I interpret that quote as telling people to go to work before they recover.
But in doing so doesn't one lose their right to complain when Trump casts his own interpretation upon something that was said, for instance, his comments about the Democrats being a socialist party? It would be, "You purposefully misinterpreted me," with the retort, "No I didn't, and you're much worse."
When neither side's claims are built on facts and reality then isn't the honest course to support neither? I hope it doesn't come to that.
Trump is so horribly awful, dishonest, corrupt and criminal that there seems no need for misrepresentation. What is most sad, if history is any guide (I'm looking at Nixon), is that none of Trump's enablers (and he has many, a whole Congress full) will likely suffer any meaningful consequences.
Like Bernie, you don't seem to know the definition of socialism. This is just more of your denigrate-anything-you-don't-like approach. Can you name any position of the Democratic party that is socialist?
I'm expecting what comes next to be a series of exchanges where you name things that either aren't positions of the Democratic party or aren't socialist or both, but to insist on them anyway and then argue interminably.
Like Bernie, you don't seem to know the definition of socialism.
Time to post this again:
YouTube: "The Difference Between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism Explained by a Marxist" (azureScapegoat, a Swedish Marxist though borderline Norwegian (lives near the border with Norway) )
In an earlier message, you opined that "socialism" is an over-charged word. While that is true, a better description would be overloaded as in function overloading and operator overloading -- from the article on function overloading:
quote:In some programming languages, function overloading or method overloading is the ability to create multiple functions of the same name with different implementations. Calls to an overloaded function will run a specific implementation of that function appropriate to the context of the call, allowing one function call to perform different tasks depending on context.
For example, doTask() and doTask(object O) are overloaded functions. To call the latter, an object must be passed as a parameter, whereas the former does not require a parameter, and is called with an empty parameter field. A common error would be to assign a default value to the object in the second function, which would result in an ambiguous call error, as the compiler wouldn't know which of the two methods to use.
Another example is a Print(object O) function that executes different actions based on whether it's printing text or photos. The two different functions may be overloaded as Print(text_object T); Print(image_object P). If we write the overloaded print functions for all objects our program will "print", we never have to worry about the type of the object, and the correct function call again, the call is always: Print(something).
I used overloading all the time in C++. Without overloading, for every possible data type that you would want to pass to a (e.g.) Print function, you would have to create a unique function name and then, when you'd want to call it, you'd have to write a clunky series of conditional statements that test the data type of the parameter(s) you want to pass in order to know which function to call -- not to mention the errors and warnings you would get for trying to pass the wrong data type to the other functions (there was a technique I picked up from straight-C sockets functions involving void pointers). IOW, without overloading you will have a mess that you must try to circumvent in some manner. With overloading, you simply call the function passing it the variable(s) as the parameter(s) and the compiler, knowing what data type(s) those variable(s) is/are will know which overloaded function to call. The same applies for overloaded operators (eg, + - * /) such that you can create a complex object and then define what it means to add them together. Cool, huh?
The application here is that the "s-word" has many different meanings and consequences depending on context and other qualifiers, so those contexts and qualifiers must be kept in mind all the time. The "s-word" is not monolithic nor is it confined to just one meaning. Indeed, even though it can be used strictly in a dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, the aspect of it being promoted and practiced in many West European countries (eg, Denmark) is firmly on the capitalist side of the dichotomy. Watch the video!
My peeve with Bernie and everybody commenting on him is that they have confused terminology between democratic socialism and social democracy. Those are two different systems -- please, please, please follow those links in order to educate yourselves.
The basic capitalism vs socialism dichotomy is over private ownership of the means of production versus government. That seems to be what most objecting to the "s-word" are thinking of, especially when they call it "communism" which it is not (communism is just a subset). But certain context-driven meanings of the "s-word" do align with either side of that overall dichotomy.
What Bernie's camp calls itself is "democratic socialist". But if you were to follow that link I provided you above (SECOND ADMONITION!), you would see that democratic socialism is a system in which the economy and means of production is owned and controlled by the state, but the people are able to vote and have a say in what the government does. That is definitely on the Socialist side of the basic capitalism-socialism dichotomy (again, watch the video).
But is that actually what Bernie is talking about or advocating? No.
In the video (WHAT?!?!?!?!? You haven't watched it yet?), at about 7:30 he gets into Revisionist Marxism, which overlaps the captialism/socialism dichotomy. That's where social democracy comes into the picture.
If you were to follow that link I provided above (technically SECOND ADMONITION, but I'm going to count it as THIRD ADMONITION), social democracy is very strongly on the capitalist side of that overall dichotomy:
quote:Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions.
Some have called it "Capitalism Plus". The benefits of capitalism with a security net for the workers and general population. That is what social democracy is.
But Marx was definitely right about one thing (see "Genius of the Modern World" on Netflix). Capitalism left to itself will devour everything, including itself. Evolutionarily, that death spiral is inevitable.
