Obama the Socialist

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 98
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Athias
Do you believe that grammar plays an important role in communication? 

Sometimes. 


The statement which followed my contention that Ayn Rand was not a socialist was an nonessential appositive phrase. It would specify nothing.
Here is your sentence: She was a philosopher, who (and correct me if I'm wrong) didn't participate as a member of government.


I'm curious: what was the grammatical or rhetorical purpose of bringing up whether or not she participated in government? Why is that relevant to the conversation? Why not mention that she never participated in cow tipping or pie eating contests? 



 I'm not arguing that being a member of government is a prerequisite for sustaining or advocating socialism.
Then what exactly is the prerequisite for sustaining or advocating socialism? 

Please provide examples of her socialist ideologies.

Sure. As one example, Ayn Rand believed  "The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law." Police, military and courts require taxation.  And even if they didn't (they do) she explicitly said these government actions were proper, not voluntary arbitration.  She did argue for "voluntary taxes" lol. We'll get to that. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
2010 was a referendum on whether Obama went far enough. and he didn't. Obama made lots of promises of hope and change. then he used right wing plans and made changes around the edges. Obama isn't a bad president because he was "a socialist". He was a mediocre president because he was too right wing. 


That's an interesting alternate hypothesis.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sorry I missed your post before. I g2g back to work for now but will respond later. 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
That's an interesting alternate hypothesis.
I don't see how other ones would make sense. Obama promised big changes. Ones you would probably label as socialist and swept to power easily. Then he didn't deliver on those "socialist" promises and his support dropped. 

He didn't lose support because he went to far. He didn't go anywhere near far enough to keep his promises. He lost support because he kept trying to make deals with right wing ideologues and didn't accomplish the things he promised. 
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
Sometimes. 
Mind elaborating on the times it doesn't?


Here is your sentence: She was a philosopher, who (and correct me if I'm wrong) didn't participate as a member of government.


I'm curious: what was the grammatical or rhetorical purpose of bringing up whether or not she participated in government? Why is that relevant to the conversation? Why not mention that she never participated in cow tipping or pie eating contests? 
Easy. It because of this:

As far as Obama goes, if your metric is that all politicians are socialist then it doesn't really provide much utility to what I was getting at. That means Trump's a socialist, Rand Paul's a socialist, Ron Paul's a socialist, Ted Cruz is a socialist, Ayn Rand is a socialist.
Was Ayn Rand a politician?

Then what exactly is the prerequisite for sustaining or advocating socialism? 
Your definition suffices.

Sure. As one example, Ayn Rand believed  "The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law." Police, military and courts require taxation.  And even if they didn't (they do) she explicitly said these government actions were proper, not voluntary arbitration. 
So you've conceded to the characterization of socialism I proffered? Fair enough, Ayn Rand, as an advocate of government practice, would by proxy be a socialist.


Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Athias
Mind elaborating on the times it doesn't?

Sure, like right now, this sentence is grammatically incorrect, and yet, I am communicating my point to you perfectly fine. 


Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
There's even less of a history of violence from people on the right toward people on the left from 2008 on up. It's all fringe hyperventilation.

I understand this defense ("it's only the fringe!")  but I would respond to that a few ways. One, a group like ANTIFA really is fringe left (weird to think anti-fascists could only be leftists but okay) whereas the "fringe" right has made it to the mainstream Republican party. I listened to a really good interview with Steve Bannon I'd be happy to link you to if you're interested. He talks about the 2016 Trump campaign strategy and it was very insightful into the hearts and minds of Trump's base. Bannon argued that Breitbart made Trump and I agree. You would agree that Breitbart is practically if not explicitly an an alt-right publication, correct?

