Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-01-2019, 01:00 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
That's not a particularly useful comparison, although I'll note that United Health Group certainly claim they've successfully negotiated prices down so it's also apparently not true either.
All insurance companies negotiate to some extent. UHG is no more successful than any other company and do not realize the kinds of savings envisioned by UHC proponents.
  #102  
Old 08-01-2019, 01:05 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,515
A future form of economic planning (not Soviet-style, obviously) might be a big success (or failure! Much easier to fuck up spectacularly than do it correctly) but it would take some serious left-wing balls to implement it. We have to wait and see.

Anyway, it seems that "Socialist", "Communist" and similar, as official names, are not currently bogeymen in Europe - even the Pirate Party is winning a few seats there - but they are in America. The political solution, already suggested above, seems obvious: advocate exactly the same policies (hopefully sound and successful ones), but don't use those buzzwords, at least until enough time passes and they lose their stigma. "Capitalism" is OK too as long as 100% get their goods and services.
  #103  
Old 08-01-2019, 01:14 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Now imagine that the negotiations were on behalf of everyone. Just think what negotiating power could be wielded.

Even better - in the UK the pharma companies can't market directly to patients - and as, in the US, more than half the cost of drugs is due to marketing, that's a huge saving there. AND we don't have any prescription drug ads on television. I mean, if like puddleglum you're happy to pay twice as much for your prescriptions just to receive the added privilege of all those commercials, then the US system is the one for you, much in the same way that it is if you're happy to pay twice as much for healthcare per capita overall for worse outcomes.
The marketing budget for the drugs is not the problem. The highest actual cost of marketing I have seen is 20%. The commercials are a small piece of the marketing, 12.5%. Most of the marketing is providing free drugs and samples.
The cost driver is the cost of research and testing which runs around 2-3 billion per drug.
  #104  
Old 08-01-2019, 01:39 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
This point from Scylla is one of the most ahistorical points ever made in this board. It is perfect example of what happens for relying on poisoned sources of information though.
Say what?
  #105  
Old 08-01-2019, 02:16 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,092
XT,

In NAZI Germany most capital was privately owned and most labor was privately employed. That is Capitalism.
The continuity of the corporations indicates that the same line of industrial thought passed unmodified through
two wars and several political philosophies. The economy was never socialist

Your post makes unsubstantiated claims. Please provide evidence that the means of production in
NAZI Germany was government owned. I've tried and I can find none.

During the war companies, and labor, were all directed by their governments, both us and them.
  #106  
Old 08-01-2019, 02:56 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
I live in the UK with our Universal Health Care - the wonderful NHS.

Recently I had two consecutive health problems:

- gallstones (very painful)

- liver sepsis (if unchecked, life-threatening.)

Both problems were diagnosed and treated promptly. (I even had an ambulance trip once the blood test came back with the sepsis.)

Since the UK has a 'socialist' approach and I'm a pensioner (aged 66), all treatment was free.
I paid taxes all my working life, which is how the NHS is funded.

I spoke to an American friend about my remarkable experience.
She said:

- the treatments I had (MRIs, Ultrasounds, blood tests, two operations, two stays in hospital etc.) would have cost an American at least $250,000...
Several years ago I had medical issues that similarly caused lab tests, MRIs, CTs, ultrasound, surgery, ambulance, more surgery, and 4 day stays each time. I paid a $100 copay for the first surgery, my employers pays ALL of my premium now that I'm single, and Kaiser Permanente (non-profit, please note) took care of the rest.

$250K? Your friend is exaggerating some. I don't know the point of billing someone that amount; they likely don't have it.
  #107  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:00 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
XT,

In NAZI Germany most capital was privately owned and most labor was privately employed. That is Capitalism.
The continuity of the corporations indicates that the same line of industrial thought passed unmodified through
two wars and several political philosophies. The economy was never socialist

Your post makes unsubstantiated claims. Please provide evidence that the means of production in
NAZI Germany was government owned. I've tried and I can find none.

During the war companies, and labor, were all directed by their governments, both us and them.
First off, I never said the Nazi German economy was socialist...I specifically said it wasn't. So, not sure where you got that from.

The economy wasn't so much owned (outright) by the government as almost completely controlled by the Nazi party, which was the state...and in conquered territories especially but not limited to them, Nazi party economy hegemony was in full force, as was the central planning of the economy. It was a command economy, not a market based economy, with the Nazi controlling what, when and how things were produced and certainly who produced them (from the 'private' side, mainly companies owned and controlled by Nazi members). This was increasingly done from 1936 to the end of the war (really, even before that with respect to favoring companies operated by members), with the Nazi increasingly controlling all aspects of the economy. This is not how a capitalist economy works. Granted, this was during war, but then the Nazi were pretty much in power during war.

I will concede that in Nazi Germany private ownership was definitely still a thing (sort of...see below), unlike in the USSR (it was really more like how China operates it's state owned businesses, with prominent CCP members controlling them), but their economy was still a command economy pretty much for the time they were in power. So...I suppose it was a hybrid mix, not fully one thing or another. Meaning we were both sort of kind of wrong and sort of kind of right. I actually thought I recalled that at one point the Nazi's had taken full control of all of industry (this turned out to be mainly in conquered territory, and even then it was more turning them over to prominent members of the party who were in the various industries), but then I did some checking and...well, in a way they DID, since what they did was to favor companies that were either members of the Nazi party or supported them, while basically not favoring those who didn't (and seizing those assets, especially from business people who were either Jewish or opposed the party). Kind of the Chinese model in reverse, where CCP members own and operate the state controlled companies because they are CCP members, instead of co-opting the owners into the party. It really comes to the same thing, however, which is that, de-facto, the party controls the means of production through those elite.

