Shut the “F” Up, Hillary

[_Chap]

What makes the USA great? Capitalism. What motivated people to leave Europe from the 1600's to today to start a new life? Capitalism.

Well ... let's pay some attention to the fact that, to Europeans, North America represented a huge stash of fertile land and rich natural resources, more or less free for the taking, apart from the relatively small inconvenience of clearing the natives of the continent out of the way. And early modern Europe had already developed technologies ranging from arms manufacture to agriculture that had made Europe, even with its limited resources, much richer and productive than the medieval world had been. Apply those to America, and returns on investment were inevitably multiplied. Added to that, Europe was a ready-made market for American products ranging from sugar to tobacco.

Given all those opportunities, the early settlers would have had to try quite hard not to generate riches to an extent never seen before from a labout input that in Europe would not have yielded more than a moderate living.. Whether or not they could be said to have been 'capitalists' in any meaningful sense is a question of considerably less significance than the huge material advantage they enjoyed once they had won a secure foothold in the new land.

(Of course I realise that you are putting forward the 'capitalism made America great; argument in order to criticise it.)

[_honorentheos]

I should clarify that that entire paragraph is wrong, and presented as a misguided interpretation. I went back and put it in quotes. I see it as the fallout from the cold war where a generation of Americans was raised on propaganda that distilled the difference between the US and the USSR into capitalism v. socialism/communism. Instead of seeing it as a case of opportunities leading to success and prosperity, the cold war propaganda oversimplified the difference to simply that of economic system, and further oversimplified that to mischaracterize the US as being purely capitalist.

I had attempted to point out that the vast expanse of land and resources played an essential part is creating opportunities that no system of government or economics can take credit for, either. But I appreciate you pointing that out specifically. We should never pretend we rose to economic dominance after WWII because of some inherent virtue. It helps to have a lot of resources and emerge more or less unscathed when the rest of the industrialized world faced major rebuilding efforts after the most destructive war in human history. There's a lesson in that, though, where we ought to realize part of what brought the British empire down a few notches was it's war debts and obligations. Excessive military spending has a way of becoming an empire killer...

[Guest]

In your opinion, what are the goals, besides getting Trump out of office, that the Democratic party is moving towards?"

I can't speak for Schmo, nor would he want me to, but I think there is a good underlying question to ask first of one's self, and then of the parties and candidates. What is the fundamental goal society should be moving towards?

in my opinion, many people who grew up during the cold war came to equate America with capitalism and the USSR with socialism. To some, the entire conversation is, "What makes the USA great? Capitalism. What motivated people to leave Europe from the 1600's to today to start a new life? Capitalism. Why did the USSR collapse while the USA continued and prospered into the 1990's? Capitalism. What is the biggest threat to the USA from within and without? People who would replace capitalism with socialism."

But that isn't true. Capitalism is a system of economics, and not an inherent characteristic of the United States. The cold war propaganda has caused a warping of many people's understanding of how our system of government works with a variety of economic policies that include capitalistic ones as well as socialistic ones to accomplish the goal of giving people a chance to achieve more than their birth-class might otherwise limit them to as their destiny.

Democracy and capitalism aren't synonyms. They are in different categories, not just two different things. Capitalism isn't a form of government, it's an economic system. Democracy isn't an economic system, it's a political system. It doesn't make sense to conflate the two.

What made the USA such a special place at it's founding in contrast to aristocratic Europe? Democracy. What motivated people to take the risks to themselves and their families to come here? The democratization of opportunity. The United States has never been a purely capitalistic society, and many times in our past the government has taken ownership of resources to then make them widely available so that a wide range of people and institutions could innovate and come up with successful new ways of doing things. That democratization of opportunity is what has been the tip of the spear of innovation in the US. Yes, it takes capital. Sometimes that capital has come from so-called capitalists. And sometimes it's owned and made available by the government. Often it included a combination of both.

