so im not sure your point? No one said anyone suggested socialism. tlongs post didnt. buuuut. There are many socialistic ideals being tossed around and things can easily evolve into full on socialism with how the current movement is going. but your point that no one is advocating socialism is false. Some are. One must get past S2 to see it though. Even though its also evident here in some spots. You read every post here. People have asked whats so bad about socialism.
@Phatguysrule when people post “fuck the police” and “fuck the 12”…Are you trying to imply that isn't anti police? Cause thats been posted here many times and you read every post so….. i would find any defense to that laughable.
I said "fuck 'em" to the Blazers and Root not offering adequate coverage for fans. That doesn't mean I'm anti-blazer. On the contrary, they are my favorite team. However, I'm frustrated with some aspects of their business model. You were also quite upset with them. Are you saying that you are "anti Blazers"?
Asking what is bad about something is not the same as advocating, or proposing something. Learning about something does not mean you support it. What prominent or serious political movement is advocating for socialism? Tlongs post was the first mention of socialism. Everything else that has been discussed is a part of the Nordic Model, which has not devolved in to full on socialism, and shows no propensity to do so. My point is to keep us on topic rather than talking about something nobody involved in the conversation is advocating for.
The dark side of the Nordic model Scandinavians have it all. Universal public healthcare and education that is the envy of the world. Reasonable working hours with plenty of paid vacation. They have some of the highest levels of happiness on the planet, and top virtually every ranking of human development. The Nordic model stands as a clear and compelling contrast to the neoliberal ideology that has strafed the rest of the industrialised world with inequality, ill health and needless poverty. As an antidote to the most destructive aspects of free-market capitalism, the egalitarian social democracies of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland inspire progressive movements around the world. These countries are worth celebrating for all they get right. But there is a problem. They are an ecological disaster. You might not notice it at first glance. Their air is crisp and fresh. Their parks are free of litter. Waste collection works like a charm. Much of the region is covered in forests. And Scandinavians tend to be environmentally conscientious. But the data tell a different story. The Nordic countries have some of the highest levels of resource use and CO2 emissions in the world, in consumption-based terms, drastically overshooting safe planetary boundaries. Ecologists say that a sustainable level of resource use is about 7 tonnes of material stuff per person per year. Scandinavians consume on average more than 32 tonnes per year. That is four and a half times over the sustainable level, similar to the United States, driven by overconsumption of everything from meat to cars to plastic. As for emissions, the Nordic countries perform worse than the rest of Europe, and only marginally better than the world’s most egregious offenders – the US, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia. Yes, they generate more renewable energy than most countries, but these gains are wiped out by carbon-intensive imports. This is why the Nordic countries fall toward the very bottom of the Sustainable Development Index. We think of these nations as progressive, but in fact, their performance has worsened over time. Sweden, for example, has gone from 0.755 on the index in the 1990s down to 0.328 today, plunging from the top seven to number 143. For decades we have been told that nations should aspire to develop towards the Nordic countries. But in an era of ecological breakdown, this no longer makes sense. If everyone in the world consumed like Scandinavians, we would need nearly five Earths to sustain us. This kind of overconsumption is driving a global crisis of habitat destruction, species extinction and climate change. You will not see much evidence of this in Norway or Finland, but that is because, as with most rich nations, the bulk of their ecological impact has been outsourced to the global South. That is where most of the resource extraction happens, and where global warming bites hardest. The violence hits elsewhere. Of course, Scandinavia is not alone in this. Many high-income countries pose just as much of a problem. But as we wake up to the realities of ecological breakdown, it becomes clear that the Nordic countries no longer offer the promise that we once thought they did. It is time to update the Nordic model for the Anthropocene. Nordic countries have it right when it comes to public healthcare, education and progressive social democracy, but they need to dramatically reduce their consumption if they are to stand as a beacon for the rest of the world in the 21st century. The good news is that the high levels of welfare for which Nordic countries are famous do not require high levels of consumption. Happiness in Costa Rica rivals Scandinavia with 60 percent less resource use. Italians live longer lives with half the resource use. Germany has higher education levels with 30 percent less resource use. Of course, wintry climates require slightly more materials, but there is still much room for improvement. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/12/6/the-dark-side-of-the-nordic-model
What I meant about open borders is that congress for many years has refused to step up and get control/reform immigrations. My family is made up of immigrants and Ive always been pro immigration, back in the 60's I had migrant workers traveling through to work fields as guest in my home each year they made the journey. We have always been a country that allows legal immigration, just need a bi partisan effort to better govern in this day. Im for law enforcement but it needs reform and cleaned up, along with crooked politicians. Im all for anti racist measures at all levels. And government should always play a role in this. I'm a mixed enterprise guy meaning both government and business/competition. I have a hard time with the libertarian belief that the gov should not play a role in commerce. Again I want a balance with this. I guess im like the hub on a bike wheel where I take something from all quadrants of the wheel.