Regardless, it wasn't capitalism. As I didn't say it was socialism either, I'll stand by my statement that it was a third option...a fascist economy that did have private ownership, but it was private ownership of the means of production by the party elite and in service of the party and the nation.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 08-01-2019 at 03:02 PM.
  #108  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:19 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
...That the money goes through government to get from us to the doctors and hospitals doesn't lessen the sense that it's a direct connection between us and the NHS. It's ours, not any given government's (AIUI Americans can feel the same way about Medicare). It's part of the social contract, not just a matter of individual service transactions.
There is a difference: our government has taken the Social Security trust money that was supposed to work the same way and used it to fund other stuff.
  #109  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:27 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The marketing budget for the drugs is not the problem. The highest actual cost of marketing I have seen is 20%. The commercials are a small piece of the marketing, 12.5%. Most of the marketing is providing free drugs and samples.
The cost driver is the cost of research and testing which runs around 2-3 billion per drug.
Nine out of ten pharmaceutical companies spent more on marketing than on R&D in 2013 (cite); Johnson & Johnson for example spent twice as much on sales and marketing as on research and development; GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer came close to that.
  #110  
Old 08-01-2019, 05:45 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Say what?
Only armchair historians or ignorants would had missed what real historians concluded about that treaty.

I get the sense that many did consider that like the cold war before the cold war became a thing.

There was no love among the signers, it was really asinine to ignore that they were enemies that only came for a few years into a convenient way to not to reach for each others throats until later, also carving Poland and others with no worries about the other side intervening was seen as convenient.
Both Hitler and Stalin knew that war was very likely among them in the future, in the case of Russia they had to get some time to reform the army that Stalin had decapitated in the purges. The army also needed to modernize too and Stalin expected that Germany was going to get boggled down in a long war with France and England in the west first.

He was dead wrong, but the treaty just barely did give Russia time to eventually pull the amazing feat of not caving in and eventually defeating Hitler.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-01-2019 at 05:49 PM.
  #111  
Old 08-01-2019, 07:17 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Can you point to specific programs or policies, especially economic policies that indicate that Finland is socialist? Not social programs, but actual socialist policies?
Could you point to specific programs or policies, especially economic policies that indicate that Bernie Sanders is a socialist? Not social programs, but actual socialist policies?

Is expanding social security socialism? Is expanding medicare coverage socialism? Was his too big to fail bank breakup bill socialism? Was the free credit report bill socialism? Was the cancer registries bill socialism?

I know you're not directly claiming Bernie Sanders's bills are socialist, but you're making an argument about the semantics of what socialism is. If we're going to use this logic, should we say AOC is a libertarian right winger for wanting to abolish ICE and the DHS? The whole reason bernie adopted the socialist title is because he know he would be branded as such anyways. So if the right and center is going to call center left proposals socialist, then we're going to call Scandinavia socialist. We're going to embrace it and call every social program socialist. Fire departments, socialist. Military? Socialist. Your moms cancer treatment being covered by the feds? Socialist. I mean there certainly are some socialist systems in the united states, such as SNAP which is market socialism. But I guess you could try to make the same argument about public goods not being socialism there as well.
  #112  
Old 08-01-2019, 07:21 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
First off, I never said the Nazi German economy was socialist...I specifically said it wasn't.
Didn't the general government seize jewish businesses and give power of them to nazis? I would call that socialism.
  #113  
Old 08-01-2019, 07:32 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Only armchair historians or ignorants would had missed what real historians concluded about that treaty.

I get the sense that many did consider that like the cold war before the cold war became a thing.

There was no love among the signers, it was really asinine to ignore that they were enemies that only came for a few years into a convenient way to not to reach for each others throats until later, also carving Poland and others with no worries about the other side intervening was seen as convenient.
Both Hitler and Stalin knew that war was very likely among them in the future, in the case of Russia they had to get some time to reform the army that Stalin had decapitated in the purges. The army also needed to modernize too and Stalin expected that Germany was going to get boggled down in a long war with France and England in the west first.

He was dead wrong, but the treaty just barely did give Russia time to eventually pull the amazing feat of not caving in and eventually defeating Hitler.

That is an interesting read. What is true is that they signed a non-aggression pact, and carved up Poland between them. They also agreed not to get into alliances against each other.


There was of course the secret protocols that Russia denied existed until after the war they were made public. These described the cutting up of various other nations. Then there was the German Soviet Frontier Treaty which affirmed the fact that they were allied. Stalin toasted Hitler as a “fine fellow.”

They were uneasy allies, it’s true. Depending on outcomes, I would say that either was prepared to go either way. Hitler blinked first, overestimating his strength.

But the idea that Hitler and Stalin were not in a sense allied, if uneasy allies is historically difficult to dispute.... except if you have a bone to pick and seek to defend Stalin or Russia for some unknown reason.

