McCain: Obama Supporters are Mean! Waaahh

[Duckie]

If we go by actual votes for a Communist or Socialist presidential third party candidate in 2004, there are approximately 23,000 Left Wing Radicals in the United States.

In other words, less than 0.01%. Even if we were generous and said that for every communist or socialist voter there are 99 other sympathetic voters who don't vote or vote Democratic, it would still only be a single percent of the country.

[Max]

As far as the best quote goes, I'll take "Let's stone her, old school" for a thousand, Alex! Ironically, that ties into Obama's name, Muslim allegations, and what some Muslims do to "misbehaving" women. Probably not the association desired by the Democrat protestor.

Of course, stoning is exclusive to Islam

It's weird, cause when I first read CC's explanation of "Let's stone her, old school," I immediately thought of old school bible stonin' and that the guy was mocking Palin's extreme biblical neo-con side.



*just reading this thread now, sorry for bringing up something 2 pages back...

[The Kernel]

Leave it to an American to think that "leftist" is another word for "Democrat". I seem to recall watching a recent vice-presidential debate where all four candidates' anti-gay marriage stance was proudly repeated for the whole nation.

Republicans are generally extreme-right, but Democrats are either centrist or right-wing themselves. There is almost no real leftism at all in America, at least not in the halls of power.

Then define your criteria for what you'd consider a leftist. Simply saying "leftist" doesn't mean anything.

[starfury]

It's weird, cause when I first read CC's explanation of "Let's stone her, old school," I immediately thought of old school bible stonin' and that the guy was mocking Palin's extreme biblical neo-con side.

Yeah But it far more for easy for the Republican right to wank to evil Islam and all that shit and Coveniantly forget their Precious Christanity calls for the same thing, since it never had the same media coverage by the evil "liberal media"

[Darth Wong]

Leave it to an American to think that "leftist" is another word for "Democrat". I seem to recall watching a recent vice-presidential debate where all four candidates' anti-gay marriage stance was proudly repeated for the whole nation.

Republicans are generally extreme-right, but Democrats are either centrist or right-wing themselves. There is almost no real leftism at all in America, at least not in the halls of power.

Then define your criteria for what you'd consider a leftist. Simply saying "leftist" doesn't mean anything.

Someone for whom "socialist" is not a curse word? Someone who is not impressed by how open-minded someone is if he says he's against gay marriage but is willing to tolerate gay unions?

[Count Chocula]

Ah, but Max, Obama has a Muslim name, and Farrakan has mentioned Obama in speeches, and Muslim stoning is still happening today! You see, it all fits! (sarcasm mode off)

'Course, it would be uber-ironic for a liberal to quote the Old Testament...

[Stravo]

Yes, when you have men like this at your rallies I can see where it equates to the Obama supporters nastiness. And yes, John, the George Wallace comment seems to be spot on you old prick.

[The Kernel]

Someone for whom "socialist" is not a curse word?

I don't think there have been many polls on that...

Someone who is not impressed by how open-minded someone is if he says he's against gay marriage but is willing to tolerate gay unions?

And again same problem. Is it so hard to actually come up with stances on issues that could be quantified in polls?

I'll help you out. Since you mentioned gay marriage, let's look at information regarding how many Americans support gays have the rights to marriage and even to adopt children.

From Here

Opposition to same-sex marriage dropped sharply across the country during the past two years, though just over half of Americans still oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center released Wednesday.
Chart

View Text Chart
More News

* Arrest in 2004 slaying of Fremont woman who may have witnessed crime 10.15.08
* Cheney experiences abnormal heart rhythm 10.15.08
* Nancy Reagan hospitalized with broken pelvis 10.15.08
* U.S. banks finally get help 10.14.08

The poll also showed increased support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, and substantial backing for the rights of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

The survey was released one day after a poll of California residents indicated increasing support for gay rights in the state, including for same-sex marriages. The nonpartisan Field Poll found that support for same-sex marriage in the state had risen from 38 percent in 1997 to 43 percent today.

The Pew center's national poll of 1,405 adults, conducted from March 8-12, found that 51 percent opposed same-sex marriage and 39 percent supported it. In February 2004, as same-sex couples were marrying in San Francisco, a Pew poll found 63 percent of Americans opposed the right of gays and lesbians to marry and 30 percent in favor. The margin of error in the latest survey was plus or minus 3 or 4 percentage points, depending on the question.

"In 2004, (same-sex marriage) was an emotional issue that struck a very deeply rooted chord in a lot of people," said Michael Dimock, associate director of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. "It is still an issue -- a lot of people who opposed it then still oppose it now. But a lot of people who opposed it then were in an intense environment and either feel less strongly or feel that people can do what they want to do."

