|
Really we should be talking about why they shouldn't have to worry about what the stock market does in relation to their income security in retirement, but hey what would I, evil centrist Hillaryman know.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:You seem to be the most centrist poster in this thread (via rhetoric, if not actual political stance), so I'm going to present this to you. I don't mean this as an attack on you or an aspersion upon your political stances, merely as demonstrative of what I and others have been arguing here: I'll bite since I'm also one of those ~*neo-liberals*~ that everyone seems to hate. I'd vote GOP if the Dems got to the point where they were seizing people's private property or engaging in economically suicidal ideas like protectionist tariffs, outlawing automation, dissolving the big banks, etc. Of course this assumes the GOP isn't FULL FASCISM NOW at that point. In an election between fascism and communism we're right hosed. edit: For the record, I want Ellison to win because I think it's a good bone to throw to the Bernie people and Ellison/Perez are aligned on how to move the party forward. Also I think there's immense rhetorical power in picking a Muslim to run the Party while Trump is trying to deport all of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'll bite since I'm also one of those ~*neo-liberals*~ that everyone seems to hate. I'd vote GOP if the Dems got to the point where they were seizing people's private property or engaging in economically suicidal ideas like protectionist tariffs, outlawing automation, dissolving the big banks, etc. how selfish of you. you obviously don't care about minorities
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'll bite since I'm also one of those ~*neo-liberals*~ that everyone seems to hate. I'd vote GOP if the Dems got to the point where they were seizing people's private property or engaging in economically suicidal ideas like protectionist tariffs, outlawing automation, dissolving the big banks, etc. can I borrow the time machine you used to come from the German revolution?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'll bite since I'm also one of those ~*neo-liberals*~ that everyone seems to hate. I'd vote GOP if the Dems got to the point where they were seizing people's private property or engaging in economically suicidal ideas like protectionist tariffs, outlawing automation, dissolving the big banks, etc. So basically there's an incredible amount of room here for the Democrats to enact progressive policy without losing too many votes. Just do sensible things that will improve the lives of our citizens! (fwiw being anti-automation isn't really a leftist policy. Automate all the lovely jobs yes please. Of course it'd have to come alongside a basic income or something like that.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:So basically there's an incredible amount of room here for the Democrats to enact progressive policy without losing too many votes. Just do sensible things that will improve the lives of our citizens! Yes...with the caveat that going hard left might not lose them voters but could lose them funding. That makes me cautious about going too far too fast, which is a very unfortunate situation, but is the reality. In 2010 the Dems got crushed money-wise because the banks had their feelings hurt and didn't do their standard thing of giving equally to both parties so they could have access. However, if you're gonna do it, don't be dumb and propose stuff that doesn't hold up when you start poking at it. Referring here to Bernie's plans last year on healthcare/taxes that were held together with the same voodoo math Paul Ryan uses. I don't want to have some politician stick their neck out for something like GMI, win, and then fail horribly at implementation like we saw with Obamacare and hold us back from any further improvements. You've got to have a solid framework from the start. Re: the actual election, is that today or this weekend? axeil fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'll bite since I'm also one of those ~*neo-liberals*~ that everyone seems to hate. I'd vote GOP if the Dems got to the point where they were seizing people's private property or engaging in economically suicidal ideas like protectionist tariffs, outlawing automation, dissolving the big banks, etc. When did you betray Rosa?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Focusing on the stock market in any political capacity is how we get poo poo like "America is Already Great" and unprecedented losses at state levels where that sweet Wall Street cash isn't rolling in. I'm not suggesting the stock market should be a big focus for democrats, I'm suggesting "LOL KKKapitalists and their stock market" is really tone deaf to a significant number of people in our coalition. 52% of Americans have some stake in the market. Like my union arranges for outside financial planning services to buy us lunch and talk to us about 403b plans, can you believe those idiots think union members care about their retirement or the stock market? emdash posted:https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/who-gains-from-dow-20-000-ba07555e5f12#.zhgv06v0o As far as I can tell this analysis is excluding union pension funds like CalPERS because they aren't owned by individuals. But regardless it doesn't matter if your 401k is a drop in the bucket compared to the ultra-rich, you still care if it goes up or down. A minimum wage worker's wages are a drop in the bucket compared to the rich, too, but they obviously care about getting a raise. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not suggesting the stock market should be a big focus for democrats, I'm suggesting "LOL KKKapitalists and their stock market" is really tone deaf to a significant number of people in our coalition. 52% of Americans have some stake in the market. poo poo like 401(k)s and the stock market are great, because they're really the only reliable method for working/middle class people to boost themselves up into the upper classes. Or if not them then at least their heirs. If you save prudently you can retire a multi-millionaire and make the money last indefinitely. You might not have the conspicuous consumption, but when you no longer have to trade your labor for money I'd say you've transitioned from working/middle class to upper class. I'd be super pissed if the Dems (or GOP) closed the loopholes that make that sort of wealth accumulation by people who don't make 250k a year possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Because we've spent a lot of time talking about how amazing Republicans are, let's take a look, in counter-point at how they've managed to gently caress up their dream of ACA Repeal + Tax Reform: https://newrepublic.com/article/140838/republican-congress-courting-major-crisis