But hey, if you want to take the side that Stalin was a swell fellow, that’s your problem.
  #114  
Old 08-01-2019, 07:36 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,004
Well I certainly don't want to do that, so I guess you win. Incredible logic power! Educated by Jesuits, by any chance?
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #115  
Old 08-01-2019, 07:42 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
But the idea that Hitler and Stalin were not in a sense allied, if uneasy allies is historically difficult to dispute.... except if you have a bone to pick and seek to defend Stalin or Russia for some unknown reason.
Nope, even in the classic "The World At War" documentary the interviewed military men and diplomats of the day (it was made in the 70s so a good number of the people involved were alive and the disparaging words came from a Russian) disparaged Stalin for what he did, weakening the army just to follow his paranoid ideas. Again being allied does not mean that they are not anyhow despicable enemies that only reached an alliance of convenience for several months.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
But hey, if you want to take the side that Stalin was a swell fellow, that’s your problem.
It is not my problem as I did not say such a thing, as usual you only think that making personal digs will be convincing, it is as pathetic as the attempt at ignoring history so as to claim that Russia and Germany were not enemies.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-01-2019 at 07:46 PM.
  #116  
Old 08-01-2019, 08:37 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama
Could you point to specific programs or policies, especially economic policies that indicate that Bernie Sanders is a socialist? Not social programs, but actual socialist policies?
I don't know that he IS an actual socialist nor did I make a specific claim he was. I think that HE thinks he is a socialist, and certainly a lot of conservatives and right wingers think he is, but I have no idea what his actual position on, say, a command economy is wrt an assertion of policy. I don't know what his position is on private ownership of corporations is either. My WAG is he is an old school social democrat, wanting tons of social programs but he doesn't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so he supports capitalism with heavy regulation and taxation. He's an old-school green with an almost knee jerk aversion to nuclear power, which is one of the reasons I don't like him much. That, and he's just old...old in his thinking and what he advocates. The times have changed, IMHO, and he's still stuck back in the 70's. But that's neither here nor there wrt him being a socialist.

Quote:
I know you're not directly claiming Bernie Sanders's bills are socialist, but you're making an argument about the semantics of what socialism is.
I'm arguing that the actual definition of socialism is, well, the definition. And the actual historic record of socialist governments and socialist economic systems are what they are. And that the seeming modern definition that people on both sides are using is basically wrong...and it's wrong for specific reasons that they WANT it to be what they want it to be, not what it is. As far as I know, Bernie doesn't support a command economy. He doesn't support state ownership of all or even most of the means of production and distribution. He doesn't support the collectivization of things like farms and the like for the public good. He probably does support lots and lots of social PROGRAMS, such as free college and something like single payer health care of UHC. That alone doesn't make him a socialist though, even if he and others on both sides might think it does. It makes him a social democrat. IMHO of course. YMMV.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #117  
Old 08-01-2019, 08:58 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,367
Nm. Wrong thread

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 08-01-2019 at 08:59 PM.
  #118  
Old 08-02-2019, 04:35 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
All insurance companies negotiate to some extent. UHG is no more successful than any other company and do not realize the kinds of savings envisioned by UHC proponents.
You said they were "unsuccessful" in negotiating drug prices down. I provided you a cite from UHG itself to show that they were in fact successful. Now you've moved the goalposts to suggest that they weren't sufficiently successful in comparison to some new unspecified benchmark...which I already addressed by pointing out that there is a significant difference between individual companies negotiating on the behalf of some customers and a government organization negotiating on behalf of all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The marketing budget for the drugs is not the problem. The highest actual cost of marketing I have seen is 20%. The commercials are a small piece of the marketing, 12.5%. Most of the marketing is providing free drugs and samples.
The cost driver is the cost of research and testing which runs around 2-3 billion per drug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Nine out of ten pharmaceutical companies spent more on marketing than on R&D in 2013 (cite); Johnson & Johnson for example spent twice as much on sales and marketing as on research and development; GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer came close to that.
So - insurance companies can negotiate drug prices down and marketing is one of the most significant costs in the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps less "blind faith" in the current system and more research is required.
  #119  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:38 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Could you point to specific programs or policies, especially economic policies that indicate that Bernie Sanders is a socialist? Not social programs, but actual socialist policies?

Is expanding social security socialism? Is expanding medicare coverage socialism? Was his too big to fail bank breakup bill socialism? Was the free credit report bill socialism? Was the cancer registries bill socialism?
AOC's chief of staff said that the primary intent of the Green New Deal was not climate change, but revamping the economy, if that helps. And of course Bernie Sanders thinks the fact that consumers have too many choices of deodorant and sneakers is immoral and somehow or other government policies should reduce them because of childhood poverty.

Regards,
Shodan
  #120  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:03 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Scylla : Russia and Germany were allied in the sense that I'm allied with my ex. Like we talk sometimes, in a "what's new with you these days ? (I really hope you're miserable which is why I'm asking the question)" kind of sense ; and we've shared some of the loot ; but we both know any actual interaction is going to devolve into a screeching match until someone's feelings get really hurt and a new grudge is borne that will be held forever.


Or at least until either of us gets a nuke first.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #121  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:16 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Scylla : Russia and Germany were allied in the sense that I'm allied with my ex. Like we talk sometimes, in a "what's new with you these days ? (I really hope you're miserable which is why I'm asking the question)" kind of sense ; and we've shared some of the loot ; but we both know any actual interaction is going to devolve into a screeching match until someone's feelings get really hurt and a new grudge is borne that will be held forever.


Or at least until either of us gets a nuke first.
You helped your ex develop a secret tank testing and development program and shared data with her and then decided between you to invade and carve up another country as well as coordinated which countries you individually could invade without stepping on each others toes??? Man, your relation with your ex is certainly...interesting. In the Chinese sense of the word!

I think you are seriously underplaying the pre-war relationship between Germany and Russia. It was a lot more than you are making it out to be. Sure, both sides were going to betray the other at some point (obviously Germany much quicker than Russia was...or than Stalin thought), but until that happened it was much more than sharing some loot and talking together about what's new.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #122  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:37 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
and shared data with her and then decided between you to invade and carve up another country as well as coordinated which countries you individually could invade without stepping on each others toes??? Man, your relation with your ex is certainly...interesting. In the Chinese sense of the word!

