|
He and his dickhead appointees and hangers-on have literally floated the idea of registries, travel bans and internment camps for "disloyal americans", such as muslims. Maybe you're going "lol" though because Trump is your last great white anti-capitalist hope after the death of your hero Ernst Rohm and you're laughing because your wish for concentration camps has finally been granted.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
where we're going we don't need registries #maga
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
If I wished for concentration camps then I'm pretty sure I'd be satiated with the past 8 years of Obama refusing to close one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:If I wished for concentration camps then I'm pretty sure I'd be satiated with the past 8 years of Obama refusing to close one. Nobody's saying Obama and Clinton were good. We're saying that Trump is a much accelerated form of what made them bad, plus an evil form of nationalism. One camp full of kids sold to us soldiers by warlords for $100 a head in 2002 is bad, but blm marchers shot dead in the street or grabbed out of their beds at night by secret police does nothing to close Guantanamo and harms many more human lives. The aca is bad, but its repeal will not get you any closer to socialism and will kill me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:In my eyes, the globalist neoliberalism that Obama and Clinton support is a far greater evil than Trump's nationalism. Rent-A-Cop posted:Who is the lesser evil is an entirely subjective thing. I think I'll make a thread in about 6 months to ask about how well this blind, accelerationist garbage works out for you guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I think I'll make a thread in about 6 months to ask about how well this blind, accelerationist garbage works out for you guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I think I'll make a thread in about 6 months to ask about how well this blind, accelerationist garbage works out for you guys. Well considering I'm already working an insecure job with no healthcare that barely keeps me above water, and have already resigned myself to the endless oblivion that all humans face in death, I don't think things can get any worse. I look forward to seeing privilege removed from those who currently have it, though. Crazy Cloud posted:and all y'all talkin down on accelerationism overnight can suk a fuk
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:If you think Trump's gonna give you a fairer economic system when one of the first things that's happened since his win is a motion for the repeal of the affordable care act I really don't know what the gently caress to tell you. There's a degree of weaponised stupidity in play here that I can't actually comprehend. How is the ACA a fair system? It forces young healthy people to subsidize old people at gunpoint. I am a grad student and the spikiness of income + lack of benefits means that am required to pay $300 a month for insurance that would only be available in a catastrophic situation, yet I am prevented legally from buying inexpensive catastrophic insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
on the left posted:How is the ACA a fair system? It forces young healthy people to subsidize old people at gunpoint. I am a grad student and the spikiness of income + lack of benefits means that am required to pay $300 a month for insurance that would only be available in a catastrophic situation, yet I am prevented legally from buying inexpensive catastrophic insurance. What are the details of your plan? You should at least have low copays for annual physicals. What is your definition of catastrophic? My deductible limit is like $5000 for an entire year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Mark your calendar. It should be an interesting look back. We can convene and compare how many secret police and concentration camps have been formed as well. My guess is that Trump will be very limited in his ability to implement his changes, even outside of things that are not his policies. Here, this clip is a pretty good future predictor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsKnsgPiWEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH5tQWrnO_c
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What are the details of your plan? You should at least have low copays for annual physicals. What is your definition of catastrophic? My deductible limit is like $5000 for an entire year. My old catastrophic plan was 15k, my ACA plan was 7k, I canceled it the day Trump was elected. If I wanted to just pay outright for routine doctors visits, it would be a lot cheaper than $300 a month * 12 months. The icing on the cake is that i'm starting a job with a Cadillac healthcare plan this summer, so I get screwed while in school and when I get out. I canceled my lovely insurance because i'm reasonably confident that Trump will defang the mandate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Well considering I'm already working an insecure job with no healthcare that barely keeps me above water, and have already resigned myself to the endless oblivion that all humans face in death, I don't think things can get any worse. the working class have nothing to lose but their chains, comrade  Trump is a Trickster-in-Chief who will use his powers of deconstructive irony to rip the clothes off the power structures that assert the status quo. Not since Trump have I seen so many people grow class-conscious. Stop this culture war bullshit, tap into the zeitgeist, and organize. Don't wait for your masters to present another safe choice. Bernie was bullied out of the nomination by the DNC. The people weren't even given the choice. If they're not playing by their own rules, why should we?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
