Jump to content
WillFranklin

The Most Liberal Thread Ever

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Kacper said:

 

You should leave the DNC.  That you prioritize bigger checks for drug addicts over investing money in creating educational opportunities for people reflects that parties mindset that people must be kept tied to the federal government for their survival. 

 

And you know these are drug addicts how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WillFranklin said:

You should become a Liberal.

 

Kacper:---  Starting now, please cease posting in The Liberal's Only Room. 

 

The Liberal's Only Room is, as the name says, is for Liberals only.   Over several threads and many posts, you have demonstrated that you are more Conservative than Liberal.  The place for Conservative V Liberal debate is in No Holds Barred.  Starting now, please cease posting in LO.  You are welcome to post anywhere else on the site.  But not in this room.

 

Rules for LO


×

Welcome to Liberals only forum

No conservatives allowed
Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated
No more than five new threads a day
No trash talking about members and their kids
No porn, or links to porn
No gore pictures
No cursing  in thread titles
No, 'outing' of members or their families; names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, etc.
No linking to other political forums
No solicitations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Kacper:---  Starting now, please cease posting in The Liberal's Only Room. 

 

The Liberal's Only Room is, as the name says, is for Liberals only.   Over several threads and many posts, you have demonstrated that you are more Conservative than Liberal.  The place for Conservative V Liberal debate is in No Holds Barred.  Starting now, please cease posting in LO.  You are welcome to post anywhere else on the site.  But not in this room.

 

Rules for LO


×

Welcome to Liberals only forum

No conservatives allowed
Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated
No more than five new threads a day
No trash talking about members and their kids
No porn, or links to porn
No gore pictures
No cursing  in thread titles
No, 'outing' of members or their families; names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, etc.
No linking to other political forums
No solicitations

I am a progressive libertarian and the room says it is open to progressives.  You should rename name it the statist democrat only room so you can continue to circle jerk around incongruent public policy goals in the name of Wall Street donors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kacper said:

I am a progressive libertarian and the room says it is open to progressives.  You should rename name it the statist democrat only room so you can continue to circle jerk around incongruent public policy goals in the name of Wall Street donors.

 

This is you second warning.  Please do not ignore it or you will be suspended for 5 days.

 

Although there is some overlap, Libertarians and Liberals are two very different philosophies with Libertarians lining up on the Conservative side..  This sub-forum is for the exchange of Liberal ideas and not Liberal V Libertarian debate.  The LO Rm will not be permitted to turn into an annex of NHB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "progressive libertarian" is not in common use anywhere.  Unless a libertarian was to make up the term, on the spot, to justify posting in a "Liberal's Only" section.

 

https://thinkprogress.org/why-libertarians-and-progressives-will-never-get-along-104624871614/

Quote

Why Libertarians And Progressives Will Never Get along

libertarians appear to place a far higher priority on the economic issues that bind them to the GOP than the social values they share with progressives. As a consequence, they hate Democrats and on-balance like the GOP.

 

 

^    ^  This was certainly the case today.  ^    ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep posting the most liberal ideas!

 

Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit! Medicaid for ALL! Increased Social Security payments! Increase the limit for Social Security taxes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can offer two cents on the point I think bludog was making, it's possible for a Libertarian to sincerely hold some 'progressive' views - the guy above cited a dislike for 'Wall Street donors'.

 

But between two problems, the phrase 'progressive Libertarian' is in my opinion basically oxymoronic and nonsensical.

 

The first is that Libertarianism is fundamentally at odds with progressive values and policies. It's an imprecise term that it can mean anything, but the core is 'small government'.


The phrase 'small government', though, itself is vague - it can mean small in terms of dollars, small in terms of mission, it can be 'code' for 'don't give poor black people any money', it can mean all kinds of things, and there are plenty of 'Libertarians' who don't see any issue with big spending on defense.

 

The very purpose of democracy, in my opinion, is to challenge the power of a few to have too much wealth and power in a way that oppresses most of society, by creating an alternative currency to the dollar, the vote, where everyone gets one, to decide the rulers and laws and taxation. It's meant to reign in the most wealthy and powerful.

 

Progressives are on board with that, and opposed to the 'compromise politics' more than the big parties to have split loyalties between the powerful and the people.


Libertarians are nearly the opposite of democracy, wanting to thwart 'the people' using the power of government in their favor.

