Obama’s White house staffer Anita Dunn:
“The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa – not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you’re going to make choices; you’re going to challenge; you’re going to say why not; you’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.”
She tried to play this off and say it was ironic. Nothing ironic about millions of dead Chinese.
Mao psycophants in the white house. There are more examples, but you will ignore them. Namely that Bernie was able to run AT ALL. A self described socialist could never have run in the US before this cycle.
You don’t get more left than Mao. But what do I know, I’m just a reactionary. The dems do have something to offer this country, but arguing that they’ve moved right since Kennedy is the absolute peak of intellectual dishonesty.
So just because the Democrats failed to implement their agenda, that makes them right wing? It’s a stupid argument. Oil production has expanded in spite of Obama, not because of him.
If I say so? And saying “well, look the other side did it,” doesn’t make it any less of a move toward the left.
You were trying to argue that both parties moved to the right. If that is your argument, try to stay consistent with it. Your off on umemployment rates and stock market gains. What exactly does that have to do with whether or not the Democrat party has moved to the left?
I missed the part where MCcain called Mao his “favorite political philosopher”. Also I missed the part where MCcain was ever actually a republican, but I digress.
Elizabeth Warren: Let’s be like China. If you want to have a “who likes state power and authoritarians” contest. The democrats will win every single time.
Granted republicans aren’t truly for limited government (see Lincoln). But they are for less government (sometimes). So when I hold my nose and choose, I try to choose less government power and oppression.
There is a very interesting discussion going on here about respective shifts of Republican and Democrat parties, with some very valid points on both sides.
I just pointed out that Glenn Beck’s manufactured outrage over the Mao comment made by Anita Dunn is not a way to make your point.
A massive infrastructural project paid with federal money? Check.
Executive orders written with the intent to bypass the judiciary? Check.
A political ideologue as the political leader’s closest advisor? Check.
Impromptu threats to deploy federal troops both inside the country and across the southern neighbor’s border? Check.
An executive branch that strikes tax deals with specific companies and interferes in the functioning of the free market? Check.
Purging of government professionals not meeting the ideological criteria? Check.
I could continue the list, but this sounds very socialist - specifically very big government socialist.
So socialism and oppression is in the eye of the beholder. If I don’t agree with it, it’s government oppression and tyranny - if I agree with it, it’s bypassing the corrupt bureaucracy and keeping the country safe.
Good points. You will notice in another thread I postulated about executive orders and asked if there were any practical limits… there are none basically. And republicans and democrats BOTH want power. Politicians always want power.
I have a weird way of looking at governments and rating them. It probably has alot wrong with it but it’s a good rule of thumb for those with libertarian or ancap leanings:
How much wealth does the government consume, divert or destroy? The more wealth taken from private hands the less just a government is.
Wealth is the sum total of a company/individual’s contribution to society. When the government takes it from them (for good or bad) it is reducing their sovereignty and increasing its own power. The first law of government is that humans with power over other humans will always abuse it given time and oppertunity. I seek to limit government power by limiting the amount of wealth they take.
So in absolute terms trump claims he will take less of our wealth from us. There will still be other rampant abuses and corruption, but that’s the best offer we’re getting right now.
There’s nowhere on earth where a limited government type would be 100% happy though. Compromises.
I’m not sure any organization has the ballast to do massive infrastructure projects without government assistance in funding, partial ownership, eminent domain, etc.
Certain you have followed this for years since its your industry, but WOW!
This is a thing (although I don’t think ED is one of the ones making the argument in bad faith). A failed progressive* becomes a moderate by default.
This is the New Revisionism surrounding Obama’s reign to explain away his shortcomings in executing a progressive agenda - “he didn’t get a bold progressive agenda accomplished because, hey, he isn’t a bold progressive, he’s a moderate pragmatist, and he couldn’t have failed at something he never tried, amirite?”
I think if the Democrats want to turn this thing around, they need to have a more conversation about the mistakes made over the last eight years.
Good discussion you guys have (left or right shift of the parties) and I want to jump in with my perspective.
I think @EyeDentist is mostly correct, when he argues that the Democratic party moved right in the 80’s/90’s, if one defines right in this instance as a shift away from keynesian economics and more towards neo-liberal economics. The same shift did occur in the social-democratic partys in Europa (New Labour is an example of this) in the same time period. However @Thunderbolt is correct when he argues that social-conservatives dont feel at home anymore within the Democratic party, since it is quite clear that The Democrats have embrased an explicit social liberal agenda (Pro-Choice, LGBTQ - rights, minority - rights etc). This manifestation of the party, where it is centre-right on economics and centre-left on social issues, is now being challenged. Bernie Sanders and his base within the party, is the embodiment of a reaction to the DNC of the 90’s/00’s. A similar case is happening at the moment whithin the British Labour party, with fights between ‘Blairites’ and ‘Corbinistas’. In conclusion: Yes the party moved to the right on economics in the 90’s, but this ‘Third way’ paradigm is at moment challenged and perhaps a more left-leaning paradigm will replace it.
I couldn’t believe that 2.5M people deported number. The number of illegals has been quoted as 11/12 million for a decade, it’s relatively stable. That means that at least 2.5 million illegals came here in the past 8 years.
That puts the issue into perspective for me. If 10% are felons that’s 250k felons added. If .01% are terrorists that’s 250 terrorists.
Vetting and walls seem more reasonable with those type of turnover numbers.
Well, yes. Although I sympathize with many libertarian economic/political positions I understand that there are some types of projects that cannot be realized with private investment, especially if the payoff is long way off.
For example, the Suez Canal Company that built the Suez Canal was in dire straits (pun intended) for most of its brief existence, eventually being bought out by British and French shareholders.
Oh, and about the link you’ve provided - I’d hold back the “wow” for a while. After spending some time in the industry one develops a bullshit detector that can smell outlandish claims a mile away (25% of GDP, I mean really).
I’m not saying it’s all bullshit, I’m just saying that construction companies tend to oversell the supposed benefits of major construction projects. That’s why do-gooders built libraries designed by world renowned architects in impoverished neighborhoods claiming that they push (or is it pull?) the neighborhood forward.
But for construction companies, nothing beats a dictator or a wannabe dictator. I’ve had the (mis)fortune to work on some of these…projects. The pictures are well worth a look.
World’s most famous architects being told that money and good taste are not an issue…
Trump is casting a wider net than Obama making deportations considered low priority under Obama are now high priority under Trump. Illegals who have committed misdemeanours as well illegals accused (but not convicted) of crimes are also aimed for deportation.
Let’s hope they take their anchor babies with them.
