What's new
  • ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

commies

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
I agree that throwing around the words socialist or socialism does more harm then good and therefore is a branding/messaging problem especially in a country where most people who might object to anything Bernie Sanders promotes gets their information from talk radio, podcasts or Fox news where they are mostly told what to think and believe about socialism. I think Bernie and other progressives run into another problem though. They tend to go for these really big agendas where they try to get too much all at once. I think they would be better served by focusing on one things and if/when they achieve it give the public time to experience it and see the benefits. Like with the ACA all the talking heads had most people on the right believing it was too much and was just going to destroy healthcare and end up costing too much. Once it got passed though and people actually experienced how they benefited from it all of a sudden people started liking some of the things it brought them and then even people who were once against it didn't want the Republicans taking it away. When you start throwing a bunch of things out all at once people start to panic and just see it as becoming a huge burden financially and they resist even trying. Free College, Student debt forgiveness, expanded single payer healthcare, holy shit Bernie, you're going to bankrupt the country. Of course the response is always no problem we'll just tax the rich, it will be great, you'll see. Then you get the usual response, generally from the rich that you're punishing success or robbing the rich to pay the poor and since the wealthy have too much control over government none of it ever flies. So just go for one thing at a time, let people see how good it can be in spite of the messaging on the right and then go for the next thing.
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
"a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step..." and then another....and... just like legalization of cannabis. idiots fight against easing the penalties & keeping folks out of jail because "it's not perfect, and i can only grow ten plants! WAHHHH!" :gaga: :biggrin:
 

h.h.

Active member
Veteran
pretty sure there wouldn't be much need of unions in a socialist organized economy. they exist now under capitalism to basically negotiate with repressive capitalists for better working conditions. if the workers themselves have a collective democratic voice, it would effectively make everyone their own bosses.
I’ve seen how those collective democratic voices work. The collect into groups with opposing views and elected leaders. You don’t have to call them unions. Let’s just call them clubs.
 

h.h.

Active member
Veteran
If your roof leaks, do you fix it or burn your house down in hopes for a better one?
 

Absolem

Active member
I agree that throwing around the words socialist or socialism does more harm then good and therefore is a branding/messaging problem especially in a country where most people who might object to anything Bernie Sanders promotes gets their information from talk radio, podcasts or Fox news where they are mostly told what to think and believe about socialism. I think Bernie and other progressives run into another problem though. They tend to go for these really big agendas where they try to get too much all at once. I think they would be better served by focusing on one things and if/when they achieve it give the public time to experience it and see the benefits. Like with the ACA all the talking heads had most people on the right believing it was too much and was just going to destroy healthcare and end up costing too much. Once it got passed though and people actually experienced how they benefited from it all of a sudden people started liking some of the things it brought them and then even people who were once against it didn't want the Republicans taking it away. When you start throwing a bunch of things out all at once people start to panic and just see it as becoming a huge burden financially and they resist even trying. Free College, Student debt forgiveness, expanded single payer healthcare, holy shit Bernie, you're going to bankrupt the country. Of course the response is always no problem we'll just tax the rich, it will be great, you'll see. Then you get the usual response, generally from the rich that you're punishing success or robbing the rich to pay the poor and since the wealthy have too much control over government none of it ever flies. So just go for one thing at a time, let people see how good it can be in spite of the messaging on the right and then go for the next thing.
"a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step..." and then another....and... just like legalization of cannabis. idiots fight against easing the penalties & keeping folks out of jail because "it's not perfect, and i can only grow ten plants! WAHHHH!" :gaga: :biggrin:


Agree 100% with both of you.

If Democrats want to start chalking up some victories they need voters. Sadly this next election isn't about posting victories but more like sandbagging. First we need to blunt the anti abortion movement that has taken hold. Protect the rights we do have while trying to strengthen them. I would like to see universal health care. I think Obamacare laid the ground work. Hempkat is dead on. When people got it they liked it and didn't want to see it go away. Democrats need to pull those voters back in who have been leery voting dem lately.