In many ways, what made the American experiment successful is the ability to leave behind one's position at birth and find opportunities that wouldn't be available in a traditional hierarchical society like was the case in Europe. For example, my Mormon ancestors who came over from Britain were often 2nd or 3rd sons whose older brothers inherited the family land according to tradition. In England, Ireland and Scotland their options were limited. The promise of making a new life in the western United States where opportunities made the risks worth taking influenced their decision making, and their success in establishing businesses and farms throughout what is now Utah was made possible by there being land available they could cultivate, new business opportunities they could develop, and it didn't matter that their father wasn't of a certain class or their family had the wealth and connections to put up to support their business ventures. Coming to the United States was a way of shedding the restrictions of the old world that had become calcified into aristocratic hierarchical societies where a person's place at birth largely determined their destiny.

To my mind, the current split in politics in the US is one along lines of asking how important the democratization of opportunity is compared to protecting the interests of what to me has all the characteristics of a 21st Century aristocracy.

- Do we seek to ensure kids entering our school system, regardless of class and background, have opportunities to meet their potential? Or should kids whose parents have wealth and connections have more opportunities regardless of their own inherent intelligence, talent and ability?

- Do we seek to ensure innovators who have good ideas can find capital and pursue those innovations to keep propelling the US into the 21st Century? Or should access to wealth and the means of production be limited to those with connections and the right backgrounds?

- Do we seek to ensure a health problem or injury is something a person or family can recover from and get back on their feet again? Or should only those with wealth be able to weather misfortune without going bankrupt and destroying their family's futures?

- Do we believe individual liberty is best understood as applying the law equally to everyone? Or is individual liberty best understood as everyone should think like me and if they don't, they are morally degenerate?

- Do we believe that every one of us benefits from a healthy society, so we should contribute to social services that benefit society overall even if we don't directly see the connection to our own benefit? Or is it right to believe I should only have to contribute directly to aspects of society that I believe are directly benefiting me?

I favor democratization of opportunity. I believe a society that does so has the best chance of prospering because it best capitalizes on it's human resources. Smart kids born into all income levels including low income families become our next generation of geniuses rather than only having the pool of rich kids to draw from to form our next generation of great thinkers and innovators. I favor individual liberty in the form of equal application of the law. And I favor viewing the benefits of a healthy society being indirect rather than directly tied to only those programs and aspects of society where I directly withdraw. If I didn't have a child, I'd still be better off contributing to an education system where every kid is getting a top-tier education. Even if I don't use public transportation, I'm better off in a society where a good public transportation system is available. Even if I don't use public healthcare, I'm better off in a society where everyone can have access to basic healthcare-related needs. I don't need to take directly from a program to benefit from having contributed to that program. That applies to infrastructure, to parks and the preservation of opens spaces, to art and the sciences - I'm better of in a society where we all contribute to having public goods and services rather than only those who can afford them having access to such things.

Right now, the Democratic party is the most aligned with my values and beliefs regarding what makes for a good society. There are elements within the Democratic party that don't align with my view regarding the importance of democratization of opportunities that I don't support. I think there are elements in the left-wing of the party that are as happy to exert their own brand of authoritarian oppression as there are among right-wing elements in the US. But I don't think the extreme left has control of the Democrat party.

The Republican party is a mess, in my opinion. It lost any claim to be a conservative party with the election of Donald Trump. It has embraced non-conservative economic policies such as trade protections and tariffs, and shows no interest in managing the national debt load. But it seems very interested in entrenching a class system that has arisen as wealth inequality has become more and more exasperated over the last few decades. It's strange to watch the right claim to be honoring the founding fathers while erasing the very system of social order they were establishing in favor of the one they fought against. The tax code put in place by Trump and the Republicans is one that establishes an American aristocracy, make no mistake about that.

So what is the goal of the party?

As far as the tax code goes...living in California where we are taxed to death...the poor are on our streets, our streets are falling apart, and the people doing the best are goverment workers. There is absolutely no denying this either. And the poor (over all) are doing better under Trump in that more are working.

