uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Oh dear me posted:

Trade is property owners saying to everyone else, Hey, I have this property I don't need, but I'm not going to give it to you unless you give me - well, as much as I think I can get you to give me, regardless of your well-being, let alone those poor sods who can't give me as much. It absolutely is evil. Its unregulated outcome is always going to favour those who already have most.

I mean that is how capitalism works.

What the hell do you want from me? I can't snap my fingers and give you global socialism. In the mean time free trade programs have contributed to unprecedented relative peace for nearly a century, at the expense of working class people everywhere. Do I like that trade off? gently caress no. But I also think that starting trade wars and world wide recessions won't make those working class people's lives better.

I realized what I've been struggling to say about Donald Trump. He did win on economy, because what he essentially ran on was welfare for whites, gently caress minorities. That's the whole picture.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 02:16

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Lightning Knight posted:

Ok I hit the anger/acceptance stage at work. Here is my big huge pointless effort post no one will read.

My Take on the Democratic Post-Mortem, 2016:

* For Everyone

1. We are not doomed. Donald Trump ran on a fascist platform but he's not a true believer, he's a con man. He won't fight for his abhorrent causes, he's going to dismantle the government slowly but surely to enrich himself. The Republican Party is split three ways between the business class, the ultraconservatives/Tea Party and the new Trumpists and they're not going to vote in lockstep on everything. It's a drat near thing and almost everything has to go right, and we need to be lucky, but it's not over. We just have to fight the Battle of Agincourt now, rather than the Siege of Berlin.

2. We need everyone. This will be a recurring theme. We can win the Presidency with a relative few more votes, but we need way, way more voters to win the House, Senate, and state governments. We can't afford to alienate large swaths of people, even if we feel justified in doing so. There's limits to this - there's people we can't win - but that's the long and short of it.

3. We are out of time. We can't wait for demographics to save us and we can't wait for lovely Boomers to die out. If Hillary had won she could've stemmed the bleeding on global warming and given us a liberal supreme court. Now we don't have that luxury. We are on a ticking clock.

* For progressives

1. You (probably) aren't as radical as you think you are. If you think the New Deal, or for that matter Bernie Sanders, is "socialist," you are not a socialist. If you are actually a socialist and know what socialism is, you probably still don't have the spine to go out and fight in person. That's ok, most don't. But we need to be realistic about what we are. Bernie Sanders wasn't that far politically from Hillary Clinton, as much as we want to project our perfect savior fantasies on to him, and the sooner we realize this the better. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight for socialism - we should - but unless you're straight up an actual bomb-throwing anarchist, you aren't that radical. If you are, why aren't you at a protest right now?

2. Bernie Sanders is smarter than you. That's why when he knew he couldn't win the primary he endorsed Hillary and campaigned for her. That's why now he's not abandoning the Democrats and is fighting for their leadership. Progressives labor under the delusion that we are the most charismatic people ever and if everyone could just hear our ideas they'd believe us and join us. That the Democrats will just magically come around and become a progressive party on their own. That's bullshit. If we want a progressive party, we have to make one. Building a third party is much, much harder than just taking over the Democrats. That means voting - especially in primaries - fighting for leadership positions, and still showing up even if we didn't get what we want. Conservatives don't stay home if their guy doesn't win the primary. We shouldn't and can't afford to either.

3. Leave your pride at the door. I want Chuck Shumer's head on a pike too. Too bad. Progressives need to be willing to work with the party and to compromise and play nice with others. That means realizing we won't always get what we want. Bernie Sanders didn't take his ball and go home when he lost. Why should we? This does not mean do not question the party. Far from it. It means that instead of fighting a pointless civil war with the conservative wing or staying home like children, we work to change the party to fit our vision. That means we sometimes won't get what we want. Grow the gently caress up.

4. Republicans change the system so they have an easier time holding on to power. We should too. I do not mean voter suppression. But why aren't we pushing for a constitutional amendment to harmonize elections and get rid of off-year votes? Why aren't we fighting against gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the Electoral College? Why aren't we pushing for automatic registration at 18, mail-in ballots in every state, extended early vote, and if necessary national ID? We should be.

5. White straight male progressives are not the future of our movement. Yes, that means Bernie should not run again. White straight male progressives need to learn to sit down and shut the gently caress up some of the time, and to listen to minority voices. POC, LGBT, and female candidates are our future and we need to pave the way for them, not throw tantrums when we don't get to run the show. And for that guy reaching for his keyboard to say " why do you hate white straight men???" shut the gently caress up. Don't even. White straight men already get to be the center of the universe every other place. If you even want to pretend to be progressive don't you start that poo poo here.

6. Nativism, isolationism, and anti-trade positions are a cancer upon the Western World. The progressive left needs to drop any notion of adopting these planks right the gently caress now. Demonizing Chinese and Mexican people to appeal to white working class voters won't help us because we can't out-Republican the Republicans. The rest of the world is also deserving of not being poor too, and the West is largely responsible for their poverty, so we should be responsible for helping them too. American foreign policy is poo poo but withdrawing and letting world trade collapse will just lead to another war. And if you are too much of a sociopath to care about foreign poor people or world peace, then at least remember what happened the last time we mixed nativism with leftism.

7. The Russian Government is not your friend. Neither is the US Government for that matter. You might think it's great that the Russians did Watergate 2.0. on the DNC, or that Comey kneecapped our campaign in the last 14 days, but realize that they won't stop when the progressives take over. It won't be funny anymore when Kamala Harris 2020 gets sunk by Russian hacks. Only the most delusional tankies think the Russians are a friendly power as they fund and nurture dangerous far-right movements throughout the Western World. Remember Paul Manafort? Donald Trump was their bid to kill America. Don't think they'll be helpful to a progressive DNC. Ditto for institutions like the FBI.

8. White working class people ARE racist, sexist, and homophobic. But we need them. We really, really do. At the same time keep in mind that we are asking minorities to sit at the table with people who are ambivalent to their right to life at best and who happily voted for a man who ran on a platform of hatred and murder towards them. We have to walk a razor thin line to keep a coalition like this together and trying to whitesplain to black people that no really they aren't racist is stupid and pointless. This is more about our dialogue than what we campaign on.

