Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

[Ilunga]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

at the time he was slammed for being too weak on the Iran hostage issue and Regan beat him over the head with it to win the 1980 election, even though it was Carter that negotiated the release. Regan still gets credit to this day from Republicans for the release even though his administration had nothing to do with it. Right wing myth is hard to get rid of, maybe we need less of that? 

 

I do think there will be a couple of really solid candidates for 2020, probably one thats still off the radar at this point. 

I asked Toews that question in a post and included asking you for your opinion on future candidates.However I got no reply.

What do you think of Cory Booker ?

Edited September 15, 2018 by Ilunga

[JM_]

7 hours ago, Ilunga said:

I asked Toews that question in a post and included asking you for your opinion on future candidates.However I got no reply.

What do you think of Cory Booker ?

I think Booker needs a little more seasoning before stepping into the big job, maybe 2024? I think Eric Holder is a stronger candidate. Maybe Biden. I think the dem's will want to present a 'steady hand at the wheel' type of person, vs. a younger one who might get caught up in a shouting match with Trump vs. projecting stability. 

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Jimmy McGill

[Jester13]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think Booker needs a little more seasoning before stepping into the big job, maybe 2024? I think Eric Holder is a stronger candidate. Maybe Biden. I think the dem's will want to present a 'steady hand at the wheel' type of person, vs. a younger one who might get caught up in a shouting match with Trump vs. projecting stability. 

 

I think it will have to be someone younger, such as Joe Kennedy III - he will be the next president. 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I think it will have to be someone younger, such as Joe Kennedy III - he will be the next president. 

I could see him being on the ticket as VP, I've listened to him a few times, I like him but think he still needs a bit more time too. He's not being discussed at all in any of the rankings of potential candidates but who knows? things can change quickly. As long as the person doesn't get sucked into a Trumpian shouting match/twitter war I think they'll have a good chance. 

[Jester13]

9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I could see him being on the ticket as VP, I've listened to him a few times, I like him but think he still needs a bit more time too. He's not being discussed at all in any of the rankings of potential candidates but who knows? things can change quickly. As long as the person doesn't get sucked into a Trumpian shouting match/twitter war I think they'll have a good chance. 

I think the fact he's flying under the radar right now speaks volume. The last thing the dems want right now is to have a target on him (why have Russia dig up dirt on him starting now lol). 

 

He's young, has the family history and the look and charisma - similar to Obama's rise in some ways. Book it.

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I think the fact he's flying under the radar right now speaks volume. The last thing the dems want right now is to have a target on him (why have Russia dig up dirt on him starting now lol). 

 

He's young, has the family history and the look and charisma - similar to Obama's rise in some ways. Book it.

interesting article here - Kennedy is a Biden supporter; https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/06/joe-kennedy-2020-democrats-off-message-216942

 

in reality you could run a sock puppet vs Trump and have a candidate with better ideas, but its going to take more than just not being crazy to beat him. 

[Jester13]

31 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

interesting article here - Kennedy is a Biden supporter; https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/06/joe-kennedy-2020-democrats-off-message-216942

 

in reality you could run a sock puppet vs Trump and have a candidate with better ideas, but its going to take more than just not being crazy to beat him. 

A very well-written article that solidified my prediction that he will run and win. He's modest. And in the world of political strategy during the current Trump era, the democrats, cough Kennedy, can't show their hand too soon. He'll garner support from the likes of Biden and be encouraged to run when the time is right for his reveal. Obama 2.0.

 

At least, strategically, if the dems want any chance at winning they will do this.

[Rob_Zepp]

9 hours ago, Ilunga said:

He had his good and bad points but I believe he cared for the people he was elected to govern.

What a refreshing change that would be after the past two or three US Presidents.

[canuckistani]

On 9/13/2018 at 8:13 PM, 48MPHSlapShot said:

If the Libertarian party could just get it's $&!# together...

they'd put someone smarter and more sinister than Trump in charge, since Libertarianism is the most BS ideology i've ever encountered. 
Not only is it thinly masked elitism that serves only the super-rich, its framework ALWAYS loses to a collective society in every single competitive aspect.

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

28 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

they'd put someone smarter and more sinister than Trump in charge, since Libertarianism is the most BS ideology i've ever encountered. 
Not only is it thinly masked elitism that serves only the super-rich, its framework ALWAYS loses to a collective society in every single competitive aspect.

