?
Second part: Equalization of misery? I suppose that's one way of putting it. We as a society are a collective whole. I feel spreading the pain is better for the society than having an inequitable spread where some are acutely pained while others are not.
Third part: We're a capitalist society, are you saying capitalizing on a situation is bad? You can't possibly be arguing for a socialist approach to avoid people capitalizing on "misery"?
"Capitalism has its faults; however, it is the only social experiment that has historically proven to work and create the greatest prosperity for a majority of its citizens. Even the vaunted Scandinavian countries are MARKET economies based on capitalism. They simply have agreed to provide collectively for a large safety net, which many in their leadership are realizing is becoming unsustainable." - Rex
Really? Many in their leadership are realizing it's becoming unsustainable? I'm legitimately interested in this, do you have a source where I can follow up on this? Despite my, admittedly short, search, I can't find anything about this.
"Every true socialist or communist country has ultimately failed, and usually with the demise of millions of its citizens' lives as a consequence. Capitalism must be properly regulated to prevent monopolies, worker abuses, and true environmental degradation, but in the end it is capitalism that has created the technologies, medicines, and advances that we have in this world. It is not socialism/communism." - Rex
"true" socialist or communist country? What are those countries? I am not arguing with you, I'm just wondering because you are being broadly vague. And the proper regulation of capitalism? When this gets addressed from a "liberal" or a Democrat, people start throwing around the "C" and "S" words. See as example: Obamacare
To be continued…
Cont…
"TB3 asks an interesting question. In my opinion, taxes should be used on a federal level to provide for our common defense and fund those duties of the federal government enumerated in the constitution ONLY. The states should collect taxes for governing of its institutions, public infrastructure, and necessary public services. Local taxes should be used to provide for schools, fire and police services, and public spaces." - Rex
Cool. What's the definition of common defense? What's being funded on the Federal level that's not enumerated in the Constitution? To be clear: I whole heartedly agree with you and believe most people would.
"Taxes are a necessary evil. Evil, because they take away the fruits of one's own labor." - Rex
Taxes are necessary to fund the things we believe Government should do for us. It's not evil to fund our common defense, is it? Upkeep the Interstate System that links us all together? As for the fruits of our own labor; I hear this trotted out so often. President Obama made a point that got taken out of context by those on the Right, but it was taken out of context in an effort to deflect from Reality:
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn't – look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires." - President Obama, July 2012
The fruits of one's labor aren't grown in a vacuum. There are a lot of intangible benefits in our society that was paid for by our society. The taxes on a small percentage of those fruits is the least we can pay to provide further opportunities and upkeep existing resources to enable the next harvest. I, personally, do not see how this is evil.
And finally:
"That is how we the people are better served by our government and our taxes are better utilized with less fraud, abuse, and waste." - Rex
There are plenty of flawed, wasteful and abusive municipalities around our Great Nation, Rex. They also tax their constituents independently from the Federal Government. So, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. Before the quoted line you reference schools, but the Federal Government isn't dictating that the Bronx school district do or teach the same thing as Helena's school system. So I am still unclear what you're trying to say about taxes.
"Most societal-changing technologies, medical advancements, etc., of the type you allude to, have developed through socialist practices -- grants and funding by the federal government. The Internet, for example, or vaccinations or treatments for fatal diseases, (i.e., polio, HIV, etc.)." - JG
Terrific point. People seem to forget this and one I forgot to touch on in my own reply. I haven't found a plausible explanation on how capitalist pressures would have given us some of the medical breakthroughs that we currently have available.
Another point I like to make; Where would the budding commercial, private space programs be today if not for the massive amount of funds given to NASA? Don't get me wrong, I'm super excited about the prospects and possibilities offered by the private, commercial space businesses... but they are building their businesses on science and technology developed through government agencies.
"I would argue that by the federal government diligently doing their constitutionally-enumerated duties, they ARE providing for the general welfare. The general welfare clause was not a "catch all" for the government to do whatever good things it thought it should do in addition to their listed duties and powers." - Rex
So. It's not a "catch all" except, that it is a "catch all" but only in the way you mean "catch all". Cause in this paragraph, you literally claim that General Welfare is not a "catch all" for the government to do good things it thought it should do, but it is just a generic "catch all" phrase for doing their constitutionally enumerated duties. If what you say was actually true, than why would the Founders of this Great Nation feel the need to use the phrase "General Welfare" at all in the Constitution? If they truly meant it in the way you say... they should have been more precise with their use of language.
