|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 13 2018 17:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. In GH's eyes, number 3 is not true. They are all corporate sellouts. Half of them pay lip service to what he wants from his politicians, but do nothing to further those causes (and are willing to trade them away for stuff he doesn't care about). The others don't pay lip service, but at the end of the day, their policies are not really any worse than the other ones' bullshit. So if you believe that (3) is essentially not true, should you still care about (1) and (2)? Or should you just agitate until enough ppl want to try it. If the outcome sucks then you deal with that then, but given that the outcome sucks right now, you don't have much to lose right? Now I don't agree with him, but I understand that point of view. And regarding corruption in politics I think it is the right approach. When he brought up a corrupt senator for Illinois, the overwhelming response was "yeah, that sucks. But it's Illinois, what else did you expect?" Clearly he expects you to hold politicians to a higher standard than that. It might be "Illinois" (or Rhode Island, or New Jersey, or, or, or, or...), but after they get elected they will be in DC, where they will be governing *you* and not just the corrupt citizens of Illinois. And just as it wasn't ok for Republicans to support a pedophile in Alabama just because he would be another warm body on their side when the votes get tallied, it's not ok for the Democrats to support a corrupt sleazebag in Illinois for essentially the same reasons. And if you believe both the Democratic and Republican parties are so far gone that they can't be changed, it makes absolute sense to advocate a new way. Even if it'll initially suck.
Pretty much. It's less that I think they are the same and more that I think people willfully refuse to acknowledge there is far more overlap than they are comfortable with.
Like I said before, Imagine for a moment a Republican billionaire candidate in Illinois was caught by the FBI talking to a politician of Serbian descent with the perceived ability to sell a senate seat about buying a political seat. There would be wall to wall coverage of it for a week straight on Maddow, and there would be a dozen stupid tweets posted about it here. But since it's Democrats they can't be bothered. (What is somewhat impressive to me is how oblivious they are to this aspect)
It's too hard and scary to leave them, obviously the only option would be to abandon all political activity because some political entities are poison. You know just like how diets work.
|
On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff.
Abolishing political parties led to communist regime in my country. The same might not happen in the US, but it will be anarchy for sure. I think it's better to just have a few more parties, then competition will probably sort them out.
|
On February 13 2018 19:36 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. Abolishing political parties led to communist regime in my country. The same might not happen in the US, but it will be anarchy for sure. I think it's better to just have a few more parties, then competition will probably sort them out.
The issue that people can't believe GH doesn't get is that the two party system is baked right into the election system in the country. You'd have to ground up change everything about elections in order to get away from the two party system. People don't understand why GH doesn't get that tanking the democratic party won't do anything but tank the democratic party. He doesn't actually support anything he says to happen he just wants to sit at the top of the moral pile and smugly dismiss anyone who tries to actually do something. Once you realize he doesn't care for political legitimacy you understand a lot more about his posting.
|
On February 13 2018 19:36 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. Abolishing political parties led to communist regime in my country. The same might not happen in the US, but it will be anarchy for sure. I think it's better to just have a few more parties, then competition will probably sort them out.
Abolishing political parties let to a communist regime and not the other way around? What country is this?
|
On February 13 2018 19:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 19:36 sc-darkness wrote:On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. Abolishing political parties led to communist regime in my country. The same might not happen in the US, but it will be anarchy for sure. I think it's better to just have a few more parties, then competition will probably sort them out. The issue that people can't believe GH doesn't get is that the two party system is baked right into the election system in the country. You'd have to ground up change everything about elections in order to get away from the two party system. People don't understand why GH doesn't get that tanking the democratic party won't do anything but tank the democratic party. He doesn't actually support anything he says to happen he just wants to sit at the top of the moral pile and smugly dismiss anyone who tries to actually do something. Once you realize he doesn't care for political legitimacy you understand a lot more about his posting.
I think its worse than this though.
Its not only that the two party system is baked into the election system, its that corruption, greed and a nihilistic view on public good is the foundation of ANY political system.
I'm a socialist but I can't name a single socialist government that wasn't utterly corrupt.
I would struggle to name any government at all that wasn't utterly corrupt. The checks in the system that exist now are the best thing we really have to fight that but its like pissing in the wind.