 

Yeah, freedom is only beneficial to the super rich. Better to hand over control to the state, who are nothing but just. Better to allow the state to legally plunder everyone else's money without their consent because they know what's best.

 

Listen and learn.

 

 

[canuckistani]

20 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Yeah, freedom is only beneficial to the super rich. Better to hand over control to the state, who are nothing but just. Better to allow the state to legally plunder everyone else's money without their consent because they know what's best.

 

Listen and learn.

 

 

I don't make snap judgements, period.

Libertarianism is BS of the highest order.  The freedom, where you are responsible for EVERYTHING and there is no collectivism, quite literally favors the rich only. 
Taxation leads to far better social services than every person fending for themselves. Former model gives you Canada, Norway, Japan etc. Latter model gives you Nigeria or Ghana. 

You don't have to consent to be part of a social contract. Don't like it ? move to where there is nobody living and start your own dystopia. 

[canuckistani]

Not to mention, libertarianism's *CORE* ideology - every person/social unit to themselves and get exactly what they can earn, is an 18th century 'frontier-mentality' nonsense, that is an out-dated and obsolete ideology. 

 

  Species homo sapiens is a social creature as well as an individual creature. Our societies - historically as well as in modern, present day situations, have decisively shown development, where this element of species homo sapiens is best balanced.

Whenever we've had governments who supervised efficient and reasonable tax collection/spending, along with fostering commerce in the civillian sector, we've had immense prosperity, stability, growth within said society. Eg: Rome, Greece, India, China. 

 

Not to mention,we live in the 21st century. Technological realities favor collectivism, DECISIVELY so, as a social framework.

[Ilunga]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think Booker needs a little more seasoning before stepping into the big job, maybe 2024? I think Eric Holder is a stronger candidate. Maybe Biden. I think the dem's will want to present a 'steady hand at the wheel' type of person, vs. a younger one who might get caught up in a shouting match with Trump vs. projecting stability. 

 

I think you are correct in stating that the Dems should not make it personal with Trump ,ie a battle of personalities. Trump has already proven himself in that regard.

As I have stated , they should platform on things that reasonate with as Rupert puts them, the Rubes.

What are Americans worried about ? Their Jobs and as an extension of that paying their bills. The safety of their families. And I really believe that many Americans want to be seen as a force for good in the world.

I do believe these tarrifs will bite trump in his proverbial. Americans are consumers,the like their cheap goods, these tarrifs will increase the price of those goods.

I am not sure about Booker, what I have seen of him makes me believe he is more interested in the power of political position,rather than actually caring for those he is elected to help make their lives better, which is what governing a people is meant to be about,but I could be wrong.

I believe the Dems should not go with any one associated with the past, ie Biden. New face and concentrate on the idea that they are there to help people not reign over them.

At the moment I like the look of Kennedy, he has some growing to do but he has the potential and background to find support in the swinging voters,it is those that really elect people in our western democracies.

I have heard of Holder but do not know much about him. I will do some research.

 

[Ilunga]

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

What a refreshing change that would be after the past two or three US Presidents.

Totally.

And the same here in Au,since Howard the politicians think only of power. I have have heard them use words like reign over the Australian people.

Kings and Queens reign, politicians are meant to govern. 

The good politicians, the ones who actually make a positive influence in our communities actually care about us.

Today in Australia and the states they are few and far between.

Here in Aus there is a direct correlation between the privatisation of our utilities, water ,power even our roads and the difference in our politicians.

As I predicted at the time priced of those things would go up,even though they stated the prices of those things would not go up.

The price of power , electricity and gas is a huge issue here. We are one of the largest exporters of  gas and yet there is a predicted shortage of it for the Aussie people

Guess who gives the largest political donations to the 2 major parties ,the mining mandates who are selling of our resources and keeping most of the profits themselves.

 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Ilunga said:

I think you are correct in stating that the Dems should not make it personal with Trump ,ie a battle of personalities. Trump has already proven himself in that regard.

As I have stated , they should platform on things that reasonate with as Rupert puts them, the Rubes.

What are Americans worried about ? Their Jobs and as an extension of that paying their bills. The safety of their families. And I really believe that many Americans want to be seen as a force for good in the world.