9. Identity politics DO matter. A program of economic reform and anti-poverty measures are good and will help everyone if we do it right, but a higher minimum wage and free college doesn't stop police bullets, conversion therapy, or lower the rates of sexual assault, and if you aren't prepared to fight just as hard for forgiveness of your student debt as you are for Black Lives Matter, go home, we don't need you.

10. Stop buying into Republican framing. Bullshit like "establishment, coastal elites, (((globalism))), etc." are poo poo that the Republicans use, among a host of other phrasings, to delegitimize and undermine the left. Remember, that poo poo is all too often dogwhistles for Jewish people or the urban poor black community. We constantly, constantly harp on the failure of Democratic messaging and it's because we always, consistently buy into Republican framings of every issue. You hate Bill Clinton? Well guess what, his innovation was to attempt to out-Republican the Republicans. He failed. We can't make the same mistakes. This isn't about the correctness of these terms (for example, "establishment"), but more so about the framing of our issues.

11. People are three-dimensional. It's bad to boil down white working class people to "they're racist" even if they are because they have more going on than that and we can still reach them through other messages in spite of their racism. By the same token however, neoliberals and conservative Democrats are not mustache-twirling villains. Many of them really do believe that their ideology is good and right and can help people. If you insist on simplifying them to "evil assholes who don't agree with me" we won't get anywhere. This also goes for Republicans, we just can't reach them realistically in the time we have.

12. Stop trying to vilify Hillary Clinton. You don't have to like her. You're free to hate her in fact. But realize that trying to retroactively turn her into "American Margaret Thatcher" is both ahistorical and will alienate many, many people. We are not the mainstream in our hate for her on the left. Most of her unpopularity was with conservative straight white men. She still won the popular vote and there are millions of women and minorities who look at her as a hero, and it isn't a good look for white straight male progressives to poo poo on the legacy of one of the most influential women in American history. Even if you hate her, we can't win with that message going forward. Grumble in private about her if you must but make your peace with her legacy in public and move on.

* For conservative/centrist Democrats

1. Hillary Clinton is smarter than you. She saw that Bernie represented a sea-change in Democratic politics and adopted most of his platform after she won. She fought a largely congenial primary with him and worked hard not to alienate his voters. Conservative Democrats are not the way forward, and this election was proof. You will have to learn to live with the progressive wing.

2. Paying lipservice to identity politics isn't going to cut it anymore. The poor white population just voted in a monster because they hate you. They're fools, but you have to recognize that this is the new normal. Likewise telling minority voters you will help them and then abandoning them in office is no longer acceptable either. You get to choose between being less rich and helping leftist causes for real, or losing everything to insane fascists. No more threading the needle to maintain your power.

3. We need to engage young people. Yes, that means Hillary should not run again. Making stupid pop song ads and campaigning with famous people isn't good enough. Neither, apparently, is offering free college. But we need to engage young people and we need to do it now. We all saw that state map if only young people could vote. We need that now, not in 20 years.

4. Stop fighting a civil war with the progressive wing. Bernie Sanders didn't win the primary but he came drat close with no prep time and a conservative DNC that was hostile to him. The writing is on the wall. You don't have to roll over and die if you're a true believer in neoliberalism but you must compromise with progressives lest everything you've ever cared about is laid to ruin by the Republican Party.

5. Unions, unions, unions. Relying on big business and Wall Street for our funding has been a disaster. We need a financial base that won't sabotage our efforts from within. Unions conveniently also own and would go a long way towards helping us attract working class people of all colors again, provided we fight hard for them to both flourish and be inclusive.

6. Give up on gun control. I hate the Second Amendment and gun culture and all the horrific toxicity surrounding them. I hate that mass shootings have become so common as to be like a hazardous weather condition more than a tragedy. But gun owners care more about voting down gun control than liberals care about voting for it. We can mitigate and prevent mass shootings and gang violence with guns without direct gun control and it's a dumb hill to die on.

7. Give up on the war on drugs. Legalization of all controlled substances and prison reform would earn you huge points with young and black voters and they are good things. Clinging to the war on drugs for the sake of a foreign policy tool or the enrichment of corporate interests is foolish and short-sighted. Give it up.

8. It's time to abandon the middle class. We bought into the Republican framing of "a strong middle class," but the truth is that this is a huge dogwhistle for white suburbanites. I bet enough of us are white suburbanites to know that they vote straight R anyway regardless of how much we pander, because they care more about tax cuts than people's lives. We need working class people, not lovely FYGM suburbanites.

* For minorities

1. If you have to flee, flee. But when you move to Canada or wherever, try and keep your citizenship. We aren't entitled to your volunteer hours or money but an absentee vote to make America not suck is in your interests even if you move abroad because you might escape the persecution of minorities but you can't escape US foreign policy.

2. You're probably going to have to sit at the table with people who hate you. I'm sorry. If I could have a world where we didn't need lovely people with backwards beliefs to win elections I would. But this is not that world. Progressives need to fight for your rights and fight to educate ignorant people, but we need to build a coalition and that is a messy business.

3. We need your candidacy. I care about Black Lives Matter, immigration reform and amnesty, marriage equality and adoption rights, workplace discrimination laws and challenging rape culture. But we need to attract the white working class again. You are right to fear the white moderate, and that's why we need you to run instead. I'm sorry you have to do everything for white straight men. We suck. But the only way we can ensure minority rights get a seat at the table of economic populism is to run minority candidates.

There's probably more and I didn't put everything I had thought of but I think this is my comprehensive hot take (tm).

1) Agree

2) Agree

3) Agree

1) Agree

2) Agree

3) Disagree. Compromising principles is what got us into this mess in the first place. If we want the DNC to stop sucking we will need to be willing to tell them to go gently caress themselves when they try to do awful corporatist poo poo, even if that leads to bad outcomes in the short term.

4) Agree. You failed to mention ending money in politics though. Without ending legalized bribery there can be no true reform of the system.

5) Agree. However we need to make sure we aren't alienating these voters in our efforts for outreach. Remember that just because white people enjoy certain advantages doesn't mean they're not getting screwed just like everyone else making under 6 figures a year.

6) Absolutely not. On trade I mean. Forcing Americans to compete for their jobs with sweatshops overseas is the main reason we're in this mess and we won't get out of it without addressing it in some way.

7) LOL! Oh my God are we still redbaiting!? Also LOL at the idea that anyone on the left trusts Russia or Putin.

