The Democrats: We're Not Even Going To Try To Save You Because You're Idiots
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Bernie is stumping in the South and winning over some black voters
- Thread starter Kimura
- Start date
The Democrats: We're Not Even Going To Try To Save You Because You're Idiots
How many people do you think hear that message and then also hear "end wage slavery" and think that yours sounded better
edit - and you just said you don't want to try, you want to maintain capitalism for the rest of human history even as its excesses kill us all because the best you can imagine is a comfortable life for you personally
Last edited:
It's not a slogan. It's a view on political trends now being completely predictable when a party takes a Trifecta in congress, barring extreme extenuating circumstances. You have to YOLO it in the less than two years you have in power to make change.
I think Kirblar was more saying that progress will involve dragging the stubborn conservatives into the future kicking and screaming.
It's plenty realistic when you actually do the math and consult some history.
The Founding Fathers set the age requirement at 35 and it's never been changed.
Kennedy was 43 when he was elected. Obama was 47. The median age of all presidents is 55. The current median age of the country is 36.
Somebody born in 1970 will be 50 in 2020. I don't want somebody fresh out of grad school. I'm saying it's time for Gen X to get their shot. We've had baby boomers in office since Clinton. Ageism is a weak argument from people who have been in the game for 30 or more years thinking that life out of office as a trusted elder statesman providing wise counsel to younger politicians in their prime is some kind of death sentence.
Don't you want a chief executive making decisions like they have another 30-50 years worth of life left to look forward to living in this country and on this planet?
Is an 80 year old the kind of person who is going to have the will to fix entitlements, or actually spend the political capital needed to enable real progress on climate change? That shit is unrealistic.
I'll be supporting the most progressive candidate in 2020. If that's him, so be it.
Regardless, it's good to see him out there energizing people. He's probably one of the best things that party has going at this point.
Regardless, it's good to see him out there energizing people. He's probably one of the best things that party has going at this point.
Yeah, my point is mainly that if you heard it from the people not running the socialist OT:
1) the international "left" hasn't effectively been reduced to Corbynite Labour and a few Scandinavian parties (this would've included Italy but M5S and LN just cannibalized half of PD's seats), and
2) pre-existing inertia (from what are in many cases immediate post-WW2 institutions like national health care programs and subsidized college) isn't the only thing keeping the remainder from flat-out being on the right by the same standards being used
Any random 80 year old? I dunno. Bernie? Hell yeah! He's already shown he is more than healthy, energized, and motivated to push his agenda.
Implying you need a long life left to want to help your fellow man is pretty sad and doesn't sound like it has anything to do with Sanders' personality imo.
It really is because, under capitalism, healthcare in the U.S. became tied to one's economic status i.e. their job and whether or not their job's insurance would cover the costs of whatever they may need, assuming their job did provide them with healthcare. People like Martin Shkreli and companies such as DaVita have a vested interest in making as much money as possible and have taken advantage of the lack of the current system to do just that.
Capitalism, specifically in its current form in the U.S., is the problem. That the U.S. government's response to it has been less than effective does not somehow mitigate that fact when most developed countries in the world have some form of universal healthcare.
Poll of Missouri has McCaskill leading Hawley 48-44
Greitens is dragging the party down. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll somehow hold out until 2020, and Kander can take his job.
Greitens is dragging the party down. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll somehow hold out until 2020, and Kander can take his job.
Lots of other capitalist countries have managed to get universal coverage for their citizens with public/private hybrids. Some even still have it tied to employment as well for certain aspects. This is primarily a political issue, and its one where the US is held back pretty explicitly by a combination of racist whites who see welfare programs as going to "those people." and oppose them and people like DeVos who are uninterested in investing in public systems because they themselves don't use them. This radicalized nature of class is one of the reasons for the GOP assault on public education, because in many places, their voters were pulling their kids out of integrated public schools and into nearly mono-white private schools, and as such, were uninterested in paying for them.
It's much easier to get social welfare programs going in homogenous areas, which is a reason why Euro countries were able to do it, and also why Utah is bizarrely one of the more progressive states in a number of ways on these sorts of issues (even if they're more regressive on other social issues.) And yes, this is a reason why Vermont is the way it is.
If life is the point of life, make life better for as many people as we can for as long as we can. And have some fun while you're at it. Something that definitely plays into that is that I won't have kids of my own ever.
Definitely not meant as a "woo hoo just burn it down who cares about the next gen position." (Although psychopath me would probably hold that position and be profoundly unpleasant.)
great post!