on the left posted:My old catastrophic plan was 15k, my ACA plan was 7k, I canceled it the day Trump was elected. If I wanted to just pay outright for routine doctors visits, it would be a lot cheaper than $300 a month * 12 months. Sure hope your job lasts the next four years!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Sure hope your job lasts the next four years! It's not about my job, it's about the fact that the refusal to band insurance prices by age is blatant theft from the young to benefit the old, and should be overturned on that basis alone. Insurance companies should be allowed to offer discriminatory insurance policies for people like me who want to exclude the old or people with pre-existing chronic conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's not about my job, it's about the fact that the refusal to band insurance prices by age is blatant theft from the young to benefit the old, and should be overturned on that basis alone. You believe that it is unethical to pay higher insurance rates to keep diabetics alive? Your idea of a just world is one where you save a thousand dollars a year and people with preexisting conditions die?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's not about my job, it's about the fact that the refusal to band insurance prices by age is blatant theft from the young to benefit the old, and should be overturned on that basis alone. Would you think it okay to band insurance prices by pre-existing conditions? They are the ones costing the insurance company after all. If you had a hypothetical risk pool of only people your age, what happens to people who are more or less healthy within that age group? Is it fair to expect people to pay more for insurance for medical conditions they had no control over? No matter what, lower risk participants will end up subsidizing higher risk participants. Defining any level of segmentation within a risk pool is going to change prices (sometimes unaffordably) for another segment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:You believe that it is unethical to pay higher insurance rates to keep diabetics alive? Your idea of a just world is one where you save a thousand dollars a year and people with preexisting conditions die? Seriously, wtf is it with the American zeitgeist that is so concerned with fairness, punishment, retribution that you would fight tooth and nail against an national insurance pool. There is so much concern put towards what others deserve that you'd prefer less rights to ensure they are denied some. It's madness. National insurance schemes are good. Stop tearing them down and the risk pool gets so diluted that it won't cost an arm and a leg to get them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Well considering I'm already working an insecure job with no healthcare that barely keeps me above water, and have already resigned myself to the endless oblivion that all humans face in death, I don't think things can get any worse. Trump is going to implement policies firmly squared in the Republican playbook and you'll find that, yes, things can actually get worse and those with privilege will just accrue more to the point that they will be even more difficult to dislodge by the end of his term. The best you can expect is that a marginal number of manufacturing jobs will be forced (or rather bribed) to remain in the rustbelt while Trump also expands the deportation programs that Obama made much use of and marvels that one of the most sophisticated surveillance apparatus in the world is at his fingertips. If you guys think this will result in some kind of grand class awakening you are being taken for a loving ride, if anything the association of economic issues with white supremacist fury, deserved or not, is going to create major problems for creating a unified progressive movement in the future and I sincerely doubt that the Rudatrons or The Saurus's of the world are going to be very good at making an open, inclusive leftist movement that can mobilize the Democratic base. Its bad enough that for too many leftists nothing seemed to be learned from the primaries with little talk about how to reach out to various demographics, particularly ethnic minorities, but a lot of talk about conspiracy and how the system was rigged. White Rock posted:We can convene and compare how many secret police and concentration camps have been formed as well. My guess is that Trump will be very limited in his ability to implement his changes, even outside of things that are not his policies. He'll be limited in the sense that he can't act as a dictator to the rest of his party, so you can expect more of the same Republican policy what with their control on all three branches of the government, which has been so lovely in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:You believe that it is unethical to pay higher insurance rates to keep diabetics alive? Your