Page 2 of 2 [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,997
Location: Reading, England

14 Jan 2022, 7:26 am

roronoa79 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It's plainly untrue that both candidates are likely to be centrist capitalists. They will probably both be *capitalists*, but the Democrat will probably be a liberal social democrat and the Republican will probably, at best, be socially conservative, and could quite possibly be a Trumpian nut.

Also, let's be honest - the major problem in American politics right now isn't career politicians, it's the random extremists who wander in and cause genuine chaos. Give me Chuck Grassley over Majorie Taylor Greene any day. Give me Barack Obama over Donald Trump.

If your complaint is that neither of them represent your far-left ideals, then OK, you are at least advocating for the sort of electoral reform that would allow you to vote for candidates you like without risking - but complaining that "both parties are the same" is obviously wrong. Generously, it's a deeply biased position. Less generously, and I don't think this is true in your case but it is in most people who say it, it betrays an unfamiliarity with politics.

I didn't say it clearly, but when I said centrist capitalists the "centrist" was modifying capitalist more than the politician in general. Politicians in this country differ mainly on social policies--but I have grown very tired of this being the main point of difference. Mainstream Democrats are vocal about social inequality--but very few are willing to talk about economic inequality and how the two reinforce each other.
This difference in social positions will hopefully become less pronounced as socially-liberal positions continue to become the norm.

Even if I weren't a leftist, I struggle to see how people expect the right (or in my case, the center too) will hope to reform the system. Centrist insider politicians have shown themselves to be incapable or unwilling to make any but the most incrementalist, ineffectual reforms. They refuse to rock the boat and it disenchants more people with each passing day. They refuse to be truly laissez faire, because their corporate donors expect preferential treatment from them. They refuse to call for strong regulation, because that would alienate their donors and the all-regulation-is-socialism crowd.
Centrist politicians are imo unlikely to support term limits or reforms which might make us a multi-party democracy, because it would undermine their duopoly on power.

I don’t think it is true that most Democrats don’t care about poverty. For example, here is Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential platform: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

The issues are sorted alphabetically, but the only issue that has “A” attached to the front is “A fair tax system”, which calls for tax rises on the rich and tax relief for the working poor. The third policy is “An economy which works for everyone”, and calls for profit sharing and debt-free college as well as tax reform. You can look at her policies on childcare, health, campaign finance, housing, labor and workers’ rights, even things like climate change and autism - all mention poverty and/or economic inequality.

Profit-sharing, for example, is not a conservative (in the literal sense of the word) idea, it’s a radical one. I don’t think it would necessarily have the impact that its advocates think it would have, but it would certainly have an impact.

Within the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is considered relatively pro-business. I don’t think any of the 2020 candidates would have positioned themselves as to her right - maybe, at a push, Michael Bloomberg. But Joe Biden wanted to go further with social programmes, commit larger sums of money, and strengthen workers’ rights further than Clinton.

Biden’s huge direct stimulus cheques are also not “incrementalist”, they’re completely without precedent. As far as I am aware, no other country in the world was sending four-figure cheques to 99% of adults in 2021.

I’m extremely supportive of democratic reforms. Around the world, I am in favour of expanded franchise, proportional representation (which means no presidencies), and campaign spending limits. While term limits have some superficial appeal, I don’t think they are a good idea - countries that have introduced them have tended to see a corresponding increase in corruption as lobbyists know exactly which politicians are going to be unemployed in a few years.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,363
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Jan 2022, 1:19 am

To save voting rights, stop this crap where voting stations and licensing offices (to purchase ID) are closed down in minority areas and in the vicinity of colleges. Rather than suppressing the vote, a political party should be altering their ideology in order to make connections with said minorities, as well as idealistic, better educated people. And yes, admit that racism is alive and well, and contributes to suppressing the votes of minorities besides just keeping them from taking part in their constitutional right to vote.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 109,631
Location: the island of defective toy santas

16 Jan 2022, 1:20 am

or at the very least these hypocrites need to come clean about what they're doing and explain themselves. fat lotta luck that happenin' anytime before the 2nd coming, because such types never admit anything to anybody outside their tribe.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,363
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Jan 2022, 1:36 am

auntblabby wrote:
or at the very least these hypocrites need to come clean about what they're doing and explain themselves. fat lotta luck that happenin' anytime before the 2nd coming, because such types never admit anything to anybody outside their tribe.


Indeed.
I should have mentioned how the gerrymandering bullcrap meant to strip voting power from specific groups needs to stop, too.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 366

17 Jan 2022, 8:42 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I don’t think it is true that most Democrats don’t care about poverty. For example, here is Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential platform: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

The issues are sorted alphabetically, but the only issue that has “A” attached to the front is “A fair tax system”, which calls for tax rises on the rich and tax relief for the working poor. The third policy is “An economy which works for everyone”, and calls for profit sharing and debt-free college as well as tax reform. You can look at her policies on childcare, health, campaign finance, housing, labor and workers’ rights, even things like climate change and autism - all mention poverty and/or economic inequality.