Hmm, looks like they are environmentally better than the US. We can all agree that the world needs to be more ecologically friendly. The Nordic Model appears better at that than we are. And nobody who suggests the Nordic Model is suggesting we stop striving for ecologically friendly alternatives to our most damaging activities.
huh? “But the data tell a different story. The Nordic countries have some of the highest levels of resource use and CO2 emissions in the world, in consumption-based terms, drastically overshooting safe planetary boundaries. Ecologists say that a sustainable level of resource use is about 7 tonnes of material stuff per person per year. Scandinavians consume on average more than 32 tonnes per year. That is four and a half times over the sustainable level, similar to the United States, driven by overconsumption of everything from meat to cars to plastic. As for emissions, the Nordic countries perform worse than the rest of Europe, and only marginally better than the world’s most egregious offenders – the US, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia. Yes, they generate more renewable energy than most countries, but these gains are wiped out by carbon-intensive imports. This is why the Nordic countries fall toward the very bottom of the Sustainable Development Index. We think of these nations as progressive, but in fact, their performance has worsened over time. Sweden, for example, has gone from 0.755 on the index in the 1990s down to 0.328 today, plunging from the top seven to number 143. For decades we have been told that nations should aspire to develop towards the Nordic countries. But in an era of ecological breakdown, this no longer makes sense. If everyone in the world consumedlike Scandinavians, we would need nearly five Earths to sustain us.”
This is true of every first world country and has nothing to do with their economy, other than energy. These are problems we need to solve just as much as the Nordic countries do.
We need to get more into this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/24/climate-crisis-machines-sucking-co2-from-the-air Nobody is better at sucking than the US. Well, except for the porn industry of course.
behavior and tone is evidence. Your analytics arent viable in every situation. sometime the only evidence is opinion. there is not factual evidence Trump is racist but people use his behavior as evidence. So you are correct. It breaks down here because some people understand numbers cant be put to everything. Some things are only evident through observation without any quantifiable evidence or proof. so as long as there is no evidence she is anti police there is also no evidence Trump is racist. Its funny how evidence or proof must be had for some opinions but not others. only required when it fits the narrative. so i could care less if there is or isnt provable evidence. Her tone and behavior has supplied enough evidence for those who look beyond graphs and analytics.
Well, she has proposed solutions to improve policing, where as Trump has a long history of saying racist things and treating minorities terribly. https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history If you want to make a stand right there defending Trump have at it.
Trump called the Unite the Right rally with swastikas, confederate flags and antisemitic chants very fine people. He has been repeatedly sued for racial discrimination. He called Mexicans rapists and referred to Haiti and countries in Africa as shitholes. He called COVID China virus and kung flu. How much evidence for racism do you need?
The only tone or behavior that I have seen from her have been in response to police abuses of power. So I understand why she feels that way. I am sure she is opposed to police abuse, I would hope we all are. But that's not the same as being opposed to police or "anti police".
and im sure there are some very fine people in the police force And im sure there are very fine people who vandalized downtown portland. Making that claim doesn't prove one is racist. Been sued or been convicted? I can sue you for being racist does that make you racist? Meh. See there are opinions but if it fits a narrative its proof of racism. Perfectly validating my point. Thanks!