Support for same-sex marriage has grown steadily over the past decade, according to the Pew center, which is an independent research organization. In 1996, 65 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and 27 percent supported it.

Wednesday's poll found the country nearly evenly split on allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children -- 46 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed. In 1999, 38 percent of Americans supported adoptions by same-sex couples, while 57 percent opposed them.

Sixty percent of those polled in the most recent survey supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, while 32 percent opposed the idea.

"It indicates people are changing," Dimock said. "They're becoming more open and tolerant, and we also have a shift in generations, which has a big impact."

The poll noted a distinct change in the number of respondents who said they "strongly oppose" same-sex marriage. In February 2004, 42 percent were in that category. That dropped to 28 percent this year, with the biggest decreases being among people over 65, Republicans and those who described themselves as religious moderates.

Gay rights advocates said Americans have had plenty of opportunity in the past two years to hear the stories of gay couples and same-sex parents, which has increased tolerance for gay and lesbian rights.

"I think people have thought more about gay families in the last two years than in the previous 30," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force in New York.

Any shift toward support for same-sex marriage has yet to show up at the polls, however, Since 2004, voters in 13 states have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. At least seven states will vote on similar measures in November.

A representative from the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family declined to comment on the poll. The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobbying group in Washington, D.C., did not return a phone call.

So about half the country supports the rights for gays to marry and adopt, and only 28% of people in the US are "strongly opposed" to gay marriage.

[Duckie]

So about half the country supports the rights for gays to marry and adopt, and only 28% of people in the US are "strongly opposed" to gay marriage.

You don't understand. That doesn't make you left wing. Outside of America, that makes you a passable effort at being a human being, not left wing.. Find some actual left wing economic or social positions among major candidates or even a minority of people and we can talk.

[Covenant]

So about half the country supports the rights for gays to marry and adopt, and only 28% of people in the US are "strongly opposed" to gay marriage.

You don't understand. That doesn't make you left wing. Outside of America, that makes you a passable effort at being a human being, not left wing.. Find some actual left wing economic or social positions among major candidates or even a minority of people and we can talk.

I'd also like to assert that the traverse from left to right also includes a lot of other things than that. Hippies, for example, are still widely considered "left wing," right? But the hippy movement was notably hostile to gays. And there's nothing in right wing economic theory that says women should make less money than men and gay people shouldn't be considered equal citizens. Some of these things, like biotry, are simply uneducated positions, and the fact that most uneducated happen to be right-wing is really a product of long-term ideological gerrymandering. Conservatives and Republicans were, at one point, isolationists not interested in going off to start wars. It wasn't a natural process that they became the military interventionist party, but a political one.

This makes it hard to track down radical or extreme left people, since there's really not that many people in America who are going to hit more than a few points. Believing in a somewhat more socialized state doesn't really make you an extreme left candidate, not even in America, and certainly nowhere else in the world. If people consider this bank bailout the end of Capitalism and the rise of the "socialist" state then we have defined even the conservative, right-wing elements of other nations as Left of Center organizations. I think that's a really unfair definition.

[The Kernel]

So about half the country supports the rights for gays to marry and adopt, and only 28% of people in the US are "strongly opposed" to gay marriage.

You don't understand. That doesn't make you left wing. Outside of America, that makes you a passable effort at being a human being, not left wing.. Find some actual left wing economic or social positions among major candidates or even a minority of people and we can talk.

Why don't you define what those positions are? If you're going to be setting the goal posts, I'd like to know what they are in advance.

[Uraniun235]

Outside of the US I'd probably be considered a centrist for my position that electrical power generation (or even all public utilities, really) should be socialized, but that other industries (like computer chip fabrication) could probably be left as private for-profit enterprises.

Or at least, that's the impression I get - let me know how off the mark I am.

[Vendetta]

Why don't you define what those positions are? If you're going to be setting the goal posts, I'd like to know what they are in advance.

Socialised healthcare? Stricter financial market regulation? Effective welfare provision? Widespread government funded social improvement?

[Darth Wong]

So about half the country supports the rights for gays to marry and adopt, and only 28% of people in the US are "strongly opposed" to gay marriage.

You don't understand. That doesn't make you left wing. Outside of America, that makes you a passable effort at being a human being, not left wing.. Find some actual left wing economic or social positions among major candidates or even a minority of people and we can talk.

Why don't you define what those positions are? If you're going to be setting the goal posts, I'd like to know what they are in advance.

