Brainiac Five posted:

I straight up don't believe that absolute poverty has any meaningful relationship to racism, since otherwise Asian-American people and white people would be the least racist and black and American Indian people would be the most racist.

I believe that higher levels of expressed racism among poor whites can be understood as arising from well-off people being better at hiding their racism, and by poor whites being in a worse relative position with regards to racial minorities, and unless poverty relief programs are expressly racist they won't affect the latter phenomenon.

Brainiac Five posted:

No, I don't think that follows, since poor whites are still white and still part of the racial elite. Looking at it as resentment against white liberals is just a way to avoid looking at race.

Brainiac Five posted:

No, not really, because you could argue that racism would prevent a classless society and would merely lead to a caste system instead of socialism/communism, especially if you leave racial prejudices and structural inequalities intact or unchallenged, leaving the idea of natural racial inequality as strong as ever.

Brainiac Five posted:

Well, how are you getting people to join together in solidarity when one group generally views the other as inferior? How are you convincing white people generally to engage in solidarity instead of demanding subordination and unquestioning support from racial minorities? It seems to me like you're just begging the question, assuming that racism has been eliminated as a factor to start with.

Brainiac Five posted:

But their interests don't all align, because white supremacy does benefit all white people and so it's also in white people's interest to maintain racism.

Brainiac Five posted:

Okay, so you're talking about inculcating an ideological reason to be anti-racist. I'm glad we're finally on the same page, though I don't think that attempting to do this to build majority support for antiracism is practical compared to imposing antiracism on people and letting them adjust to the new status quo.

Ze Pollack posted:

how exactly do we impose socialism on people given that we live in a Democracy etc etc this is not a difficult question to answer my man.

Majorian posted:

My wife's an incredible kind and gentle person who doesn't physically, verbally, or emotionally abuse anyone. Also, please stop talking about my wife, thanks.

BadOptics posted:

I'm kinda confused; how are all these great things going to come about without any of the following:

-Politicians
-Leftist/DSA (who you've indicated your displeasure towards)
-Liberal Centrist (who you've also scoffed at in various threads)

NikkolasKing posted:

So can anyone more familiar with Socialism or "true Left Wing" politics tell me where Bernie ranks? I know he's probably a moderate compared to, I dunno, Lenin or something but I'm mostly wondering because someone I was talking to said the "socialism" we have here in the US is just a typical liberal co-opting a term and that there is no growing class consciousness here.

I'm pretty Progressive, I think? I support Sanders and Corbyn at any rate. But maybe they aren't actually all that radical. I wouldn't really know.

Doc Hawkins posted:

Hmm, no. I'll try again.

People make moral arguments for capitalism all the time, and most reduce to the claim that the greatest overall benefit comes from maximizing self-interested economic activity, within transactional limits (ie there are actions you can't legally do, but anything that's legal tends to be legal to do as much as you want). As Smith said "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, etc. that we expect our dinner."

People who claim that there are conditions under which society is benefited more by restricting self-interested economic transactions, that the self-interest of the butcher, baker, or corporation, is not necessarily also the interest of society, that the marginal utility of individual wealth diminishes sharply well before the billions, are in practice called socialists.

Maybe I used "descriptivist" incorrectly. I meant, "what, in practice, people use the word to refer to."

I specified "materialist" because there could be actively wealth-despising religious perspectives which don't code as socialist; I don't know any, but if they exist I don't want to force them into The Big Tent.

Call Me Charlie posted:

Oh poo poo, Tulsi doesn't want perpetual regime change war in the middle east, defended a scummy Hindu leader that the rest of the world has forgiven and she gets a bunch of (troll) support from the right for her tough on Islam terrorist position. You're right. There's no trusting that loving crazy bitch. Where's my Biden 2020 shirt?!

(Seriously, it's sad for how many people fall for obvious tactics to discredit and smear her before her presidential run.)

Call Me Charlie posted:

I read the whole thing, you rear end in a top hat.


Also supported by Hillary Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...he-no-fly-list/


How's that a bad thing?


Good.


This one's gross but it's on par with the most of the country's thoughts on the topic.


Back to my original point, these are smear tactics. Trump's trying to weaken her for 2020. Anybody with half a brain can see she's going to make a run for it in 2020. I commend her for meeting with Trump to try to talk some sense into him regarding Syria, even if it wasn't the politically smart thing to do.