One thing GOPers do effectively every election is vote. It may have taken them 40 years to overturn Roe vs Wade but they kept at it. Too many fare weather fans who typically vote Dem sit out to many elections because they feel like the party isn't doing enough. If they voted in every election the Dem party could push back harder instead of fighting uphill.
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
i was a reliable GOP voter until i saw how the NRA was turning into a slush fund for far-right horseshit. then, just as i was wondering exactly how far the corruption extended into the party, they nominated The Chump. their lockstep refusal to consider decrim & medical legalization and the fawning adulation of Faux "news" made my decision to leave a very easy one. BUT...if the Democrats continue to try to demonize legal gun ownership, a lot of folks in this country will turn on them. beware of overreach! both parties are prone to it. winning an election does NOT give you a "mandate" to stomp on law-abiding citizens and their rights under the constitution...
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
Agree 100% with both of you.

If Democrats want to start chalking up some victories they need voters. Sadly this next election isn't about posting victories but more like sandbagging. First we need to blunt the anti abortion movement that has taken hold. Protect the rights we do have while trying to strengthen them. I would like to see universal health care. I think Obamacare laid the ground work. Hempkat is dead on. When people got it they liked it and didn't want to see it go away. Democrats need to pull those voters back in who have been leery voting dem lately.

One thing GOPers do effectively every election is vote. It may have taken them 40 years to overturn Roe vs Wade but they kept at it. Too many fare weather fans who typically vote Dem sit out to many elections because they feel like the party isn't doing enough. If they voted in every election the Dem party could push back harder instead of fighting uphill.
Well to be fair in the victory for the Republicans that put Trump in Office the Dems did out vote the Republicans by 3 Million, just not in the right states which is why I would love to see an end to the Electoral College before anything else followed quickly by an end to the Filibuster. With those two relics from the early days out of the way the Dems should enjoy a long reign especially with the Filibuster gone they would be able to keep their campaign promises. and that would keep turnout strong. The Democrats would have to seriously screw up for the Republicans to regain control. The Filibuster never should have been anyway, it was not a rule that was created intentionally or described by the constitution, it was a loophole created when the senate did away with another rule and it took decades before anyone even tried to use it and several more decades to make it where anyone using it didn't have to put forth any real effort to use it. The Electoral College on the other hand did have a valid purpose back in the days when the pony express was the fastest form of communication and it was meant mainly as a way to speed up the transition between Administrations in an age where it took weeks to tally all the votes nationwide. It was never about giving rural parts of the country equal or greater voice then the big cities. In fact a good study of the Federalist papers will reveal the founding Fathers felt that the minority population being able to dictate things was about the worst evil that could exist in our emerging experiment with democracy. Of course one does have to consider that if we do manage to do away with those things and the Republicans did gain control they could cause a lot of damage that would be hard to stop, at least until the Democrats won control back.

As for 2022 and 2024 from what I'm hearing about the Anti Abortion Movement, the overturning of Roe vs Wade is already doing a lot to help Democrats and even Republican women are considering voting Democrat the get it back and enshrined/codified into law. That combined with the recent victories in legislation that will go down as Democrat agenda wins should turn things around. We're not feeling it too much just yet but if the Biden Administration can hold things steady and allow the recent legislation to do what it's meant to do for the country then come election time it should look much better for the Democrats then it was. They've already closed an enthusiasm gap with the Republicans form double digits in the Republicans favor to just a gap or 2 points and Biden's approval rating has finally risen from the upper 30's into the low 40's. If those two trends continue things should go pretty well. The biggest problem according to over 70% of the population is a fear of us losing our democracy which is directly attributable to Trump and his MAGA minions. I think as long as we manage to hold Trump accountable for his many crimes and we punish his enablers as well then the Democrats will do okay.

It's unfortunate how 2016 worked out Hillary as the Democrat nominee was a good choice for putting a woman in the Oval Office that would know how to run things. It was high time that Women got a shot at the Presidency and Hillary was the best shot for that. Unfortunately the Democratic party did Bernie dirty I think and between that and how polarizing Hillary was capable of being that created all the opportunity Trump needed. Looking back at 2016 I kind of wish Bernie had won the nomination. Had he won I doubt trump would have pulled off the victory he did. Given the events that occurred 2016 - 2020 I think Bernie would have been forced to scale back his ambitions and we'd probably be looking at a second run for him right now.
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
the filibuster was used primarily by southern states to protect slavery and segregation as an institution. it was accidentally created in 1806 when the Senate did away with a rule that allowed debate to be cut off by a simple majority vote. it served (kind of) as a way to protect a minority from an uncaring majority, but has long since outlived any real usefulness....unless of course, you were in favor of slavery & racial disparities being encoded into law.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Gry

St. Phatty

Active member
The Jewish Grand-daughter of Leon Trotsky says that "Cannabis is Bad" for you.

