The Democrat Utopia

RedDenver said:
The basic idea is that the workers collectively own the company they work at. Another way to view it is if we employed the idea of democracy to the work place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
Click to expand...


I am all for these if a group of people want to get together and form one. 

But, these in no way delegitimization or prove some moral high ground compared to traditional business ownership.

Im saying that because discussions where they are brought up usually start by someone claiming they do.  

 
TGHusker said:
I do think there can be found a reasonable path forward on this issue that both sides can 'compromise on'. But it has been 'in the works' for 50 years almost - but mostly by both sides yelling past each other.  For simplicity sake I think pro-lifers see 'right to life' as starting in the womb while pro-choicers see it as post birth.  There may be a reasonable compromise that won't fit the 'purist' in either camp but that can bring civility to the argument - and remove it from the 'argument' category to the 'needing support' category where it should be - support for the child and the mother. 
Click to expand...
I don't think a compromise is necessary if we could eliminate the need for "optional" abortions in the first place.

Fund sex ed classes

Allow birth control to be covered by insurance

Give free birth control to teens, especially low income.  (Colorado did this a few years ago with IUD's and their abortion rate plummeted)

Give women access to prenatal care

ETC.

Everyone wants to argue over the ethics of an outcome, in this case abortions, and not look at the symptoms leading to that end.  

 
BigRedBuster said:
I am all for these if a group of people want to get together and form one. 

But, these in no way delegitimization or prove some moral high ground compared to traditional business ownership.

Im saying that because discussions where they are brought up usually start by someone claiming they do.  
Click to expand...
I've responded in the abortion thread.

 
knapplc said:
So... this is a willful misrepresentation of the GND?

"Rebuild every single building in the U.S." The line they quote directly below this heading belies the heading. The very first word is "upgrade."

"Build trains across oceans and end all air travel!" The line they quote doesn't say anything like this. It's pretty easy to interpret as a domestic travel plan.

"How much will it cost?" She hasn't laid out the plan, but this piece is painting this poorly by citing the cost to... billionaires? Really? Even if the cost is "$4.6 trillion" to repair US infrastructure, is that an outrageous cost? Is that market value? Is it a bad thing to reinvest in American infrastructure? It's presented as bad... why is it bad? And why would conservatives (at whom this piece is aimed) balk at a figure like that? Do they have a problem spending that kind of money to reinvest in America? Because they sure don't seem to have a problem blowing that kind of money on pointless wars.

Maybe before we preemptively dismiss everything the woman says as "loony tune ideas" we should actually, I don't know... listen to her ideas?

People gripe about "Washington" and claim we need new blood in Congress. Then we get it and they're torn down before they have a chance to change anything.

And then we wonder why we have the problems we have.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
Knapp, I'm going to take back, walk back my loony tune label.  It is wrong to label someone that way when they seem to be sincere in what they want to accomplish and for the benefit of society - even if I think it may be an overreach.  My initial reaction was based on the Politico article and the lack of details on how to fund it.  The other article was NOT  needed to be apart of the discussion and did not clearly communicate the bullet points of the GND program as provided in the other link.  I should have resisted the 'piling on' impulse from the 2nd article. 

Pointless wars vs infrastructure - I'll take infrastructure every day.  And it is primarily those pointless wars that ballooned the national debt (that and pointless tax cuts and having to recover from 2008) to the point where I'm gun shy on ballooning the debt even more without a good plan to 'pay for it'. 

I'm sure JFK faced similar if not worse reaction when he announced he wanted to land men on the moon.  But nothing big happens by small thinking people.  Forgive me for being caught in a 'small thinking ' moment.  The GND may not be realistic as a whole but maybe partially.  Who knows, maybe we can find ways to make it  work  whole - that overall would be good for society.  I don't want to be thought of as a small thinker - so I'll give her and those who support her the benefit of the doubt and see where it takes us.  As long as it doesn't stifle freedom and enslave us financially due to the cost, we should look at all options and be leaders and not followers. 