I don't think there can be any question that Trump made certain discriminatory rhetoric or behavior more acceptable and mainstream. For instance I was just listening to a podcast about a first amendment lawsuit in CA where students got sent home for wearing an American flag shirt to school (I know, it outraged me too). School officials felt it was intentionally provocative and likely to start a fight on school grounds. The students wore the shirt on Cinco de Mayo  to antagonize Mexican-American students. This kind of stuff was not the norm under Obama, and if racist things like this did occur, it was not because the president excused or dog whistled to provoke that type of behavior. We both know Obama was demure. Whatever we think of his politics, he was not a leader to provoke racial tension or other hostility.  Meanwhile white supremacists genuinely believe Trump is on their side. It doesn't seem very "fringe" when the president gives you credibility. That's why we don't meet with North Korea. 

Secondly as far as violence goes, I think you could be honest enough to acknowledge that all of the notable militia groups in this country are primarily right-wing. I mean the caricature of the left is them being spineless, gun-less, pink pussy hat wearing little weaklings people say would immediately crumble if the shit hit the fan. ANTIFA isn't even an organized group. Meanwhile there are militant people all over the country doing and plotting crazy shit. The people who kidnapped Michigan's governor is one example. The fact that the FBI has been warning white supremacists infiltrated law enforcement for years now is another example. I just don't think you can rely on the narrative that racism or whatever is limited to ultra old school cuckoos. I think it has very much become more acceptable. 



Do you think 2010 was a referendum based on the popular perception (justified or not) that Obama and Obama's Congress went too far with socialist policies?

Absolutely. I think it was mostly in response to the ACA, but there is no denying right-wingers emphatically portrayed Obama as some kind of left-wing nut job. I remember this very well. Ted Cruz, Sean Hannity et. al were saying Obama was a "radical socialist" which they repeated over and over. It was the loop sound bite on Fox News for like 8 years. I mean Obama was portrayed by the Breitbart crowd as the antichrist. Literally. One in four Americans believed Obama was the antichrist. And I'm sorry but if you think race had nothing to do with that you're delusional. There are a lot of extremely ignorant and hateful people out there. I know it must not feel good that they're primarily on "your side" but we have to be honest about it. Just like I have to acknowledge BLM (whom I've marched with) is now an explicitly pro Marxist group which you know I don't like. But yes I do think there was a huge backlash to Obama in 2010 primarily due to fear mongering about socialism.  He was not a hard leftist by any stretch. He didn't even (publicly) support gay marriage until his second term! Can you imagine that being "radical" today?

Obama inherited the lowest tax rate in a generation (the Bush Tax Cuts) and then repeatedly lowered them.  He cut federal spending. He argued that government programs can create welfare dependency. I mean I guess if you're a Tea Party member or like our friend Athias here who thinks Ayn Rand was a socialist, then sure Obama may be classified as such to those people. I don't think the assessment stands for 95% of the people who insist he was though but then support a handful of other Big Government initiatives like the Space Force or saving the auto industry. 

SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Danielle
Sure, like right now, this sentence is grammatically incorrect, and yet, I am communicating my point to you perfectly fine. 
This is cruel and unusual punishment for grammar nerds! There is so much wrong with that sentence.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
Meanwhile white supremacists...

You could convince me that it's a problem when you can post more actual significant race crimes from 2016 forward than I can post fake hoaxes (Smollett...fake nooses in Nascar garages, multiple instances of retarded edgelord liberal students spray painting nigger all over the campuses, etc...)

Until then it's fringe hyperventilation.

The students wore the shirt on Cinco de Mayo  to antagonize Mexican-American students. This kind of stuff was not the norm under Obama, and if racist things like this did occur,

The problem is that the Media has been able to get away with redefining a culture war as a race war. Mexico is not a race, and supporting American culture over Mexican culture should not alone be considered a racial activity. Can only people with brown skin wear the American flag on Cinco De Mayo day? Can a White Mexican-American burn an Ameican flag on Cinco de mayo day without being called out for the color of his skin?

That is why I had asked you in another thread this philosophical question.

Do you think ethnic or cultural discrimination is justified under any scenario?

I want to know your opinion.

That's why we don't meet with North Korea. 

And you can see how that worked out with Fidel Castro.