Was pondering this extreme polarization that is continually in evidence here on almost any subject at all, as if there are actually two different kinds of brains involved. It gets expressed of course as insults and I suppose it would be hard to get off that mode of expression, but I'm truly amazed at how the Left thinks. It really is like you're all from some other planet. I can suppose the Sixties Leftists who pretty much run the universities are the basic cause but I'm not satisfied with that explanation. I still don't grasp how anyone could get attracted to that kind of thinking. I'm sure you all have a similar point of view about the Right. I could start a thread on it I suppose but I don't have much hope for it. We'll just call each other idiots and ignoramuses and no light will be shed on the essence of the difference as usual.
I think anyone campaigning nationally on a "Sure, I'm a socialist, but not that kind of socialist," with the added burdens that the dictionary doesn't even include their definition of socialism, that people already have negative views of socialism, and that people are not going to listen to what sound like hair-splitting rationalizing explanations, is fighting a losing battle all the way.
Bernie is precisely who he says he is, a democratic socialist, and sometimes he'll be honest about what that means, but sometimes not. For instance, here's he is a long time ago trying to redefine democracy to be socialism. This is from Political positions of Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia:
quote:"Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, it means decentralization, it means involving people in their work. Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can."
No, Bernie, that's not democracy. That's socialism. You're a socialist.
It's also important to note that the programs he talks most about like Medicare for all, free public college, and a higher minimum wage are not part of democratic socialism. They're just something that many western governments (not ours) have become more enlightened about over time. It is what any government that truly has its citizen's best interests at heart would do, though of course it does have to be financially responsible.
If a C++ job fell into my lap I'd take it. It was wordy and required an incredible amount of tweaking of class definitions, but it could be programmed to be anything you wanted it to be. Java is missing a few features that were part of C++'s power, like multiple inheritance and operator overloading, but many Java advocates view them as some kind of plague of ambiguity. Maybe C++ is a little like Sony Beta. It was the better technology, but the simpler and cheaper VHS technology won.
AbE: Forgot some major advantages of of Java: portability, and automatic memory allocation/deallocation and garbage collection.
Funny, we conservatives all know they are a socialist party, funny you guys don't. All your hairsplitting definitions are irrelevant.
Your fact-free opinion is at odds with reality. I ask you again: Can you name any position of the Democratic party that is socialist?
What we do know about the Republican party is that they believe that giving the most breaks to the people at the top of the economic ladder is the best way to create a thriving economy, and that the benefits provided to the rich will trickle down to the rest of the population.
As you eek by on your meager income you might ask yourself how trickle down is working for you. If Republican policies are so beneficial for the country, why aren't you benefiting?
quote:Was pondering this extreme polarization that is continually in evidence here on almost any subject at all, as if there are actually two different kinds of brains involved.
Well, your brain is the sort that labels anyone who doesn’t support Trump as a leftist. Even a right-wing extremist. The sort of brain that jumps from a man claiming that he hasn’t eaten in 66 years to the idea that he is a demon-possessed corpse without any consideration of the alternatives. The sort of brain that says it’s normal for the President to ignore all the usual channels and send his personal lawyer in to demand investigations of daft conspiracy theories (but only if he’s a Republican - if he’s a Democrat you’d be making up stuff to make it look even worse)
quote:It gets expressed of course as insults and I suppose it would be hard to get off that mode of expression, but I'm truly amazed at how the Left thinks. It really is like you're all from some other planet.
You mean a planet where obviously false right-wing propaganda isn’t automatically believed. That’s this one.
quote:I can suppose the Sixties Leftists who pretty much run the universities are the basic cause but I'm not satisfied with that explanation
I’d suggest that actually thinking is a rather more important part of it. It doesn’t take much to notice that the Democratic Party has a range of views and that the establishment Democrats are well to the right of Bernie Sanders. Who isn’t a communist.
quote:I'm sure you all have a similar point of view about the Right.
The difference is that we have real evidence.
quote:We'll just call each other idiots and ignoramuses and no light will be shed on the essence of the difference as usual.
I think that my points above shed considerable light on the matter. You won’t accept that, though because you don’t like the truth.
It is important to note that in many individuals the coronavirus symptoms are mild, and such people are unlikely to be tested. Worldwide cases could be far more than 100,000. If they're actually, say, 3 million then the coronavirus mortality rate is the same as the flu, so while that's enough to generate concern because we have no vaccine, it isn't enough to generate panic or quarantine cruise ships or cancel travel plans or wear a face mask. You should wash your hands more often, and not touch your face (which can be tough when you've been prescribed a cream for a minor rash).
Trump is actually correct when he says we don't know how dangerous this virus is, but he is dead wrong when he encourages complacency. Where national health is concerned we must always errr on the side of caution. Trump's twin goals of keeping the stock market high and virus concerns low are working against each other. Every time top Trump administration officials makes it seem that they don't take the virus threat seriously, which they do a lot, the stock market tanks.
™ Version 4.2