-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
NBC News: Inside Bernie-world's war on Beto O'Rourke
- Thread starter Deleted member 2426
- Start date
Let me tell you outside of the militant anarchists/Leninists who only believe in violent vanguard revolution, the "far left" would be quite happy with, say, a 90% tax on capital gains, or a massively increased estate tax like perhaps 80% over $10 million. It's the "centrists" that tell us "no, this is isn't viable/feasible/electable/desirable".
I put "far left" in quotes because everyone has their own idea of "far left" and I can't be exactly sure who you're referring to.
I put "far left" in quotes because everyone has their own idea of "far left" and I can't be exactly sure who you're referring to.
I would like to read more about this, do you have anything you can point me to?
Except do any campaigning outside of Martha's Vineyard, New York City and LA.
OP
OP
You sound upset. I am sending you love and blessings in these festivities!
Fair, but not what I've seen. In my view, "far left" aims for direct social transfers; fiscal redistribution is achieved through taxation. It's the difference between adjusting redistributive dials and outright appropriation.
I suppose it's imperative to settle on working definitions before having conversations.
I don't see the two as fundamentally different, I only care about their effects. The main reason I might be sympathetic to cries of "seize and redistribute the wealth" is because hoarders of wealth do everything in their power to resist or undermine redistribution. If they just paid a sufficient amount of taxes and stopped using their wealth to amplify their influence, I would never need to engage in what normative society considers extremist rhetoric.
So if I understand you correctly I would be "left" in your eyes but not "far left"?
The main difference is the incidence of the burden. Direct transfers funded by shares from capital to labor could lead to wage effects (higher wages and less labor used overall).
In other words, no matter where you fall on any spectrum (and you're anywhere from a leftist or a left-leaning centrist), I suggest that you (and all of us) care about how social transfers are accomplished. They're not all created equally.
To me the difference between the left and the center is the amount of transfer and how necessary they think it is, not precisely the methods. Most leftists I know would view the mere existence of billionaires alongside the working poor as an affront to a just society, and that this is an inequality that needs to be corrected whether through legal or extralegal mechanisms (depending on how extreme this hypothetical person is). On the other hand you have politicians like Biden and that entire school who sees nothing inherently wrong with the existence of billionaires. And that, if taxes are to be levied, they shouldn't be so high that they no longer permit the creation of billionaires.
I see that too.
I wish I were at a keyboard instead of headed to family dinner, but: I also see nothing inherently wrong with the existence of billionaires, but their number, the amount of wealth inequality, and the relative frequency of billionaires per sector are all useful to examine. But then, I also accept that while there's a baseline existence that society should guarantee, no matter what that baseline is, someone's going to live on it (and some will probably complain it's not higher).
Mods got their work cut out for them.
But, the party will be fine once primaries are over.
Lol.
They may as well unionize and ask for wages during election season.
I'm disappointed this didn't contain another overused Drag Race meme ;(
This is because of the 4 axis political compass having two crossover groups (there are really two different types of moderates/centrists/etc. "Moderate" tends to mean the populist part if used by itself, "centrist" the libertarian part.)
Populist | Conservative
-------------------------
Liberal | Libertarian (aka "Centrist")
The upper left (aka your Obama->Trump traditional swing voter types) is very "dont step on snek" and tends to be opposed to tax hikes for social programs because of the whole "going to nonwhite people" thing.
The lower right (aka your Romney->Clinton types) are actually far less opposed to redistribution, tax hikes, etc. because the racism isn't overriding their judgement. They just are generally more conservative on which ones they'll go for.
The 2016/2018 realignment trade is good for Dems getting stuff passed through the house/senate, bad for actually winning the senate/wh.
edit: Kaitos might have something on the polling if you hit him up. He was worried about the trade until he saw the data we were getting in the UK/US from the new places.
The Yellow Vests are an example of the Populist type, which is why they sound so very tea-party-ish in various places and are virulently anti-tax.
Its weird i had the same opinion of hillary during the 2016 primary, but i've long since learned white politicians have a habit of saying some dumb shit on race and its better focus on policy objectives and voting records to decide who to vote for. Other wise there will be no one to vote for.
They're not weird at all. You just have to detatch social issues and economic ones from each other. Once you do that, suddenly everything is a billion times simpler because you can put racist leftists and notracist but very dumbass libertarians in a categorization that actually fits them.
Dont Step on Snek aren't libertarians because their racism and self-interest is the defining factor, not their economics. Libertarian in this chart is "actual libertarian" not "lying conservative."