Are you being deliberately dense or something? The phrase "socialized medicine" is considered so heinous in America that the Democratic party reacts like it was stung by a bee whenever someone accuses them of supporting it. Meanwhile, in Canada and much of Europe, socialized health care is considered a basic right.

The idea that a party can be considered "left-wing" when it doesn't even support socialized health care is such utter bullshit that it could only come from, well, an American.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Why don't you define what those positions are? If you're going to be setting the goal posts, I'd like to know what they are in advance.

Wrong, you are the one who has to come up with these goal posts, because you are the one apparently trying to advance the positive claim that there is a body of extreme leftists in the USA to match in size and political significance the 30-odd percent of right-wingers who believe that President Bush has done a good job, that Saddam was implicated in 9/11 and had WMDs, etc. The opposite claim, that the body of extreme leftists is so small as to be non-existent, is self-evidently true to the extent that socialism and communism are both politically dead issues in America, whereas in the European democracies they are strong. In Germany, for example, parties that would be considered far too leftist for the American political consensus (the SPD, the Left, and the Greens) control 327 of 598 seats in the Bundestag; and "conservative" parties in Europe are mainly conservative to the extent that they wish to tweak Social Democracy. Socialism is mainstream in Europe, and the Democratic Party would probably qualify as Center-Right (Obama's leadership may be changing this, but not by too terribly much).

Now, you began talking about "extreme leftists" by suggesting that anybody who has consistently voted for the Democratic Party in the past 40 years must belong to that category. This is stupid. Following this definition we find, among other oddities, that a dominant majority of American Jews are rabid leftists.

So, in response to your demand for a standard, I will suggest that this is best defined by comparison to far-left parties in other nations, such as the openly Marxist Left Party of Germany. As no such party exists in any meaningful form in the United States, the nearest thing that comes to hand is the Green Party, which in 2000 managed to secure a staggering 2.7% of the vote, and we're feeling generous so we'll say that twice as many people wanted to but felt they shouldn't, or belong to other marginal radical parties, or didn't vote because they were so radical, so about 5%. So we're talking about a tiny percentage of people who have no political influence.

Compare this to a rock solid (meaning people who want to build a big fuckin' wall on the Mexican border and deport all illegal immigrants, who believe in the benefits of torture, who think President Bush is a great fella') right-wing base in the high 20%-low 30% range, who still have enough pull to force McCain to draft one of them for Vice President.

If you disagree with me, feel free to put forward an alternative case.

[The Kernel]

Wrong, you are the one who has to come up with these goal posts, because you are the one apparently trying to advance the positive claim that there is a body of extreme leftists in the USA to match in size and political significance the 30-odd percent of right-wingers who believe that President Bush has done a good job, that Saddam was implicated in 9/11 and had WMDs, etc.

Wrong, it was MIKE who advanced the idea that there wasn't a equal number of rabid leftists as there were rabid righters. I responded that those who are strongly on the right/left in the US are pretty much equivalent. He then responded that those 40% who vote consistently Democrat aren't real leftists. I then want to know what he would define as a "true leftist".

In order to do that I need to know what everyone defines as the extreme left.

The opposite claim, that the body of extreme leftists is so small as to be non-existent, is self-evidently true to the extent that socialism and communism are both politically dead issues in America, whereas in the European democracies they are strong. In Germany, for example, parties that would be considered far too leftist for the American political consensus (the SPD, the Left, and the Greens) control 327 of 598 seats in the Bundestag; and "conservative" parties in Europe are mainly conservative to the extent that they wish to tweak Social Democracy. Socialism is mainstream in Europe, and the Democratic Party would probably qualify as Center-Right (Obama's leadership may be changing this, but not by too terribly much).

So what specific issues are you using to justify your assumption that socialism is dead in the US? Because there are a bunch of New Deal programs that would beg to disagree.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare...these are just some examples of massive socialist programs in the US. There are hundreds of examples of smaller programs as well. Socialism isn't dead in the US, it is simply a matter of degrees.

Now, you began talking about "extreme leftists" by suggesting that anybody who has consistently voted for the Democratic Party in the past 40 years must belong to that category. This is stupid. Following this definition we find, among other oddities, that a dominant majority of American Jews are rabid leftists.

Fair enough, which is why a definition of "extreme leftist" is necessary to explore how much of the US supports it. Is such a definition too much to ask?

So, in response to your demand for a standard, I will suggest that this is best defined by comparison to far-left parties in other nations, such as the openly Marxist Left Party of Germany.

Are you talking about these guys?

Because if you are I would hardly call that a mainstream example as they got only 0.01% of votes in the federal elections. I assume you are talking about someone else, so could you clarify with a link?