idea of a just world is one where you save a thousand dollars a year and people with preexisting conditions die? All i'm asking is that I have an option to purchase this kind of insurance. Insurance companies can still offer the kind of plans that use community rating and cover pre-existing conditions. If you feel great about paying extra for this sort of coverage, that's great that you would be willing to do so. Maluco Marinero posted:Seriously, wtf is it with the American zeitgeist that is so concerned with fairness, punishment, retribution that you would fight tooth and nail against an national insurance pool. There is so much concern put towards what others deserve that you'd prefer less rights to ensure they are denied some. It's madness. I'm not against a national insurance scheme at all. The ACA combines the worst parts of insurance (multiple payors and intense bureaucracy) with the worst possible way to run a single payer program (a bizarre regressive tax regime to pay for it). Also if medical care is up for a national vote, that will be awesome because we can use the democratic process to decide things like "maybe it's best to let AIDS take care of itself, it's not worth the money to treat" on the left fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
on the left posted:All i'm asking is that I have an option to purchase this kind of insurance. Insurance companies can still offer the kind of plans that use community rating and cover pre-existing conditions. If you feel great about paying extra for this sort of coverage, that's great that you would be willing to do so. How old are you? What can you tell us about American healthcare under Reagan?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Nobody's saying Obama and Clinton were good. We're saying that Trump is a much accelerated form of what made them bad, plus an evil form of nationalism. So what's the downside again? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:You believe that it is unethical to pay higher insurance rates to keep diabetics alive? Your idea of a just world is one where you save a thousand dollars a year and people with preexisting conditions die? On the left is obviously only concerned about how the issue affects him personally, but it's disingenuous to appeal to some sort of universal right to healthcare irrespective of expense, because even a national insurance scheme would have to be somehow fenced, whether that be by residency requirements, immigration policy, limits on coverage, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Americans can't do universal health care right. Someone has to be left to die or they don't feel like its working. Amazing. gently caress you all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:On the left is obviously only concerned about how the issue affects him personally, but it's disingenuous to appeal to some sort of universal right to healthcare irrespective of expense, because even a national insurance scheme would have to be somehow fenced, whether that be by residency requirements, immigration policy, limits on coverage, etc. "Some sort of universal right to heathcare != "making the American healthcare system more equitable via a pool shared by most Americans." Are you some kind of randroid?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:"Some sort of universal right to heathcare != "making the American healthcare system more equitable via a pool shared by most Americans." Are you some kind of randroid? In a single payer or otherwise socialized medical system, there will be a group that decides what will be covered by that single payer or socialized system. In Britain, this is decided by a team of very talented researchers. No reason to think that in a hypothetical American system, this wouldn't be highly politicized and changed every time the administration changes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:National insurance schemes are good. Stop tearing them down and the risk pool gets so diluted that it won't cost an arm and a leg to get them. Single payer healthcare schemes are good, with great value for money. The ACA is a horrible pile of poo poo written by Mitt Romney and designed to shovel more of the poor and middle class's money into the rich's pockets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Trump is going to implement policies firmly squared in the Republican playbook and you'll find that, yes, things can actually get worse and those with privilege will just accrue more to the point that they will be even more difficult to dislodge by the end of his term. The best you can expect is that a marginal number of manufacturing jobs will be forced (or rather bribed) to remain in the rustbelt while Trump also expands the deportation programs that Obama made much use of and marvels that one of the most sophisticated surveillance apparatus in the world is at his fingertips. Lol. And what "should" we leftists have learnt from the primaries? Because what I learnt was that the field was cleared years ahead of time for Abuela because it was "her turn" and despite this a totally unknown senator from a tiny state was almost able to clinch the nomination from her with a single repeated speech about economic populism and she was such a terrible candidate that she went on to lose to orange cheeto hitler, a man who could not help but insult the majority of america almost