The Commies didn't go away. They just switched countries.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Gry

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
the filibuster was used primarily by southern states to protect slavery and segregation as an institution. it was accidentally created in 1806 when the Senate did away with a rule that allowed debate to be cut off by a simple majority vote. it served (kind of) as a way to protect a minority from an uncaring majority, but has long since outlived any real usefulness....unless of course, you were in favor of slavery & racial disparities being encoded into law.
I don't like even saying it was accidentally created because that implies some intention behind it. It was more like a bunch of them were sitting in room somewhere smoking cigars and drinking Brandy and one of them said "You know, now that we finally did what former Vice President Barr said we should do a few years ago, and eliminated that senate rule on ending debates, that's left this weird kind of loophole depending on how you interpret the rules that any senator can use to stop senate business in it's tracks and hold it hostage even if that senator only has minority support in the senate."
 

GOT_BUD?

Weed is a gateway to gardening
ICMag Donor
Veteran
i was a reliable GOP voter until i saw how the NRA was turning into a slush fund for far-right horseshit. then, just as i was wondering exactly how far the corruption extended into the party, they nominated The Chump. their lockstep refusal to consider decrim & medical legalization and the fawning adulation of Faux "news" made my decision to leave a very easy one. BUT...if the Democrats continue to try to demonize legal gun ownership, a lot of folks in this country will turn on them. beware of overreach! both parties are prone to it. winning an election does NOT give you a "mandate" to stomp on law-abiding citizens and their rights under the constitution...
Are there Dems that want to do this? Yes. Do the majority of Dems want to? FUCK NO!! There is a rather large group of Dermocrats who don't want to take your guns but do want sensible controls in place to try and eleviate some gun violence.

You already know my stance on it, and I tend to vote blue. Though I refuse to call myself a Demoncrat.
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
Are there Dems that want to do this? Yes. Do the majority of Dems want to? FUCK NO!! There is a rather large group of Dermocrats who don't want to take your guns but do want sensible controls in place to try and eleviate some gun violence.

You already know my stance on it, and I tend to vote blue. Though I refuse to call myself a Demoncrat.
I was what they call a beltway insider for most of my life and still live just a couple of hours from DC after I moved outside of the beltway, which is just to say that politics is something I've had daily exposure to all my life. The closest we ever came to taking guns away during my lifetime was when they did the assault rifle ban back in the 90's and even then that only dealt with new sales of guns. Are there those on the left that have wet dreams of taking all guns away from people? Sure, just as there are those on the far right that want to take it to the opposite extreme. The reality is that the talking point of the government taking away everyone's gun rights is only and always has been a scare tactic of the right to rile up the republican base because the republicans can't manage to turn out the vote with just good old fashion policy agendas towards solving problems which leaves them relying on campaigning about how bad the other side is doing and using cheap scare tactics to turn people out.
 
Last edited:

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
Are there Dems that want to do this? Yes. Do the majority of Dems want to? FUCK NO!! There is a rather large group of Dermocrats who don't want to take your guns but do want sensible controls in place to try and eleviate some gun violence.

You already know my stance on it, and I tend to vote blue. Though I refuse to call myself a Demoncrat.
i'm not a Democrat either. but, given some of those in the GOP camp, i could see myself switching parties. i'm still a registered GOP voter, but am going to change to "Independent". there ARE some improvements that could be made to federal law RE firearms. several i could vote for federally are ALREADY in place here in TN. been adjudicated as dangerous by a mental health pro? no guns for you. domestic violence? ditto. pisses me off that FAMILY MEMBERS give guns to folks already banned from buying/owning/using them, and with damn near zero liability. that needs to change big-time. i used to work (years ago) with a guy (former LEO in Virginia, dead now) that bought used guns, and then sold them to people that could not pass a background check because "he felt sorry for them because they couldn't protect themselves"...if anyone on the damn continent should have known better....
 

h.h.

