Hey Ellen. Wrong again!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by EagleEye

Wrong. Independents and liberals combined are a majority (see: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...r-generations/). And the demographic trends do not favor conservatism. As boomers have peaked and have a higher mortality rate than other cohorts (see: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-s-electorate/).

They are losing the battle for hearts and minds of younger generations and the older - more conservative - gens are dying off. This is the fundamental issue confronting the Reps for the long run, IMO. And that's a shame as we need both parties to be viable as to provide checks and balances on one another.

Look at the majority of Trump's base. Old. White. Male. Less educated. They will continue to vote for Trump no matter what. Republicans lost the 2018 mid-terms because many Independents moved to the Democratic side. What Trump does not seem to comprehend is that his rallies are aimed at his base and do nothing to bring those Independents back to his side.

[Austin Ellen]

Well, we shall see.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Well, we already see.

[chuckles]

First time I've agreed with Ellen. The Democrats have a golden opportunity in 2020 but seem intent on self destructing, as usual. The chances of an 80yo Atheist, Socialist, Jew winning a national election are ZERO. I do admire Bernie's spunk and idealism. I became a cynical materialist by the time I was 23.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by chuckles

First time I've agreed with Ellen. The Democrats have a golden opportunity in 2020 but seem intent on self destructing, as usual. The chances of an 80yo Atheist, Socialist, Jew winning a national election are ZERO. I do admire Bernie's spunk and idealism. I became a cynical materialist by the time I was 23.

You may be 100% correct. The opportunity is certainly there for Democrats to take back the White House but they may screw things up royally. I think Biden is too old, just a few years older than Trump though, but he has the name to beat Trump and does not carry the baggage that Clinton did.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

Well, we already see.
[/url]

And where were the Republican voters in 2018? Did they stay home because Trump was not on the ballot? Doubtful. What happened in 2018 was twofold -- Democrats saw the true Donald Trump and came out in droves to vote against Republicans and Independents who supported Donald Trump in 2016 saw the true Trump and switched sides.

Why do I think Trump is in trouble in 2020? He needs Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, 3 states that historically voted Democratic prior to 2016, in order to win in 2020. If those 3 states go from red to blue, Trump loses. And we all know Trump's margin of victory in those 3 states was miniscule in 2016.

When Trump took office in 2017, his approval ratings in those 3 states was 47%, 48% and 49% respectively. In January 2019 those approval ratings are 40%, 40% and 43%. All 3 states voted heavily Democratic in 2018 midterms. Yes, Trump was not directly on the ballot but most agree that mid-term elections are a referendum on the sitting POTUS.

As I said in my other post this morning -- the opportunity is there for a Democrat to take over the WH in 2020 as long as they don't screw it up too badly.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

****snik****

Ok which ones and wanna place a bet on the election? I'll take Trump! Of course!

Ima planning on being too poor to take this bet since Trump lied about Mexico paying for the Wall and the $$$ gonna come tax payers because *someone* thinks it is a national emergency.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Ima planning on being too poor to take this bet since Trump lied about Mexico paying for the Wall and the $$$ gonna come tax payers because *someone* thinks it is a national emergency.

Ellen, coming from a military family, is a huge supporter of our troops. Trump's national emergency declaration will allow him to take money from elsewhere to fund his wall. One of the sources? Taking money allocated to building barracks at Fort Hood.

How you feel about that Ellen? First Trump is possibly doing something unconstitutional by taking over funding responsibility from Congress and second he is stealing money from our troops.

[Austin Ellen]

Really Speedracer - stealing from the troops?

Ft. Hood has plenty of very nice barracks for our boys. There's no shortage. Plus alot of the boys want to live on the economy thereby pumping dollars into the real estate market of Killeen. It's not the end of the world.

Don't you think that's being a tad bit dramatic?

[chuckles]

Looks like SpeedRacer's right on this one.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...ing-conditions

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Really Speedracer - stealing from the troops?

Ft. Hood has plenty of very nice barracks for our boys. There's no shortage. Plus alot of the boys want to live on the economy thereby pumping dollars into the real estate market of Killeen. It's not the end of the world.

Don't you think that's being a tad bit dramatic?

So you're saying that the brass at Ft. Hood who are requesting money for barracks are doing so when they don't really need the new barracks? Shame on them.

You totally missed the main point. Trump is asking/demanding that over $4 billion be diverted from currently funded projects in order to build his wall, one of which was building new barracks at Ft. Hood.

"Lawmakers have implored Trump in recent days to sign the deal to avoid another shutdown, but also panned the idea of using military funds for the wall. On Tuesday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said he supports the border security effort, but “I don’t want anything to degrade military construction.”"