I stand corrected and I appreciate your critic of my post to bring me back to reality. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
I am all for these if a group of people want to get together and form one. 

But, these in no way delegitimization or prove some moral high ground compared to traditional business ownership.

Im saying that because discussions where they are brought up usually start by someone claiming they do.  
Click to expand...
I think a work place that is run by democratic means is more ethical than one run by an owner or group of owners. Not because the owners are necessarily unethical or bad in any way, but because it allows self-determination and a means to address issues in the workplace. If we really value democracy, then why wouldn't we have it where adults spend most of their waking lives?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We had some high school seniors at Lincoln East High put on blackface to depict Lincoln High players for a pep rally.

My guess is 1973. I remember a lot of people thinking that it crossed a line even then — nervous titters and groans, the faculty shaking its head, but smiling.

It probably didn't make the yearbook, but I'll take a look. 

 
Waldo said:
How will trains cross oceans (maybe his point)?AOC says and believes in things that make it easy to make fun of her. She is similar to Trump in that regard, although not on the same level. 
Click to expand...


I know right, a politician who wants and fights for policies that will benefit the majority of the U.S. and our environment and not just special interests groups.  I mean we've never had that before, so we might as well make fun of her.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
We had some high school seniors at Lincoln East High put on blackface to depict Lincoln High players for a pep rally.

My guess is 1973. I remember a lot of people thinking that it crossed a line even then — nervous titters and groans, the faculty shaking its head, but smiling.

It probably didn't make the yearbook, but I'll take a look. 
Click to expand...
I went to East as well. We had idiots throw green cards after beating Omaha South in the State Soccer Championship. I had already graduated, but was watching a friend's brother play. High school kids are stupid sometimes, but it still makes me wonder who gives kids ideas likes these.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
We had some high school seniors at Lincoln East High put on blackface to depict Lincoln High players for a pep rally.

My guess is 1973. I remember a lot of people thinking that it crossed a line even then — nervous titters and groans, the faculty shaking its head, but smiling.

It probably didn't make the yearbook, but I'll take a look. 
Click to expand...




Here's my thinking out loud thought on the whole thing.

People and awareness change over time, and a lot of people made mistakes when they were younger, or when they were less enlightened.

But when it comes to leading the country, we should want people who knew the right thing to do when it might have been unpopular. So when I hear someone say "if someone looked back and saw what I did..." or "everyone does that," it's irrelevant to me. We should want the best and brightest people in the country to be in charge of it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have 2 problems with how much AOC is made fun of. One, I think the cause of her infamy is not merely what she's saying. Why would it be? She's a member of the House. There are loads of people in the House who say stupid s#!t. I think it has to be in part because there are people who are scared that her ideas will cause them to lose profits and they want to make her look crazy, which they likely do every time anyone talks about environmental ideas. Lots of people could stand to lose a lot of $.

The other problem I have with it, which someone mentioned above, is she is trying to help avert disaster. If her ideas are naive or stupid or undoable, the people who think they are naive or stupid or undoable should propose ideas that would accomplish some of what she wants instead of just writing them off as completely unrealistic. Because what she wants is a worthy cause. And her ideas aren't all unrealistic. Most of them are realistic in at least some form.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
I think a work place that is run by democratic means is more ethical than one run by an owner or group of owners. Not because the owners are necessarily unethical or bad in any way, but because it allows self-determination and a means to address issues in the workplace. If we really value democracy, then why wouldn't we have it where adults spend most of their waking lives?
Click to expand...


Fine, then go start one and work for it. But, don’t force that on others. 

If it works better, the job market and work place will migrate that way. 

 
Frott Scost said:
I know right, a politician who wants and fights for policies that will benefit the majority of the U.S. and our environment and not just special interests groups.  I mean we've never had that before, so we might as well make fun of her.
Click to expand...
Lol spin that however you want. Very little of what she says is realistic, but sure. 

 
Back
Top