constantly. So I guess what I learnt is that economic populism good, being a corporate sellout and nominating a horribly unlikable corrupt plutocrat bad. If given the chance, I feel that I couldn't do any worse in building an open, inclusive leftist movement that can mobilize the democratic base than Clinton and the Liberals did. I mean, the democrats just got creamed. It was humiliating. Embarrassing. It's only uphill from here - Providing they actually listen to Bernie/the cries of pain from the american people and start standing up to wall street, big pharma etc. Trump knocked 25 billion dollars off American Pharmaceutical companies' values the other day with provocative tweeting. Could you ever imagine Clinton standing up to the powers that be in that way? For someone who has been screwed so badly by neoliberal globalism, seeing the Pres poo poo-talk all these assholes is like music to my ears. The Saurus fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:He'll be limited in the sense that he can't act as a dictator to the rest of his party, so you can expect more of the same Republican policy what with their control on all three branches of the government, which has been so lovely in the past. My point was if he can't even implement his own stated policies screaming about concentration camps is pretty much like saying "DEATH PANELS". It's hyperbole, and it's used to shut down any sort of actual discussion about Trump. Seriously, if we are not gonna examine what Trump is, what he is trying to do, and how we can use what he is doing to our benefit the OP might have well just have posted "Trump is a fascist, sexist racist and must be stopped" and locked the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Seriously, if we are not gonna examine what Trump is, what he is trying to do, and how we can use what he is doing to our benefit the OP might have well just have posted "Trump is a fascist, sexist racist and must be stopped" and locked the thread. Nevermind, the thread has been gassed by the denizens of D&D for having opinions in it which are not their own reflected back at them
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Lol. And what "should" we leftists have learnt from the primaries? Because what I learnt was that the field was cleared years ahead of time for Abuela because it was "her turn" and despite this a totally unknown senator from a tiny state was almost able to clinch the nomination from her with a single repeated speech about economic populism and she was such a terrible candidate that she went on to lose to orange cheeto hitler, a man who could not help but insult the majority of america almost constantly. First off, I don't care about Clinton and you can badmouth her to hell and back, it makes no difference to me, what I care about is what weaknesses Sanders had that she was able to exploit to grind him down and win the nomination handily. Since he was the most prominent leftist candidate in decades glazing over what hobbled him is loving idiotic and people like you will only be setting yourselves up for future disappointment if you do. You should know by now there's no prize for second place. He got drubbed, hard, when it came to minority votes, particularly African Americans. You can get angry about it if you want, but it ended up making the difference. Its doubly bad since Clinton had so many obvious weaknesses with black voters, her husband's association with eroding welfare and vastly increasing imprisonment, the 'Superpredators' comment, the idea of a wealthy white women having the audacity to claim to be the anointed successor of the first black president, all of these things could have been better used by Sanders but instead it came across that he couldn't adapt his rhetoric very well to talk about the specific concerns that afflicted African Americans and had a somewhat ignorant, sheltered reputation as a result. Its not just a question of notoriety, he still did poorly (albeit not as poorly as in earlier contests) in diverse states like New York or California late into the primary when him and his positions were much better known. By many accounts, his campaign had glaring weaknesses with black voters that had little to do with establishment skulduggery. From my own experience, talking to a lot of different people both in real life and on the internet there was a lot of misgivings about how seriously Bernie would take their issues compared to Clinton, there was also a lot of concern about the way that exclusive concentration on Economic issues tends to shove out minorities quickly blackguy32 has some interesting posts on this. You guys can bitch and moan about the pernicious effects of identity politics all you want. To be absolutely honest I would even have had a bit of sympathy before the election when the centrist liberal force were at their most obnoxious. But since then I think I've come a lot more receptive to the idea that identity politics is an important part of a leftist movement since its obviously not just going to go away because some internet Communists don't like it, and a lot of leftists, yourself especially, have glaring problems with Race, Gender and Religion that seemed to get broadcast all over the place since the election and ignoring those problems will just breed disillusionment and resentment. quote:Trump knocked 25 billion dollars off American Pharmaceutical companies' values the other day with provocative tweeting. Could you ever imagine Clinton standing up to the powers that be in that way? For someone who has been screwed so badly by neoliberal globalism, seeing the Pres poo poo-talk all these assholes is like music to my ears. Its all talk, his administration is going to be a loving orgy of regressive moneyed interests blowjobs. If you think he'll take a serious stance against corporate rapacity then you've been played hard, we'll see how things turn out in six months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