As no such party exists in any meaningful form in the United States, the nearest thing that comes to hand is the Green Party, which in 2000 managed to secure a staggering 2.7% of the vote, and we're feeling generous so we'll say that twice as many people wanted to but felt they shouldn't, or belong to other marginal radical parties, or didn't vote because they were so radical, so about 5%. So we're talking about a tiny percentage of people who have no political influence.

In a two party system, the lack of a clear political party to wave the banner for a certain ideology is hardly surprising. In such a system, the best way to gauge attitudes is to look at polls and ballot initiatives for specific issues, which is exactly why I'm asking you for what issues you are interested in.

Compare this to a rock solid (meaning people who want to build a big fuckin' wall on the Mexican border and deport all illegal immigrants, who believe in the benefits of torture, who think President Bush is a great fella') right-wing base in the high 20%-low 30% range, who still have enough pull to force McCain to draft one of them for Vice President.

If you disagree with me, feel free to put forward an alternative case.

This is going to be counter-productive unless you give me an example of what I'm arguing.

Tell you what, give me an example of a political party or a series of platforms you associated with "extreme left" and I will do the research on how the rest of the world stacks up to the US so we can see the delta. I think this is more than fair as I'm putting almost all the research onus on myself.

[The Kernel]

Are you being deliberately dense or something? The phrase "socialized medicine" is considered so heinous in America that the Democratic party reacts like it was stung by a bee whenever someone accuses them of supporting it. Meanwhile, in Canada and much of Europe, socialized health care is considered a basic right.

That's just semantics. Polls have consistently shown that Americans are heavily in favor of socialized medicine, we just call it by the less "Commie" sounding name of "Single Payer Healthcare" or "Universal Healthcare". See here for relevant polls on the subject.

You'll notice that Hillary Clinton ran her campaign on the single payer platform and Obama's health plan is a step in that direction as well, and that McCain has not been resonating with his attacks on Obama's health care plan.

Also, if you look historically, the only reason we don't have universal health care today is because when Bill Clinton first came to office they came within a hairs breath of passing the legislation to create universal health care, but it was defeated due mostly to the GOP heavily wanking the Whitewater investigation and keeping the Clinton's focus off of Capitol Hill. By the time they tried again, the GOP had majorities in the congress.

The idea that a party can be considered "left-wing" when it doesn't even support socialized health care is such utter bullshit that it could only come from, well, an American.

Both Clinton and Obama (the two Democrat candidates) support universal health care. Obama came out and said "healthcare is a right" in America during the last debate and polls show Americans overwhelmingly support it.

[ArcturusMengsk]

So what specific issues are you using to justify your assumption that socialism is dead in the US? Because there are a bunch of New Deal programs that would beg to disagree.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare...these are just some examples of massive socialist programs in the US. There are hundreds of examples of smaller programs as well. Socialism isn't dead in the US, it is simply a matter of degrees.

The asininity of this particular statement is almost offensive, and demonstrates clearly that you have sided with the slack-jawed drooling reactionaries of American society, of which you are doubtless one.

Every nation in the world, aside from African shitholes and the like, guarantee for their elderly retirees a basic pension and health benefits. I challenge you to find a single Western nation which does not have an equivalent program to those you listed. Furthermore, in your rank stupidity you have characterized them as 'socialist': they most assuredly are not. 'Socialism', despite what you may have been taught by your favorite bellicose wingnut in the media, has nothing to do with a welfare state; socialism is the ownership, either in part or in whole, of the means of production by the workers themselves. What you so presumptuously declare 'socialism' (and impute with an accusatory or slanderous tone) is actually elements of a programme of social democracy. There is a difference, though you'd certainly never note it, having all the apparent intelligence of a vegetating retard.

[The Kernel]

The asininity of this particular statement is almost offensive, and demonstrates clearly that you have sided with the slack-jawed drooling reactionaries of American society, of which you are doubtless one.

Every nation in the world, aside from African shitholes and the like, guarantee for their elderly retirees a basic pension and health benefits. I challenge you to find a single Western nation which does not have an equivalent program to those you listed. Furthermore, in your rank stupidity you have characterized them as 'socialist': they most assuredly are not. 'Socialism', despite what you may have been taught by your favorite bellicose wingnut in the media, has nothing to do with a welfare state; socialism is the ownership, either in part or in whole, of the means of production by the workers themselves. What you so presumptuously declare 'socialism' (and impute with an accusatory or slanderous tone) is actually elements of a programme of social democracy. There is a difference, though you'd certainly never note it, having all the apparent intelligence of a vegetating retard.