I mean she made it clear that I wasn't allowed to so much as visit my previous ex's instagram page (even if she herself prompted me to), if that's what's you're askin' .



Quote:
I think you are seriously underplaying the pre-war relationship between Germany and Russia. It was a lot more than you are making it out to be. Sure, both sides were going to betray the other at some point (obviously Germany much quicker than Russia was...or than Stalin thought), but until that happened it was much more than sharing some loot and talking together about what's new.

What's an alliance that both parties fully intend to betray soon as it's convenient ?



My point is, Scylla was evidently trying to suggest some sort of ideological proximity between Hitler and Stalin that extended to their countries being buddy-buddies ; but that's an insane reading of facts. They hated each other with a fiery passion, and were very strange bedfellows at best.

I mean half of Hitler's entire raison d'êtrewas to obliterate Slavs and replace them with Germans for fuck's sake. And he only got anywhere in politics because he hated Communists and had buddies who would go out to hit Communists in the head with bricks. Then when he got into power what German Communists were left were packed up and sent to the camps. To suggest any sort of ideological proximity between Nazism and Communism is, well, insane.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #123  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:53 AM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
What's an alliance that both parties fully intend to betray soon as it's convenient ?
Typical.



Quote:
My point is, Scylla was evidently trying to suggest some sort of ideological proximity between Hitler and Stalin that extended to their countries being buddy-buddies ; but that's an insane reading of facts. They hated each other with a fiery passion, and were very strange bedfellows at best.
You and GIGO sure read a lot into my posting the name of their pact. “Hating each other with a fiery passion” and analogies to your ex-wife are historically irrelevant hyperbole.

They were early allies. They did work together. Was there going to be betrayal based on evolving circumstances? If those circumstances called for it. They were ideologically compatible. Both countries were Socialist. The Nazis were right wing Nationalist Socialists. The Russians leftists. What they shared in common was the Evil socialist belief that one’s group identity was more important than their individual identity.

Quote:
I mean half of Hitler's entire raison d'êtrewas to obliterate Slavs and replace them with Germans for fuck's sake. And he only got anywhere in politics because he hated Communists and had buddies who would go out to hit Communists in the head with bricks. Then when he got into power what German Communists were left were packed up and sent to the camps. To suggest any sort of ideological proximity between Nazism and Communism is, well, insane.
Not so much. China and Russia hated each other and they were both communist. Hitler thought his brand of Socialism was the true kind and Russia’s perverted. You rarely hate someone more than when they don’t quite agree with you. There was a definite love/hate thing going on between Germany and Russia.

The motives for Hitler’s betrayal probably have a lot to do with WWI. He was one of those guys who believed the Schliefan Plan would have worked fine if it had been followed perfectly. In WWI the Russians were a “half-armed rabble” in Hitler’s own words (referring to the fact that they were sending two untrained soldiers into battle with one rifle between them.). They were poorly trained peasants with commanders who actively hated each other. Germany embarrassed and destroyed them easily, but in many opinions (including the Fuhrer’s) overestimating Russia and committing too much pulled troops from the Western Front at a critical time was the big mistake leading to Germany’s losing the war.

Hitler faces the same problem Germany faced in WWI. How do you win a bar fight against two people on either side of you?

In WWI the plan was to commit everything to knockout one right away, but the Russians came on much faster than expected, and Germany reacted too strongly.

Hitler’s strategy was to buy one a beer and make a friend while dealing with the other.

It was clearly an uneasy alliance as things could have gone several ways as all parties were aware.

1. Russia sips its beer while Germany takes out the western enemies. Germany is still strong, but not strong enough to attack Russia, but too strong to be attacked by Russia (my reading suggests that this is what Russia and Germany both thought most likely when they signed.)

2. Germany gets fucked up while fighting in the West. Russia finishes its beer and pounces on Germany.

3. Germany one punches the West and turns around and sucker punches Russia who is still sipping there beer waiting to see which way the wind will blow.

Scenario 3 is Germany’s perfect world and fulfills the Schliefen Plan (which Hitler admired) in spirit. But, to pull it off requires delicate timing. Once you win in the West Russia is on guard for hostilities, so you have to turn and smack Russia before the fight in the West is quite over.

Hitler thought that moment had been reached, because things went very well, indeed early on.

If Hitler has a tougher go of it, (but not too tough) the alliance would have likely persisted as it would have been in both country’s interest for it to do so.

Were they friends, no. Uneasy allies? Was betrayal likely? Yes. Did they share some ideological aspects with each other? (Absolutely.)
  #124  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:08 AM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Hmm. I’m talking about the Schliefan plan in a universal healthcare thread.
  #125  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:21 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
Typical
Nonsense. Realpolitik might be a thing, but historical allies staying buddies regardless of benefits is also a thing. To whit : Gulf War 2. The interwar German-Russian pact(s) was nothing but convenience, and trying to leverage it into suggesting they were anywhere close is fallacious, to be generous about it.



Quote:
You and GIGO sure read a lot into my posting the name of their pact. “Hating each other with a fiery passion” and analogies to your ex-wife are historically irrelevant hyperbole.

Ex-gf, if you please. I may be a retard and an asshole, but I'm not retarded enough nor assholish enough to marry anyone.


Quote:
The Nazis were right wing Nationalist Socialists. The Russians leftists. What they shared in common was the Evil socialist belief that one’s group identity was more important than their individual identity.

... not as such, no, they did not.


Quote:
Not so much. China and Russia hated each other and they were both communist. Hitler thought his brand of Socialism was the true kind and Russia’s perverted.
He really, but really did not.


