|
the tl;dr is don't vote trump if you're frustrated with identity politics, it is literally the dumbest thing you can do
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:I get invites to parties that aren't by other political drones so that's probably a big step up from your world You seem threatened by a guy running for President he never mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the tl;dr is don't vote trump if you're frustrated with identity politics, it is literally the dumbest thing you can do well no poo poo. sure i am frustrated by parts of it,(and apperently an evil racist trump supporter) but trump would just make the right wing identity politics 1000% worse. it would give credence to every wannabe KKK/PUA retard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the tl;dr is don't vote trump if you're frustrated with identity politics, it is literally the dumbest thing you can do Yes, agreed. Vote left (-ish) AND work to end most types of identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the tl;dr is don't vote trump if you're frustrated with identity politics, it is literally the dumbest thing you can do No one knows what Trump is. Trump doesn't know what he is. He's probably never put any real thought into how he'd govern. It's possible he had no idea he would get this far. This is like watching a train-wreck in slow motion... but as an added twist, my family and friends are on the train.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Just checking back in. You Trump voters are still cool with the dead Muslim families and deported Hispanics right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Globalisation is a terrible idea that even violates fundamentals of capitalism. Specialisation is supposed to increase productivity and efficiency, but globalisation actually reduces both by moving production away from the countries with the most productive labour to the countries with the cheapest labour. Highly efficient factories in the geographical region the goods are to be sold in become abandoned so new factories can be built far away from the point of sale and the goods shipped in. Skilled workers are forced to retrain, or are wasted in unskilled jobs or go unemployed so that new workers can be trained up just because they were born in a poorer geographic location. These things are happening just because you can get away with paying those people less, not because it makes better actual economic sense, just business sense. It increases profits at the cost of productivity. It lines the pockets of global capitalists and executives at the expense of the global economy. It's terrible economics and only desired because it allows capitalists to more easily bleed labour for profit. Then there's the socio-political problems of weakening local labour. Giving multi-national companies huge power over poorer states and entrenching their allied elites when those economies become beholden to foreign companies because locals can't compete with the huge gobs of money leveraged against them. Plus the brain drain that H1B visas and their ilk cause (H1B is especially bad because it gives HUGE power to the employer, to the extent that Right-to-work looks like a socialist's wet dream). Etc. Globalisation, or at least the flavour of globalisation we actually have, is pretty hosed up. Don't let the fact that there are racist reasons to be anti-globalisation blind you to the fact that there are plenty of actual good reasons to oppose it. People can be mad as hell at globalisation without being racists. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:Just checking back in. You Trump voters are still cool with the dead Muslim families and deported Hispanics right? Wait, is Trump planning to end the Obama policy of murdering Muslim families by drone? That would be a dealbreaker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
on the left posted:Wait, is Drumpf planning to end the Obama policy of murdering Muslim families by drone? That would be a dealbreaker. Drumpf would make it much worse. No choice is perfect, only better than other choices. If you can't recognize that, you have a problem with empiricism or with not being a racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:Eh, I just finally notice that the things I care about and the things the mainstream Democratic party cares about are at odds. I want strong unions, labor protections, protected trade, isolationist foreign policy, democratically controlled utilities, universal healthcare and higher education, an end to privatization schemes, an end to mass incarceration, and so forth. Republicans in Congress will send bills that wear away or destroy everything you care about, and Trump will not veto them. I understand that youre frustrated with the state of affairs, but a vote for Trump is a vote for the destruction of everything you care about. Is spite that important to you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Republicans in Congress will send bills that wear away or destroy everything you care about, and Trump will not veto them. Okay but are Mexicans going to suffer more than my family? This is important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:Eh, I just finally notice that the things I care about and the things the mainstream Democratic party cares about are at odds. I want strong unions, labor protections, protected trade, isolationist foreign policy, democratically controlled utilities, universal healthcare and higher education, an end to privatization schemes, an end to mass incarceration, and so forth. The party you want doesn't exist so just stay home
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Republicans in Congress will send bills that wear away or destroy everything you care about, and Trump will not veto them. Tea Party Republicans saved social security. Nothing makes sense anymore man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