I do believe these tarrifs will bite trump in his proverbial. Americans are consumers,the like their cheap goods, these tarrifs will increase the price of those goods.

I am not sure about Booker, what I have seen of him makes me believe he is more interested in the power of political position,rather than actually caring for those he is elected to help make their lives better, which is what governing a people is meant to be about,but I could be wrong.

I believe the Dems should not go with any one associated with the past, ie Biden. New face and concentrate on the idea that they are there to help people not reign over them.

At the moment I like the look of Kennedy, he has some growing to do but he has the potential and background to find support in the swinging voters,it is those that really elect people in our western democracies.

I have heard of Holder but do not know much about him. I will do some research.

 

I think one of the reasons Obama has come out so strongly to take (proper) credit for some of the economic rebound in the US is to remind people that it is possible for the democrats to run a decent economy. They don't have to take Trump down, just take away some of the economic credit and I think they can do that quite convincingly. 

 

So I doubt they'd follow that up with an unproven candidate, but having said that you never know what can happen in a leadership run so maybe something will surprise us all. 

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

37 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think one of the reasons Obama has come out so strongly to take (proper) credit for some of the economic rebound in the US is to remind people that it is possible for the democrats to run a decent economy. They don't have to take Trump down, just take away some of the economic credit and I think they can do that quite convincingly. 

 

So I doubt they'd follow that up with an unproven candidate, but having said that you never know what can happen in a leadership run so maybe something will surprise us all. 

 

 

I think as long as they can come up with someone without any ties of any sort to the hypocrisy of the Gore/Clinton faction or the disingenuous peddling of Obama and have someone who is truly "for the people" and have economic sanity within a fair taxation system that acknowledges corporate heath is important but so are fair wages and working conditions - then they have their woman/man who will be electable.   If they miss on those marks, no matter how much the media and the left whine and moan (or even how much whining happens on CDC...lol), it all plays into the hands of a very well funded and surprisingly resilient Republican machine.

[Ilunga]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

I think one of the reasons Obama has come out so strongly to take (proper) credit for some of the economic rebound in the US is to remind people that it is possible for the democrats to run a decent economy. They don't have to take Trump down, just take away some of the economic credit and I think they can do that quite convincingly. 

 

So I doubt they'd follow that up with an unproven candidate, but having said that you never know what can happen in a leadership run so maybe something will surprise us all. 

 

 

It reasonably common knowledge that that it takes a couple of years for new admisntrations policies to take effect.

I believe your are right ,a lot of people repeat their mistakes, in this case political parties.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I think as long as they can come up with someone without any ties of any sort to the hypocrisy of the Gore/Clinton faction or the disingenuous peddling of Obama and have someone who is truly "for the people" and have economic sanity within a fair taxation system that acknowledges corporate heath is important but so are fair wages and working conditions - then they have their woman/man who will be electable.   If they miss on those marks, no matter how much the media and the left whine and moan (or even how much whining happens on CDC...lol), it all plays into the hands of a very well funded and surprisingly resilient Republican machine.

maybe they can get this guy

 

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

8 hours ago, canuckistani said:

I don't make snap judgements, period.

Libertarianism is BS of the highest order.  The freedom, where you are responsible for EVERYTHING and there is no collectivism, quite literally favors the rich only. 
Taxation leads to far better social services than every person fending for themselves. Former model gives you Canada, Norway, Japan etc. Latter model gives you Nigeria or Ghana. 

You don't have to consent to be part of a social contract. Don't like it ? move to where there is nobody living and start your own dystopia. 

Taxation, in and of itself, is legalized plunder, as are trade restrictions, regardless of whatever supposed "good" may come of it. This is indisputable, and infringes upon the natural rights of every person. Natural rights that trump "positive rights" which in actuality are merely privileges passed down by the state at the expense of freedom. 

 

Furthermore, this "social contract" (an arbitrary term if I've ever heard one), in addition to being non-consensual, can be used to justify virtually anything, so long as it is in law and sanctioned by the state. It was once written into this "social contract" that blacks weren't entitled to basic human rights. Would you tell the African Americans living under Jim Crow, which at the time was the law, and therefor part of this "social contract" to "move to where there is nobody living to start their own dystopia"?