Idiot, in the context of western nations, socialism means exactly these sorts of programs. You want to give me an example of a western country that has collective ownership of property and full blown socialism by your definition?

[ArcturusMengsk]

The asininity of this particular statement is almost offensive, and demonstrates clearly that you have sided with the slack-jawed drooling reactionaries of American society, of which you are doubtless one.

Every nation in the world, aside from African shitholes and the like, guarantee for their elderly retirees a basic pension and health benefits. I challenge you to find a single Western nation which does not have an equivalent program to those you listed. Furthermore, in your rank stupidity you have characterized them as 'socialist': they most assuredly are not. 'Socialism', despite what you may have been taught by your favorite bellicose wingnut in the media, has nothing to do with a welfare state; socialism is the ownership, either in part or in whole, of the means of production by the workers themselves. What you so presumptuously declare 'socialism' (and impute with an accusatory or slanderous tone) is actually elements of a programme of social democracy. There is a difference, though you'd certainly never note it, having all the apparent intelligence of a vegetating retard.

Idiot, in the context of western nations, socialism means exactly these sorts of programs. You want to give me an example of a western country that has collective ownership of property and full blown socialism by your definition?

None, because there aren't any authentic socialist countries according to the exact meaning of the term, hence there is no 'creeping socialism' of the sort you seem to feel fit to raise the battle-standards against. And it's not *my* definition - the definition I used was precisely that propounded by socialist luminaries like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Game, check, match.

[The Kernel]

None, because there aren't any authentic socialist countries according to the exact meaning of the term, hence there is no 'creeping socialism' of the sort you seem to feel fit to raise the battle-standards against. And it's not *my* definition - the definition I used was precisely that propounded by socialist luminaries like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Game, check, match.

Congratulations on correctly identifying the dictionary definition of socialism outside the context of this thread. Now give yourself a pat on the back and go troll somewhere else.

[ArcturusMengsk]

None, because there aren't any authentic socialist countries according to the exact meaning of the term, hence there is no 'creeping socialism' of the sort you seem to feel fit to raise the battle-standards against. And it's not *my* definition - the definition I used was precisely that propounded by socialist luminaries like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Game, check, match.

Congratulations on correctly identifying the dictionary definition of socialism outside the context of this thread. Now give yourself a pat on the back and go troll somewhere else.

'Dictionary definition'? As opposed to what? The definition you pulled out of your asshole, that swirling vortex of free-market fantasy?

[The Kernel]

'Dictionary definition'? As opposed to what? The definition you pulled out of your asshole, that swirling vortex of free-market fantasy?

Dumbass, what do you think Pablo and Mike mean when they say socialism? You think they are talking about removal of all sense of property rights?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Wrong, it was MIKE who advanced the idea that there wasn't a equal number of rabid leftists as there were rabid righters.

Mike does not have to prove a negative claim ("X" does not exist), because that is impossible. A positive claim (such as you saying that "X" does exist) is what requires proof.

So what specific issues are you using to justify your assumption that socialism is dead in the US?

The annihilation of any real Socialist Party, the acceptance of the profit principle and laissez faire economics as a dominant (though currently shaken) political orthodoxy, the weakness of labor unions, the failure of the Great Society, the limited nature of assistance for the poor compared to actual social democratic states, (perhaps most importantly) the lack of universal health care, the failure of the system to distribute wealth equitably, and less obvious but still important details such as our scandalously bad maternity leave policies and other work force protections. Suggesting that the existence this merely constitutes a difference of degree might be technically true under a narrow definition of socialism, but it's also a bit like saying the difference between a garden hose and a fire hose is merely a matter of degree.

I assume you are talking about someone else, so could you clarify with a link?

The Left, is the fourth largest party in Germany with 9% of the seats in the Bundestag. They are openly and officially a Marxist party, the survivors of

Tell you what, give me an example of a political party or a series of platforms you associated with "extreme left" and I will do the research on how the rest of the world stacks up to the US so we can see the delta.

The Left is a good example of a party that is considered to be very leftist while still being viable--that is, capable of winning seats at the national level. Frankly I don't see the point in doing a statistical analysis because it's already known that platforms considered to be extremely leftist in most of the world (e.g. truly radical income redistribution, nationalization of industry, guaranteed employment, etc.) are non-existent in the United States. Furthermore, even if you could demonstrate that this existed, it would be irrelevant to the point at hand, because those holding these views in the United States are completely without political influence, whereas the extreme right has a very significant place at the table--many representatives, highly influential political groups, committees, and appointments, the Vice Presidential nomination, and their own 24-hour news network.