menino posted:Drumpf would make it much worse. No choice is perfect, only better than other choices. If you can't recognize that, you have a problem with empiricism or with not being a racist. I don't see the point in whining about racism. Even the most diehard racist's vote is anonymous and counts just as much as anyone else's vote. Nobody is going to stop racists from voting or hold anyone responsible for the way they vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:Tea Party Republicans saved social security. Nothing makes sense anymore man. They didn't want to save it, and they would vote to cut it if it served their interests of loving over foreigners, sluts and gays. Look at intent because capabilities can change in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
*sigh* The fact that the answer wasn't immediately "no" is kinda hosed. I mean really, saying Drumpf is allowed to do it because Obama got away with it is seriously pathetic. We're not even talking about civilian casualties here (still hosed), we're talking about a guy who has said that he will actively target innocent bystanders, and you're gonna vote for him. Is it really worth their lives to spite the DNC?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
No one voting for Trump cares about war crimes or civilian casualties, obviously since Trump has promised to deliberately attack women and children, it's just concern trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No one voting for Trump cares about war crimes or civilian casualties, obviously since Trump has promised to deliberately attack women and children, it's just concern trolling. Hey whatever, he won't take your guns away. Until the wind blows some other way after some massacre and he's all like "welp, I guess we gotta start taking some guns back. :dopey Trump face:" Some protestor starts calling him out on "what he promised" Trump calls him a fag. Seriously, look at this fucker's stated, on the record viewpoints. Tell me anything he's said that you honestly believe won't change on a dime. They're voting for a loving madman. Jesus Christ, he is the Emperor Nero of the America-is-Rome analogy isn't he?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:Tea Party Republicans saved social security. Nothing makes sense anymore man. Now imagine that scenario with President Romney. What do you honestly think happens, more likely than not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Now imagine that scenario with President Romney. What do you honestly think happens, more likely than not? No one is dumb enough to gently caress with social security, I honestly think that. Literally everyone is counting on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Vox made something topical to the thread: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism .
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Globalisation, or at least the flavour of globalisation we actually have, is pretty hosed up. Don't let the fact that there are racist reasons to be anti-globalisation blind you to the fact that there are plenty of actual good reasons to oppose it. People can be mad as hell at globalisation without being racists. I agree with what you wrote - it's pretty loving racist to be pro-slavery as long as it happens somewhere else. To be pro-globalization is to be pro-burning women alive in garment factories to save a few bucks on stupid poo poo like "being up to fire code." It's to be pro-foxconn suicide nets so apple can require 18-hour shifts when they need to fix an engineering fuckup at the last second without missing their launch date. It's to be pro-death squads systematically murdering natives when they get in the way of resource extraction. At it's core, it's pro bad poo poo happening to non-whites so you can save a few bucks at walmart because you can't afford anything more after your job got shipped overseas. Chilichimp posted:No one is dumb enough to gently caress with social security, I honestly think that. Literally everyone is counting on it. That's why you always frame it as "gently caress everyone below 40 but you still get yours that they have to pay for." As a generation, the boomers are willing to burn everything to the ground as they die as long as it doesn't impact them. Harik fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Welcome to Third World Maoism! Enjoy your new $pelling KKKonvention$!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Just gonna quote myself a little bit since it seems like every Democrats answer to the following is 'ignore it since we have to vote for Hillary to hold the line' which is the worst possible reason to vote for somebody outside of having a single wedge issue. If a person doesn't represent you, why would you vote for them? (queue up the 'not all of us have the white privilege to choose the candidate we want to vote for')Call Me Charlie posted:Obama said he'd try for single payer healthcare and have the debate for it in public. First thing off the table in closed door discussions with insurance companies was single payer. Call Me Charlie posted:She walked back her support on universal health care, she flopped on education vouchers, she supported NAFTA at the time, she supported TPP on multiple occasions, her husband was the one who put those 'tough on law' laws in place. (Oh and here's another fun one, she supported Bill's welfare reform) I guess it's nice that she supports higher minimum wage but it doesn't really matter when corporations export the jobs or bring people here on visas to do the work under the normal pay. At least, I kind of agree with Trump on some topics. You