8) Wrong. Only like half of them are.

9) Agree. But identity politics will likely need to take something of a back seat until we stem the economic bleeding going on right now.

10) You misunderstand "framing" a bit. It's not the words that matter but the ideological framework in play. For example starting a debate on entitlements by agreeing that Medicate is unsustainable and needs to be saved.

11) Basically agree

12) No go gently caress yourself. I actually think that deep down she's a good person but at the same time she's basically the poster child for everything wrong in Democratic politics. She has some good positions but that that doesn't change the fact that she's a disingenuous political chameleon that serves the wealthy donor class above all else. People NEED to understand why she's terrible because those are the same reason the Democratic party as a whole is terrible. Besides embracing her now would only re-legitimize her lovely brand of politics.

1) Horseshit. She paid lip service to it Bernie's platform on occasion but for the most part she ran to the right, snubbed the base, and bragged about how much of a "centrist" she was. Also the primary was not congenial on her part. Remember the part where she and the DNC conspired to rig it? Or how she insinuated that the only reason Bernie's supporters weren't voting for her was because of sexism and called them berniebros?

2) Agree, but good luck making that happen while people are still broke and miserable.

3) This bridge was burned when Hillary cheated in the primary but still somehow managed to loose to Trump. The kids want real change now and neoliberal incrementalism just isn't going to cut it anymore.

4) Agree

5) I want to agree with this but I suspect the reason Democrats abandoned unions in the first place was because they didn't generate enough money. It's also worth noting that while saving unions is important they aren't angels and often act as shady as any other special interest. The real goal should be to remove money from politics entirely so politicians can truly govern fairly.

6) Agree, sort of. It's a topic worth pursuing later when the winds are more in our favor.

7) Totally Agree

8) Disagree, sort of. We can appeal to the working class without abandoning the middle class. Also people need to overtly start talking about poverty and the poor.

1) Agree

2) Agree

3) Agree

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:41

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Oh dear me posted:

Trade is property owners saying to everyone else, Hey, I have this property I don't need, but I'm not going to give it to you unless you give me - well, as much as I think I can get you to give me, regardless of your well-being, let alone those poor sods who can't give me as much. It absolutely is evil. Its unregulated outcome is always going to favour those who already have most.

cool, someone who doesn't understand how trade works. nice

do you refuse to work for anyone who doesn't pay you $9,999 an hour? no? maybe it's pretty goofy then to say that trade only happens at gunpoint

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:41

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Oh dear me posted:

Trade is property owners saying to everyone else, Hey, I have this property I don't need, but I'm not going to give it to you unless you give me - well, as much as I think I can get you to give me, regardless of your well-being, let alone those poor sods who can't give me as much. It absolutely is evil. Its unregulated outcome is always going to favour those who already have most.

Uh, no.

Trade isn't Communism Now, but it is a fundamental activity from which all people in a post-subsistence-farming world derive most of their welfare.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:43

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

"i have something i do not need, and am looking to dispose of it for maximum wealth" what everyone looking to engage in trade thinks, apparently

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:44

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

de Blasio giving no fucks, taking no poo poo:

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/797718899903041536

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:45

Stereotype: Apr 24, 2010; College Slice

I wonder if there is a popular former democratic president who can help the DNC move forward and win races in 2018.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:47

furiouskoala: Aug 4, 2007

FAUXTON posted:

de Blasio giving no fucks, taking no poo poo:

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/797718899903041536

No it couldn't, guaranteed the NSA has a copy and President Trump will have access to it.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:51

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Stereotype posted:

I wonder if there is a popular former democratic president who can help the DNC move forward and win races in 2018.

LBJ's dead, man

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:51

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

readingatwork posted:

9) Agree. But identity politics will likely need to take something of a back seat until we stem the economic bleeding going on right now.

There's no reason why minority concerns should take a back seat, they just can't be a tool in a cynical ploy by liberal elites to win on empty platitudes and vapid moralizing while doing nothing of substance. Hell, repairing economic damage should mean repairing economic damage for everybody, and for that you need to listen to people and their perspectives, aka identity politics.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:52

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

Lightning Knight posted:

I mean that is how capitalism works.

What the hell do you want from me? I can't snap my fingers and give you global socialism.

I will disagree with you if you say capitalism isn't evil as well. Saying so doesn't place any demands on you at all, though of course I'd very much like it if you agreed with me.

boner confessor posted:

do you refuse to work for anyone who doesn't pay you $9,999 an hour? no? maybe it's pretty goofy then to say that trade only happens at gunpoint

I didn't say anything about gunpoint, and labour power is not property.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:54

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Oh dear me posted:

labour power is not property.

yes it is

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:58

The Puppy Bowl: Jan 31, 2013; A dog, in the house.

*woof*

Kilroy posted:

That's basically what Lightning Knight is saying I guess. That was a good post but the part you're taking issue with was really poorly worded. The follow-up makes it pretty clear though.

The only thing I would add, is that we should keep in mind the race of the people we choose to lead us, if that helps to assure minority allies that we are not abandoning their cause. That's not to say we should poo poo on white people, but if two people of roughly equal quality are trying to take up the same leadership position, and if going with the white fellow alienates minorities (right or wrong), then we should consider not doing that. An example of this might be having Dean as the chair of the DNC vs Ellison. Personally I think Ellison is the better choice, but even if you believe Dean is equally qualified, reconsider Ellison for this reason. I don't like that this is a thing we have to do, but then again I also don't like that there are white progressives who are totally apathetic to racial issues, that I count among my allies. And yet I do, enthusiastically. (And Lightning Knight, for what it's worth, I think you are being very stupid to advocate showing these people the door. Half an ally is better than none, and if some people make economic justice overwhelmingly priority #1, then let them do it.)

I absolutely agree that minority status can and should be used as a form of tie breaker in those circumstances.

