LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Or Australian
US Politics VIII
- Thread starter dazzledbylight
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
And nobody wants that
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
No, you're right, let's try it your way for the hundredth time, I'm sure this time it'll work.
Seriously, horseshoe theory is fucking idiotic. You really want to keep things going and pretend anyone to the right of you is arguing in good faith?
Last edited:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Smidge left of fascism? Yes, you sound just like them. Both extremes are the same in that they’re both feelings over fact. They’re incapable of applying any logic or practical implementation to their arguments.
I’m not worried about “good faith”, I know honest people on all sides. My concern are those that can’t reason, throwing that out will be the death of us. And unfortunately it’s becoming a national pastime.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
lol oh for sure man
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
I've seen you say this stuff for a while, and it leaves me scratching my head. I'm speaking specifically of stuff like "They're capitalists, and that's right wing economics no matter how much kvetching they do about the social issues". Are we to take this to mean that you support getting rid of capitalism altogether? And if so, what would you replace it with?
I can, with little to no qualification, say that I support single-payer healthcare, making the minimum wage a living wage, free public college tuition(indeed, anything to improve the quality and accessibility of public education), that I think there are certain industries that should never be for-profit(like healthcare, education, there are probably one or two others), and that if there is any action that can be taken to close the wealth gap and create a fairer economic playing field, we should take said action. All of this would act to create a more limited, more regulated capitalism with more redistribution, but it would still be capitalism, in which people still get to pursue private ownership of property and in which the means of production are still owned privately, i.e. that's what Democratic Socialism is, a capitalist dish with socialist spices mixed in. Are you suggesting that you wouldn't support such a system? That you insist on capitalism being gone altogether? That is what it sounds like when you say that all capitalism is right-wing economics. It's very extreme.
If this is the case, I can say that I would not be able to support such a thing, as I don't really see how you can get rid of capitalism altogether and replace it with pure socialism or whatever else you'd propose replacing it with, without losing democracy. Because I just don't think you're ever going to get enough people to buy into it democratically, and you'll end up having to force a whole lot of people into it, and then that's it, now we're an authoritarian society.
Maybe this isn't what you're suggesting at all, but sometimes it sounds like it. And if that's the case(again, if it's not, just say so), it's a problem for me.
It's just disconcerting to me when someone is trying to put forth a political paradigm where I can be in favor of single payer healthcare, higher minimum wage, free public college tuition, etc etc, and still be made to feel like I'm not progressive enough, like I'm too centrist, etc. Even if that's not what you're doing, enough others(not here, necessarily) have done it that I felt like I had to get it off my chest.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
this is right on the money. i feel like this is where much, but not all, of the democratic party is, and in some ways it's a credit to the democratic socialists who, in just 2 years, have made progress by working within the Democratic Party and pulled the overall platform to the left, similar to what the Tea Party did to the GOP in 2010. this is how it works in a two party system. generally, i support the goals of the democratic socialists. "medicare for all" is now a real platfor. good. i would locate myself a half step to the left of HRC and Obama, but i'm aware that they may need to present themselves as further to the right of me in order to win elections. this is something Democrats are actually very good at doing on the presidential level. since 1988, they have won the popular vote in every single election except for 2004, where W squeaked out a victory. reasons for losses in 2000 and 2016 come down to a combination of third party idiocy, Russians, and the structural issues inherent to our system where rural votes count more than urban votes.
what the Democrats do need to do is grow a spine and fight back harder, we all agree on that. and they need to fight as dirty as the Republicans do.
however, all this does is underscore the importance of voting D no matter what, unless you're talking local elections in like San Francisco or New York. if you don't have Democrats you get nothing progressive. it's absolute garbage to say "i'm not voting for you because you're not doing enough" when actual Nazis are gathering in DC this weekend and there's a lunatic in the white house. it's also absurd to think that people in the center don't vote for socalists because they've never heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or because all her candidates (who all lost on Tuesday) were somehow kneecapped by the "establishment." it is not self-evident to everyone that socialism is the only moral form of government. in fact, it's not self-evident. if you believe in a platform, make the argument and do the right, hard, slow work of pulling the the party closest to you in your direction.
i'd rather pull the centrists who actually vote to the left rather than think that saying "free college!" is going to motivate people who don't vote to actually vote, because i don't think there's any platform that's going to motivate them to vote. what would make a difference in participation would be to, say, put election day on a Saturday. or make it a national holiday. or not purge voting rolls. and you know how you do that? you get Democrats elected however you can.
the single most successful social movement of the 21st century was same-sex marriage. look how that was done. it took activists and argument and judges and elections and making the moral case to the middle that it was the right thing to do. and now it's basically settled law.
and if a bunch of fucksticks who sat on their hands in November 2016 and are willing to do so again because they aren't getting a free lollipop with their votes enable this monstrous party to remain in power and they strip my rights as a citizen, then they have a special place in hell alongside the people they are keeping in power via pouting instead of voting.