guys seem resigned to support Hillary because there's a chance she can appoint centrists to the Supreme Court (was also a scare tactic in 2012) and she'll support minorities by ??? (more welfare "reform"? the original almost sounds like something out of the extreme-right's playbook of getting blacks off the liberal plantation http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/tragic-end-woman-bill-clinton-exploited-poster-child-gutting-welfare)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:At least, I kind of agree with Trump on some topics. You guys seem resigned to support Hillary because there's a chance she can appoint centrists to the Supreme Court (was also a scare tactic in 2012) and she'll support minorities by ??? (more welfare "reform"? the original almost sounds like something out of the extreme-right's playbook of getting blacks off the liberal plantation http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/tragic-end-woman-bill-clinton-exploited-poster-child-gutting-welfare) Take it to YCS, nobody gives a poo poo about how you feel about Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Seriously, look at this fucker's stated, on the record viewpoints. Tell me anything he's said that you honestly believe won't change on a dime. They're voting for a loving madman. Jesus Christ, he is the Emperor Nero of the America-is-Rome analogy isn't he? I thought the America as Rome analogy had the United States as the Late Republic. After growing steadily stronger, and finally undoing its greatest rival by far (the USSR), there is a brief period of peace and prosperity before the power of entrenched elites becomes to much for continued political stability and populists start gaining popularity. It's looking like Sanders will be analogous to the defeated and assassinated Gracchae brothers, which would make Trump Sulla or Cinna or something if he wins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Maybe you should look at Hillary Clinton's voting record to get informed rather than a YouTube clip, she's consistently one of the most liberal members of the Senate. Is welfare reform terrible, yes of course which is one of the many reasons Sanders is better. But to give welfare reform as a reason to vote Trump is loving hilarious because Trump is even worse on welfare, approaching a comic-book plutocrat The Donald posted:The secret to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act's success was that it tied welfare to work. To get your check, you had to prove that you were enrolled in job-training or trying to find work. But here's the rub: the 1996 Welfare Reform Act only dealt with one program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), not the other seventy-six welfare programs which, today, cost taxpayers more than $900 billion annually. We need to take a page from the 1996 reform and do the same for other welfare programs. Benefits should have strings attached to them. After all, if it's our money recipients are getting, we the people should have a say in how it's spent. The way forward is to do what we did with AFDC and attach welfare benefits to work. The Welfare Reform Act of 2011--proposed by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, Tim Scott of South Carolina, and Scott Garrett of New Jersey--does just that. The Donald posted:Can restraint be taught? Teenage mothers [shouldn’t] get public assistance unless they jump through some pretty small hoops. Making them live in group homes makes sense. A lot of these girls didn’t have fathers or full-time parents. But there are people-I think we can call them saints-who dedicate their lives to helping kids like this. Whoever they are, and whether they work out of a church, a temple, or some kind of public facility, they deserve all our support. The Donald posted:The food stamp program was originally created as temporary assistance for families with momentary times of need. And it shouldn't be needed often. Thankfully, 96 percent of America's poor parents say their children never suffer even a day of hunger. But when half of food stamp recipients have been on the dole for nearly a decade, something is clearly wrong, and some of it has to do with fraud. The really infuriating thing is that the Obama administration doesn't seem to care about how taxpayers are being shaken down by this outrageously mismanaged government program. The blatant waste of taxpayers' dollars doesn't bother Obama, because it's all part of his broader nanny-state agenda. Perhaps that's why his administration doesn't give a rip about policing fraud or administering responsible oversight-he's buying votes. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Just wait until Trump
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
I hate Hillary because welfare reform is so bad, let me vote for the guy who thinks it was totally awesome and can't wait to sign a Republican bill that expands it to food stamps and everything else, okay junior and missy get your mom out pounding the pavement for job openings because if you want to eat you should have thought of that before you picked a loser mom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:she's got a decade of supporting decriminalization and treatment for drug users instead of jail When has she supported decriminalizing anything? She said in a debate that she doesn't think marijuana users should go to jail but they already basically don't, they still often get criminal records though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Just gonna quote myself a little bit since it seems like every Democrats answer to the following is 'ignore it since we have to vote for Hillary to hold the line' which is the worst possible reason to vote for somebody outside of having a single wedge issue. If a person