(((being underemployed and underinsured))) is the fault of (((globalists))) and not my own lack of ability
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:(((being underemployed and underinsured))) is the fault of (((globalists))) and not my own lack of ability People who have bad benefits packages simply deserve to die, you see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:we leftists A low rumble is heard in the vicinity of Highgate cemetery as Karl Marx's spinning intensifies. Peven Stan posted:(((being underemployed and underinsured))) is the fault of (((globalists))) and not my own lack of ability jfc this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:First off, I don't care about Clinton and you can badmouth her to hell and back, it makes no difference to me, what I care about is what weaknesses Sanders had that she was able to exploit to grind him down and win the nomination handily. Clinton stomped him in the south and states with closed primaries but he was actually able to pull out Trump like upsets in states that ended up giving Trump the election. Trying to frame Clinton as the black choice when Bernie was actually the choice of under 30 african americans and she lost the general due to her failure to get Obama level numbers with African-American, Latino and younger voters shows you that the 'lean exclusively on identity politics' strategy is a failure. It didn't work in 2016. It won't work in 2018. And it really won't work in 2020 if you want to make Trump a one term president. The fact that Bernie Sanders (a guy with nearly no national presence) was able to give her a run for her money and Donald Trump (a loudmouth blowhard with zero political experience) was able to beat her shows just how powerful populism is. It's transcends all barriers. And that doesn't mean that minority issues have to get scuttled in the future so the Democrats can win an election. They just have to cast a big tent again and represent everybody. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Hey Koala March, you didn't answer my question before: do you still think Paven Stan 'knows what's up'? You seemed pretty happy to loudspeaker him before. I don't like The Saurus, but if your reaction to him is that 'idpol is here to stay', then the left is doomed. Idpol won't win, it's incapable of winning, because it's fundamentally about dividing people. The 'fear' that Sanders was going to shove minority voters out in the cold was 100% fiction that the clinton campaign used to try and win the primary. The fact that it worked, that apparently nothing Sanders said or did was ever considered "good enough" to allay these constantly voiced concerns (usually made by people in the media), is proof of that. Clinton had weaknesses, but she had a history of working with minority groups that meant they trusted her - turns out, that trust was completely misplaced, because she just loving lost the easiest election of all time. Like it's funny that dems are happy to say that white voters can be stupid or whatever, vote against their own interests, yet that standard is never applied to non-white voters, who are assumed to be perfectly politically informed and able to deduce people's intentions with 100% accuracy. It's loving nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:You guys can bitch and moan about the pernicious effects of identity politics all you want. To be absolutely honest I would even have had a bit of sympathy before the election when the centrist liberal force were at their most obnoxious. But since then I think I've come a lot more receptive to the idea that identity politics is an important part of a leftist movement since its obviously not just going to go away because some internet Communists don't like it, and a lot of leftists, yourself especially, have glaring problems with Race, Gender and Religion that seemed to get broadcast all over the place since the election and ignoring those problems will just breed disillusionment and resentment. I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that identity politics have a major role to play after Hillary Clinton, who built much of her campaign on identity politics, who's victory was predicted to be a give due to the nature of demographics, lost the election. Hell, she lost white women while brandishing the slogan "I'm With Her". 29% of Latinos voted Trump, which is a big number considering. I have no problem with integrating Race, Sex etc etc into an existing functioning ideology, but putting another neoliberal with the right opinion" seems to be the democratic ticket for 2020, so hope they can win on identity politics alone. Otherwise, enjoy 8 years of Trump! Peven Stan posted:(((being underemployed and underinsured))) is the fault of (((globalists))) and not my own lack of ability Hahaha, ah yes. gently caress the poor. 