Last edited:
trojanchick99
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
I pretty much agree with everything you've written. The Two Party system that we are stuck with at the moment, means the Dems and the GOP are really coalitions. So it's up to the party to work out differences. That's why you get pro-life Dems and pro-marriage equality GOPers. I'm definitely further left than most mainstream Dems, but I also understand we have to work within the system we have right now to try to get control of Congress because if the Dems fail I truly fear for this country.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1027641351184306177?s=21
A survey a while ago showing that something less than 30% of 18-29 year olds plan to vote in the midterms
But keep those hashtags going!!!
A survey a while ago showing that something less than 30% of 18-29 year olds plan to vote in the midterms
But keep those hashtags going!!!
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
I need to take a break from this forum again. You guys all think it's still fucking 1996.
For the record; Obama and Clinton don't support most of the things you guys say "isn't left enough for me." They can't even get there. It's not about even how they present themselves. It's how they operate. I feel like I'm out of my fucking mind reading you guys ascribe all these good things to people like Obama and Clinton that they quite literally have never done.
For the record; Obama and Clinton don't support most of the things you guys say "isn't left enough for me." They can't even get there. It's not about even how they present themselves. It's how they operate. I feel like I'm out of my fucking mind reading you guys ascribe all these good things to people like Obama and Clinton that they quite literally have never done.
Ay yo Trump. Ya fucked, bro
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
I never mentioned either Obama or Clinton(either Clinton) in my post. Not once. I asked some questions about your position on capitalism and whether or not you want to get rid of it entirely, none of which you've even attempted to answer.
nbelcik
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,592
As someone who agrees with PhilsFan, my economic philosophy is syndicalism, which is democratic ownership of businesses. Essentially every business would be a co-op, democratically run by the workers. You'd still have markets but some industries would be nationalized.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
there would be a billion steps to get there but yeah, why shouldn't we get rid of capitalism?
This.
Mac_Fly
War Child
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 529
Remember, the GOP came out of the old Whig Party. Some similar kind of rebranding may happen out of this chaos.
It's not just going to be the Democrats, all by themselves. That's not on the table. The Libertarians can't fill the gap, and forget about the Greens.
How about we get a real conservative party again, instead of a reactionary party--it was that reactionary element that made them vulnerable to Trump's warmed-over opportunistic fascism. Drop the bible-thumping--religion is a private matter. GENUINELY reach out to minorities. Support responsible fiscal policy--don't just give it lip service, like they have ever since Reagan (who ran up the debt more than any Democrat ever did).
Let the real far-right people form their own little rump party, if they like. They'll self-destruct soon enough. The GOP has a great heritage, but it's ignored that heritage for a long long time now. Stop with the wedge issues and the pandering to ignorance and hate and fear.
I don't really believe it'll happen, but it's nice to think about.
It's not just going to be the Democrats, all by themselves. That's not on the table. The Libertarians can't fill the gap, and forget about the Greens.
How about we get a real conservative party again, instead of a reactionary party--it was that reactionary element that made them vulnerable to Trump's warmed-over opportunistic fascism. Drop the bible-thumping--religion is a private matter. GENUINELY reach out to minorities. Support responsible fiscal policy--don't just give it lip service, like they have ever since Reagan (who ran up the debt more than any Democrat ever did).
Let the real far-right people form their own little rump party, if they like. They'll self-destruct soon enough. The GOP has a great heritage, but it's ignored that heritage for a long long time now. Stop with the wedge issues and the pandering to ignorance and hate and fear.
I don't really believe it'll happen, but it's nice to think about.
Yeaaaa that's not happening.
I do believe that we're destined for a split somewhere down the line. Probably not in our lifetimes, but perhaps the next generation.
Eventually something has to give.
You can't have increased automation, an inevitable student debt bubble crash, and a population shift to urban centers that gives a disproportionate say to the minority of voters thanks to the electoral college and not expect there to be some kind of break at some point.
And frankly I honestly think it would be for the best.
I agree with most of your points here, except for the fact that many urban centers are LOSING population, including California (Los Angeles) and New York City. The way these cities (including Chicago) are being run is unsustainable, and unless the leadership changes, people will keep fleeing California, New York, and Illinois (Chicago for urban center purposes).
yeaaaa New York is most definitely not losing population.
LA's population, and California as a whole, also continues to rise. California's state population hit 40 million this year, an all time high.
Chicago has seen a three year decline. So you're right on that one.
But most major cities... Houston, Seattle, Boston, Dallas, San Francisco etc. continue to grow year after year.
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
I know we all have strong feelings about the evils of unfettered capitalism and free market worship, but I feel like getting rid of capitalism altogether is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I know this sounds superficial, but think of all the products/entertainment that would be lost without capitalism? Do you think the smartphone/tablet would've been created in non-capitalist society, without a CEO like Jobs? Do you think Star Wars would exist in a non-capitalist society? Do you think U2 would have made the music we love if they didn't think they could capitalize on it?