Profit-sharing, for example, is not a conservative (in the literal sense of the word) idea, it’s a radical one. I don’t think it would necessarily have the impact that its advocates think it would have, but it would certainly have an impact.

I don't know if you are familiar with US politics, but most of our politicians will put all kinds of things in their campaign platform, even when they absolutely zero intent on following through. Presidential campaign policy platforms aren't ever designed in coalition with representatives in the party. Instead everyone in congress just does their own thing and various "centrists" always pop out of the woodwork to block reforms that hurt the interests of their financial backers. There's always oddly just enough of them as well, as though others are sitting back letting them take the heat. Also, Biden and Obama refused to follow through even on items that could be tackled through executive orders, bypassing congress.

Quote:
Within the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is considered relatively pro-business. I don’t think any of the 2020 candidates would have positioned themselves as to her right - maybe, at a push, Michael Bloomberg. But Joe Biden wanted to go further with social programmes, commit larger sums of money, and strengthen workers’ rights further than Clinton.

And yet nothing even close is accomplished.

Quote:
Biden’s huge direct stimulus cheques are also not “incrementalist”, they’re completely without precedent. As far as I am aware, no other country in the world was sending four-figure cheques to 99% of adults in 2021.

Some other things going on at the time were also "umprecidented". It's ridiculous to compare poorly executed emergency measures to long term social democratic policy. Apples and oranges. I also hate that they had to call it "stimulus" instead of "relief" to please the corporate class.

Quote:
I’m extremely supportive of democratic reforms. Around the world, I am in favour of expanded franchise, proportional representation (which means no presidencies), and campaign spending limits. While term limits have some superficial appeal, I don’t think they are a good idea - countries that have introduced them have tended to see a corresponding increase in corruption as lobbyists know exactly which politicians are going to be unemployed in a few years.

Changes to the structure of a representative democracy cannot be accomplished without constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments require 3/4 of States to ratify. It just isn't going to happen in the current situation. Term limits doesn't solve every issue, but it's better than nothing IMO.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,015
Location: Illinois

18 Jan 2022, 4:09 am

Yeah, term limits are meaningless since it's the power structure that needs to be destroyed. No good candidates have any chance of rising up through the rot and slime of the system. And even those who claim to be progressives in the Democratic Party will never stand up to power. AOC and the Squad are evidence of this sad reality.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,417
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

18 Jan 2022, 5:35 am

roronoa79 wrote:
Stop romanticizing America's past.
Stop worshipping the Founding Fathers (blessings and peace be upon them) like they are demigods.
Stop treating the Constitution the way Christian fundamentalists treat the Bible.
Stop buying into Outrage News for Profit.
Stop lamenting that #BothSides are to blame then sit on your apathetic civic-rhetorical a** and do nothing to challenge the elite.
Stop acting like there is a moral equivalency between rioters protesting government violence and rioters who want to intimidate congress into not certifying an election.

(Edit: disclaimer that this is not directed at OP, this is all directed at my fellow Americans)


This one is a great point and is something that has often baffled me. Americans seem to often talk about their constitution as if its some holy scripture which cannot be amended or even criticised. To move forward in life you need to be free to change the rules that bind you when the situation changes. That is what other nations do, but from the outside it always looks like suggesting that would be seen as sacrilege

I also like your other points too. one I would add is from the outside it seems like most of your media exists purely to manipulate and control society.

How did a society created out of a desire for freedom become so controlled?!



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,997
Location: Reading, England

18 Jan 2022, 6:40 am

NoClearMind53 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I don’t think it is true that most Democrats don’t care about poverty. For example, here is Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential platform: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

The issues are sorted alphabetically, but the only issue that has “A” attached to the front is “A fair tax system”, which calls for tax rises on the rich and tax relief for the working poor. The third policy is “An economy which works for everyone”, and calls for profit sharing and debt-free college as well as tax reform. You can look at her policies on childcare, health, campaign finance, housing, labor and workers’ rights, even things like climate change and autism - all mention poverty and/or economic inequality.

Profit-sharing, for example, is not a conservative (in the literal sense of the word) idea, it’s a radical one. I don’t think it would necessarily have the impact that its advocates think it would have, but it would certainly have an impact.

I don't know if you are familiar with US politics, but most of our politicians will put all kinds of things in their campaign platform, even when they absolutely zero intent on following through. Presidential campaign policy platforms aren't ever designed in coalition with representatives in the party. Instead everyone in congress just does their own thing and various "centrists" always pop out of the woodwork to block reforms that hurt the interests of their financial backers. There's always oddly just enough of them as well, as though others are sitting back letting them take the heat. Also, Biden and Obama refused to follow through even on items that could be tackled through executive orders, bypassing congress.