 

The second issue that follows is that I think Libertarians are very confused between the 'principles' they advocate and the results - they want things that can't happen, and they don't realize it, making discussion with them an exercise in frustration.

 

If I can use a little hyperbole to make the point, their thinking could be represented by saying, if the government stopped angering rich people by ordering them around not to do things like not pollute, then the rich people would stop polluting because they want to do the right thing, the regulations just make them angry and cause pollution. That sort of nonsense.


The Libertarians' answer to all the actual oppression their policies would cause is "the courts". Name a thousand bad things that plutocracy causes, and Libertarians will say a thousand times "the courts". Joe Public can sue Bill Billionaire for doing anything wrong to him and win. No problem!

 

It's quite irrational and wrong, but it allows them to continue with the fantasy how their policies would not be horrible.

Further, there are 'flavors' of Libertarians, and they pride themselves on thinking that they can be anywhere on the map of right to left, and still Libertarian.

 

This further lets them delude themselves into thinking that the 'goals' of progressives - things most people agree with - are not incompatible with Libertarianism.

 

In my opinion, these 'liberal Libertarians' are basically people who have a lot of ignorance about the effects of the concentration of wealth and power, and good enough values not to like the bad side of what plutocracy does, but they're motivated by dislikes of things about 'bad government' to be Libertarian - and try to have it both ways.

 

Note how the poster above refers to any non-Libertarian liberals as 'statists'. That shows that he is opposed to 'statists'. This is the common right-wing fallacy of equating actual progressives or liberals with 'big government' socialists if not communists, which they - and we, actually - oppose.

 

There might not be two more powerful propaganda words in American history than "big government". Even people who support a lot of what government does tend to hate "big government" as a phrase. It's given the plutocrats countless misguided victories and given them a false platform to run on.

 

It's effective enough that FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton (I'm not calling him WJC), and Obama all ran on platforms opposing 'big government'. Running against 'big government' is almost a 'win' button in elections, and Democrats are greatly harmed by being attacked as supporting it.

 

Those two words hide the real issue our society faces - the massive concentration of wealth in PRIVATE hands, and how they use that power to create more and more plutocracy, economic oppression or economic slavery, and while they're at it, in recent decades to buy our elections and government to serve them rather than the people.

 

I'd say it's likely the poster above sincerely thinks he is a 'progressive Libertarian', standing up for progressive things and opposing the tyranny both of the wealthy class AND the the 'statists' who would put a Mao in power oppressing people, but that he's actually confused and an unwitting advocate for too many of the plutocratic policies.

 

There might be a useful discussion with him to try resolve some of this, but I suspect it might be better held in the other room, than in this one which is for people who are already broadly aligned on liberal politics.
 

Libertarians - literally the party of the Koch brothers, which has so much taken over the Republican Party - intentionally recruits people by appealing to things they can find agreement on - 'hey, you hate the drug war? Be Libertarian! You hate oppressive criminal justice? Be Libertarian! Want to be a progressive Libertarian? No problem!' It gets them votes.

 

But they're fundamentally at odds with liberals.

 

I recently posted a threat here saying with great regret, that Democrats should allow Democrats with more conservative views on issues to run, as long as they're liberal on opposing plutocracy, when it's needed to win in a district that wants those positions.

Libertarians are the counterpart to that - THEY are willing to support Libertarians with any positions on issues as long as they agree on the PLUTOCRATIC policies - whether the voter realizes it or not.

 

The poster above might ask himself why the Koch brothers are Libertarians: I guarantee him it's not because they want legal pot and better criminal justice for black people, even though they fund an organization for such criminal justice reform, knowing it will attract more supporters for their economic benefit.

 

Democracy was designed to defeat plutocracy. Plutocrats see democracy as their biggest threat, and fight to defeat democracy, if not in form, in substance.


They've realized the answer is not to actually take away the illusion of democracy, but rather to win over the public to their policy views - 'hate big government', view government as their enemy, not the rich and powerful - and to cripple the power of government.


Literally right now, the Libertarians who are the right wing are plotting with their takeover of the courts to pass reinterpretations of the constitution that gut Congress' power to regulate, so that it matters less who wins the election, because they simply don't have the power to reign in the plutocrats.

 

Grover Norquist summed it up with his infamous advocacy for government 'small enough to drown in the bathtub', and 'progressive Libertarians', being too much in agreement with that goal, are fundamentally at odds with the liberals.