My problem with some of the discussion taking place this week is the advocating for drastic change. A lot of mistakes were made but Hillary did just get the most votes in a presidential election. The DNC needs changes but we can't just start from scratch. Institutional knowledge is a thing and the best fundraisers the democrats have are the Chuck Schumer and his ilk. We need to make changes to the party but alot of the issue is more effectively implementing GOTV and squashing voter suppression. I'm really hoping we don't over correct by becoming the party of only Bernie Sanders' message. I voted for him in the primary but his leadership leaves a lot to be desired. There's the obvious lack of big tent focus but I also worry about his general policy ignorance leading to us becoming like leftist republicans in the idea department. They're such a flawed party not just because of their ideology but because they allow ideology to totally cloud any assessment of reality. That's how you end up with horror shows like Kansas.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 09:59

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

readingatwork posted:

3) Disagree. Compromising principles is what got us into this mess in the first place. If we want the DNC to stop sucking we will need to be willing to tell them to go gently caress themselves when they try to do awful corporatist poo poo, even if that leads to bad outcomes in the short term.

4) Agree. You failed to mention ending money in politics though. Without ending legalized bribery there can be no true reform of the system.

5) Agree. However we need to make sure we aren't alienating these voters in our efforts for outreach. Remember that just because white people enjoy certain advantages doesn't mean they're not getting screwed just like everyone else making under 6 figures a year.

6) Absolutely not. On trade I mean. Forcing Americans to compete for their jobs with sweatshops overseas is the main reason we're in this mess and we won't get out of it without addressing it in some way.

7) LOL! Oh my God are we still redbaiting!? Also LOL at the idea that anyone on the left trusts Russia or Putin.

8) Wrong. Only like half of them are.

9) Agree. But identity politics will likely need to take something of a back seat until we stem the economic bleeding going on right now.

10) You misunderstand "framing" a bit. It's not the words that matter but the ideological framework in play. For example starting a debate on entitlements by agreeing that Medicate is unsustainable and needs to be saved.

12) No go gently caress yourself. I actually think that deep down she's a good person but at the same time she's basically the poster child for everything wrong in Democratic politics. She has some good positions but that that doesn't change the fact that she's a disingenuous political chameleon that serves the wealthy donor class above all else. People NEED to understand why she's terrible because those are the same reason the Democratic party as a whole is terrible. Besides embracing her now would only re-legitimize her lovely brand of politics.

1) Horseshit. She paid lip service to it Bernie's platform on occasion but for the most part she ran to the right, snubbed the base, and bragged about how much of a "centrist" she was. Also the primary was not congenial on her part. Remember the part where she and the DNC conspired to rig it? Or how she insinuated that the only reason Bernie's supporters weren't voting for her was because of sexism and called them berniebros?

3) This bridge was burned when Hillary cheated in the primary but still somehow managed to loose to Trump. The kids want real change now and neoliberal incrementalism just isn't going to cut it anymore.

5) I want to agree with this but I suspect the reason Democrats abandoned unions in the first place was because they didn't generate enough money. It's also worth noting that while saving unions is important they aren't angels and often act as shady as any other special interest. The real goal should be to remove money from politics entirely so politicians can truly govern fairly.

6) Agree, sort of. It's a topic worth pursuing later when the winds are more in our favor.

8) Disagree, sort of. We can appeal to the working class without abandoning the middle class. Also people need to overtly start talking about poverty and the poor.

You are quite unnecessarily hostile to me, you know.

In rough order:

If we refuse to compromise and refuse to work with the party the party won't represent us and we will remain where we are. Progressivism doesn't have the political force or broad appeal to just bullrush the stage. Like I don't like compromising and I also think we need to be firm and stand our ground as much as possible, but we can't win every battle and you know it.

I forgot CU but yes.

Balancing the alienation of white people with minorities is basically the hardest part and where we hosed up last time. I didn't claim it would be simple.

People work in sweatshops abroad because American workers benefited from the destruction and colonization of their countries. Not everything is so simple. We can help poor white working class people and give them new jobs and new poo poo to do if they can meet us halfway on the fact that their old jobs aren't coming back without robots being involved. Also raising the minimum wage won't push prices up too much but killing trade policy absolutely will and the poor will absorb the brunt of that.

It's not redbaiting because the Russians aren't communist anymore. Vladimir Putin is a fascist and his government is dangerous. Do you deny that he's funded far-right movements? Do you deny that he actively interfered in the election to get Donald Trump elected? Do you really think he'll stop just because it's not Hillary anymore? This is geopolitics and the Russians do not like us right now. "Russia isn't your friend" was meant as a joke against tankies tho, admittedly.

Everybody is prejudiced, our society indoctrinates us with it. The point really isn't arguing about how prejudiced they are, the point is admitting it to our minority friends and promising to them that we will still fight for them because they matter. Minorities need to know we aren't going to abandon them on a whim. They are justified in fearing we could.

I strongly disagree. Minorities have waited for equality long enough. They shouldn't have to wait more. This is buying into the notion that we can only do one at a time, and really my contention is more on whether or not we can be trusted to do both, not that we can't.

My point is basically that we constantly accept the vocabulary and messaging of the right and then try and sell ourselves using it and it's dumb.

You are perfectly entitled to think that. But remember, we need people who voted for Hillary to win elections too. Being the loudest, most woke brogressive making GBS threads on the legacy of Hillary Clinton will not win you allies. You want to do it here? Fine. But in the world of organizing, leave that poo poo at the door. I also didn't say we should embrace her or that she should be a part of the Democratic leadership going forward. We shouldn't and she shouldn't. But we don't have to cast ourselves against Hillary when there will be plenty of new conservative Democrats to stand against next time. I'm also not saying to not criticize her. Just bring back the "Hillary is the most evilest ever." No she isn't. Bill kind of is tho, honestly.

They did not rig the primary bro. They conspired and the DNC was lovely but she won because she got a ton more votes and that is a really, really important thing to note because the Democratic base isn't even mostly progressive. If we refuse to learn the most important lesson from the primary - we can't show up five minutes before the election, metaphorically, and hope to win, we need to campaign way in advance - we won't get anywhere. Asserting that she ran to the right when she adopted most of Bernie's platform and Bernie was allowed to have a hand in crafting that platform is disingenuous and is a really good example of us being unhappy with a compromise. The problem wasn't Hillary's platform, the problem was Hillary.

Young people are plenty reachable still. I'm 21. We need to fight way more aggressively to reach people in the 18-35 demo and more importantly make it easier and more rewarding for them to vote. More drug legalization and free college.

Democrats abandoned unions because they're capitalist hacks and also because of the attempt of Third Wayism to compensate for the base shifts after Reagan scooped our voters out from under us. I would also like to see money out of politics but even if we repeal CU there will always be some money required to run. Unions are better allies than corporations.