The end result could mean multi-year delays for a host of construction projects military officials have deemed critical to force readiness.

Among the potential targets: a new vehicle maintenance shop at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, drydock repairs at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii, F-35 hangar improvements at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, ongoing hospital construction at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, and new family housing builds in South Korea, Italy and Wisconsin.


"A tad bit dramatic"? I guess that depends on whether or not you were expecting the money and consider it necessary.

BTW, I'll ask you a question for the 3rd time. Since you have accused all Democrats of being socialists, what policies/actions taken by Obama during his 8 years in office do you consider to be socialism?

[Austin Ellen]

283,524 viewsJan 22, 2012, 11:56pm
Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?
Paul Roderick Gregory
Paul Roderick Gregory
Contributor
Economics & Finance
I cover domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective.



English: U.S. President delivers the while sta...
Image via Wikipedia

Pew Research finds that sixty percent of Americans respond negatively to “socialism.” It is clear why President Barack Obama must avoid that label. Words are important. Political candidates who control the language of political discourse win elections.

Most of our elites would certainly not entertain the question: “Is Obama a socialist?” Only irresponsible fanatics carelessly throw around such epithets, they say. Polite circles ignore such goofiness.

As someone who has professionally studied and written about comparative economics, capitalism, and socialism for almost fifty years, the reticence to probe the core beliefs of a political leader seems odd. The question is perfectly legitimate in both an academic and political context as long as we define terms and place the discussion in proper context.


By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?

By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare BRANDVOICE
Why Companies Are Supporting Emotional Wellness In The Workplace
The socialist parties of Europe trace their origins to reform Marxism. After Marx’s death in 1883, Europe’s Marxists rejected the Bolsheviks' call for socialist revolution and worked within the political system for Marxist goals. Marxists, such as Karl Leibknecht, August Bebel, Paul Lafargue, Leon Blum, and others, formed the socialist parties that we know today. Most emerged from the trade-union movement, and they retain close ties with organized labor today, as does Obama’s Democrat Party.

Whereas, the eighteenth century liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith gave us our constitution and limited government, Marxism provided the intellectual foundations of the European welfare state.

The European socialists have their welfare state. Even their conservative opponents no longer question the “social state,” despite rising concern about its affordability. In the United States, we are fighting the battle of the welfare state, and we do not know what the outcome will be.

The European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education. Failed nationalizations taught European socialists to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems the “social welfare.”

The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama’s statements and legislative initiatives:

PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society’s great achievements.

Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.

PES: A strong and just society must ensure that the wealth generated by all is shared fairly as determined by the state.

Obama: Favors progressive taxes on the rich to redistribute income and wealth from winners to losers and to ensure that all pay their fair share. (As he has said: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.")

PES: Collective responsibility makes society stronger when people work together, and all people are enabled to live a dignified life, free of poverty and protected from social risks in life.

Obama: Favors collective responsibility (as defined by the federal government) to protect all from social risks through food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed, no one is allowed to fail).

PES: The state must insure that economic growth is environmentally “sustainable.”

Obama: Favors carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology for the “common good,” even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.

PES: If unfettered by state control, market forces, driven by and greed and shift power to the privileged few, deepen economic, geographic and social inequalities, and create economic crises.

Obama: Shows a distrust of market forces and advocates selective regulation, subsidies, and taxation to persuade or coerce business to promote the general welfare as he defines it. Industries not part of his collective endeavor (oil and gas and coal) are penalized. Industries that serve his conception of “general welfare” (green technology) are to be promoted even if the market rejects them.

PES: Ensuring long lasting prosperity, stability and above all, peace requires effective coordination in the international realm based on democracy, mutual respect, and human rights.

Obama: Places reliance on international institutions, international consensus, and mutual respect in the conduct of foreign policy. (The United States must coordinate its foreign policy with international organizations and treat even rogue nations with respect in the hope that they will voluntarily improve their behavior).

PES: A strong state must preserve the public good, guarantee the common interest, promote justice and solidarity and allow people to lead lives rich beyond material wealth, so that each individual’s fulfillment is also part of a collective endeavor.

Obama: Advocates a strong state that offers the “positive right” of political and economic justice to its citizens. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” that dictates what government “can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

If the Party of European Socialists were to rate Obama, he would get a near perfect score. The political views and programs that Obama is prepared to reveal to the public are consistent with those of European socialists. He is clearly a socialist in the European sense of the term.