The people who kidnapped Michigan's governor is one example.

the anarchist group? Yes, both political parties should be vigilent about stopping violent anarchist groups.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
And I'm sorry but if you think race had nothing to do with that you're delusional.

So the electorate just magically became "racist" in the span of 2 years? 2008-2010? Even in 2012 when Obama was reelected, the country was mostly a "racist country?"

That's your theory and you are sticking to it? I thought you could do better than that for explaining the 2010 snapshot of the electorate. That's actually the most disappointing thing you said on this website. Pulling a national race card even when Obama won the election.

Obama in 2010 primarily due to fear-mongering about socialism.
Why did Obama feel the need to lie about people keeping private health insurance? If taking away private stuff (socialism) is so great, why lie about it?

People get afraid when politicians lie to them. At least Bernie Sanders isn't lying about what he wants to do. I can respect him for that.

saving the auto industry. 
That was disappointing, but trafficking subsidies are the main reason why DC has gotten as big as it has the past 80 years.

SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm pretty sure you tagged the wrong person there.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
oh noes! 

well, since you are here I guess I can toss the same question to you.

Do you think ethnic or cultural discrimination is justified under any scenario?
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think ethnic discrimination is ever justified. Cultural discrimination is situational. In most cases, it's wrong. However, there are times when it is not only permissible but also morally necessary to discriminate based on culture. This would happen in circumstances such as the Aztecs. I'm not going to tolerate human sacrifice just because it's their culture. Other examples would be India's treatment of the untouchables or Saudi Arabia's laws restricting women. That may be their culture, but it is still wrong. In most cases, though, I don't think cultural discrimination is justified. In my opinion, most aspects of culture don't have any moral dimension. It doesn't make a difference if burping is considered rude or polite. Taste in food, music, arts, and such things is subjective. Discriminating against someone based on cultural things like that is wrong. However, when culture leads people to do things that are clearly morally wrong, such as human sacrifice, then cultural discrimination is a moral imperative.

I should probably qualify that by saying that people are individuals. While Aztec culture promoted human sacrifice, that doesn't mean that all Aztecs participated in it or agreed with it. Thus, it would be wrong to discriminate against someone because the culture they are part of promotes morally wrong behavior. It would only be justified to discriminate against that individual if they participate in that behavior.

Of course, there are plenty of exceptions and qualifications I could add, but that would be unnecessary.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
At least Bernie Sanders isn't lying about what he wants to do. I can respect him for that.
This.

Even if I completely disagree with Bernie on everything. He’s very clear what he stands for, and he’s pretty much stood for those things his entire political career.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Even if I completely disagree with Bernie on everything. He’s very clear what he stands for, and he’s pretty much stood for those things his entire political career.

HB actually made some sense about Obama not being socialist enough.

Why on earth would Obama sabotage his own government-managed health care plan by pretending private insurance was a good thing? Puzzling.

ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
HB actually made some sense about Obama not being socialist enough.
He called Obama right wing lol
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
He called Obama right wing lol
he picked a right wing health care plan. A socialist plan would be abolishing all private insurance and the government pays for all healthcare services directly. Obama's plan doesn't go anywhere near that. It just mandates that people buy insurance from a private company and subsidizes insurance for people who can't afford it. That is a right wing plan for healthcare. And it was nowhere near enough. Obama should have actually pushed for a progressive healthcare plan. 

Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
You could convince me that it's a problem when you can post more actual significant race crimes from 2016 forward than I can post fake hoaxes (Smollett...fake nooses in Nascar garages, multiple instances of retarded edgelord liberal students spray painting nigger all over the campuses, etc...)

Until then it's fringe hyperventilation.
You provided 2 examples of hoaxes and then mentioned "multiple instances" of spray paint. It will be incredibly easy to provide more examples than that considering hate crime violence hit a 16-year high post Trump's election. Some of the instances were major national news stories, such as the mass shooting at a Pittsburg synagogue in 2018  or the El Paso Walmart shooting in 2019, where the shooter had a xenophobic manifesto about a Hispanic invasion to help Democrats. There's also the rise in anti-Chinese hate crimes post coronavirus and anti-Semitism is at record highs. Law enforcement, members of Congress and groups tracking extremism have warned about the increasing threat potential from  militia and far-right groups. 