Yeah I'm not saying I wouldn't like to change American gun culture, but it's not worth it right now.

When I say "abandon the middle class" what I really mean is that going on and on about the middle class is dumb because poor people understand that for them to be in the middle, the poor have to stay at the bottom.

quote:

I will disagree with you if you say capitalism isn't evil as well. Saying so doesn't place any demands on you at all, though of course I'd very much like it if you agreed with me.

No I do think capitalism is evil, it just also exists and is the dominant system.

Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Nov 13, 2016

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:00

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Oh dear me posted:

I will disagree with you if you say capitalism isn't evil as well. Saying so doesn't place any demands on you at all, though of course I'd very much like it if you agreed with me.

Our alternative to capitalism isn't communism, it is feudalism / fascist corporativism, lol. Marx himself knew that capitalism was necessary, and as much as you can hate capitalists, it is important to understand the workings of the historical dialectic process, and that capitalism won't ever be toppled because it is "evil".

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:04

World Famous W: May 25, 2007; BAAAAAAAAAAAA

I have nothing of worth to say on LK's post (cause I'm a big ol'e dummy with little education) other then can y'all stop quoting the whole drat thing. It's kind of big and a pain to keep scrolling past.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:07

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

steinrokkan posted:

Our alternative to capitalism isn't communism, it is feudalism / fascist corporativism, lol. Marx himself knew that capitalism was necessary, and as much as you can hate capitalists, it is important to understand the workings of the historical dialectic process, and that capitalism won't ever be toppled because it is "evil".

Marx regularly called for revolution and the notion that capitalism will organically be replaced by full communism is a nonsensical misreading of Marx through the lens of a Hegel overdose. Even the most Hegel obsessed marxists like Kautsky didn't believe historial processes meant "it will happen on its own without a mass movement to fight for it"

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:09

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Why is the term "establishment" bad? I've never seen anyone make that criticism before.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:10

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

World Famous W posted:

I have nothing of worth to say on LK's post (cause I'm a big ol'e dummy with little education) other then can y'all stop quoting the whole drat thing. It's kind of big and a pain to keep scrolling past.

I kept asking people to substitute :words:

MaxxBot posted:

Why is the term "establishment" bad? I've never seen anyone make that criticism before.

It's not bad. It's correct. But it's also the term the right has chosen to frame that particular concept. They got Donald loving Trump, noted rich New York real estate mogul and member of high society, to be classified as "anti-establishment," like lmao what the gently caress is that poo poo. I have nothing against the concept but I just think we shouldn't keep buying into their vocabulary.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:11

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Agnosticnixie posted:

Marx regularly called for revolution and the notion that capitalism will organically be replaced by full communism is a nonsensical misreading of Marx through the lens of a Hegel overdose.

Once the exploited classes reach their ontological epiphany in face of a crisis of capitalism, there will be an organic revolution. Not a moment sooner. An organic revolution is not called for by a vanguard. Meanwhile capitalism is not only the best, but also the only thing available, even if it is driving towards a cliff.

In other words, capitalism is a necessity, until socialism becomes necessity.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:12

World Famous W: May 25, 2007; BAAAAAAAAAAAA

Lightning Knight posted:

I kept asking people to substitute

Haha, I know. Just thought I would throw it out to.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:13

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Kilroy posted:

That's basically what Lightning Knight is saying I guess. That was a good post but the part you're taking issue with was really poorly worded. The follow-up makes it pretty clear though.

The only thing I would add, is that we should keep in mind the race of the people we choose to lead us, if that helps to assure minority allies that we are not abandoning their cause. That's not to say we should poo poo on white people, but if two people of roughly equal quality are trying to take up the same leadership position, and if going with the white fellow alienates minorities (right or wrong), then we should consider not doing that. An example of this might be having Dean as the chair of the DNC vs Ellison. Personally I think Ellison is the better choice, but even if you believe Dean is equally qualified, reconsider Ellison for this reason. I don't like that this is a thing we have to do, but then again I also don't like that there are white progressives who are totally apathetic to racial issues, that I count among my allies. And yet I do, enthusiastically. (And Lightning Knight, for what it's worth, I think you are being very stupid to advocate showing these people the door. Half an ally is better than none, and if some people make economic justice overwhelmingly priority #1, then let them do it.)

I was going to write more (lmao I know right) but I started forgetting all the points I had brainstormed at work and I didn't want it to become gigantic.

That part about "we don't need you" wasn't really meant to be exclusionary, I was just irritated and terse. If brogressives really want to be no war but the class war then more power to them. I just don't think they should be allowed to lead.

Like you and I have said, Bernie Sanders himself is pushing a black Muslim to lead the DNC. I definitely think he realized that we need young, minority voices to champion his message, because again, Bernie Sanders is smarter than you (and I).

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:14

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

steinrokkan posted:

Once the exploited classes reach their ontological epiphany in face of a crisis of capitalism, there will be an organic revolution. Not a moment sooner. An organic revolution is not called for by a vanguard. Meanwhile capitalism is not only the best, but also the only thing available, even if it is driving towards a cliff.

In other words, capitalism is a necessity, until socialism becomes necessity.

This is nonsensical idealism. There is no ontological epiphany, crises of capitalism happen on the regular, there is no grand magical crisis that is the specific time.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:15

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

steinrokkan posted:

Once the exploited classes reach their ontological epiphany in face of a crisis of capitalism, there will be an organic revolution. Not a moment sooner. An organic revolution is not called for by a vanguard. Meanwhile capitalism is not only the best, but also the only thing available, even if it is driving towards a cliff.

In other words, capitalism is a necessity, until socialism becomes necessity.

But really we should look into the critical theory on how to deal with structural contradictions instead of blaming the system for being evil and calling for yet another failed revolution.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:15

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Agnosticnixie posted:

This is nonsensical idealism. There is no ontological epiphany, crises of capitalism happen on the regular, there is no grand magical crisis that is the specific time.

An organic revolution will not happen unless this idealistic scheme of the exploited classes rejecting the capitalist ontology unfolds, and the capitalist system fails to contain one of its apparent crises. This probably means an organic revolution will never happen.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:17

RandomBlue: Dec 30, 2012; hay guys!; Biscuit Hider

Oh dear me posted:

Trade is property owners saying to everyone else, Hey, I have this property I don't need, but I'm not going to give it to you unless you give me - well, as much as I think I can get you to give me, regardless of your well-being, let alone those poor sods who can't give me as much. It absolutely is evil. Its unregulated outcome is always going to favour those who already have most.