Razputeen posted:

Razputeen posted:

i think that they are comparable in that the press attempted to smear corbyn as a sympathizer to assad

FuriousxGeorge posted:

Nope. Voted for libertarians multiple times before. They share many of my values, especially on foreign policy and ending the drug war.

FuriousxGeorge posted:

Those were not policies Gary Johnson ran on. If we assume candidates are going to do the most extreme version of what their party wants we could have all happily voted for Hillary and gotten single payer.

FuriousxGeorge posted:

The Mexican drug war is driven by American demand for illegal drugs. When you allow legal distribution instead of a black market you have a market you can tax that is regulated by government and police instead of by organized crime. This will reduce the amount of violence associated with the drug trade.

JeffersonClay posted:

Ah yes, a plan to fix healthcare that could pass the republican house and senate, and get Trump's signature.

JeffersonClay posted:

A vox piece that asked 8 democratic senators how to fix healthcare in the hypothetical scenario where they can reach a compromise with the republicans has convinced you they'll have no healthcare message in a year. Did you even read that article? Republicans are not going to vote for single payer.

JeffersonClay posted:

Except common sense and history. They don't have the luxury of living in some Bernout bubble where the republican party doesn't control the legislative and executive branches. They're not neophytes who think Republicans will hear "single payer" and think "great idea!"

rudatron posted:

It wasn't just 'one-protest group', it was one protest, combined with the army of centrists lanyards that it gave an incredibly useful narrative device to. It's not as if Sanders was even hostile to criminal justice reform pre-protest, he's the one with the least complicity in the whole system, but the one who got the most poo poo for it. It was 100% bullshit.

It's really shocking just how much no one wants to acknowledge it, that you guys would rather throw it down the memory hole.

It actually stems from their behavior both during and post-protest, including the afore mentioned safety pin box scam.

This is the catch - the reason sanders was crashed was not because he was actually that bad on criminal justice issues - he was already the best of the 3, prior to the event. The reason he was crashed is because it gave the people doing it publicity, and they knew they'd get covered for it. That's it. Talking about 'taking the wind out of the sails' is 100% bullshit.

VitalSigns posted:

I don't see any reason to settle for Tulsi 3 years out from the next presidential primary when there are plenty of leftists as good on domestic issues who also don't favor bombing the Middle East forever.

If she's the only non establishment centrist on the ballot in 2020 then sure pick her obviously because anyone from the Obama-Clinton wing is obviously going to have an even worse foreign policy than her in addition to their corporate-loving economic policies, but this far out there's plenty of options and no reason to settle for the lesser evil.

MooselanderII posted:

You guys also seem to be forgetting just how insanely against gay marriage Tulsi Gabbard has been throughout her career, which she still does not apologize for.

drilldo squirt posted:

I hope everyone who actually supports Tulsi in this thread comes to terms with the fact that they would have voted for a left wing trump.

The Kingfish posted:

Lol.

As far as I can tell, the Tulsi hate is entirely about concern trolling. It's like how fishmech and Effectronica used to poo poo on Bernie for not being full communism. She sucks harder than Bernie, but I don't see how she is worse than HRC in any way.

galenanorth posted:

I'd suggest "America First" and going back to the John F. Kennedy sense of the idea, putting your country before yourself. Instead of using it to mean "America has to be out for itself, gently caress the international community, let's do realpolitik and help Middle Eastern countries bomb their neighbors if it's what's good for our oil supply, gently caress the environment and DRILL". Play up every alternative sense of the phrase for contrast, like "first in reading, first in math, first in science".

At this point the GOP has a monopoly on slogans with America in the name

Brony Car posted:

Is it bad to think that population control could do a lot to alleviate Africa's (and generally the world's) problems?

sirtommygunn posted:

Perhaps, just maybe, he was talking about things like condoms and birth control to slow the rate of child birth, and not just letting them die until their population stabilizes.

ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:

You do realize Africa is going to have 1.5 Billion people by 2050 right?

The population explosion going on in Africa is staggering and makes China's look minuscule. Nigeria will have more people than the US by 2050. 440 million people in that country alone. 182 million today. That's more than double the population..

Remember all the centralized state planning it took to keep up with China's population growth? How the hell is Africa going to handle that?

If you're worried about Rwandan and Congolese type incidents occurring again than you have to worry about that population growth. Coupled with global warming it will spark wars that make those two look tame.

stone cold posted:

sorry that you and him are bad at using words then



not a fan of giving cover to exploitation personally but whatever floats your boat