 

The ugly truth of our economy today, is that our system concentrated wealth in few hands and creates poverty for most, and that needs to be balanced by governmental policies protecting the people - but politically the claim is made that that's not the solution, the workers are to blame if they are paid little.


I regret the poster above probably thinks he's in that 'progressive' wing of Libertarians and belongs in a liberal forum, but the exchanges above show how big the differences are.

 

In short, I suspect 'Progressive Libertarians' are not 'liberal' on the core issues of governance and economics, even if they have deluded themselves to think they can both have 'small government' and not have plutocracy.

 

In a way, they can - FDR thought he was protecting American capitalism from socialism by liberalizing it, so he was against 'big government'; JFK was fighting the cold war globally against communism by making American capitalism more attractive, so he was fighting against 'big government', and so on.

 

But of course, FDR and JFK and Clinton and Obama were not seen as 'small government' by Libertarians, and were fought tooth and nail - on Social Security, on Medicare and Medicaid, on even a slight tax increase on the wealthy, on the Affordable Care Act, and much more - by the right.

Show me a 'progressive Libertarian' who supports the liberal values of all those policies, and the government using its power to reduce inequality, and we can talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Craig234 said:

 

But of course, FDR and JFK and Clinton and Obama were not seen as 'small government' by Libertarians, and were fought tooth and nail - on Social Security, on Medicare and Medicaid, on even a slight tax increase on the wealthy, on the Affordable Care Act, and much more - by the right.

 

 

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the three most important issues to me. Because Libertarians oppose these programs I have no use for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to show the country a new tact, by giving the country a true tax cut for the poor and middle class (trickle up economics) by eliminating income tax all together for people who make less than $150000 and restore income tax rates for people who make 1000000  or more with high rates for billionaires who have benefited from this countries infrastructure.  Basically rescind some of the present tax cut and restore the riches fair share. 

 

We also need to create a national sales tax to pay for infrastructure improvements that will sunset when the money barrowed is payed off and can't be siphoned off for other spending projects.  Al gores locked box, all spending should have specific revenue locked boxes!

 

social security should have the cap removed, if I have to pay social security on 100% of my earnings then so should the rich!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 6:55 PM, WillFranklin said:

 

Yes and a strong Consumer Protection Bureau would also hold them accountable for shoddy products.

 

And if I knew a way to end gerrymandering I would relay it to all of the governors in the Union.

 

Citizens United is deliberately misnamed. It should be called Corporations United. And it should be repealed.

There is no reason you can't put a liberal label on it and just call it what it is, the republicans do it all the time, ( death tax).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Craig234 said:

If I can offer two cents on the point I think bludog was making, it's possible for a Libertarian to sincerely hold some 'progressive' views

 

 

Just the opposite.

On 1/5/2018 at 3:24 PM, bludog said:

https://thinkprogress.org/why-libertarians-and-progressives-will-never-get-along-104624871614/

Quote

Why Libertarians And Progressives Will Never Get along

libertarians appear to place a far higher priority on the economic issues that bind them to the GOP than the social values they share with progressives. As a consequence, they hate Democrats and on-balance like the GOP.

 

On 1/5/2018 at 3:24 PM, bludog said:

The term "progressive libertarian" is not in common use anywhere.  Unless a libertarian was to make up the term, on the spot, to justify posting in a "Liberal's Only" section.

 

However, there are a few small areas of overlap.  For instance, both Liberals and Libertarians tend to be against unnecessary militarization and war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bludog said:

 

 

Just the opposite.

 

 

However, there are a few small areas of overlap.  For instance, both Liberals and Libertarians tend to be against unnecessary militarization and war


Sigh.

You basically posted the exact point I did, but called it 'just the opposite'.

 

I wrote a post saying that there are some small areas they can overlap but they are fundamentally at odds - a pretty long post about that.

 

Then you made a post saying they're fundamentally at odds but can overlap in some areas. The exact opposite... Did you just read the first line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wayne said:

We need to show the country a new tact, by giving the country a true tax cut for the poor and middle class (trickle up economics) by eliminating income tax all together for people who make less than $150000 and restore income tax rates for people who make 1000000  or more with high rates for billionaires who have benefited from this countries infrastructure.  Basically rescind some of the present tax cut and restore the riches fair share 

 

 

Agree. There's nothing better we can do. We need to change the politics on 'redistribution' from 'bad and communist' to 'essential to a healthy American system' and educate people that the rich got their money from society and owe some back - that a strong middle class is better even for the rich over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Craig234 said:


Sigh.