This would be a perfect platform for giving Republicans virtually 100% of the vote. Keep laying it out just like this and you'll make real change happen.

As long as scarcity exists there will be trade in some form or other and there is no end of that in sight. Your assumption that all trade happens devoid of human considerations is patently false.

Commodities markets come close to what you describe, but they tend to drive prices down to the lowest sustainable level, usually only rising in response to low supply / high scarcity.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:20

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

I will say that there is a sad irony that one of the most iconic moments of the campaign - the "basket of deplorables" speech - was actually pretty clearly an attempt by Hillary to do exactly what we're talking about. It's a speech about how Trump is racist and some of his supporters are racist - assuage minority fears - but some of them are also desperate and we should respect them and work with them to make their lives better - engage with working class white people.

The formatting, wording, and delivery, as well as media coverage, of the speech was a total disaster and it utterly failed but she tried and it's super depressing in retrospect.

edit:

UV_Catastrophe posted:

Thoughts about Hillary Clinton and white working class voters, from a working class white male who lives in rural PA:

Back in 2008, in addition to being really charismatic, campaign Obama also talked a big game about economic issues, and he did his due diligence to try and win over working class whites outside of the major cities. I remember when he came to my lovely little Pennsylvanian rustbelt hometown (which has voted straight republican for decades) in '08 and gave a speech and talked to people. It was great.

The town didn't flip to Obama on election day - but he shaved off about 15% from the usual republican lead there and didn't get completely blown away in the vote tally. And Obama won the state very comfortably in part due to his efforts to try to sell the party platform in places like my hometown in a way that working class white people would like and understand. He legitimately tried, and most importantly, Obama came across as being genuine. The bottom line was that Obama had a kind of credibility that Hillary simply couldn't achieve, for whatever reasons. Working class whites were suffering under the status quo, and Obama was giving them a real sense of hope and "yes we can" and talking about new bold ideas that he was going to fight for. To those same people in 2016, Hillary represented nothing but the status quo, and lots of them stayed home. And she lost PA. I personally still went out and voted for Clinton, pls don't burn me alive

In my view, democrats do not need to reinvent the wheel or switch to being the party of Full Communism Now (although going a bit further left wouldn't hurt - blue dog democrats giving us stuff like the ACA over something more bold loving hurt us, imo), nor do they need to hush up about minority issues one bit. They just need to improve on 1) Communicating the merits of the party platform to white working class people, and 2) Building and maintaining trustworthiness and credibility concerning economic issues.

Obama had this stuff down pat. Build relations with working class whites like Obama did. That's it.

This guy is much smarter than me and probably said most of what I should've said in a quarter of as many words, read this if you hate me, tia

Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Nov 13, 2016

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:26

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Lightning Knight posted:

You are quite unnecessarily hostile to me, you know.

I, too am at the anger stage of this election. Don't take it personally.

quote:

People work in sweatshops abroad because American workers benefited from the destruction and colonization of their countries. Not everything is so simple. We can help poor white working class people and give them new jobs and new poo poo to do if they can meet us halfway on the fact that their old jobs aren't coming back without robots being involved. Also raising the minimum wage won't push prices up too much but killing trade policy absolutely will and the poor will absorb the brunt of that.

Globalization was a choice we made in the 90's, not some force of nature that just suddenly happened. All we have to do to make it go away is require that businesses need to manufacture products (or maintain call centers, etc) in the US if they want to sell those products in the US or pay a heavy tax. Do that and all of those jobs come back fairly quickly. Though I agree the problem of industrialization will need to be dealt with eventually. Also I don't necessarily buy into the idea that the gains in wages will be lost in price increases.

quote:

It's not redbaiting because the Russians aren't communist anymore. Vladimir Putin is a fascist and his government is dangerous. Do you deny that he's funded far-right movements? Do you deny that he actively interfered in the election to get Donald Trump elected? Do you really think he'll stop just because it's not Hillary anymore? This is geopolitics and the Russians do not like us right now. "Russia isn't your friend" was meant as a joke against tankies tho, admittedly.

It's absolutely redbaiting in the sense that Democrats are using the overblown specter of of scary foreigners to distract people from their own flaws.

quote:

They did not rig the primary bro.

Let's just call it "Cheating" then.

quote:

Democrats abandoned unions because they're capitalist hacks and also because of the attempt of Third Wayism to compensate for the base shifts after Reagan scooped our voters out from under us. I would also like to see money out of politics but even if we repeal CU there will always be some money required to run. Unions are better allies than corporations

.

Repealing CU would only be the beginning. We'd need to remove ALL money in politics and implement public financing. All CU did was let people hide the bribery and remove the spending caps. Agreed that Unions are the better option short term though.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:28

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Lightning Knight posted:

I will say that there is a sad irony that one of the most iconic moments of the campaign - the "basket of deplorables" speech - was actually pretty clearly an attempt by Hillary to do exactly what we're talking about. It's a speech about how Trump is racist and some of his supporters are racist - assuage minority fears - but some of them are also desperate and we should respect them and work with them to make their lives better - engage with working class white people.

The formatting, wording, and delivery, as well as media coverage, of the speech was a total disaster and it utterly failed but she tried and it's super depressing in retrospect.

edit:

This guy is much smarter than me and probably said most of what I should've said in a quarter of as many words, read this if you hate me, tia

The best part is how it's being used even around here as an example of how she never tried and was actively antagonistic. Like, you dumb fuckers bought into that horseshit narrative about how she called everyone deplorable when it was clearly a speech devised to try to legitimize the non-racism appeals of Trump and stop the upwelling of "They're all racists' and instead it got taken by Very loving Stupid People that it was an assault on all of Trumpland.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:32

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

readingatwork posted:

Globalization was a choice we made in the 90's, not some force of nature that just suddenly happened. All we have to do to make it go away is require that businesses need to manufacture products (or maintain call centers, etc) in the US if they want to sell those products in the US or pay a heavy tax. Do that and all of those jobs come back fairly quickly. Though I agree the problem of industrialization will need to be dealt with eventually. Also I don't necessarily buy into the idea that the gains in wages will be lost in price increases.

