• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The New Socialists

90% of the Obama political "progress" cited in that article is commonly refuted and rebuted, or was quckly undone by Trump. America really needs to reckon with the difference between Obamas impressive cultural impact as POTUS and his disappointing political impact.

Anyone familiar with the sports statistical concept of "Wins Above Replacement" should recognize an inherent flaw in over crediting Obama for predictable middle road Democratic strategy in addressing many of the problems he inherited. I believe the general political results of his Presidency would have been achieved under any number of alternative Dem Presidents, particularly Hillary. Much of Obamas reputation comes from the dignified way he was President, the way he treated people, the way he responded to tragedies, the way he spoke, the manner in which he honorably represented America, not the particulars of what policy decisions he made.
 
Last edited:
MHMD, the next Dem nominee is going to be further left than Obama because the left of the party is actually active.

You completely miss the point of the article and anything I’ve posted. Treating Obama like he was black Bush isn’t going to bring people to progressive politics. Treat Obama’s tenure as a starting point for a leftward move and you’ll get somewhere.

And likability matters. I don’t know why you dismiss that.
 
PhDeac said:
MHMD, the next Dem nominee is going to be further left than Obama because the left of the party is actually active.

You completely miss the point of the article and anything I’ve posted. Treating Obama like he was black Bush isn’t going to bring people to progressive politics. Treat Obama’s tenure as a starting point for a leftward move and you’ll get somewhere.

And likability matters. I don’t know why you dismiss that.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're responding to, but it's obviously not what I posted. Did someone else compare Obama to Bush? Did someone else say that likeability doesnt matter? I know I didnt say that, so you must be responding to another post.
 
Given the fact that McConnell wouldn't let much of what Obama wanted to be voted on, it's ridiculous to blame Obama for not being "progressive" enough when he couldn't even get votes on more mundane things passed.

He did move the healthcare issue farther towards universal coverage than any POTUS. You can cry that he didn't get it all, but he got as much as possible and set many things ahead. Whether you wish it to be more, you can't change a $2Trillion part of our economy with one bill. Thinking you can it beyond unrealistic.

He did pass Lily Ledbetter to help women.

He did end "don't ask, don't tell".

He did cut unemployment for the most vulnerable by almost half.

But it's never enough for some.
 
RJKarl said:
Given the fact that McConnell wouldn't let much of what Obama wanted to be voted on, it's ridiculous to blame Obama for not being "progressive" enough when he couldn't even get votes on more mundane things passed.

He did move the healthcare issue farther towards universal coverage than any POTUS. You can cry that he didn't get it all, but he got as much as possible and set many things ahead. Whether you wish it to be more, you can't change a $2Trillion part of our economy with one bill. Thinking you can it beyond unrealistic.

He did pass Lily Ledbetter to help women.

He did end "don't ask, don't tell".

He did cut unemployment for the most vulnerable by almost half.

But it's never enough for some.
Click to expand...
Obama was a great president
 
It was probably just a matter of time before something like this came out with a millennial politician with the advent of social media during their college years.
 
Here's the incriminating video



When she's not wearing professional, almost frumpy clothes... dayum.
 
MHBDemon said:
For you and Catamount...

Click to expand...

So if state capitalism is state controlled production and enterprise, and thus the state "hires" its populace to work these jobs for a balanced pay and distribution of wealth, then what's socialism? And if socialism is a common ownership of production without state intervention, how is that just suppose to manifest itself naturally without state control? More over then why are the DSA and other socialists trying to use state control to gain power and influence over free enterprise?
 
WFcatamount22 said:
So if state capitalism is state controlled production and enterprise, and thus the state "hires" its populace to work these jobs for a balanced pay and distribution of wealth, then what's socialism? And if socialism is a common ownership of production without state intervention, how is that just suppose to manifest itself naturally without state control? More over then why are the DSA and other socialists trying to use state control to gain power and influence over free enterprise?
Click to expand...

Under state capitalism there is only "balanced distribution of wealth" between laborers. The class and economic distinction between labor and capital still exists, it just happens that the capital is owned and controlled by the government.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Under state capitalism there is only "balanced distribution of wealth" between laborers. The class and economic distinction between labor and capital still exists, it just happens that the capital is owned and controlled by the government.
Click to expand...

How is a complete shared ownership of production possible with no distinction between labor and capital. What does that look like, and what is the role of the state in that scenario? Not trying to be condescending, just curious.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
How is a complete shared ownership of production possible with no distinction between labor and capital. What does that look like, and what is the role of the state in that scenario? Not trying to be condescending, just curious.
Click to expand...

If you imagine that a labor union or union shop collectively owned and controlled a business, rather than just negotiated with ownership (capital), that in my understanding is how it would look. There would have to be a government system to ensure that businesses were collectively run, such that our current notion of ownership entreneurship wouldn't be possible. You hire someone, they now own half the business, and so on. That system is certainly incongruent with our current level of income inequality, as those who already have money would be much less encouraged to create business.
 
Last edited:
95 nerd points for AOC:

 
MLK was a marxist.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top