(actually not at all, it's very transparent you're trying to call him out as "virtue signaling" for attention since nobody read that messay you posted upthread, but y'know)
User Warned: Either have a discussion around the argument, not the user, or don't.
This is the point, midnight john.
He simply just got someone banned while exhibiting the exact behavior he attempts to white-knight against. I'm tired of seeing kirblar's bullshit propagated throughout this forum in the guise of intellectual curiosity. He has very little. The poly-sci major in your might think this is profound, but it isn't.
Last edited:
Surely the problem of "bad policy decisions leading to a bad system" is the fault of some backwards minded voter living in the midwest and not hyper-capitalist greed from politicians in both parties.
given that this is a representative democracy, yes, the electorate literally is partially at fault for allowing this shitty garbage health care system to continue when many of them know full well it's bad
The WWII wage policy stuff was just legit bad policy because they didn't understand the consequences of leaving benefits uncapped while capping wages.
Surely the problem of "bad policy decisions leading to a bad system" is the fault of some backwards minded voter living in the midwest and not hyper-capitalist greed from politicians in both parties.
And it's not greed, it's just racism. It took us 4 decades to make substantial advances after LBJ.
A+ pedantry
Blaming "the electorate" who are only allowed to make a series of binary choices at the voting booth after having a lacklustre political education is one of the most apocryphal takes in the history of the internet. It is literally politician's ONLY JOB to propose policies in a way that appeals to voter's self interest.
no, you're right, nobody is ever at fault for anything except this conveniently placed set of representatives
the fact that there's been a midterm backlash every single time health care reform's been proposed since approximately the Civil Rights Act means nothing, obviously it's always as simple as we aren't messaging well enough
the fact that there's been a midterm backlash every single time health care reform's been proposed since approximately the Civil Rights Act means nothing, obviously it's always as simple as we aren't messaging well enough
Politicians not proposing policies that significantly expand the welfare state because white voters interpret that as "handouts for black people" has been a problem for Dems for a long while, yes.
What does homogeneous mean in this context? I'm not sure what it has to do with social welfare programs.
Edit: oh you explained it pretty well. nvm
Or the fact that widespread welfare was only able to be enacted because they promised it was for while people only.
Hence the war on welfare programs since people of color were added into the programs.
Racism in its most heinous systemic form in America has always been propagated to justify a capitalist status quo (slavery, private prisons, etc). THAT race biased inequality being left to ferment is what brings rise to acts of individual racism and racist thought among the general public. Even one posits (correctly imo) that voters sometimes vote through racist impulse, you're putting the cart before the horse. Systemic racism is and has always been about capital.
Surely the problem of "bad policy decisions leading to a bad system" is the fault of some backwards minded voter living in the midwest and not hyper-capitalist greed from politicians in both parties.
hm, I am not getting to the same conclusions reading his posts. To me, he believes capitalism is the best way to ensure economic growth for as many people as possible, but not unchecked capitalism. Just how far he thinks the government should go on limiting the negative effects of capitalism is another thing entirely.
Also, he isn't wrong at all. Conservative-minded people generally believe in capitalism while also believe in limited government, which is a harbinger for long-term economic and social disaster. Many people ran to those conservative-minded people (claiming they are economic conservative and socially liberal) but were really racist and did not want minorities getting government help even if it hurts themselves as well. This isn't something that can be refuted by the way as whites (especially white men) moved from being Democrats to mainly Republican except in certain scenarios.
There is a major reason why LBJ said this "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Those white voters moving from Democrats to Republican because of the Democratic policy changing to help minorities more is one of the major reasons U.S had/has unchecked capitalism for so long. Greed in capitalism is also a major reason, but like I said, you can't deny the big reason (which is well documented) why Republicans managed to grab and hold onto power for so long.
Racism paved the way for this much capitalism and inequality in U.S as it was used as the tool for greedy assholes to enrich themselves as the poor white man was too busy keeping as much as he can from minorities while getting robbed himself. Again, this is well documented, I am not seeing the issue with Kirblar's post here.
I see you responded.. Kirblar, no one disagrees that racism was the tool that allowed this, but greed is one of the reasons that tool was used consistently. If you are using racial issues to divide people, so you can push policies that enrich yourself, family, friends, etc. then obviously greed is somewhere in there.
Just pointing out it is very intellectually dishonest to say greed has nothing to do with it and its only racism.
Last edited:
Having populations with very high numbers of a singular dominant cultural group and low #s of minority groups. Tribalism sucks.