White Rock fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:(((being underemployed and underinsured))) is the fault of (((globalists))) and not my own lack of ability A professional school is admittedly a weird place where you can make enough money during the summers to completely disqualify you from medicaid/obamacare subsidies, get taxes withheld as though your pro-rated salary were extended all year, and still have to make $500 monthly payments when you aren't working on penalty of not getting back all those taxes withheld. on the left fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:(((being underemployed and underinsured))) is the fault of (((globalists))) and not my own lack of ability I skipped to the last page of this thread to see why it was rated so poorly and this was the first post I saw, thanks for quickly answering my question. khwarezm posted:First off, I don't care about Clinton and you can badmouth her to hell and back, it makes no difference to me, what I care about is what weaknesses Sanders had that she was able to exploit to grind him down and win the nomination handily. Since he was the most prominent leftist candidate in decades glazing over what hobbled him is loving idiotic and people like you will only be setting yourselves up for future disappointment if you do. You should know by now there's no prize for second place. He got drubbed, hard, when it came to minority votes, particularly African Americans. You can get angry about it if you want, but it ended up making the difference. Its doubly bad since Clinton had so many obvious weaknesses with black voters, her husband's association with eroding welfare and vastly increasing imprisonment, the 'Superpredators' comment, the idea of a wealthy white women having the audacity to claim to be the anointed successor of the first black president, all of these things could have been better used by Sanders but instead it came across that he couldn't adapt his rhetoric very well to talk about the specific concerns that afflicted African Americans and had a somewhat ignorant, sheltered reputation as a result. Its not just a question of notoriety, he still did poorly (albeit not as poorly as in earlier contests) in diverse states like New York or California late into the primary when him and his positions were much better known. By many accounts, his campaign had glaring weaknesses with black voters that had little to do with establishment skulduggery. There's always an assumption that Sander's underperformance with black voters is exclusively due to deficiencies in talking about racial issues, but if that was the case then why did he perform well with black millenials? Do you think black millenials care less about racial issues than their older peers? I don't think so. I think that older black voters likely had more reasons than just racial issues to choose Hillary over Benie, or perhaps just didn't see anything compelling enough from Bernie to switch over from a candidate that they were very familiar with. Keep in mind that since the Republicans are so awful on racial issues you have a lot of conservative nonwhites voting Dem, this is a good thing since if they voted Republican the Dems would be even more hosed electorally but it's not exactly a mystery to see why these voters didn't vote for Sanders. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:(((being underemployed and underinsured))) is the fault of (((globalists))) and not my own lack of ability I want to quickly address this, because it's the sort of idea that is wrong in a "1+1=3" way rather than an ideological one. Consider a situation where literally everyone in the world is intelligent and hard-working and makes good decisions. Everyone in this world has been following all the most pragmatic advice available. Roughly the same number of people would need to do low-paying jobs and the number of available high-paying jobs wouldn't magically significantly increase. We'd still need roughly the same number of janitors, lawyers, etc. Basically, while it might make sense to say that a specific individual could benefit from working harder and making better decisions (though even that is subject to a ton of luck), this sort of viewpoint makes zero sense when applied to large populations and society as a whole and is a good example of a political opinion that is actually objectively wrong independent of ideology. No amount of personal responsibility or good decision making will have a significant impact on things like unemployment or underemployment. Period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Like it's funny that dems are happy to say that white voters can be stupid or whatever, vote against their own interests, yet that standard is never applied to non-white voters, who are assumed to be perfectly politically informed and able to deduce people's intentions with 100% accuracy. It's loving nuts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvmHM9TNVr0
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 05:58
|
|