Public transportation might work majors cities...but it is a joke to think it would work for most, and even when we have it,like here in so cal...it is expensive, littered with homeless and druggies, slow and maybe the worse part about it it creates more bureaucracy we get taxed for. Uber and lift are far more practical, and actually work, and create income for us instead of drain us with taxes, that is if the goverment leaves them be, and quits trying to tax them to death also.

But what is the goal of those running, I watched the debates, and I honestly don't know, do you? Say what you will about Trump, he had defined goals, and is fighting for most of them.

I favor individual liberty in the form of equal application of the law.

I simply have to chuckle at this one (not at you) ...what law, the left doesn't want law and order, they only want dumb laws like no plastic straws, for our plastic cups with plastic lids, while we drink... when eating our take out food boxed in plastic containers put in a plastic bag.

You can go into a Home Depot and steal $949.99 worth of tools, and by law if caught, will only get a ticket to appear 9 out of 10 times...and because of this and other reasons, the cities are discussing having a "lesser trained" and lower paid police force that will deal only with these type of crimes, street people living in tent cities, etc, so they don't have pay highly paid police officers or farmed out sheriffs, as many cites contract to the county for help.

They also emptied our jails, and one thing you learn quick is to protect your property, lock everything up, and when ripped off deal with it, there is no use in reporting it, it is what comes with living in a democratic (blue) society.

What you write might sound good, and it follows talking points, but you have cities that have complete control, and the realities of what it brings just isn't the same as the talking points.

The rich will always have an advantage in regard to the law, education, and business, whether in a socialist society or a conservative society...I am not sure how it could be otherwise given our nature. BUT...In America if you want to work hard, and set goals, you can do most what ever you want...and under Trump more people of color, and disadvantage, are doing so more than ever. Just giving people free stuff holds them down, and if you don't believe that come down to So Cal and I 'll give you a tour of an example of millions living by this ideology, it will only take a day of driving around a few counties, hitting the black markets where they shop tax free, and see how they live in far too many of these cities.

I have no idea how any party will pay down the debt, it is out of control, only a event that will allow a "do over" is the reality, but I hope not...either way it is a tough one.

Take care

[_Chap]

We should never pretend we rose to economic dominance after WWII because of some inherent virtue. It helps to have a lot of resources and emerge more or less unscathed when the rest of the industrialized world faced major rebuilding efforts after the most destructive war in human history.

I was talking about the early development of North America, rather than the last century, but that is a totally valid point. It is certainly the case that during the 1950s citizens of the US began to enjoy a standard of living higher than had been generally experienced by large sections of any country in the past. It was relatively simple to switch undamaged factories from making radar equipment to making TVs. And there were all those War Bonds to be spent (I used to see advertisements for them in old issues of National Geographic: "when the war is over I'll buy my new Chris-craft" and so on).

... we ought to realize part of what brought the British empire down a few notches was it's war debts and obligations. Excessive military spending has a way of becoming an empire killer...

Absolutely. The UK was quite right to spend and borrow whatever it took to maintain national resistance when it was the only major power actively resisting Hitler. But that debt had to be paid. The cessation of imperial rule in India, Africa and elsewhere was however not a simply matter of 'we've run out of money to hold on to the empire'.

In the case of India, the UK had effectively done a deal with Indian independence movements that independence would come after the war was won, in return for support in the fight against the Axis powers, particularly Japan. Ideological changes mattered too: many UK politicians (including those in the Labour government elected after WWII) felt it was time to find a peaceful route to independence for the colonies. And in 1960 the Conservative British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan said in a speech in Cape Town:

The wind of change is blowing through this continent [Africa]. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact

In comparison with (say) what happened in Portugal, many British young men were thus spared having to fight and die in a doomed attempt to reverse the tide of history and hang on to countries who were determined to be free. That was, on the whole, a good thing.

[_Some Schmo]

It's not about how you lean, it is about your aggressive hate and condemnation for one side and not knowing what your side is about?

This is the heart of your confusion. You think I have a side.