Quote:
Within the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is considered relatively pro-business. I don’t think any of the 2020 candidates would have positioned themselves as to her right - maybe, at a push, Michael Bloomberg. But Joe Biden wanted to go further with social programmes, commit larger sums of money, and strengthen workers’ rights further than Clinton.

And yet nothing even close is accomplished.

Quote:
Biden’s huge direct stimulus cheques are also not “incrementalist”, they’re completely without precedent. As far as I am aware, no other country in the world was sending four-figure cheques to 99% of adults in 2021.

Some other things going on at the time were also "umprecidented". It's ridiculous to compare poorly executed emergency measures to long term social democratic policy. Apples and oranges. I also hate that they had to call it "stimulus" instead of "relief" to please the corporate class.

Quote:
I’m extremely supportive of democratic reforms. Around the world, I am in favour of expanded franchise, proportional representation (which means no presidencies), and campaign spending limits. While term limits have some superficial appeal, I don’t think they are a good idea - countries that have introduced them have tended to see a corresponding increase in corruption as lobbyists know exactly which politicians are going to be unemployed in a few years.

Changes to the structure of a representative democracy cannot be accomplished without constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments require 3/4 of States to ratify. It just isn't going to happen in the current situation. Term limits doesn't solve every issue, but it's better than nothing IMO.

On executive orders: Biden is issuing more than any President since Truman, although that’s inflated by the usual flurry in the first few days.

On stimulus: I don’t think it matters what it is called. However, as I said, nobody else in the world was doing it despite the pandemic being a global event.

On accomplishments: I don’t think a $1.2trn infrastructure bill is “nothing”.

On term limits: I don’t believe in “something must be done”. Do things that will solve the problem. Don’t do something just because you feel you should do anything. I don’t think term limits would actually accomplish anything, and are likely to increase corruption. (Of course, term limits would also require a constitutional amendment!)



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,015
Location: Illinois

18 Jan 2022, 12:14 pm

I'm not sure where you got the idea that only America was giving out stimulus checks:

https://theworld.org/stories/2020-04-03 ... ose-europe

The most disgusting aspect of the 2020 U.S. stimulus package was the five trillion dollars that was awarded to the fat cats on Wall Street and elsewhere. It's been described as the biggest upward transfer to the billionaire class ever. Truly revolting!


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 366

19 Jan 2022, 12:14 am

The_Walrus wrote:
On executive orders: Biden is issuing more than any President since Truman, although that’s inflated by the usual flurry in the first few days.

He has done nothing popular. Vaccine mandates only riled up the right. Seems like he wants to lose.

Quote:
On stimulus: I don’t think it matters what it is called. However, as I said, nobody else in the world was doing it despite the pandemic being a global event.

Please give proof. Other countries didn't just hand out checks to everyone, but most had other systems that accomplished something similar and did it in a better way. I think the gridlock in the US system makes us moronic and inflexible, and allows crookedness to thrive. A lot of money ended up getting taken by crooked as*holes who didn't need it, and plenty of people didn't even receive a check who needed it.

Quote:
On accomplishments: I don’t think a $1.2trn infrastructure bill is “nothing”.

The spending is spread out over 10 years. Meanwhile, military expenditure increases are always quoted in terms of yearly expenditure. I don't get why you are acting as foot soldier of our media propaganda system when you aren't even American.

Quote:
On term limits: I don’t believe in “something must be done”. Do things that will solve the problem. Don’t do something just because you feel you should do anything. I don’t think term limits would actually accomplish anything, and are likely to increase corruption. (Of course, term limits would also require a constitutional amendment!)

The people who control all the levers of power like the system exactly the way it is. There will never be a majority necessary to get a constitutional amendment passed with the way the corporate owned/controlled media intentionally divides the country into two opposing tribes. I honestly don't think anything will be done to solve the problem without a huge protest that frightens certain people.



NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 366

19 Jan 2022, 12:25 am

VegetableMan wrote:
I'm not sure where you got the idea that only America was giving out stimulus checks:

https://theworld.org/stories/2020-04-03 ... ose-europe

The most disgusting aspect of the 2020 U.S. stimulus package was the five trillion dollars that was awarded to the fat cats on Wall Street and elsewhere. It's been described as the biggest upward transfer to the billionaire class ever. Truly revolting!

This. It was almost like progressives were blackmailed into wasting money because if it was targeted to people in need only it would get rejected by the corrupt "centrists" of both parties. I honestly respect the libertarian wing of the GOP more because even though they are very very wrong, I don't think they operate in bad faith. They believe stupid things, but they believe what they say they believe. I can't say the same of the Mitch McConnel's and Joe Manchin's. Half of their garbage isn't even consistent. It's just "bailouts for rich people = good, bailouts for poor people = bad".. except they don't come out and say it. Just utter duplicitous slim balls.