|
Bernie _______ This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| would've won! |
|
87 | 34.52% |
| has won! |
|
45 | 17.86% |
| will win! |
|
56 | 22.22% |
| is winning! |
|
64 | 25.40% |
| Total: | 124 votes | ||
|
RaySmuckles posted:its one of the reasons they suck so hard Well, social reform that helps minorities helps the working class, at least insofar as minority groups tend to be poorer. Further, by reducing the barriers between different groups in here makes it easier over time to introduce more left wing reform. As it is, social reform is good, and if they are using it to stall, it is best to get it out of the way so they don't have anything to hide behind later.
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Condiv posted:they don't actually work towards social reform though. they'll claim credit when the work's been done for them (see: gay marriage), but they will only give lip service to social reform during an election and then forget about it entirely afterwards I was merely responding to someone under the premise that they do so. So, your statement is valid, and I'm sure that they could do more for minorities even if they in fact are helping with social reform, though if nothing else, getting in the way less is better than the opposite. Even if the effort is only outside of the government, by everyone working to eliminate prejudice, it helps us to organize together more strongly and focus on bigger fish for us to fry. Combined with the fact that it does help people who are disproportionately poor, it is a good thing to focus on as well (though I understand that wasn't what you were talking about, I just decided to write that thought down). I also think that as we deal with more social issues, it will force them to pay more lip service to more left wing ideology, as they won't be able to pay lip service to things that are already common. I am also not sure if any social reform has every really started from the government down. Though you could say that they are at least easier to work with since they have a presumably lower threshold for public support of something to start supporting it themselves. I also think that since socialist reform doesn't necessarily have to hurt the rich, that they might not actually hate it so much once they get used to it. I think that rich people who aren't simply megalomaniacs might even enjoy having less power (since more power, like more money, means more problems). thechosenone fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean lots of social reform doesn't help the poor at all. Like reducing voter obstruction is objectively good, but it doesn't actually help the poor when the only viable choices are capitalist class hawks. Similarly legal gay marriage is good, but it's only providing economic justice to people rich enough to be concerned about estate taxes (maybe there were states where health insurance covered married people but not domestic partners?). You're correct we should still do social reform, but Democrats are clearly using it as a distraction from economic issues. Well, I mostly view the gay marriage issue as being representative of the increase in support for gay people, and by doing so directly wounding anti-LGBT cultural forces, making it easier to further advance lgbt rights, and also reducing public discrimination against them by some amount. While the economic benefits are not particularly direct, they are still there, and it is good to have them. For purposes of advancing left wing agendas, at least partially resolving the issue makes it easier to discuss things that would otherwise be put on the back burner in place of it, and even if something else is brought up, it will probably help to address the next wedge issue some as well. Also a large number of LGBT folks have disproportionate issues with homelessness, poverty and whatnot. Reducing voter obstruction also helps to prevent worse candidates from getting in, thereby easing the process of pushing politicians to support various issues, and slowing any erosion of policies that are ahead of their time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:One of the appeals is that single payer is more efficient so presumably there would be less admininstrators than current insurance company employees Honestly I would think that even the rich would have reason to support universal healthcare (so long as they don't own stock in healthcare companies). Less barriers to hiring people full time, don't have to have nearly the same amount of employees for human resources. I think it is just a matter of if enough of them realize the benefits of it to throw the ones who are invested in private healthcare companies under the bus. Not that they are active enough or willing enough to do it of their own accord. Any reform that happens will come from the bottom up, its just a matter of how much those above resist it (which is based on if they (know) they will benefit or not).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Yeah, there is a lot I would very much like to see change with the observed behavior of democratic party. Whoever brought up the court assisted Advent of gay marriage made a good point (I would quote them if my phone would let me), but even then the increase in support of gay marriage by the public still played a factor. While it would be nice to have everything that helped someone help everyone at once right now and directly, at least gay marriage isn't as easy to use as a wedge issue by the parties anymore, allowing us to find the next thing we can knock down on the way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Tell it to the states that legalized gay marriage through their elected Democratic legislatures. This is also a part of what convinced the courts as well. It also normalizes lgbt folks in the public, and makes it easier to make further inroads on that front, along with what got done in the main push. This helps lgbt people, and not only lets them focus on more general economic issues, and also weakens the ability of political groups from using this as a wedge issue against groups that might otherwise be able to work together.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 18:32
|
|