Quote:
There was a definite love/hate thing going on between Germany and Russia.
Again, there really, but really wasn't. Hitler was first and foremost a nationalist and racialist thinker (and I use that word loosely) ; he added the "socialist" thing to his party because many Völkisch voters and trench veterans happened to be working class ; and as such tended to react positively to socialist ideas.
I double doggy dare you to find anything even vaguely socialist the Nazi party enacted once it was in power. As for the "love" affair between the Nazis and Russia, Hitler didn't even bother equipping his troops with winter gear, when invading Russia, starting in early fucking summer, because he was so convinced that if he'd just "kick the wall, and the whole edifice would come crashing down". Does that sound like someone with any respect for the Communist system ?
I'll say it again : he did not think it worthwhile to pack winter gear. For a fight with Russia. Let that bitch sink in.


Quote:
Were they friends, no. Uneasy allies? Was betrayal likely? Yes. Did they share some ideological aspects with each other? (Absolutely.)
Again, no, they did not share any fucking ideology. Fascism in general and Nazism in particular are ideologies fundamentally based on reaction against the Left. In the Nazi case specifically Mein Kampf plainly sets out the plan to a) invade Western Russia b) kill or otherwise dispose of every local on account of they're racially inferior Slavs and c) settle good honest Germans there. This because it was Germany's historical imperative or some such bullshit.



Can you point me where in, say, Marx & Engels' manifesto this matches ?
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.

Last edited by Kobal2; 08-02-2019 at 10:23 AM.
  #126  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:35 AM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,306
My brain insists on reading this thread title as "Those damn socialists want to turn America into a vuvuzela!"
  #127  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:14 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
You said they were "unsuccessful" in negotiating drug prices down. I provided you a cite from UHG itself to show that they were in fact successful. Now you've moved the goalposts to suggest that they weren't sufficiently successful in comparison to some new unspecified benchmark...which I already addressed by pointing out that there is a significant difference between individual companies negotiating on the behalf of some customers and a government organization negotiating on behalf of all of them.
So - insurance companies can negotiate drug prices down and marketing is one of the most significant costs in the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps less "blind faith" in the current system and more research is required.
There was not an "unspecified benchmark", it was in a discussion of prices relative to the UK. UHC has around 80% of the members as the NHS and is nowhere near as successful at negotiating prices down. This suggests that things other than size are the most important part of their negotiating power.

Marketing is not what was mentioned as the difference in price between the UK and the US, it was specifically commercials. Commercials account for one eight of the total marketing budget, most of which is spent on free samples and doctor education/entertainment. Companies also spend millions marketing to doctors in the UK as well so that is also not the reason for the price difference.

The actual reason for the price difference is that if drugs cost too much money in the UK they are left off the approved treatments list and can not be used. Thus drug companies have the choice to sell drugs cheaply or not at all. This makes sense for the drug companies because of the difference between marginal cost which are low and average cost which is high. However, not everyone can pay marginal cost if there are to be any new drugs. If the US were to tell the drug companies that they could not sell their drugs in the US because the prices were too high, the patients who want to take those drugs would complain and congress would change that tout suite.
  #128  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:26 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
My point is, Scylla was evidently trying to suggest some sort of ideological proximity between Hitler and Stalin that extended to their countries being buddy-buddies ; but that's an insane reading of facts. They hated each other with a fiery passion, and were very strange bedfellows at best.

I mean half of Hitler's entire raison d'êtrewas to obliterate Slavs and replace them with Germans for fuck's sake. And he only got anywhere in politics because he hated Communists and had buddies who would go out to hit Communists in the head with bricks. Then when he got into power what German Communists were left were packed up and sent to the camps. To suggest any sort of ideological proximity between Nazism and Communism is, well, insane.
Yep, and I have seen historians pointing at Russia and Germany then as strange bedfellows while the treaty was ongoing.

One amusing note from those days:

https://www.history.com/news/the-sec...t-75-years-ago
Quote:
So sudden was the thaw between the strange bedfellows that the five swastika flags rushed to the airport to greet Ribbentrop upon his arrival had to be taken from Soviet movie studios producing anti-Nazi propaganda films.
  #129  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:51 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
Interesting question. On one hand, Venezuela may not be the place to be right now. On the other hand, according to the 2019 Happiness Index, the happiest country in the world is currently Finland. The largest political party in Finland is the Social Democratic party, which is, sure enough, a member of the Socialist International, etc.
Yes, becuase by and large autocratic nations are poorly run. Venezuela is first being run by a autocrat near dictator, and secondly a kinda socialist state.

We know socialism and dictators is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

Socialism and a democracy has worked very well.

Last edited by DrDeth; 08-02-2019 at 01:52 PM.
  #130  
Old 08-02-2019, 02:23 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
The cognitive dissonance is difficult to believe. Hitler was a socialist, the Nazis were socialists. “Socialist” appears in the full name of the Nazi party. Hitler declared himself to be a Socialist over and over.

People on the left and the right seem to both think that socialism belongs on the left end of the spectrum. Therefore those on the right are eager to place the blame for it on the left by categorizing it as leftist. Those on the left want to disown it by saying “he wa not a true socialist” or “The Nazis didn’t really mean it,” or “they were all about power and cynically used the appeal of socialism to get it.” Or any of a bunch of other similar arguments. I’ve read a lot of them on both sides.

I think a sensible definition of socialism is simply the belief that your group identity is more important than your personal identity.

Traditional western style capitalist democracy holds the enlightenment value that your individual identity is sovereign.