It's absolutely redbaiting in the sense that Democrats are using the overblown specter of of scary foreigners to distract people from their own flaws.

Let's just call it "Cheating" then.

Repealing CU would only be the beginning. We'd need to remove ALL money in politics and implement public financing. All CU did was let people hide the bribery and remove the spending caps. Agreed that Unions are the better option short term though.

I disagree, as to the nature of globalization. It didn't come about because of policy imposed from above, it came about as a reaction to changes in technology and consumer preferences. I also don't think it would be so trivial to get rid of; doing what you suggested would massively, massively disrupt the global economy, make many, many poor people in the rest of the world much poorer, and most of the factories that come back will be staffed by robots. Many of the factories that left are already coming back but are based primarily on robots.

We don't need industrial jobs. We need to stop telling people that other sectors of the economy, like service or public works, are less deserving than industry. Remember, being a factory worker 100 years ago in America was the poo poo tier job making low end junk to flood the British market and we were the evil undercutters. We got rich off of World War II and massive government spending plus unionization made industrial work awesome for a few decades. It usually wasn't and it being a good job was an aberration.

I would argue that redbaiting means something specific, dude. We aren't talking about the evil communists and we also aren't talking about a conspiracy theory here. Putin has been funding far-right movements in Europe too, remember that Farage was getting Putin money too to bring about Brexit. You can say that it distracts from the Democrat's mediocrity but you can't deny that it happened and that it will keep happening next time. We can't let them Watergate us again.

I really, really don't think you should dismiss the primary as "they cheated." First of all, no they didn't. Do you have proof that they actually, materially cheated? Like she won by almost ten percent, it's not like the primary was the 2000 election or some poo poo. Secondly if that's the only lesson we learn from the primary we're going to keep failing to engage with and reshape the Democratic Party effectively because frankly I don't think they cheated, I think the DNC was exercising institutional inertia for a long-standing member of party leadership. It would be a bad thing if they didn't do that, the real problem is that we haven't bothered to make ourselves party leadership.

Edit: actually in retrospect they did. With the debate questions. I still don't think that materially changed the outcome tho

Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Nov 13, 2016

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:35

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

RandomBlue posted:

Your assumption that all trade happens devoid of human considerations is patently false.

I don't say that all trade happens devoid of human considerations. Trade can be regulated, among other things by the personal ethics of the trader. But even then, since we are all inclined to see our own needs as the most pressing, the tendency of trade is going to be to enrich those with property. I'll leave the argument now though as - while I think challenging the moral underpinnings of capitalism is necessary if we want people to revolt against it at some future time - I'm certainly not arguing that the very next Democrat campaign should be 'Ban all trade!.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:37

stranger danger: May 24, 2006

boner confessor posted:

the conservative establishment also looks down their noses at benighted "urban ghetto" denizens... look at how often trump talked about minorities being trapped in jobless war zones, at a time when many of them are being pushed out of urban centers due to gentrification and economically booming central cities. there's a lot of sneering on both sides, i really don't think sneering is to blame here

the democratic establishment has extended multiple offers for help to rust belt america. it's just not something rust belt america wants - what they want most of all is a midcentury american economic paradigm of high wages for semiskilled factory labor, which simply is not coming back no matter what

You're right there's plenty sneering to go around, but I've seen plenty of it from left-of-center folks and I don't follow any sort of right-wing media which is why I reject the idea it's made up by the Republican noise machine the way they made up, say, Obama's birth certificate issues.

Regarding your second point, I get the feeling that many people in the rust belt don't feel like what's being offered is fair compensation for what's been taken away. They are holding out for something that's probably not coming back and I find that worrying since that may lead them to reject something like mincome which has the potential to be a huge boon to the country.

Lightning Knight posted:

* Yes. We live in a racist society. We are all racist. There are merely degrees of understanding of this fact.

* Free trade did not destroy the country, even poor working class people have much better things than they did fifty years ago because even poorer working class people get exploited to make them now. That said I love that the message you take away from it is "there are no problems with free trade" and not "we shouldn't be against free trade, we should make free trade better."

If everyone's racist - and I agree with what you're saying here fwiw - then say that instead of singling out one particular group who shouldn't be treated as if they're all the same. Also, be aware that this is not the most common understanding of what racism entails and people who aren't using the word the way you or I might are going to feel like they're being specifically attacked when that may not necessarily be your intention ("We are all racist"). We really need allies as you say, though again I hesitate to paint millions of people with one brush.

Re: free trade, people having more stuff isn't the end all and be all when free trade sent people's old well-paying, respected jobs overseas and now they're at Walmart working long hours and being treated like dogs. That Mark Blyth talk that's been floating around has a pretty good part about just this. If no one posts it before tomorrow I can dig it up w/ a time stamp (though the whole thing is a pro-watch) if you want.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:48

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

stranger danger posted:

If everyone's racist - and I agree with what you're saying here fwiw - then say that instead of singling out one particular group who shouldn't be treated as if they're all the same. Also, be aware that this is not the most common understanding of what racism entails and people who aren't using the word the way you or I might are going to feel like they're being specifically attacked when that may not necessarily be your intention ("We are all racist"). We really need allies as you say, though again I hesitate to paint millions of people with one brush.

Re: free trade, people having more stuff isn't the end all and be all when free trade sent people's old well-paying, respected jobs overseas and now they're at Walmart working long hours and being treated like dogs. That Mark Blyth talk that's been floating around has a pretty good part about just this. If no one posts it before tomorrow I can dig it up w/ a time stamp (though the whole thing is a pro-watch) if you want.

I was expecting you to be very mean-spirited in your response and I am grateful you weren't. I am sorry I was implicitly disrespectful to you in my response.

I understand that, and I think that it was a massive miscalculation on the campaign's part to try and aggressively push "Trump sucks and is racist" without any alternative offering. I know they had alternatives an they tried pushing them but they did not command media attention nearly well enough. They, like us, wrongly assumed they could allow Trump to just stand on his own twisted, terrible merits, and instead they just amplified his voice. I thought it was a good tactic, it wasn't a good tactic. I don't think we need to be harping on poor white people on how racist they are, I think we need to stress to our minority allies (not necessarily publicly) that "yes we know they're racist, we're not going to adopt racist platforms to satisfy them." That is part of what concerns me about the nativist streak in Bernie's leftism, it caters to the implicitly racist assumptions of the white working class, such as "the Chinese stole my job," or "undeserving Mexicans are here to steal my job." We should be pushing that no, rich assholes stole your job bro, and we're gonna replace it.