 

It is interesting that you end your post by basically resorting to the same "Love it or leave it" sentiment that right wingers have used for decades.

 

Furthermore, the idea that libertarianism is entirely incompatible with collectivism is false, so long as each individual of said collective consents to the collective taking priority in any particular situation. Furthermore, there is nothing in libertarian doctrine that explicitly forbids cultural collectivism. In fact, I would go so far as to state that I firmly believe that a united culture would be a necessity within a truly free society, and that the success of said society would either succeed of fail on the back of the aforementioned "united culture".  Incidentally, I don't stand by the "open borders" policy that many libertarians advocate specifically because I feel that a sense of cultural cohesion is important, although I do understand the sentiment and how my stance on immigration may stand in contrast to many of my other beliefs.

 

The core values at the heart of libertarianism are  A) consistent application of the non-aggression. principle, and B] absolute property rights. Taking that into account, one that is diametrically opposed to all libertarian principles could naturally be assumed to be opposed property rights and non-aggression.

 

But hey, to each their own. 

 

 

 

 

 

[canuckistani]

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Taxation, in and of itself, is legalized plunder, as are trade restrictions, regardless of whatever supposed "good" may come of it

Bull$&!#. Taxation is basic part of social contract. Period. You don't have the right to keep 100% of your earnings if you use ANY public resource, period. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

. This is indisputable, and infringes upon the natural rights of every person.

There is no such natural right to lack of social financial contract. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Natural rights that trump "positive rights" which in actuality are merely privileges passed down by the state at the expense of freedom. 

Again, there is no such natural right. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

 

Furthermore, this "social contract" (an arbitrary term if I've ever heard one), in addition to being non-consensual, can be used to justify virtually anything, so long as it is in law and sanctioned by the state.

It can be. However, with checks and balances and educated systems, it has also yeilded the pinnacles of species homo sapiens' sum total achievement. I cannot think of any more natural justification to social contract than that. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

It was once written into this "social contract" that blacks weren't entitled to basic human rights.

Irrelevant. Giving examples of social contract's failures does not even begin to justify financial anarchism. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Would you tell the African Americans living under Jim Crow, which at the time was the law, and therefor part of this "social contract" to "move to where there is nobody living to start their own dystopia"?

Strawman argument It has nothing to do with libertarian FAIL on economics. That, is where my beef is with libertarians. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

 

It is interesting that you end your post by basically resorting to the same "Love it or leave it" sentiment that right wingers have used for decades.

Except in this case, i can empirically prove, with mathematics, that taxation is a superior system of resource distribution and access than individual freebooting. So yes, love it or leave it - we are a society fundamentally based on the merits of taxation. If you don't want to be part of said society, form your on society, because unlike other ideologies, libertarianism can be proven to be a fail system mathematically. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

 

Furthermore, the idea that libertarianism is entirely incompatible with collectivism is false, so long as each individual of said collective consents to the collective taking priority in any particular situation.

You will not get that right, period. There are fundamental obligations to species homo sapiens society. In every single monetized society, taxation is a norm. Just like how you did not consent to being born, this is one of the things about human society, where you don't get to abscond and partake in soceity. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Furthermore, there is nothing in libertarian doctrine that explicitly forbids cultural collectivism. In fact, I would go so far as to state that I firmly believe that a united culture would be a necessity within a truly free society, and that the success of said society would either succeed of fail on the back of the aforementioned "united culture".  Incidentally, I don't stand by the "open borders" policy that many libertarians advocate specifically because I feel that a sense of cultural cohesion is important, although I do understand the sentiment and how my stance on immigration may stand in contrast to many of my other beliefs.

BS. What goes against collectivism, is libertarian FAIL in refusing the superior system of collectivized taxation by the administrative body of the land. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

The core values at the heart of libertarianism are  A) consistent application of the non-aggression. principle, and B] absolute property rights. Taking that into account, one that is diametrically opposed to all libertarian principles could naturally be assumed to be opposed property rights and non-aggression.

There are no absolute property rights when it comes to currency and fiscal earnings. Those are subject to taxation. Absolute property rights exist, within reason of national needs framework, if said nation exits and state of emergency exists, etc. 

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

But hey, to each their own. 

Indeed. The libertarian loonies can think what they wish, i suppose.