And just a point of clarification, backing up to the previous paragraph:
"That is not what that statement means in the preamble, despite the modern-day argument to the contrary." - Rex
The General Welfare that is referenced in these sorts of debates and discussions is not the one referenced in the Preamble, Rex. Article 1, Section 8.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." Whether the attribution to him is actually correct or not, the sentiment behind it is quite accurate." - Rex
Yeah, Monticello doesn't seem to think it's one of his quotes, either. It's one of those statements that looks like it's saying something but is actually meaningless, really. Think about it and reverse the syntax. If the government is that big, why would they feel the need to give you anything in the first place? It's a meaningless fear the government line. I prefer this similarly attributed quote:
https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-government-fears-people-there-liberty-spurious-quotation
Taxes shouldn't make you afraid of the government. Purging voter rolls, taking away polling places, and arguments against making voting easier should really be what you fear. Doing those things have nothing to do with taking 70% of every dollar made after $10,000,000 doesn't diminish your ability to "vote the bastards out"... but people of a certain political leaning seemed less concerned and fearful for the former and more of the latter. At least if we take 70% of every dollar after $10,000,000 we can start to address that deficit that used to be such a big problem for people of a certain political leaning.
Rex,
Nice to hear from you again.
”One of the many problems with communism and socialism is that its proponents fails to take into account human nature.”
What does this mean? Didn’t proponents of un-regulated capitalism and fascism also fail to take into account human nature? Greed, corruption, and lust for power and abuse of power characterize many of those at the top in all systems. I think you even agree with this.
Would you argue the abuses by a minority justify ending safety nets for all the needy? Group punishment is very authoritarian.
Every true socialist or communist country has ultimately failed, and usually with the demise of millions of its citizens' lives as a consequence.
Is this the “no true Scotsman” fallacy? If you said “dictatorship”, we can agree. Many other democracies with public health care are surviving. Not "true socialism"? Good. Let’s have it.
”Capitalism must be properly regulated to prevent monopolies, worker abuses, and true environmental degradation, but in the end it is capitalism that has created the technologies, medicines, and advances that we have in this world. It is not socialism/communism.”
The former is exactly the progressive agenda. Welcome aboard! We take it you accept Constitutional regulation of commerce to mean regulation of capitalism. Most Americans hold a similarly progressive opinion. TB3 noted facts that contradict the latter claim.
Taxes would indeed be evil, if nothing was given in return. This is not the case. Without taxes we would have no civil society, no military, no government, no law enforcement, no general welfare, etc. It called the public good. Most of these institutions for the public good also protect the interests of the rich. Since the rich own so many politicians, and corporations dictate our laws and regulations, I don’t see where they are deprived at all.
A better case can be made that the majority of Americans have less representation than the rich. So there’s that.
”... those duties that aren't specifically listed as federal duties in the constitution...”
As I said before, neither is the Air Force. It is not “enumerated” but it doesn’t need to be specified. It falls under common defense. Likewise healthcare falls under the general welfare. This is established by the Supreme Court. And no, the general welfare does not fall under common defense. It is enumerated, or included in addition to, like “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...”
This is the position liberals take that the Right cannot seem to fathom:
Liberals don’t want “true socialism or communism”. We want Constitutional regulation of commerce, and Constitutional taxes for the general welfare. We understand, just as we need checks and balances in government, we need checks and balances between capitalism and socialism. In addition, we strongly support the founders’ ideal of consent of the governed.
We are as American as apple pie.
"At least if we take 70% of every dollar after $10,000,000 we can start to address that deficit that used to be such a big problem for people of a certain political leaning. ~~ TB3
In 1960, the marginal tax rate was 91%, on less than $3M (in current U.S. dollars) -- and that marginal tax rate was in effect throughout the 1950s.
AOC's proposal is tame by comparison.
Enough of the Trump clown show for me. His growing nose is knocking on my big-screen. I'm heading to bed.