It is not the end-all, be-all. I think that boner confessor is right, the working poor want the validation of working. I think we can give that to them. For example, pushing unionization of food service industry and department stores and legislation to protect those workers. Industrial jobs were lovely rear end bullshit jobs and they made them better with unions and laws against exploitation. I believe we could do the same for service industry work and that poo poo can't be outsourced or roboticized (yet).

Like for real the waitresses and bartenders at my job make below minimum wage because of tipping. gently caress that noise. They should be union workers making 25 dollars an hour to put up with our lovely rear end customers, they have families to feed too.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I am a dishwasher/busser. I make 8.50 an hour. I'm not like a manager or any such bullshit)

Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Nov 13, 2016

# ? Nov 13, 2016 10:55

Normie Chomsky: Apr 10, 2008

Lightning Knight posted:

That is part of what concerns me about the nativist streak in Bernie's leftism, it caters to the implicitly racist assumptions of the white working class, such as "the Chinese stole my job," or "undeserving Mexicans are here to steal my job." We should be pushing that no, rich assholes stole your job bro, and we're gonna replace it.

But.. that's exactly what Bernie pushes? His stump speech was literally focused on billionaires and large corporations.

Normie Chomsky fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Nov 13, 2016

# ? Nov 13, 2016 11:01

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

stranger danger posted:

Regarding your second point, I get the feeling that many people in the rust belt don't feel like what's being offered is fair compensation for what's been taken away. They are holding out for something that's probably not coming back and I find that worrying since that may lead them to reject something like mincome which has the potential to be a huge boon to the country.

The problem with mincome, which I do support, is that while it gives people economic security it does not give them economic power. Or, at least, they do not perceive it as such. A handout from the state is a thing that can be taken away at any time, or reduced. It is (they feel) totally out of their control. Of course it is within their control totally, via the ballot box, both that is both abstract and also insecure as if the majority wants to reduce their basic income then that's what would happen.

This is, I think, the general sentiment that underlies people who complain about other people getting handouts, usually along with a generous helping of dog whistles. People want more than just money, they want economic power that no one, not the state and not a bunch of wealthy aristocrats from financial capitals, can take away from them. If we can figure out how to help them achieve that - and it doesn't necessarily have to be factory jobs - it will be an easy sell.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 11:05

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Humidora posted:

But.. that's exactly what Bernie pushes? His stump speech was literally focused on billionaires and large corporations, not the Chinese or Mexicans.

Bernie Sanders email posted:

People are tired [...] of seeing decent paying jobs go to China...

Like I don't think it was the main thrust of his campaign or anything don't get me wrong. But a lot, a lot, a lot of progressives get hung up on "bringing the jobs back" and "punishing outsourcing," and while I'm all for making GBS threads on corporations there's a strong undercurrent of "I only care about issues that affect America."

Reality check: more desperately poor people live in China than in the entirety of the US. The vast majority of the world lives in the most crushing poverty you could imagine, that would make your average working class person of any color in America blush. I understand that we have more power to help people here. But crossing the line from "more convenient to help" to "more worthy of help" is a dangerous path and leads to dark places. We, the West, hosed this world up hard. It is on us to make it better for the billions of poor abroad as well as the millions of poor at home.

Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Nov 13, 2016

# ? Nov 13, 2016 11:07

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

To expand a bit on my previous post: that is the problem of globalization. Globalization is good because it increases overall productivity both at home and abroad. The United States is net wealthier because of globalization. Globalization is bad because it abstracts economic power way, way up the food chain, and leaves people helpless and with no leverage against capital. That has to be mitigated.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 11:10

inkblot: Feb 22, 2003; by Nyc_Tattoo

Kilroy posted:

To expand a bit on my previous post: that is the problem of globalization. Globalization is good because it increases overall productivity both at home and abroad. The United States is net wealthier because of globalization. Globalization is bad because it abstracts economic power way, way up the food chain, and leaves people helpless and with no leverage against capital. That has to be mitigated.

Mark Blyth has been banging the drum of "globalization is going to gently caress you" for months if not years now. Look him up on the youtubes sometimes. He pretty much called the election months ago.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 11:12

Pedro De Heredia: May 30, 2006

FAUXTON posted:

The best part is how it's being used even around here as an example of how she never tried and was actively antagonistic. Like, you dumb fuckers bought into that horseshit narrative about how she called everyone deplorable when it was clearly a speech devised to try to legitimize the non-racism appeals of Trump and stop the upwelling of "They're all racists' and instead it got taken by Very loving Stupid People that it was an assault on all of Trumpland.

This is pretty revisionist. Most liberal commentators (who had been presumably talking to the Clinton campaign) said the speech was about highlighting the racist appeal of Trump. Clinton's campaign said, numerous times, that they welcomed a conversation about Trump's supporters being deplorable and they were pretty eager to point out how many were (Clinton gave another, separate speech, about 'the alt-right' for this very reason).

The whole thing was being sold to liberals/leftists as a strategically sound way of highlighting that a lot of Trump's support was terrible, because the campaign was focusing on Trump being terrible.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 11:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 02:16

stranger danger: May 24, 2006

Lightning Knight posted:

I was expecting you to be very mean-spirited in your response and I am grateful you weren't. I am sorry I was implicitly disrespectful to you in my response.

No worries

Really it's my fault for acting like a dick in my initial post.

Kilroy posted:

The problem with mincome, which I do support, is that while it gives people economic security it does not give them economic power. Or, at least, they do not perceive it as such. A handout from the state is a thing that can be taken away at any time, or reduced. It is (they feel) totally out of their control. Of course it is within their control totally, via the ballot box, both that is both abstract and also insecure as if the majority wants to reduce their basic income then that's what would happen.

This is, I think, the general sentiment that underlies people who complain about other people getting handouts, usually along with a generous helping of dog whistles. People want more than just money, they want economic power that no one, not the state and not a bunch of wealthy aristocrats from financial capitals, can take away from them. If we can figure out how to help them achieve that - and it doesn't necessarily have to be factory jobs - it will be an easy sell.

I agree w/ all of this. Mincome on its own will be necessary but not sufficient.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 11:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »