Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All career politicians are progressives… Dumbass
The corporate party that controls Washington politics has been undermining the progressive movement for decades. You really need to find a new perspective, the right wing world that you travel in has distorted your reality.
On the contrary, the progressive movement was hijacked by socialists.
Progressivism dates back to the early 1900's, as a trans-atlantic philosophical movement promoted by famous figures such as Sun Yat Sen and Theodore Roosevelt.
The movement advocated capitalist freedom, nationalism, and a government that provides for the public welfare.
Modern progressives got part of it right, although providing for the public welfare is unachievable without capitalist freedom.
Do you deny then that corporate interests dominate policy making in Washington?
What is coercion here? When is a person forced to pay tax?
Anytime you own property, sell goods, purchase goods, have a family, get married, ect.
All these things are conditional by the state with taxation. Failure to pay leads to punishment and seizure of self earned property.
If I work, I've chosen to work. To I have to pay that tax. No one forced me to work, no one forced me to make the choice there. You have to pay the tax if you work. So you've made that choice to pay tax. If you then don't pay that tax, then you've gone back on your word. Like walking into the shop, "hey, I'll buy this" then eating it and walking out.
You are still continuing to conflate choice with voluntary action.
For the last time. Having the option to do something does not mean that act is voluntary.
Your argument applies equally to someone being raped and someone being mugged. Your logic says that those acts are voluntary, because they can run off into the woods.
You don't pay for what you've got, then you get punished for it.
False equivalency.
The state has not produced a single substantive item in my possession. Never has and never will.
I could choose to not live in that society, or I could choose not to accept the govt and fight against the government. Some people have done so, Timothy McVeigh, for example.
Enough with this fallacy.
Compliance does not equal consent. You are the worlds worst rape apologist.
If you boss tells you to do something you don't want to do, is this coercion or is it choice?
It is reasonably involuntary.
If my choice is being fired or doing something I disapprove of, and I comply, then I am committing an involuntary act.
This act is reasonable where taxation is not. The employer is producing money that is provided to me in a business transaction. The state is a protection racket that produces nothing yet demands everything.
You'd see it as coercion, I'd see it as choice.
False.
I see choices made under the threat of coercicion as being involuntary.
Again, I am using legitimite and popularized definitions. You are not.
Voluntary definition: done or given because you want to and not because you are forced to (merriam webster)
This discussion is about one thing. Is taxation voluntary? You have trouble accepting that it is indeed involuntary.
I deny that the progressive movement seeks to expand the role of government as an end unto itself. I believe the lobbying potential doesn't stem from the size of government but instead predominantly from the manner in which we elect our politicians.Do you deny then that corporate interests dominate policy making in Washington?
No
Do you deny that expanding the roles of government serves corporations by giving them more lobbying potential?
Again, we're back to the circles again. Again.
Again, we're back to the circles again. Again.
That tends to happen when one party is incapable of understanding a simple point.
Oh great, and now the personal attacks. Bye.
Yes. It's an uphill battle. But it's better than sitting in the valley pipe-dreaming (striking at the root?).
Asinine.
The pipe dream is fighting the uphill battle. The very nature of an uphill battle is that you never win.
So are you one of the "can't beat 'em join 'em" people (vote Republican or Democrat)?
I'm honestly curious why you're opposed to relatively popular libertarian initiatives. I can understand why you might not support them wholeheartedly (I certainly don't), but what is to gained by dismissing them in public debate? Do you prefer the status quo?
People are too naive and forgetful. They do not learn from history. The cycle went on for long enough, and the misconceptions that more of the same tactics can be a fix, need to be shut down.
Do you really believe that a large, uncontrolled population is a good thing - especially in a technologically advanced country?The same could be said for other issues. German politics is far more about the people than the US, which is why the people are going crazy about the refugee crisis, because all of a sudden they feel like the politicians aren't listening, when they expect them to.
All politics are anti-people.
Politics are the clashing of various agendas on how best to systematically control the population.
Do you really believe that a large, uncontrolled population is a good thing - especially in a technologically advanced country?
It would be a free-for-all and much like Wall Street today, greedy people would fuck everything up for everybody.
So are you advocating a kind of political nihilism? Is it your position that it won't get better until we tear it all down and start over, so trying to make it better in the meantime is a waste of time?