Active member
Veteran
Put a lot of guns on the street, then leave it to a “mental health pro” to decide if you have the right to protect yourself from the madness?
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
Put a lot of guns on the street, then leave it to a “mental health pro” to decide if you have the right to protect yourself from the madness?
The two things aren't connected, the mental health pro having a say is an obvious after thought made more obvious by the fact it only existed in his state but hopefully know after the recent legislation will be enforced more evenly across the country. Unfortunately and thanks to how slow our government has been about gun reform the idea of out lawing guns is a matter of trying to close the barn door after the horses have escaped, migrated to all fifty states, and established vast herds in each state. Which is to say it's an idea that has zero chance of ever working out in an realistic manner. Even if you ignore the large percentage of the American population that would fight the effort tooth and nail, there are just so many people and so many guns in circulation it would take years and unrealistic amounts of man-power to have any hope of enforcing.

That unfortunately leaves us with less then ideal solutions such as mental health pros deciding who can protect themselves. Even that measure isn't totally effective. What armedoldhippy's former LEO friend did was wrong obviously but I get his sympathy. There are many who can't protect themselves from the madness but not just those that mental health pros have deemed unfit. There are people like myself who having picked up a felony charge, even though no guns or violence was involved are blocked from having the right to own a gun for self protection. Sure there are means by which a person in my position can petition the courts to regain that right but it's not a guaranteed outcome, it takes time and it takes money to hire the right legal representation. Money that most people in that situation don't have because there are other long term impacts the stigma of having a felony on your record creates such as making it near impossible to gain the kind of employment that might allow one to hire a lawyer to get a felony removed from their record. Now for me I've always been pretty big on accepting the consequences of one's actions even if they were stupid actions that happened while being wasted on drugs and alcohol. So I've come to terms with my circumstances and accept them even though I don't agree with them. Besides there are other ways one can protect themselves even if they might be more risky then if one could use a gun. The thing that bothers me the most though is that the way the laws are written regarding felons is not only can they not own a gun but they can not live in the same home as someone that owns one who never had a felony. I learned this not long after I married my now deceased wife. Violent home invasions were on the rise in my state not long after we married and so we looked into the possibility of obtaining a gun legally even though I had a felony record. What we discovered was that if my wife obtained a gun, which was her legal right, I would no longer be able to share a home with her. Fortunately we never were confronted with a violent home invasion but it certainly seems unfair that my wife was denied the protection of a gun simply because of something stupid I did more then two decades before I ever met her. Fortunately she didn't see this as a valid reason to file for divorce and now that she is deceased it's a moot point. Still it does highlight the need for other solutions to resolve the issues our country faces with the level of gun violence that exists. Making guns illegal won't get the job done though because as the often quoted defense against that idea goes, "If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have them."
 

St. Phatty

Active member
The History of Communism is strangely inter-twined with the history of Nuclear Weapons espionage.

You guys really need to read some history books that are NOT approved by the US gov.
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
The History of Communism is strangely inter-twined with the history of Nuclear Weapons espionage.

You guys really need to read some history books that are NOT approved by the US gov.
Kind of funny how you come to that conclusion given how the history of communism predates the discovery of nuclear weapons by several decades minimum depending on when one defines as the start of communist history. It would be more accurate to say the two things had nothing to do with one another until nuclear weapons became a thing and a nation under the rule of communism decided to compete with the US for being a nuclear power in the world. I wonder would there be any nuclear powers had the US not successfully developed and used the Atomic bomb?
 
  • Love
Reactions: Gry

GOT_BUD?

Weed is a gateway to gardening
ICMag Donor
Veteran
"history books not approved by the US gov."

:Looks at shelf full of history books:

Damn. I can't find ANYTHING that's been approved by the US Government. Almost like that's not really a thing. Or are you talking about historical documents like in the movie Galaxy Quest?
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
The History of Communism is strangely inter-twined with the history of Nuclear Weapons espionage.

You guys really need to read some history books that are NOT approved by the US gov.
got them in libraries, and have read many of them. i don't look for govt approved stamp on covers of my books. most "alternative" history books are much like The Chumps "alternate facts". either revisionist "history" or outright bullshit. communism existed before nuclear weapons, but it was predated by centuries by espionage.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Gry
Top