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
I don't think anyone disputes that Republicans have no idea what the gently caress they're doing and can't even enact the policy they want because it's gone so hard-right that it won't even benefit their own constituents. I don't see how that takes from the point that they have an actual party line and structure that they've been incredibly successful at winning office using, and the Democrats most certainly do not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I don't think anyone disputes that Republicans have no idea what the gently caress they're doing and can't even enact the policy they want because it's gone so hard-right that it won't even benefit their own constituents. I don't see how that takes from the point that they have an actual party line and structure that they've been incredibly successful at winning office using, and the Democrats most certainly do not. The problem is that their party-line is an unworkable mess that's half-at-odds with what many of them, or many of their power brokers, actually want to do. Like part of Trump's appeal was, explicitly, running against Republican orthodoxy on trade, on the social security net (he almost certainly will sell his voters out on this, or try to anyway.) And again part of the reason why "Democrats" and really "leftists" in general have never been as rigid as Republicans and Conservatives is because our ideology simply doesn't lend itself to that kind of orthodoxy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
That awful SC Dem party head dropped out and endorsed Perez.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That awful SC Dem party head dropped out and endorsed Perez. I thought he made some good points about OFA's role in the demise of state parties, tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
axeil posted:poo poo like 401(k)s and the stock market are great, because they're really the only reliable method for working/middle class people to boost themselves up into the upper classes. Or if not them then at least their heirs. If you save prudently you can retire a multi-millionaire and make the money last indefinitely. You might not have the conspicuous consumption, but when you no longer have to trade your labor for money I'd say you've transitioned from working/middle class to upper class. 1. Not even the leftyist leftists are talking about doing anything like this 2. if the stock market is a solution for class mobility, why is wealth inequality getting drastically worse at the same time the stock market is getting drastically better?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:1. Not even the leftyist leftists are talking about doing anything like this Actually I want to advocate that we rid ourselves of making people be dependent on 401ks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:It's about numbers, not a hit list of specific names. Republicans understand this. Right. When a Democrat was elected, conservatives wanted to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Meanwhile, when a fascist is elected, self described leftists want to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. I have never seen Crowsbeak talk with the same amount of venom about any Republican that he does about Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right. When a Democrat was elected, conservatives wanted to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Meanwhile, when a fascist is elected, self described leftists want to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Yes I the poster who in gbs supports gulags for Nazis and ancaps is soft on republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Actually I want to advocate that we rid ourselves of making people be dependent on 401ks. Oh, I'm right there with you, but I've never heard anyone suggesting outlawing them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right. When a Democrat was elected, conservatives wanted to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Meanwhile, when a fascist is elected, self described leftists want to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. You should probably reexamine the amount of vitriol the GOP base has had for its establishment these past 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right. When a Democrat was elected, conservatives wanted to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Meanwhile, when a fascist is elected, self described leftists want to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Yeah, it's kinda odd how you and the rest of the remaining Third Way diehards seem big on self-flagellation, but who am I to kinkshame?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:So basically there's an incredible amount of room here for the Democrats to enact progressive policy without losing too many votes. Just do sensible things that will improve the lives of our citizens! Automating jobs is fine if it comes with fundamental economic changes to address the fact that "everyone needs to work in order to live" and "the job market is entirely private and the government will not intervene in any way to make sure everyone is able to have a job" are fundamentally incompatible without accepting that some portion of the population will starve through solely due to bad luck and unfortunate turns of events. The current generation of automation (thanks largely to computers and in particular the internet) has led to consolidation of jobs rather than expansion, and American society has essentially just papered over these festering problems in the economy with welfare, debt, and allowing banks to invent money out of thin air. That is why the Dems didn't hit the bankers hard - not because of campaign donations or big donors, but because half our economy is essentially fictional and bringing the banks down would break the illusion and bring the current economy crashing down. They're willing to make small changes, but the economy as we know it is fundamentally hosed, and for twenty years or more the economy has been nothing more than a high-class casino, with the entire finance class playing a game of fiscal chicken using dollars as their chips. Taking something like that down isn't just a matter of reforms - it means needing a whole new economy to put in its place, and American society largely hasn't even admitted that a problem exists. People generally sense that bankers have done bad things and hosed stuff up somehow, but it doesn't seem like people are in any mood to challenge the very nature of employment yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right. When a Democrat was elected, conservatives wanted to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Meanwhile, when a fascist is elected, self described leftists want to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Leftists don't want to keep Democrats out of power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Leftists don't want to keep Democrats out of power. Except the ones that couldn't sully themselves by voting for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Except the ones that couldn't sully themselves by voting for them. Most including myself did vote for Abuela.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Except the ones that couldn't sully themselves by voting for them. I voted for, donated to and campaigned for Hillary Clinton. So did everyone I know who agrees with my politics, including DSA members, marxists and outright anarchists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Except the ones that couldn't sully themselves by voting for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
It's weird how Hillary lost because her centrism turned off the left, and yet every single leftist voted for her. There's some inherent contradiction here, I can't place it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
I didn't vote for HRC and I'd do the same again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's weird how Hillary lost because her centrism turned off the left, and yet every single leftist voted for her. There's some inherent contradiction here, I can't place it. That was caused by people being so turned off they didn't vote at all, not people wanting fewer Democrats in the federal government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Also from my personal experience canvassing for her, the people who were most unwilling to vote for Hillary weren't even leftists, they were dem-leaning independents. With the thin margins in the election unenthused leftists might have made a difference but there's no contradiction between that and the majority of leftists still voting for her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
The MTP Daily panel on this just a few minutes ago was borderline revolting. Chuck Todd expressed over and over that Ellison is being held back because of his religion, noting "if he was a Christian and had the support of Sanders and Warren this thing would have been done." A lady from Urban Radio spread a rumor that she heard Perez is going to win as a strategy of "getting back to our roots", the most antagonistic (conservative?) voice complained about Ellison being too close to Nation of Islam, and the lady who went last said Ellison's early and steadfast Sanders support would doom him with the people who make the decisions. It ended with Todd remarking, "Sanders and Warren versus Obama and Clinton? I think we know where that's going..." and someone responding "Perez!" as they blacked out to a commercial. Regardless that Perez isn't a bad choice, it was the most discouraging thing I've seen since Election Day in thinking we might finally end this grip on power held by wealthy liberals who don't understand poor people and burnish their support of minorities they never see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
e: whoops wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:is it the one where you gently caress off back to d&d? Too slow smartypants!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/834916893534392322 https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/834917248280182784
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Woke Schumer is really weird. I'd love to know what sort of drama is going on at the top of the DNC right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
At a bare minimum, embracing leftist positions on a rhetorical level at least provides a coherent vision for the future that "not trump!" simply does not. "Not Trump" is basically your vision for the future, JeffersonClay, and it is downright pathetic, uninspired, and doomed to fail (again).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
In a sane world this would be a strike against Ellison if it's true and not just Schumer being Schumer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:In a sane world this would be a strike against Ellison A thousand times  jesus christ people are the worst. Is anyone here really strongly against Ellison? Or strongly in favor of Perez over Ellison? I've been assuming that we have the obvious "ellison only  " types and then everyone else, but the primary chat is obscuring some of the lines of "reasoning".
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
MooselanderII posted:At a bare minimum, embracing leftist positions on a rhetorical level at least provides a coherent vision for the future that "not trump!" simply does not. "Not Trump" is basically your vision for the future, JeffersonClay, and it is downright pathetic, uninspired, and doomed to fail (again). That's where I'm at as well. We need to give an alternative vision to what America should be rather than just trying to be against everything Trump does but offer nothing positive to Americans. The Democrats should have a leftist ideology that is diametrically opposed to Trump's weird coalition that is further to the Right than establishment Republicans. Trump shouts "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" and "Putting America back to work!", where we should come in and undermine this with more democratic distribution of wealth that moves away from labor participation. It's just going to be incredibly hard to do that, if the Democrats were to go far left, because a lot of the Republican ideology, like the Protestant work ethic, is so ingrained in American consciousness. How do you get Americans to be OK with government handouts, for example? I mean one way or another we are going to be facing a serious labor crisis as automation and various forms of technological disruption to continue but all of the returns continue to end up in the few hands of the 1%. No amount of facts and empirical data is going to convince voters to push for their politicians to outline policies that redistribute the wealth from the 1%. So how do we do that? How do we frame the discussions to go in that direction rather than scapegoating minorities and "addressing" pseudo economic problems. It's challenging in this political climate, maybe there has to be such a clear, undeniable recognition on how thoroughly the 1% is loving the rest of us? But I totally agree that we can't keep with the left-centrism, it doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:08
|
|