I hate the current GOP because their entire modus operandi is BS, hypocrisy, myth and bad faith arguments. There is nothing I hate more than flat out, aggressive BS. All they do is lie, and it's not even clever lying. It's idiotic, transparent lying.

...that is unless you don't vote. If that is the case then I guess I see another side of you.

I've voted in every election since I became naturalized.

Schmo wrote...My goals happen to align with theirs right now: get Trump out of office. He's an incompetent and an embarrassment to this country, and he's doing too much to screw over this country's long term alliances. He's a menace and a traitor.

Most of that is just not true...in my opinion he is a arsehole, and acts like a baby, certainly a narcissist...but he is getting stuff done beyond my expectations, and like it or not is a leader, and, what i do appreciate he is not getting rich off these other countries like the Biden's, Clinton, and others, at least not, and hopefully not yet.

This is why it's impossible to have a conversation with people in the right-wing bubble. When you say crap like this, you sound insane.

He's a conman. You have been conned into thinking he's doing stuff on your behalf. That is incredible. He's the most transparent conman I've ever seen. People have to want to be conned to believe this guy. He's an incompetent. I wouldn't hire him to shovel crap. He's damned useless.

Most all politicians (and boss's, religious leaders, coaches...etc) are _____________ (fill in the blank), and have their negative issues...but it does not mean they cannot lead.

He is especially incompetent as a leader.

Trump is not a traitor, that is just a talking point that folks buy into, if he was a traitor, and there was actually proof of it, then charges of such would have lead the impeachment charges.

Christ dude, you're naïve. There are so many things wrong with this, it's tempting to just dismiss you. You are clueless, and it sounds like it's on purpose. We have proof he's a traitor because he talks like a traitor on TV. Everything he does and says favors Putin. My eyes and brain work. You might try turning yours on too.

It's just like Republicans arguing that the impeachment hearing was a sham because their were no witnesses for the President... while the President wouldn't allow witnesses. It's crap like this that make people call Republicans idiots and damned babies.

[_ajax18]

That all sounds so intelligent and rational Schmo, no gut instinct emotion there, just pure calculated reality. lol You're more blinded by your bias than those you accuse of this.

[_Gunnar]

That all sounds so intelligent and rational Schmo, no gut instinct emotion there, just pure calculated reality. lol You're more blinded by your bias than those you accuse of this.

Being biased in favor of objective reality that anyone can see if they only open their eyes to it is not a fault. Flat earthers also argue that globe earthers are more blinded by their bias than they accuse flat earthers of being. If you really cannot see by now that Trump is and has been a pathological liar and conman all his life, it is you that are blind, not Some Schmo. Maybe you can see that, but it doesn't matter to you because he seems to favor or promise things that you approve of, as if you could trust the promises of a known, pathological liar.

[_Some Schmo]

That all sounds so intelligent and rational Schmo, no gut instinct emotion there, just pure calculated reality. lol You're more blinded by your bias than those you accuse of this.

You're a liar, ajax. That is the most benefit-of-the-doubt forgiving I can be of your posting history.

It's tempting to chalk it up to belligerent stupidity, but I'm pretty sure you damn well know Trump is a fuck-up, and you just continue to lie to everyone about it, primarily yourself.

Gunnar has it right: I am biased toward facts. I always will be, and I will always criticize your right-wing fantasies. I don't give a damn how good they make you feel. They are BS, and i will call them BS.

You should quit lying to yourself, ajax.

[_Some Schmo]

You know, there's a pretty simple test to see if you're politically biased:

Would you feel the same way about impeachment if Obama had done what Trump did?

Would you feel the same way about the job Obama did if he were a Republican?

I can easily say yes to both questions. A partisan idiot couldn't without lying like a Republican.

[_Markk]

Obama did what Trump is accused of, on camera? Hillary did what Trump is accused of while SoS, and when called out said .."too Bad." Biden did what Trump is accused of on the record, and called the person he strong armed a SOB, on the record. . Warren lies over and over and over...

I guess people see only what they want to see.