|
my liberal coworker always likes to say that poor conservatives keep voting against their own self-interest the idea that the policies and agendas of the democratic party pushed over the past few decades have been actively hostile to these poor conservatives is lost to him gutting welfare, the drug war, exploding the prison population, NAFTA, permanent normalized trade relations with china, TPP, CAFTA, wall street deregulation, choosing to bail out wall st but not homeowners, trying to cut medicare/social security in a grand bargain, abandoning unions, not pushing card check, refusing to impose cost controls on healthcare, being against drug reimportation from canada, being against negotiation of health costs with medicare/medicaid, etc. have all been pretty hostile to the economic well being of these poor conservatives i mean the republicans are even worse, but when you have to choose between getting economically hosed and getting economically hosed, is it a wonder that they'll start focusing on the social issues instead
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, why couldn't Obama have made a simple change that solely benefited the poor, like massively expanding Medicaid eligibility? Or infrastructure spending as economic stimulus? The joke, of course, is that he did attempt both those things, among many other policies that would have helped poor whites, but both were blocked by both state and national Republicans in the name of their ideological opposition to government programs that help poor people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:lol, just gonna quote this one real quick before you realize your tremendous mistake that the dems singlehandedly passed a lovely rightwing heritage foundation healthcare bill with no control costs as a giant handout to the rentier parasite class in the health industries? things are slightly better than before and they expanded medicaid a little, but holy poo poo the ACA sucks rear end
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:the Dems DID expand Medicaid and authorized a ton of infrastructure spending. it made it just fine through Congress. but the (Republican) governors of these poor rural states turned down the government money and refused to implement the plans and programs, taking a principled stand for "I believe the government shouldn't help poor people" i dont consider it a tremendous mistake to point out the dems are only giving out breadcrumbs while selling out hard as gently caress while they had practically full control of congress to pass a major healthcare bill.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:so instead rural areas vote for the "lol maybe you could afford health insurance if you bought less iphones" shitlords https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeBQC7h37DQ
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
haiti has been firmly in the US sphere serving us corporate interests and that's turned out a lot worse for its citizens than cuba like other poor countries in the US sphere
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
if you haven't done so I suggest reading the Caribbean and South American country chapters in Killing Hope before you criticize Castro again to have some understanding of the actual historical context
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
mugrim posted:This was dumb but she actually had to delete a plan to give non profit/government employees loan forgiveness because it was already a program that exists, which really hurt her cred as a "Very serious and competent" politician.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Maybe Clinton's hawkishness will save net lives.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:I've always wanted an Iraq War memorial that listed the lives of everyone who died. A giant black wall full of the names of people who all died in that stupid war that we started for no reason and had no idea what to do when we fought it. Names and names and names and names and names *cnn debate audience applauds*
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
npr is a neoliberal shithole that pushed some anti-sanders messaging during the primaries. they only covered sanders from the context of a horse race and not from the context of what policies will benefit americans. theyre currently on the russia hysteria bandwagon. im glad other people call 'em out for what they are because im sick of the insufferable attitude of people who listen to that station as if it's an unbiased or decent news network.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
i listened live to a segment npr was doing where they literally brought up "bernie bros" as "another" example of online harassment when they were discussing the anti-semitic ((())) marker npr's coverage on foreign policy is super bad and super pro bombing brown people
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't recall that one specifically, but there were a couple instances where Bill said correct things like "Obamacare has problems and we should promise to fix them and generally improve it", and instead of listening, both the campaign and the media both just laughed it off and called it another crazy Bill Clinton gaffe because it contradicted Hillary's messaging. https://youtu.be/g2RcTdVMRVo?t=316 nancy pelosi when asked about moving to single payer or medicare for all, a position similar to what prominent democrats in the past had supported, she can't form a coherent sentence comedyblissoption fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Ignoring the history of it all is a mistake. The Clinton's centrism was a direct response to the Republican sweeps from Nixon to Bush Sr. Leftism was a losing prospect in the eyes of the public. They tried centrism, and it worked. They tried to pass left leaning legislation, and Gingrich destroyed it. Getting anything at all done, was only allowed at the behest of the Republicans. So Democrats compromised every which way to keep the country running. democrats held the majority in the house for 40 straight years from 1955 to 1995. 40 loving years. those include all of the administrations between nixon, reagan, and bush sr. this stretch becomes even more remarkable when you consider stretching this timeframe back to FDR. democrats held the majority in the senate for 34 out of 40 years from 1955 to 1995. please let me know how controlling congress for so long during those administrations counts as "Republican sweeps" the democrats started winning hard for 50 years when they became and were remembered as the party of FDR. it's when they started selling out and abandoning being the party of FDR that they lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_over_time  
comedyblissoption fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
obama literally went to kucinich's district to shame him and use his power of the bully pulpit against the public option. he didn't ever use the bully pulpit for the public option. many people felt betrayed by obamacare since it was a rightwing healthcare bill originating in the heritage foundation and designed to entrench the current healthcare industry. many felt obamacare's campaign included pushing for a public option at the very least and he abandoned it along with many other potential cost controls like drug reimportation or allowing medicare to negotiate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
we had to sell out and move to the right because we needed to win and get corporate money is the common refrain and excuse from corporate and centrist democrats this strategy has hosed them over in congress much more than the "be the party of fdr" strategy. with the last election cycle it's absolutely crushed the democrats at basically all levels of government from the state houses to congress to governorships to the presidency. they haven't been this out of power in like a century.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
according to Thomas Frank, it's quite possible that monica lewinsky and the tea party were responsible for preventing the democrats from gutting social security and medicare
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
when a liberal says they support social security and medicare, you have to ask them to clarify. "supporting" in their minds might include cutting these programs in the rationalization that you need to cut them so they don't go "bankrupt"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:This is why early childhood intervention is so incredibly important, and also why poverty tends to be a generational issue. Aside from the permanent brain changes and maladaptive decision making caused by growing up with extreme stress poor kids tend to have enormous word gaps and delayed development. That hampers those kids from succeeding later in life. Rinse repeat when they have kids.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
aside from the belief in globalism and the virtues of market forces, neoliberalism in the US also believes in austerity, gutting social safety nets, expanding the prison population, privatization of prisons, privatization of schools, waging a terrible and oppressive drug war, waging terrible and oppressive foreign wars, overthrowing governments, not prosecuting widespread and fraudulent criminal behavior by large financial institutions, creating a tech panopticon that spies on every citizen, revolving doors being good, and legalized bribery of public officials being good oh and the most important thing to do is to have good decorum
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:This is more-or-less what I think of when I hear "neoliberal", aside from the parts about austerity and social safety net cuts at least. in the West Wing, the neoliberal democrat protagonists try really hard to cut social security. i think they may have succeeded in the show but i won't watch that tripe so i can't confirm.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
note that whenever democrats talk about raising the retirement age for social security or say they are trying to save social security or whatever other bullshit framing they try to use, they are talking about cutting social security. they won't use the words "cut".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I think what offends most blue collar red state types is idiots that will talk a big game, tell them they're the problems with the country, they're the ones that need to change, and then jet off back to their mansion. quote:You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? (Laughter/applause)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
While there are certainly true believers, the ideological and political arguments are mostly an ex post facto explanation to provide a facade over what the donor class wants: to make themselves wealthier.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:What about her statement is false? It was stupid to say out loud, but spot on for his screaming hordes at the rallies. also the net of her statement is essentially cast super wide to denigrate conservative voters and independents.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
also if you want to believe what she is saying is factual, please provide any statistical evidence absurdly attempting to objectively define bigotry that also doesn't ironically show her own supporters are similarly bigoted
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 00:47
|
|