The point being that capitalism fosters creativity and innovation, etc etc.
Yeah, I'm sounding like a right-wing talking point now, which I assure you is a first, but I'm just saying, even though there is evil and ruthlessness and inhumanity in capitalism, it's not all bad.
There is also the long-held fear that democracy can't exist without some form of capitalism. I don't know if that's really true, but it's a fear a lot of people have.
I'm in favor of getting rid of private insurance and private prisons altogether, doing everything possible to improve public education to the point that private education becomes less necessary, ideally ending the gun industry, and private defense contractors make me uncomfortable as well. I believe in the cause of closing the wealth/opportunity gap. I believe in equal opportunity and redistribution of wealth. All these things progressives believe in.
Wouldn't it be better to aim for a much more socialized and limited version of capitalism than to throw it out altogether?
I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but I'm not convinced yet.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
they made excellent movies and invented useful things in the soviet union, you know.
humans don't require huge financial incentives to be creative.
humans don't require huge financial incentives to be creative.
Last edited:
I do think there's a hybrid solution in there somewhere.
Capitalism isn't as bad as the left makes it to to be nor as good as the right says it is. Same goes with socialism.
There's zero reason why we need to fit everything into a nice tidy box.
Capitalism isn't as bad as the left makes it to to be nor as good as the right says it is. Same goes with socialism.
There's zero reason why we need to fit everything into a nice tidy box.
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
We have a tendency to want to sort things into binary-like choices. You’re either tall or short. Skinny or fat. Your hair is discretely blonde or brown or black or red.
It takes a collective of words to describe in-betweens because of how we compartmentalize our choices (it’s simply easier that way).
One of my favorite in-person rants is to blabber about how “schools of thought” are stupid and how we should be a reactionary people basing our decisions on history both near and far, but more importantly basing our decisions on logic, proof, and evidence. Rationalism.
It takes a collective of words to describe in-betweens because of how we compartmentalize our choices (it’s simply easier that way).
One of my favorite in-person rants is to blabber about how “schools of thought” are stupid and how we should be a reactionary people basing our decisions on history both near and far, but more importantly basing our decisions on logic, proof, and evidence. Rationalism.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Well, must be conflicting data, I had seen that year over year, New York City was declining recently, and that California, again recent, year over year was losing population, but these numbers I'm sure can be used however we want to use them. We would need another few years to see if there is a definite trend in population change for NYC or California. Not sure about NYC, but Cali is becoming increasingly expensive, like Illinois.
There's no conflicting data. There's facts, and not.
A lot of people leave NYC at a high rate, largely due to price. But more people move in than move out, by a decent clip.
This is what I saw, so focused on Brooklyn, so you're right, may not be indicative of the total city.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/brooklyn-is-booming-so-why-is-it-shrinking/556280/
That article managed to name every reason under the book yet failed to even talk about the most used subway line in Brooklyn being shut down for a few years for Sandy repairs
Alas... the overall city population is still rising, at a high rate.
trojanchick99
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Population growth in California has slowed, mostly due to lower immigration rates. However, the population is in fact still growing. Yes, it's expensive, but that's because the economy is booming. If California were a country our economy would be the 5th biggest in the world just ahead of the United Kingdom.
Seriously, the United States is the richest nation in the world, in SPITE of our government's attempts to bankrupt us over the years. It's the richest nation in the world because of capitalism. People want to come here, because of capitalism.
People are FLEEING socialist nations, because they like to eat.
Once you take competition out of any industry, the quality suffers. We have the best medical care on earth, because talented people become doctors, because they can make a good living. if you take away the competitive portion of private medicine, the quality goes down.
The government's involvement in healthcare, and public education, are complete failures and disasters. We need LESS government, not more.
I am not wealthy, I am probably low middle class as far as income. But I like the idea that I can work my way up, and that mu children can get into any field they like, and be rewarded, not punished if they are successful.
The people that benefit from socialism, are usually not contributing much to society to begin with. That's why government aid, should not be a lifestyle choice.
Again, I challenge all of you who are "Pro Socialism", how much money would it take out of your pocket if socialism were furthered in this country?
My guess is many of you either pay very little in taxes, or get it all back (and maybe more) in a tax return. So you would be impacted very little.
But it's easier to spend OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, i.e "the government", i.e. "taxpapers", than your own to help those that you consider "less fortunate".
Wealth redistribution ideas are purely out of greed and jealousy. Why do YOU or ANYONE else deserve to have money given to YOU, that was taken from someone else?
Wealth is not finite, wealth can be created, that's the beauty of capitalism. That's why America is the biggest and greatest economy in the world. But people have to not be afraid to work for it. No one is owed anything.
- Status