The Nazis were not big on individuals. It did not matter how great you were individually if you were a Jew. They were about the supremacy of their aryan race and the glory of Germany.

Naziism is what you get when the right wing goes all socialist. The Nazis were right wing socialists.

The communists in Russia were left wing Socialists. Both shared in common the belief that the group identity was more important than the individual one. The Russians shared some of the racial biases of the Nazis. The Russians disseminated the Protocols of the elders of Zion back in 1927 as part of their ongoing purged against Jews and ethnic minorities, and Hitler latched right into that as one of the cornerstones of his brand of socialism. The Nazis paid some lip service to the plight of the worker, and ran a basic textbook socialist revolution to gain power (divide the populace into groups. Paint your enemies as the oppressor/scapegoat. Destroy them for the good of “the people,” and take power.)

Like it or not the Nazis and the communists had much in common.

Last edited by Scylla; 08-02-2019 at 02:24 PM.
  #131  
Old 08-02-2019, 02:40 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
It seems that the best hope for America to control healthcare spending via the government would be to switch to a parliamentary system and have started 60 years ago.
Hell with Trump as president I'm starting to regret not paying tea taxes to King George.
  #132  
Old 08-02-2019, 03:40 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
The cognitive dissonance is difficult to believe. Hitler was a socialist, the Nazis were socialists. “Socialist” appears in the full name of the Nazi party. Hitler declared himself to be a Socialist over and over.
Repeating that conservative talking point does not make true.

https://www.britannica.com/story/wer...zis-socialists
Quote:
Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party.
Quote:
In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
People on the left and the right seem to both think that socialism belongs on the left end of the spectrum. Therefore those on the right are eager to place the blame for it on the left by categorizing it as leftist. Those on the left want to disown it by saying “he wa not a true socialist” or “The Nazis didn’t really mean it,” or “they were all about power and cynically used the appeal of socialism to get it.” Or any of a bunch of other similar arguments. I’ve read a lot of them on both sides.
I also read them and the arguments from the right are geared to ignore or deny that a National Socialist is a different beast than a socialist or a democratic socialist for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I think a sensible definition of socialism is simply the belief that your group identity is more important than your personal identity.

Traditional western style capitalist democracy holds the enlightenment value that your individual identity is sovereign.

The Nazis were not big on individuals. It did not matter how great you were individually if you were a Jew. They were about the supremacy of their aryan race and the glory of Germany.

Naziism is what you get when the right wing goes all socialist. The Nazis were right wing socialists.

The communists in Russia were left wing Socialists. Both shared in common the belief that the group identity was more important than the individual one. The Russians shared some of the racial biases of the Nazis. The Russians disseminated the Protocols of the elders of Zion back in 1927 as part of their ongoing purged against Jews and ethnic minorities, and Hitler latched right into that as one of the cornerstones of his brand of socialism. The Nazis paid some lip service to the plight of the worker, and ran a basic textbook socialist revolution to gain power (divide the populace into groups. Paint your enemies as the oppressor/scapegoat. Destroy them for the good of “the people,” and take power.)

Like it or not the Nazis and the communists had much in common.
Communists in Russia, yeah, I can see it by their totalitarian outlook that also disliked groups like the social democrats or liberal groups.

But, the issue here is about the right wing canard from some sources that Nazis = Socialists = Social Democrats

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/...is-socialists/
Quote:
The Nazi Problem

Nobody, least of all the millions of rank-and-file right-leaning Americans who voted for Donald Trump, wants to be lumped in with Nazis. It’s a fact, however, that Nazi-friendly organizations, Nazi symbols, and Nazi gestures were in evidence at the disastrous Charlottesville event, whose unfortunate title was not “Unite the Left,” but “Unite the Right.”
Quote:
Despite continuing certain Weimar-era social welfare programs, the Nazis proceeded to restrict their availability to “racially worthy” (non-Jewish) beneficiaries. In terms of labor, worker strikes were outlawed. Trade unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, primarily tasked with increasing productivity, not protecting workers. In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature. As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of “Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.”

Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.
Because the lesson here is that it would be a funny racket if it was not a serious matter, more than a few of the sources the right in the US is using now are extremist right wingers that love to misdirect others about items like 'who the Nazis were' so as to not attract too much attention on their way of trying to get more prominent among right wingers.
  #133  
Old 08-02-2019, 05:36 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
The cognitive dissonance is difficult to believe. Hitler was a socialist, the Nazis were socialists. “Socialist” appears in the full name of the Nazi party.
Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democracy? Does the Westboro Baptist Church represent mainstream Baptist theology?

The DPRK (that would be North Korea) is as democratic as Hitler was socialist, which is to say Not At All. "National socialism" was specifically in opposition to the ideals of international socialism (which, after all, was "Jewish").
  #134  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:04 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I think a sensible definition of socialism is simply the belief that your group identity is more important than your personal identity.
That is not a sensible definition of socialism at all.

Socialism is an economic theory (which isn't surprising since it builds on the works of Marx who was an... economist) characterized by democratizing the ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It may or may not also involve the abolition of private property ; and it's *very strongly* antiwar and anti-nationalism.


Quick, think of a socialist anthem !
Did you think of The Internationale ? If you didn't, you're probably lying. If you did, the song is explicitly about workers all over the world uniting regardless of nation-states' borders or cultures. That is the antithesis of nationalism's focus on one's own nation-state, culture or ethnicity to the violent exclusion of everyone else's (or, rather, fascism explicitly evolved as the antithesis of international socialism). Socialism has fuck all to say about "group identities".
Words mean something. Stop equivocating like a motherfuck.

