Quo Vadis GOP?

[The Minsky Moment]

Fine with me. As I said in my first post, Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

But it is self-evident from the tweet that is NOT the definition she is using for socialism, since there are no "health care schemes" Democrats have proposed would involve the "control of the means of health care production" by states.

The schemes that Democrats have proposed or enacted and she has gone on record opposing are Obamacare (Stefanik voted to repeal) and Medicare for All (she opposes).

There is no way these plans can be characterized as socialist and yet Medicare and Medicaid not.

[alfred russel]

If Medicare is not socialism then Medicare for All is not socialism either.   And Obamacare sure as hell isn't.

Fine with me. As I said in my first post, Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

Nope, you are conceding the one side of the coin, while insisting the other is fine.

If medicare and medicaid are not socialist, then neither is medicare for all, and hence the tweet talking about "socialist medical care" make no sense, and is moronic.

Either they are all socialist, or none of them are - either way, the tweet is idiotic.

The tweet made no reference to medicare for all. It only said we must reject socialist healthcare schemes.

[alfred russel]

But it is self-evident from the tweet that is NOT the definition she is using for socialism, since there are no "health care schemes" Democrats have proposed would involve the "control of the means of health care production" by states.

The schemes that Democrats have proposed or enacted and she has gone on record opposing are Obamacare (Stefanik voted to repeal) and Medicare for All (she opposes).

There is no way these plans can be characterized as socialist and yet Medicare and Medicaid not.

She didn't reference democrats. She only said we must reject socialist healthcare schemes, which whether or not proposed by democrats, do exist.

To my knowledge I've never heard Stefanik speak and I think that tweet is the first thing I've read that she has written. She may be a terrible and vile person, and I readily accept she has said many hypocritical and evil things if you want to assert she has done so. I was only commenting on the logical consistency of her tweet being held up for ridicule.

[The Minsky Moment]

So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

[grumbler]

So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

It's either that, or concede that he's wrong.  Guess which one he will choose.

[Berkut]

So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

It's either that, or concede that he's wrong.  Guess which one he will choose.

Judging by history, it's not a tough guess.

[Admiral Yi]

So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

He didn't propose a theory of her true meaning.  He pointed out an interpretation under which the tweet was not inconsistent.

[alfred russel]

So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

I have no such theory, and never spoke to her intentions. I simply pointed out that it wasn't necessarily internally inconsistent.

Berkut started off a thread he titled "what the Right gets wrong about economics that annoys the shit out of me...."

Socialism != social spending.

They are not even remotely the same thing.

What a society chooses to spend on social programs has nothing to do with whether or not they are "socialist". You could spend zero on social spending with a free market driven economy, or you could spend 75% of your GDP on social spending, and neither would be "socialism".

Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that.

[The Minsky Moment]

So you theory is that she made a tweet intending to refer to non-existent health care initiatives that are being proposed by no one?  And that she intended it to be read and understood that way?

Interesting hermeneutical technique.

He didn't propose a theory of her true meaning.  He pointed out an interpretation under which the tweet was not inconsistent.

I see that
What I don't see is the point of applying an interpretation that the speaker was not using.

It's possible to interpret the opening of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as a reference to a soccer game from 7 years earlier that ended 4-0 but it would a pretty silly thing to do

[Admiral Yi]

What I don't see is the point of applying an interpretation that the speaker was not using.

To demonstrate mental agility.  To demonstrate powers of recall.  To take a swipe at Berkut.  To provoke an argument. 

[Berkut]

I do appreciate his willingness to own her moronic tweet as his own, and actually try to craft and defend an interpretation that at the end of the day....still doesn't make any damn sense.

[alfred russel]

I do appreciate his willingness to own her moronic tweet as his own, and actually try to craft and defend an interpretation that at the end of the day....still doesn't make any damn sense.

I never "owned" her tweet as my own. I only pointed out that it wasn't contradictory using a definition for socialism that you were using a few weeks ago (quoted above). 

That is as far as I went and it is kind of weird it set off a bunch of people criticizing my original statement on various grounds that weren't there. I think my post was rather self evident and noncontroversial.

[Berkut]

I do appreciate his willingness to own her moronic tweet as his own, and actually try to craft and defend an interpretation that at the end of the day....still doesn't make any damn sense.

I never "owned" her tweet as my own. I only pointed out that it wasn't contradictory using a definition for socialism that you were using a few weeks ago (quoted above). 

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.

Either government funded healthcare is socialism, in which case the healthcare she appears to love is socialism, or it is not, in which case the healthcare boogeyman you are defending is not socialism either.

Funny how dedicated you are to completely and consistently defending right wing talking points, without actually, you know, believing them yourself. It's just an intellectual exercise, of course.

[alfred russel]

It is most certainly contradictory using that definition, since that definition rather *explicitly* states that social spending is not socialism, therefore there is no such thing as "socialist healthcare" to begin with. As has been explained like...20 times.

So the soviet union or cuba or north korea don't have socialist healthcare under that definition? I'm not an expert in how they were/are organized, but it seems unlikely that no healthcare system has met such a definition.

[Valmy]

The NHS is socialist. I think we can all agree on that.