If the “socialist label” sticks, Obama faces an even more uphill 2012 campaign. In scripted moments – like Tuesday’s State of the Union Address -- he must present his socialist campaign themes while avoiding the appearance of being a socialist.

Obama must worry most about those slips in unscripted moments that, I believe, reveal a deep animosity towards private enterprise. He has given us a few fleeting glimpses, such as his complaint about the Constitution’s “negative rights and his off-the-cuff “spread the wealth around” remark. His most recent and significant slip was to tell Occupy Wall Street protesters: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

Obama’s defenders will counter that Republicans also accept Social Security and a progressive income tax and that his slips are taken out of context. But these criticisms fail to address the remarkable coincidence of Obama’s views with those of European socialists. By comparing Obama not to Lenin or Mao but to European socialism, we have placed the question “Is Obama a socialist?” in a fair and appropriate context.

Our political discourse is conducted largely in the language of the left, to the disadvantage of conservatives. After all, who can oppose “fairness, justice, dignified life, or sustainable growth?” Only sophisticated observers understand that these are code words for something else. They are all excuses for the state to take from one group to give to another or to coerce people or businesses to do something they do not want to do otherwise. The more powerful the state, the greater the risk of state coercion under the guise of noble aims. Enhancing the size, scope, and power of the state vis-à-vis the private sector may be Obama’s ultimate objective.

This country was founded on the principle that individuals should not be subject to the control of a powerful state. That founding idea has never before been in greater peril.

Paul Roderick Gregory's latest book, "Politics, Murder, and Love in Stalin’s Kremlin: The Story of Nikolai Bukharin and Anna Larina, " can be found at amazon.com.


Paul Roderick Gregory
Paul Roderick Gregory
Contributor
I am a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford, and energy fellow and Cullen Professor of Economics at the University of Houston. I am also a research pro... Read More
Print
Site Feedback
Tips
Corrections
Reprints & Permissions
Terms
Privacy
©2019 Forbes Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
AdChoices

[Cap'n Crunch]

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

*blah* *blah* *blah*

Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

As each day passes, seems Ellen is becoming more like Huckabee. Only shows up in a blue moon and and won't specifically address specific questions put to her.

The last administration sure as hell didn't duck the press. They at least kept the Press Corp office in the White House. And even if you label Obama a Socialist, he didn't back off from any questions directly put to him. Hell, he even allowed hecklers to speak. Not encourage the crowds to deliver physical violence on them.

People should know that Ellen won't admit the faux pas of the current administration. She is in lock step to distract by trying to yell louder about something else than be forced to admit any errors in her judgement.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

283,524 viewsJan 22, 2012, 11:56pm
Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?
Paul Roderick Gregory
Paul Roderick Gregory
Contributor
Economics & Finance
I cover domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective.



English: U.S. President delivers the while sta...
Image via Wikipedia

Pew Research finds that sixty percent of Americans respond negatively to “socialism.” It is clear why President Barack Obama must avoid that label. Words are important. Political candidates who control the language of political discourse win elections.

Most of our elites would certainly not entertain the question: “Is Obama a socialist?” Only irresponsible fanatics carelessly throw around such epithets, they say. Polite circles ignore such goofiness.

As someone who has professionally studied and written about comparative economics, capitalism, and socialism for almost fifty years, the reticence to probe the core beliefs of a political leader seems odd. The question is perfectly legitimate in both an academic and political context as long as we define terms and place the discussion in proper context.


By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?

By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare BRANDVOICE
Why Companies Are Supporting Emotional Wellness In The Workplace
The socialist parties of Europe trace their origins to reform Marxism. After Marx’s death in 1883, Europe’s Marxists rejected the Bolsheviks' call for socialist revolution and worked within the political system for Marxist goals. Marxists, such as Karl Leibknecht, August Bebel, Paul Lafargue, Leon Blum, and others, formed the socialist parties that we know today. Most emerged from the trade-union movement, and they retain close ties with organized labor today, as does Obama’s Democrat Party.

Whereas, the eighteenth century liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith gave us our constitution and limited government, Marxism provided the intellectual foundations of the European welfare state.

The European socialists have their welfare state. Even their conservative opponents no longer question the “social state,” despite rising concern about its affordability. In the United States, we are fighting the battle of the welfare state, and we do not know what the outcome will be.

The European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education. Failed nationalizations taught European socialists to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems the “social welfare.”

The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama’s statements and legislative initiatives:

PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society’s great achievements.

Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.

PES: A strong and just society must ensure that the wealth generated by all is shared fairly as determined by the state.

Obama: Favors progressive taxes on the rich to redistribute income and wealth from winners to losers and to ensure that all pay their fair share. (As he has said: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.")