The more diverse your country or state, the harder it becomes to make progrssive social policy happen. It's why you end up w places like Utah and Vermont having an easier time pushing this stuff through despite their opposite ideological polarities.
And that's the fundamental disagreement where I believe you are dead wrong. Racism doesn't stem from capital, it stems from people being assholes. If no difference exists, one will inevitably be created.
Last edited:
As I said in my previous post, I find the evidence to be more convincing that Capitalism invents and then thrives on inequality and racism, so the system continuously creates new forms of it to ensure its continued existence. Inequity is intrinsic to capitalism. Are there ways to lessen this through government intervention as Kirblar says plenty of other countries beside the USA do well? Of course.
I think that probably that was true and continues to be true, but I think a lot of conservatives have really convinced themselves that starving and dying from a lack of health insurance is actually freedom because the government didn't provide you any subsidies. Clearly racism is a factor, but there really seems to be a large part of the republican party that really just think old people should have the freedom to live in poverty, poor people should have the freedom to not get an education, etc. and see that as genuinely good. Paul Ryan wanting cut social security, medicare, and whatever public good, I think has very little to do with racism. Even though maybe unconsciously it's a reason why so many republican voters support it.
The GOP is fractured on economic issues internally. (see voter study group data) The social issues are what bind the modern GOP together, the Southern Strategy has taken over the party. Paul Ryan doesn't really represent any grand voter constituency of ideological base voters.
Yeah I think your comment made a lot of sense.
I was really asking because recently one of my professors was talking about research he was doing - something about the negative effects of free college. And something he threw out was that it works in a lot of European countries because they had homogeneous population. He didn't really clarify what he meant by that and I know he's a pretty conservative guy - so I didn't know what to make of his comment - aside from casual racism. But now I feel really dumb having read your post :(
If you think that capitalism is "unchecked" in the United States, I don't really know what to tell you.
He's against it. I don't think he'll be for it ever tbh.
I wonder if there are supporters in the next bunch of possible candidates. It would be major.
I can agree to this, but I do not believe that capitalism itself is "inventing racism". Racism is intrinsic to humanity, we are simply intelligent to realize it and many of us use the knowledge we have to suppress such thoughts. So I don't believe capitalism itself is what creates it, it just uses it to it's advantage, which makes it worse. If this is what you are saying, then we likely full on agree here.
I don't believe everyone that is conservative is a racist and using racism as their reason for keeping policies from going forward, like you said, there are those like Paul Ryan that truly believe in limited government despite any ills it may bring. Racism played a huge part earlier (and still do), but the reasoning shifts as time goes on and racism is no longer cool, they use other reasons as to why and keep repeating it until many actually believe it.
I don't think it is unchecked, it was poor wording, just not as regulated/dealt with as it should be. From housing, zoning, trains, etc. U.S policies in many areas is sorely lacking.
Last edited:
no, i don't literally mean to say that capitalism LITERALLY invented racism, just that subjugation and exploitation of some form are necessary for its existence. Subjugation of a particular group for profit is the starting point for pernicious strains of racist supremacist thought, not the end point.
Relatively speaking would you still disagree? With all the exdcellrated mergers, and mega conglomerates, increasing and rampant wealth inequality, and ever increasingly uneven taxation plans being implemented, I would have a hard time thinking that rampant capitalism isn't a problem.
Last edited:
I think TarNaru is right that racism is in a loose sense an inhertent aspect of human nature, as is any in group bias, but supremacy needs a framework by which to take root in peoples minds, and that framework in America was Capitalism. Slavery literally built America's economy into what it is today. All the excuses invented to justify that exploitation of a labor force that couldn't defend itself are the things we commonly think of as individual racist thought today.
There won't be. Reparations is an issue that would absolutely kill any candidate in the general election. There is quite possibly no issue that would turn white voters against a politician more.
The first person to support it will be a radical firebrand who isn't expecting to win. Basically a Bernie with more understanding of minority concerns who wants to push the Overton window. DSA officially proclaimed support for reparations last year, for example.
I'm not sure why you picked housing and zoning as areas that lack regulation. Like, bring up zoning laws around any old dude rockin his old ass white Reebocks and watch his blood pressure skyrocket. But seriously, some of the most expensive markets, with the highest per square foot cost, are also the most heavily regulated. Housing shortages abound and the cost to own a home is insane.
Prospective or existing residents get priced out of mobility or out of their neighborhoods. Those high prices also disproportionately affect low income, minority citizens.
Relative to what? What markets?
I'm not even from America and i'm sick of you guys relitigating the 2016 election.