"Our country is vibrant and our economy is thriving like never before. [Really?] Friday it was announced we added another 304,000 jobs last month alone [Would you like fries with that?], almost double the number expected. An economic miracle [A miricle?...really?] is taking place in the United States, and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars [Agreed], politics [The pot calling the kettle black.], or ridiculous, partisan investigations. [Don't do the crime If you can't do the time.] If there is going to be peace in legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. [Ditto, above.] It just does not work that way." [In a political system based upon the rule of law, yeah it does.] ~~ Donald Trump, State of the Union address, 2/5/2019
When investigated for "high crimes and misdemeanors", public officials cannot just discount the rule of law and expect everyone to look the other way.
It just does not work that way.
I recall the Big MAGAt threatening his opponent in a debate saying, "You'd be in jail".
I recall Nune's ridiculous, partisan investigation that rejected and ignored any evidence and testimony regarding Trump Cartel contacts with Russians.
What the Big MAGAt meant to say was, "Ridiculous, partisan investigations are OK if you are a Republican. Especially prosecutions for Hillary's emails!(TM), Benghazi!(TM), and Comey".
New York Times:
Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.
The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.
I'm so glad I didn't watch the speech. I enjoyed some delicious Thai food instead. Yum. No MAGAts to sicken me.
POLL STUNNERS: Both CBS and CNN Polls: 76 Percent of Viewers Approve President Trump’s State of the Union Speech; CBS: 72 Percent Approve His Immigration Ideas
POLL STUNNER! 99.9% of Super Bowl viewers approve of football!
Hey.
Did you know? When you're not trolling people, calling them names and being needlessly belligerent that people may regard you and what you say in a more positive light? What a concept!
Yes. Congrats to the President for reading his speech well.
"POLL STUNNER! 99.9% of Super Bowl viewers approve of football!" -- DD
I'm going to need a source for this one, Dave. I find that number dubious after Super Bowl LIII!
TB3,
LOL. That number was at kick-off. By the fourth quarter it dropped to Trump approval levels. I just FEEL it.
I applaud this line too:
"And exactly one century after the Congress passed the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in the Congress than ever before."
The Party of Old White Men had to applaud too, since their leader said it.
USA! USA! USA!
"calling them names and being needlessly belligerent" I hope JG reads that.
Oh, hey, JTF read it. Than JG most assuredly did and nodded in agreement.
I feel like a milestone has been met; Contextually appropriate response. We're growing.
"Oh, hey, JTF read it. Than JG most assuredly did and nodded in agreement." ~~ TB3
[affirmative nod] Yes, I agree to not be needlessly belligerent. From now on I promise only belligerence that's well-deserved.
As far as Vern's accusation of name-calling, I'm only being honest where honestly is lacking. Trump acts like a clown, therefore I call him one. I have to be honest.
Trump's a notorious serial-liar. It's my duty to bring balance to the inequality with brutal honesty.
That is not what [providing for the general welfare] means in the preamble, despite the modern-day argument to the contrary." ~~ "Rex"
and...
"The general welfare clause was not a 'catch all' for the government to do whatever good things it thought it should do in addition to their listed duties and powers." ~~ "Rex"
Rex, the Supreme Court decision, United States v. Butler, seems to indicate otherwise.
JG,
The Right insists we all abide by their definitions of terms and their interpretation of the Constitution. Only they are wise enough, apparently.
That is not what [providing for the general welfare] means in the preamble, despite the modern-day argument to the contrary." ~~ "Rex"
and...
"The general welfare clause was not a 'catch all' for the government to do whatever good things it thought it should do in addition to their listed duties and powers." ~~ "Rex"
And:
"... those duties that aren't specifically listed as federal duties in the constitution...”
Law enforcement, prisons, border patrol, ICE, were not listed specifically either. Neither was the CDC and FDA.
As I said before, neither is the Air Force. It is not “enumerated” but it doesn’t need to be specified. It falls under common defense. Likewise healthcare falls under the general welfare. This is established by the Supreme Court. And no, the general welfare does not fall under common defense. It is enumerated, or included in addition to, like “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...”
These are "catch all" provisions by intent. Nowhere did the founders indicate they wanted the Constitution to mean only what the most conservative among us say it means. After all conservatives of the time supported slavery and denied women the right to vote. "...to form a more perfect union" and making it amendable was the founders' intent.
It is logical and reasonable that these unspecified agencies and laws be allowed. Even if we happen to disagree with ICE, it is still Constitutional. This is what cons can't abide. Merely being counter to their OPINION, means something is "un-Constitutional" to them.
This indicates conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history.
Post a Comment