How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.
Your view of a completely independent population not having major negative effects on the rest of the population seems extremely naive. How was the Wall Street free for all instigated by statism?Do you really believe that a large, uncontrolled population is a good thing - especially in a technologically advanced country?
You are committing the fallacy of assigning geopolitical conditions to an anti geopolitical philosophy.
Don't worry about what is going on in Florida. Worry about your own community.
And yes, I do believe the population needs to be free. Not subjugated.
Kill any thug that wears a uniform. It is the simplest ideology in the world.
It would be a free-for-all and much like Wall Street today, greedy people would fuck everything up for everybody.
The wall street free for all was instigated by statism.
All the chaos you have seen throughout history can be attributed to statism.
So are you advocating a kind of political nihilism? Is it your position that it won't get better until we tear it all down and start over, so trying to make it better in the meantime is a waste of time?
No.
My position is to tear it all down and make the best out of a world free of the corruption of politics and the evils of the state.
And yet MILLIONS of them did. Clearly you are incorrect.The biggest problem is getting Americans to agree on what they consider positive change. Someone like Bernie Sanders in a third party bid would certainly bring about some very positive changes for lower and middle class Americans, but very few Republicans would agree with his brand of change, even though it would benefit most of them.
There's no way people in this country would vote for a freaking communist--LOL
Certainly there is - the fear that voting for the candidate that you believe is the best choice will cause the one that you think is the worst to win.I understand how it works, but I don't understand why you think it would be good for the US. Again, there is nothing stopping American voters from forming addition parties to run in Congressional races and sometimes they do. If your complaint is that there are not enough candidates in the general elections for Congress, it is clearly only because American voters see no need for them. As for forming coalitions, the Germans have to because in a parliamentary system the parliament forms the the executive branch of the government. In the US the executive branch of the government is chosen in the presidential election, so unless you are advocating the US switch to a parliamentary form of government, none of this seems relevant to us.Ok, then you are not talking about how we elect a president? If you are only talking about electing members of Congress, there are no restrictions on how many parties can put candidates on a ballot so what would you change?So are you saying you want to change the American system into a parliamentary system?With more parties in Germany getting into mainstream politics you have more choice for the voters. In the US they choose Rep or Dem and that's it. In Germany they have CDU/CSU conservatives, SPD liberals, FPD center right, die Gruene a green party, a far right party and other parties can come up quickly.
In the US you had the Tea Party and they were merely a part of the Republican Party because they had no chance of breaking off and forming their own party.
Also they have coalition governments which means there needs to be consensus and agreements. In the US it's all about friction between the two parties that stops anything happening. In Germany the two parties come to an agree BEFORE they start working together on how they're going to COOPERATE, and they do because they know that new elections would have to be called if they didn't cooperate.
Policies are far more people orientated. People can vote for one of the less parties knowing they might form junior government, and therefore negotiate with the larger party to have some of their main ideas get into the government's policy.
In the US that doesn't happen at all. Policies that aren't in favor of the Reps or Dems just die.
No, I'm saying I want to change the way people vote for Congress.
At present it's First Past the Post.
In Germany they have a duel system. The people vote twice. First for FPTP representative for their area, the second for Proportional Representation.
This means that the FPTP winners get their seats. Then the rest are allocated based on PR.
So, take the 2009 German election.
The CDU/CSU gained 218 seats through FPTP. The SPD gained 64 seats, die Linke gained 16, Alliance '90/die Gruene gained 1.
Then with PR the CDU/CSU gained 239 seats. Which means they got 21 seats allocated to them via PR.
The SPD got 146 seats via PR, which means 82 were allocated to them via PR. The FPD which gained no seats via FPTP but gained 14.6% of the PR votes then were given 93 seats.
The NPD, the far right party gained no seats with FPTP and did not gain 5% of the votes so they got zero seats. All in all there were five parties in the Bundestag.
So the CDU/CSU gained 33.8% of the votes and 38.42% of the seats (because of course people vote for parties that don't get either a FPTP or a 5% threshold so the parties that do gain seats will get a higher percentage than they got for votes.
The CDU/CSU and FPD managed to gain 53% of the votes and so formed a coalition.