doesn't represent you, why would you vote for them? (queue up the 'not all of us have the white privilege to choose the candidate we want to vote for') What's your feeling on Trump's promise to murder women and children? Edit: I'll actually go through these: Obama said he'd try for single payer healthcare and have the debate for it in public. First thing off the table in closed door discussions with insurance companies was single payer. This one I'll kind of give you, but Obamacare is still much, much better than nothing, if for no other reason that it outlawed recission, etc. People have at least some protections they didn't have before. Obama said he'd close Guantanamo Bay. He signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill which tied his hands on it. Not really his fault. He really has tried to close it. Obama said he'd get us out of Iraq. He wanted to stay longer than the timetable set by Bush until the Iraqis forced us out by refusing to continue to grant immunity to our soldiers. There's a lot of kabuki here. He did get us out; you can dance around hypotheticals all you want. Obama said "no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient". He continued Bush's spy policies, signed executive death orders and started multiple drone wars. This is really vague, but most of this stuff is probably reasonable, and not illegal. Obama's Administration cracked down hard on whistleblowers. Eh. It's hard to imagine an administration that doesn't do this. Obama's Administration continued DEA raids on medical marijuana. Who cares? Obama's Administration escalated the deportation of illegal immigrants (ironic, isn't that one of the horrible things Trump wants to do because he's racist?) I don't think people think Trump's racist for wanting to deport. Again, this isn't a huge issue either way actually--and hey how come this hasn't brought back our precious factory jobs yet? Obama's Administration was the one pushing for budget sequestration as a compromise. (source) What's the argument here? Obama's Administration (at the behest of Hillary Clinton) helped destabilize Libya. Blowing up Gaddafi was correct; we should have probably blown up Assad, or at least No Fly Zoned him Obviously Trump will be better on every one of these issues. I'm basing this one my reflexive hate of the left. porfiria fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:it seems like every Democrats answer to the following is 'ignore it since we have to vote for Hillary to hold the line' which is the worst possible reason to vote for somebody outside of having a single wedge issue. If a person doesn't represent you, why would you vote for them? (queue up the 'not all of us have the white privilege to choose the candidate we want to vote for') Or, as it was put in 2008: Tbogg posted:YOUR MUMIA SWEATSHIRT WON’T GET YOU INTO HEAVEN ANYMORE
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
I think this is an awesome article that explains not just the Trump phenomena, but shows just how an authoritarian strongman can rise to power in any open society. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:I thought the America as Rome analogy had the United States as the Late Republic. After growing steadily stronger, and finally undoing its greatest rival by far (the USSR), there is a brief period of peace and prosperity before the power of entrenched elites becomes to much for continued political stability and populists start gaining popularity. It's looking like Sanders will be analogous to the defeated and assassinated Gracchae brothers, which would make Trump Sulla or Cinna or something if he wins. Historical specifics aside, I super hope Trump doesn't know how to play a fiddle 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:1. The rise of the Tea Party I will be honest, Trump is probably in the presidency in order to make money and reinforce his personal brand and the republican party is the bank full of stupid he decided to rob.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I think this is an awesome article that explains not just the Trump phenomena, but shows just how an authoritarian strongman can rise to power in any open society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
By historical account Nero did everything he could which was limited to opening his own gates to allow refugees. He apparently never played a fiddle either. He was a lovely emporer later but there was nothing he could do about the centuries of substandard fire code. Trump is more like Caligula.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Globalisation is a terrible idea that even violates fundamentals of capitalism. Specialisation is supposed to increase productivity and efficiency, but globalisation actually reduces both by moving production away from the countries with the most productive labour to the countries with the cheapest labour. That's where comparative advantage and gains from trade come in. The high skill workers are better off if they spend more time working on high skill tasks and paying someone else to do the low skill tasks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
i don't think higsian necessarily has the most sophisticated theory of capitalism around tbh
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
So, I know very little about protectionism because it's not really a hot topic outside of threads like this, I guess. Is protectionism a good solution for helping the situation of 21st century workers, or is it just a nice-sounding idea coming from the populist camp? And why are Trump, Sanders, et al. criticizing free trade agreements just now, after decades of the free trade concept being king? Has protectionism got legs politically or not? UV_Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:19
|
|