USA source- https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
USA image- https://www.voterstudygroup.org/ass..._drutman_e4aabc39aab12644609701bbacdff252.png
Austria showing the same pattern->
You got it inverted.Like this?
Racist
Redistributive Nonredistributive
Nonracist
edit: Try this way
Medicare for Me, but not for those people | No Medicare
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medicare for all, in some shape or form | *There are so few of us here that our opinion is kinda irrelevant*
Last edited:
Like this?
EDIT: Tried it again:
Your edit is perfect, imo.
The issue is more of the liberals are more to the right on taxes, but still in the more taxes side lol. At least if I am understanding it correctly.
Edit: you can see a good description Kirblar's post, 1st link figure 2. Racist do love left economic policies, they are just so racist, they are to the right socially and swing back and forth depending on what is going on in U.S.
Both parties' donor classes are to the left of their party on social issues and to the right on economics relative to the base. But that chasm is massive on the GOP side, which is why the THE OC thing is such a problem for them long term, because of the GDP distribution changes.
This discussion makes me wonder just how much they are willing to sacrifice just to keep non whites from gaining ground. At some point of economic liberalism, I would think they would be content with sacrificing their hatred of nonwhite to better themselves, but history has shown they always swing back. I get all of this, still annoys the hell out of me that Democrats cant seem to agree with how left to go when we aren't even close to Europe left.
What a ridiculous hitjob article. Says a lot about the state of ERA that many of you accepted it at fave value
It's not a hitjob when it's literally talking about David Sirota doing a hitjob.
So one writer criticized Beto, so "Bernies world" (What that even mean) is waging a war? What is even the link to Bernie here that justifies his placement in the headline. A "war", wow, criticism is warfare now! This is just CAP bs and any journalist with actual credibility should be ashamed. They're trying to make criticising Beto a crime so he can waltz through the nomination and the status quo defended. Eugh
It's not just Sirota, TYT and Kulinski have both been going guns blazing on him. But Sirota specifically was attacking Hillary Clinton throughout 2015 and 2016. Even after the primaries. I would expect TYT to calm down eventually- but Sirota is a different sort of problem.
It's not criticism, it's that Sirota is a disingenous attack dog, not a journalist. He used to work for f'ing AIPAC.
We have no idea who is running yet. Just fanboys of all sides speculating.
OP
OP
It is Christmas, don't antagonize strangers on the internet. Bless you!
Last edited:
howard dean is definitely a neutral observer and someone we can trust
like, of all the opinions I'd like to hear on this whole thing, Howard "I sold out my most famous position to become a lobbyist, and now I mysteriously hate the biggest supporter of it" Dean isn't one of them
e: upon further research, it turns out dean hasn't liked sanders for literally decades. so I don't think this is in any way an impartial or important opinion
Last edited:
OP
OP
I actually see Beto ending like Dean. One gaffe during the primaries and he will be over. Meanwhile Bernie is already a landmark in US politics, a thing Dean never got close too. His legacy was a scream, while Bernie's the rebirth of DemSoc in US politics.
Bernie associating with weirdos like Cenk Uygur (multiple times, right?) and folks like that is a pretty good illustration of what socialist-types mean when they say he's a compromise candidate, and a grievance many of us have with him. But I wouldn't call TYT (or even more explicitly DSA outlets like Chapo) the "Bernie World."
Nate Silver mentions something I have tried to bring up earlier as well. Hard left types here acting like its a BAD thing that Beto is like Obama are completely out of touch with the Dem base.
Dean has shifted away from being thought of well in progressive circles ever since he became a lobbyist. Dont know if his tweet holds much weight.
As much shit as TYT gets its not the worst outlet politicians have associated with. We have places like CNN and MSNBC platforming garbage like Megyn Kelly and politicians chumming up with morning joe. TYT is the biggest progressive news outlet being close to them when their worst aspects, Jimmy Dores accelerationist mindset is in the grand scheme not as bad as some of the pundits working on cable news.
Megyn Kelly was not a host on either CNN or MSNBC.
Also Cenk is THE host of TYT. The network revolves around him. And he is a hateful awful person that no reasonable person would associate with.
And and which CNN host is worse than Dores (Dores hosts an actual show so trying to compare him to random panelists doesn't work).
Dores advocated for Trump to beat Hillary and to this day is anti-Mueller and insists the Russia stuff is a hoax. How is he any better for the Dem party's goal of winning elections than Hannity or Tucker? They all sound exactly the same when it comes to denying the thread Russia and their intervention in our democracy in coordination with Trump.