Quote:
Traditional western style capitalist democracy holds the enlightenment value that your individual identity is sovereign.
Capitalism has fuck all to say about individual identity either. Capitalism is about private property. That's it.
Quote:
Naziism is what you get when the right wing goes all socialist. The Nazis were right wing socialists.
No, they were not. There's no such thing as a "right wing socialist". Socialism cannot possibly be "right wing", since the political right, while loosely defined, is first and foremost characterized by holding private property as sacro-sanct (also typically tradition and religion).
Quote:
The Nazis paid some lip service to the plight of the worker, and ran a basic textbook socialist revolution to gain power (divide the populace into groups. Paint your enemies as the oppressor/scapegoat. Destroy them for the good of “the people,” and take power.)
FFS, the Nazis explicitly gained power and got support from right-wing politicians (and the Junkers) for their violent opposition to communists, workers unions and so on. That's who their enemies were. And they didn't do it for the good of "the people", they did it to follow "the Führer's will", which is, again, the antithesis to socialism which implicitly has a strong focus on egalitarianism and democracy.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.

Last edited by Kobal2; 08-02-2019 at 06:05 PM.
  #135  
Old 08-03-2019, 05:42 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,004
Adolf Hitler, National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker Movement. Two peas in a pod.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #136  
Old 08-03-2019, 07:33 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
He's an old-school green with an almost knee jerk aversion to nuclear power, which is one of the reasons I don't like him much.
Everything he's proposed in relation to every other candidate is far better. He's pushed the democratic party to adopt universal healthcare (they're running on it, but in reality they just want a public option).

I'm aware of the false narratives about nuclear waste, although that doesn't really matter to me. I don't want to have what happen in Japan or Russia, happen here in America. For the same reasons I don't want rare earth mineral mining in America. It destroys the environment, and with nuclear power specifically not many communities are going to want nuclear power or waste near them. What ends up happening is we're forced to haul nuclear waste across America... on roadways, through cities, etc... So if we're going to adopt nuclear power, then we must absolutely must, have our waste right by where the power plant it's self is located, as less travel with waste as possible. Then we need to FORCE communities to hold the nuclear power and waste, then we need to create a narrative about turning America into pre-war Fallout universe. Sorry but that's not happening, at least not right now. Maybe in a couple years or decades when our technology is better, and we've already started down the path to becoming 100% self sustainable.

I really, really disagree with you "not liking" him because he takes an anti-nuclear power stance at the moment.
  #137  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:00 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,004
That's as may be, but what about the invisible and insidious waste from wind power turbines? That's whipped air, thickened like beaten eggs, just spilled out all over everything! An breathable miasma of omelette air with diced birds!
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #138  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:16 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
That's as may be, but what about the invisible and insidious waste from wind power turbines? That's whipped air, thickened like beaten eggs, just spilled out all over everything! An breathable miasma of omelette air with diced birds!
And the cancer. What about the cancer?
  #139  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:18 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post

I'm aware of the false narratives about nuclear waste, although that doesn't really matter to me. I don't want to have what happen in Japan or Russia, happen here in America.
You mean Ukraine (or U.S.S.R). Just nitpicking. But that's what we do best at the Dope.
  #140  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:06 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,004
Snotty, pedantic nitpicking. Ignorance must be exposed and fought, to be justified by the Prime Directive. Anything less is just being a dick.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #141  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:15 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
AOC's chief of staff said that the primary intent of the Green New Deal was not climate change, but revamping the economy, if that helps. And of course Bernie Sanders thinks the fact that consumers have too many choices of deodorant and sneakers is immoral and somehow or other government policies should reduce them because of childhood poverty.

Regards,
Shodan
I highly doubt you concluded that him bringing up the fact we have dozens of choices in shoes or deodorant to emphasize the moral problem of having children go hungyr in this country, in anyway implies government policies should reduce our shoe/deodorant choice. You're a doper, I refuse to believe you're that stupid, it's much more likely you're being purposefully intellectually dishonest here.

To that point of Bernies though, rule .303, if you have the means to do so, you have the obligation to act. No child should go hungry in the most wealthy country in human history. We have so many markets that we have thousands of choices in the brand of a product we buy. Yet, we don't have the resources to make sure no child in America is struggling to get a single meal a day. That's a moral problem, the same problem with having people starving and homeless, while having multi-billionaires exist.

(Also don't link washington post in your snipershots, they force people to pay a subscription fee to see their articles which most people aren't subscribed to the washington post)
  #142  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:25 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,582

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
You're a doper, I refuse to believe you're that stupid, it's much more likely you're being purposefully intellectually dishonest here.
This is a warning for personal insults. Calling someone stupid, or accusing them of lying are both prohibited in this forum.

[/moderating]
  #143  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:25 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,582

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Adolf Hitler, National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker Movement. Two peas in a pod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
That's as may be, but what about the invisible and insidious waste from wind power turbines? That's whipped air, thickened like beaten eggs, just spilled out all over everything! An breathable miasma of omelette air with diced birds!
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Snotty, pedantic nitpicking. Ignorance must be exposed and fought, to be justified by the Prime Directive. Anything less is just being a dick.
This is a trifecta of nonsense - essentially spam. Knock it off.

[/moderating]
  #144  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:25 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,582

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Words mean something. Stop equivocating like a motherfuck.
You have a tendency to personalize your comments in a way that is inappropriate for this forum. I've tried notes, but that doesn't seem to be working so this is a warning for personal insults.

[/moderating]
  #145  
Old 08-04-2019, 06:19 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
nm
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.