PES: Collective responsibility makes society stronger when people work together, and all people are enabled to live a dignified life, free of poverty and protected from social risks in life.

Obama: Favors collective responsibility (as defined by the federal government) to protect all from social risks through food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed, no one is allowed to fail).

PES: The state must insure that economic growth is environmentally “sustainable.”

Obama: Favors carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology for the “common good,” even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.

PES: If unfettered by state control, market forces, driven by and greed and shift power to the privileged few, deepen economic, geographic and social inequalities, and create economic crises.

Obama: Shows a distrust of market forces and advocates selective regulation, subsidies, and taxation to persuade or coerce business to promote the general welfare as he defines it. Industries not part of his collective endeavor (oil and gas and coal) are penalized. Industries that serve his conception of “general welfare” (green technology) are to be promoted even if the market rejects them.

PES: Ensuring long lasting prosperity, stability and above all, peace requires effective coordination in the international realm based on democracy, mutual respect, and human rights.

Obama: Places reliance on international institutions, international consensus, and mutual respect in the conduct of foreign policy. (The United States must coordinate its foreign policy with international organizations and treat even rogue nations with respect in the hope that they will voluntarily improve their behavior).

PES: A strong state must preserve the public good, guarantee the common interest, promote justice and solidarity and allow people to lead lives rich beyond material wealth, so that each individual’s fulfillment is also part of a collective endeavor.

Obama: Advocates a strong state that offers the “positive right” of political and economic justice to its citizens. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” that dictates what government “can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

If the Party of European Socialists were to rate Obama, he would get a near perfect score. The political views and programs that Obama is prepared to reveal to the public are consistent with those of European socialists. He is clearly a socialist in the European sense of the term.

If the “socialist label” sticks, Obama faces an even more uphill 2012 campaign. In scripted moments – like Tuesday’s State of the Union Address -- he must present his socialist campaign themes while avoiding the appearance of being a socialist.

Obama must worry most about those slips in unscripted moments that, I believe, reveal a deep animosity towards private enterprise. He has given us a few fleeting glimpses, such as his complaint about the Constitution’s “negative rights and his off-the-cuff “spread the wealth around” remark. His most recent and significant slip was to tell Occupy Wall Street protesters: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

Obama’s defenders will counter that Republicans also accept Social Security and a progressive income tax and that his slips are taken out of context. But these criticisms fail to address the remarkable coincidence of Obama’s views with those of European socialists. By comparing Obama not to Lenin or Mao but to European socialism, we have placed the question “Is Obama a socialist?” in a fair and appropriate context.

Our political discourse is conducted largely in the language of the left, to the disadvantage of conservatives. After all, who can oppose “fairness, justice, dignified life, or sustainable growth?” Only sophisticated observers understand that these are code words for something else. They are all excuses for the state to take from one group to give to another or to coerce people or businesses to do something they do not want to do otherwise. The more powerful the state, the greater the risk of state coercion under the guise of noble aims. Enhancing the size, scope, and power of the state vis-à-vis the private sector may be Obama’s ultimate objective.

This country was founded on the principle that individuals should not be subject to the control of a powerful state. That founding idea has never before been in greater peril.

Paul Roderick Gregory's latest book, "Politics, Murder, and Love in Stalin’s Kremlin: The Story of Nikolai Bukharin and Anna Larina, " can be found at amazon.com.


Paul Roderick Gregory
Paul Roderick Gregory
Contributor
I am a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford, and energy fellow and Cullen Professor of Economics at the University of Houston. I am also a research pro... Read More
Print
Site Feedback
Tips
Corrections
Reprints & Permissions
Terms
Privacy
©2019 Forbes Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
AdChoices

I appreciate your response. However, Paul Roderick Gregory is hardly an unbiased source. Anyone to the left of a Tea Party Republican could be labeled a socialist by Gregory.

"If Gregory wanted to make this more nuanced argument (still wrong, in my opinion) – that Obama’s policies are closely aligned to European social democracy – then he could go ahead and do so. But he has no interest in doing that. The only reason he even includes this tortured disclaimer is to clear the ground so that he can land his rhetorical punch on Obama, and label him a “socialist”."


https://semipartisansam.com/tag/paul-roderick-gregory/

Also. there is nothing specific in Gregory's article that points to actions Obama took as POTUS that would lead one to believe Obama is a socialist. There is a great deal of speculation as to why he believes Obama tends towards socialism but he cites no actual legislation by Obama that was socialistic.

So I ask again -- what specific legislation was passed during Obama's 8 years in office that would be termed "socialism"?