But not only can I provide you this resource which details a lot of information on federal hate crimes, I can defer you to YouTube where you can see them being filmed. Most of us probably saw the video of the Asian guy in Scottsdale 2 days ago going on a rant about how it was a "nigger free zone," and there are thousands and thousands of similar videos all over the internet. I'd like to bring up these because while I can absolutely meet that incredibly easy threshold of showing you "more instances of real hate crimes than the ones you showed were fake," we both know you're dishonest and incapable of conceding. So you will predictably shift goal posts which is why I think YouTube might be an even better resource than all of the documented statistics. I have a lot more links to resources if you're interested, but we both know you have no interest in being proven wrong.

In response to Whitmer's kidnappers being "anarchists," that is an unequivocal lie. When you suck Trump off that emphatically online you don't get to call yourself an anarchist despite whatever logo you put in your twitter profile picture. These people are literally too stupid to see why calling yourself an ANARCHIST while championing Trump makes no fucking sense. They're dumb as rocks. They believe in QAnon (the fact that Trump won't denounce QAnon is insane and deeply disturbing) and that Bill Gates gave everyone coronavirus through 5G cell towers. They certainly believe Trump is the greatest thing to happen to the USA. Their devotion and constant praise for Trump makes them the worst "anarchists" of all time. They love their Dear Leader. 

Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think ethnic or cultural discrimination is justified under any scenario?

You'd have to be specific. "Any scenario" makes it easy to say yes.

But to be clear the lawsuit had nothing to do with racism or liberals. It was the school's decision to send the students home and the Court upheld it per the legal standard known as Fighting Words doctrine. It's very interesting. 


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Lol, anything is a fighting word to a butthurt liberal.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, you have no idea what you're talking about. Most of the free speech lawsuits in this country stem from right-wing snowflakes throwing crybaby tantrums over people protesting the Vietnam War, or refusing to salute their precious little flag. At least you know you have no idea what I'm talking about. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Thank god for arbitrary courts then.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank god for arbitrary courts then.

That's why I laugh when people defer to a legal scholar's authority. Of course it holds more weight than a less informed layman's perspective, but whenever one of my douchey lawyer friends condescends to me because he is an "expert" (per his one con law class at a shitty tier 3 law school) I remind him that the Supreme Court is considered to be a panel of the brightest legal minds in the country, and yet split decisions are the norm. 

I still think it's a pretty good system though. Do you have an alternate proposal? I g2g btw but ya'll can tag me if I missed something. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I love this banter where I pretend you are left wing and you pretend I am right wing.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I still think it's a pretty good system though. Do you have an alternate proposal? 

Nah, the system is adequate.

The alternative is a system where grievances are calculated by cultural groups instead of jurisprudence.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I love this banter where I pretend you are left wing and you pretend I am right wing.

I'm glad you enjoy it :) Just so long as we both know that Trump embraces the white supremacists + cuckoo conspiracy theorists that support him without denouncing their crazy ass ideas strongly enough; that right-wing militants account for the majority of domestic terrorism and violent threats; and that all of the "anarchists" that worship Trump like a king are a joke. I actually know some of them IRL. 
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah, the system is adequate.

The alternative is a system where grievances are calculated by cultural groups instead of jurisprudence.

Do you think Justices should be elected? 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,017
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I think Justices should be allocated by chance lottery from a large pool of qualified candidates and confirmed by elected officials. 

Pipedream I know.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
The washington Post thinks he was a conservative
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I think Justices should be allocated by chance lottery from a large pool of qualified candidates and confirmed by elected officials. 

That's interesting. "Qualified" is subjective though. Technically I qualify to be a Justice because I meet all of the legal criteria, but I'm probably not qualified by most standards. Who gets to decide? Congress?