Last edited by Kobal2; 08-04-2019 at 06:19 AM.
  #146  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:44 AM
EarlGrayHot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 64
An interest in helping people who need it is not a bad thing. People whined about Social Security yet I doubt anyone eligible for it says "NO! I won't take it-it's socialism!!! Making sure everyone has access to healthcare is not a socialist idea-it's a human decency idea. That is why many countries adopt such policies. But medical care is not "free"-it has to be paid for in higher taxes and I think that is worth additional taxes.
  #147  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:59 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Everything he's proposed in relation to every other candidate is far better. He's pushed the democratic party to adopt universal healthcare (they're running on it, but in reality they just want a public option).

I'm aware of the false narratives about nuclear waste, although that doesn't really matter to me. I don't want to have what happen in Japan or Russia, happen here in America. For the same reasons I don't want rare earth mineral mining in America. It destroys the environment, and with nuclear power specifically not many communities are going to want nuclear power or waste near them. What ends up happening is we're forced to haul nuclear waste across America... on roadways, through cities, etc... So if we're going to adopt nuclear power, then we must absolutely must, have our waste right by where the power plant it's self is located, as less travel with waste as possible. Then we need to FORCE communities to hold the nuclear power and waste, then we need to create a narrative about turning America into pre-war Fallout universe. Sorry but that's not happening, at least not right now. Maybe in a couple years or decades when our technology is better, and we've already started down the path to becoming 100% self sustainable.

I really, really disagree with you "not liking" him because he takes an anti-nuclear power stance at the moment.
Sorry, but I disagree. I think he's old in his thinking and what he's proposing, and I don't like him as a candidate. Of course, if he's the one nominated I will, again, hold my nose and try and keep my gag reflex in check and vote for him if my choices are him or Trump, but he's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. He's actually my least favorite. And it has nothing to do with him supposedly being (or thinking he is) a socialist. He's just the lesser of two weevils between him and the Trumpster fire.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 08-06-2019 at 09:00 AM.
  #148  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:14 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Sorry, but I disagree. I think he's old in his thinking and what he's proposing, and I don't like him as a candidate. Of course, if he's the one nominated I will, again, hold my nose and try and keep my gag reflex in check and vote for him if my choices are him or Trump, but he's not my favorite candidate by any stretch. He's actually my least favorite. And it has nothing to do with him supposedly being (or thinking he is) a socialist. He's just the lesser of two weevils between him and the Trumpster fire.
Wallstreet speculation tax. Bad?

Expanding social security. Bad?

Raising Minimum wage. Bad?

Medicare for all. Bad?

Maybe.... maybe you LIKE actual criminals facing no consequences and getting bailed out using our tax dollars, maybe you like the fact wages have stagnated and fed minimum wage has remained the same since 2009. Maybe you like the fact politician pull money out of people who spent 50 years working to help aid people with disabilities and vice versa. Maybe you like having a privatized healthcare where theres no transparency with drug manufacturers and BPMs and then drug prices that we subsidized the R&D for with our tax dollars get inflated and we purchase them at 500-1000% the cost of over seas, maybe you like the government killing manufacturing competition by making production more expensive so a handful of pharma companies can act as a monopoly. Maybe you like having 20 doctors try to figure out whether ur insurance plan will cover treatment, maybe u like the fact 600,000 americans go bankrupt each year due to medical debts. Maybe you like the fact the middleclass is now the working class, maybe you like the fact we have gross wealth inequality in the United States.

Maybe... just maybe... and if that's the case then I guess theres nothing that will change your mind. But, if you actually do care about these issues, then why not Bernie. If nuclear power was you're only concern, then maybe come down to South Carolina and pay for it yourself instead of making me pay for something that'll never get built. But aside from that, how can you honestly in all good faith say voting bernie is a lesser of two evils? He's the only candidate with actual new ideas on the table and not half assed measures like a public option. We have a very serious issue of mass shootings in America, ignoring guns per capita correlation, the 2nd strongest correlation in gun violence is social welfare. Which directly ties into someones quality of life. As the average American struggles more and more, you'll see more of it. You'll see more political narratives reacting to the shootings and people wanting to ban guns, arm teachers, whatever it is. At the end of the day, we have people like Biden who want to play middle ground even on things like "video games cause mass shootings". You want to keep playing centrist, keep letting Republicans cuck the democratic party, then you're going to see more and more shit like mass shootings. If this was strictly to do with you having some kind of profit motive to not support Bernie, then you should consider the fact a bunch of angry peasants with shit ton of guns is a very scary thing. So you might want to reconsider your position on all these proposals that directly help the average american. Because if this shit keeps going on and wealth inequality keeps getting worse, I promise you this country will be like something out of a movie. Mass shootings every other day, everyone and their mother committing suicide, and millions of people dying from preventable deaths. All of this ties into the average lives of the average person.
  #149  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:23 PM
sisu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oi, oi, oi
Posts: 2,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
That being said, the responsible thing for democratic socialists would be to 1) acknowledge that Venezuela is indeed a failed case of socialism, and 2) explain why their plan for America isn't Venezuela.
Venezuela failed because of corruption, US sanctions and a reliance on a commodity for it's income. Commodities are at the whim of the market so when the price crashed the Ponzi scheme that was came crashing down with it.

A failure to invest it's revenues like Norway etc and failure to keep infrastructure up are also big reasons.

It is to simple to say socialism killed the country.
__________________
My opinions may or may not reflect the truth.........
  #150  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:04 PM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,398
And today, Venezuela issued a travel advisory to it’s citizens, with regard to the danger US gun violence presents for travellers.

Let THAT sink in.

Last edited by elbows; 08-07-2019 at 09:05 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017