You basically posted the exact point I did, but called it 'just the opposite'.

 

I wrote a post saying that there are some small areas they can overlap but they are fundamentally at odds - a pretty long post about that.

 

Then you made a post saying they're fundamentally at odds but can overlap in some areas. The exact opposite... Did you read my post or just the first line?

 

So.  We agree then. 

 

Your post was so long and made so many different points, that I responded to the short post.  I notice kfbvoice recently misinterpreted you.  Also others, further back.  Just a suggestion, but you might try breaking up these long, extensive posts into several short ones, each making their own point.  Otherwise, the forest can get mistaken for the trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wayne said:

 

social security should have the cap removed, if I have to pay social security on 100% of my earnings then so should the rich!

 

YES! And that would eliminate the funding issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing the cap on the Social Security contribution (it is not a tax) is one of the most important things a new Democratic government could do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

So.  We agree then. 

 

Your post was so long and made so many different points, that I responded to the short post.  I notice kfbvoice recently misinterpreted you.  Also others, further back.  Just a suggestion, but you might try breaking up these long, extensive posts into several short ones, each making their own point.  Otherwise, the forest can get mistaken for the trees.

 

My post was clear - you for whatever reason are trying to say that a long post justifies not reading it carefully enough to not get it completely wrong for no reason.

 

No, I don't plan to change the length of the post - just ignore it if the length is an issue, rather than not reading it and replying as if it said the opposite.

 

It's a bit obnoxious to try to make some case that when someone makes an error, the fault must be in the post.

 

A whole one sentence said, correctly, that there are some areas of agreement between progressives and 'progressive Libertarians' - as yours did the same. The whole rest of the post then went on to discussing how different they are.

 

Nothing in the post justifies cherry picking that first sentence and misrepresenting it to be the 'opposite' of what it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

 

My post was clear - you for whatever reason are trying to say that a long post justifies not reading it carefully enough to not get it completely wrong for no reason.

 

No, I don't plan to change the length of the post - just ignore it if the length is an issue, rather than not reading it and replying as if it said the opposite.

 

It's a bit obnoxious to try to make some case that when someone makes an error, the fault must be in the post.

 

A whole one sentence said, correctly, that there are some areas of agreement between progressives and 'progressive Libertarians' - as yours did the same. The whole rest of the post then went on to discussing how different they are.

 

Nothing in the post justifies cherry picking that first sentence and misrepresenting it to be the 'opposite' of what it was.

 

No need to get hysterical.

 

You have a problem with people misunderstanding you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing 'hysterical'. I have a problem with rudeness. And the only problem 'being 'misunderstood' lies on the other side of the keyboard.


Why don't you take a break from reading my threads, since you are seeming to not read much, be pretty careless in misunderstanding, and then unpleasant about it.

 

I had looked forward to your actually reading the post and commenting.

 

That's not what happened. Instead, misguided insults blaming the post for your not reading it with basic care ignoring everything after the first line and continuing to insist on the error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bludog said:

Removing the cap on the Social Security contribution (it is not a tax) is one of the most important things a new Democratic government could do. 

 

That's right! And we also need the government to act to save Social Security Disability by 2023 when its funds will run short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that it is fitting that in the most liberal thread ever that we rebuke Donald Trump for his comment that we do not need immigrants from "shithole countries" like Haiti and various African countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Most Liberal Thread Ever should have the latest liberal news. People are talking about Oprah Winfrey running for President after her speech at the Golden Globes last week.

 

Also Chelsea Manning the transgender former Army private (correct me if I am wrong) who released secret government documents, was convicted, then pardoned by Obama is running for U.S. Senate in Maryland. Not sure who she is running against in the primary but I fear she might lose if she makes it to the General.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

The Most Liberal Thread Ever should have the latest liberal news. People are talking about Oprah Winfrey running for President after her speech at the Golden Globes last week.

 

Also Chelsea Manning the transgender former Army private (correct me if I am wrong) who released secret government documents, was convicted, then pardoned by Obama is running for U.S. Senate in Maryland. Not sure who she is running against in the primary but I fear she might lose if she makes it to the General.

 

Manning was not pardoned by Obama. Rather, she had her outrageous 35 year sentence commuted/reduced, as I recall. Obama was harsh to whistleblowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×