You can't pin your hopes on a total dismantling of the system though, because it would take something utterly extraordinary to achieve that and more harm than good would probably come of it.
|
On February 13 2018 19:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 19:41 Sermokala wrote:On February 13 2018 19:36 sc-darkness wrote:On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. Abolishing political parties led to communist regime in my country. The same might not happen in the US, but it will be anarchy for sure. I think it's better to just have a few more parties, then competition will probably sort them out. The issue that people can't believe GH doesn't get is that the two party system is baked right into the election system in the country. You'd have to ground up change everything about elections in order to get away from the two party system. People don't understand why GH doesn't get that tanking the democratic party won't do anything but tank the democratic party. He doesn't actually support anything he says to happen he just wants to sit at the top of the moral pile and smugly dismiss anyone who tries to actually do something. Once you realize he doesn't care for political legitimacy you understand a lot more about his posting. I think its worse than this though. Its not only that the two party system is baked into the election system, its that corruption, greed and a nihilistic view on public good is the foundation of ANY political system. I'm a socialist but I can't name a single socialist government that wasn't utterly corrupt. I would struggle to name any government at all that wasn't utterly corrupt. The checks in the system that exist now are the best thing we really have to fight that but its like pissing in the wind. You can't pin your hopes on a total dismantling of the system though, because it would take something utterly extraordinary to achieve that and more harm than good would probably come of it.
It's not that I don't get it, it's that I don't think rolling over and giving up is an option I can live with.
Governments are just collections of people and we have to improve ourselves if we want our government to improve. With people on the "left" thinking supporting coups in countries they don't care about is "meh" then of course our government will overthrow leaders they don't like.
I think a lot of people are uncomfortable hearing it's not a bunch of idiots who don't agree with them or corrupt politicians that are the root of the problem but their own complacency with/hopeless dependence on it not significantly changing.
|
On February 13 2018 20:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 19:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 13 2018 19:41 Sermokala wrote:On February 13 2018 19:36 sc-darkness wrote:On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. Abolishing political parties led to communist regime in my country. The same might not happen in the US, but it will be anarchy for sure. I think it's better to just have a few more parties, then competition will probably sort them out. The issue that people can't believe GH doesn't get is that the two party system is baked right into the election system in the country. You'd have to ground up change everything about elections in order to get away from the two party system. People don't understand why GH doesn't get that tanking the democratic party won't do anything but tank the democratic party. He doesn't actually support anything he says to happen he just wants to sit at the top of the moral pile and smugly dismiss anyone who tries to actually do something. Once you realize he doesn't care for political legitimacy you understand a lot more about his posting. I think its worse than this though. Its not only that the two party system is baked into the election system, its that corruption, greed and a nihilistic view on public good is the foundation of ANY political system. I'm a socialist but I can't name a single socialist government that wasn't utterly corrupt. I would struggle to name any government at all that wasn't utterly corrupt. The checks in the system that exist now are the best thing we really have to fight that but its like pissing in the wind. You can't pin your hopes on a total dismantling of the system though, because it would take something utterly extraordinary to achieve that and more harm than good would probably come of it. It's not that I don't get it, it's that I don't think rolling over and giving up is an option I can live with. Governments are just collections of people and we have to improve ourselves if we want our government to improve. With people on the "left" thinking supporting coups in countries they don't care about is "meh" then of course our government will overthrow leaders they don't like. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable hearing it's not a bunch of idiots who don't agree with them or corrupt politicians that are the root of the problem but their own complacency with/hopeless dependence on it not significantly changing.
This is reasonable to a degree but I also think it paints a rose tinted picture of politics. Politicians aren't 'just people' like any other people. They are usually very privileged people (in my country at least) who are educated in a specific way to kill their instincts to act like normal people.
This is more pervasive than people think.
In the UK we've had Corbyn recently, who for a while campaigned on a platform of 'kinder, gentler' politics without personal attacks and all the nastiness in politics.
It didn't take long at all for the groups that support him to start a brutal campaign of nastiness on his behalf.
Why is this relevant? In order to change politics as a whole the entire human race has to fundamentally change, and it has to happen simultaneously, because all of the vested interests and power groups are invested in keeping a system that they can easily have control over.
The Democrats in the US are the prime example of this. They have been corrupted to the point where any good they can do is tainted, but the problem is that there's no alternative until someone decides to do something better. That something better would have to far more revolutionary than just complaining about the status quo. It requires organized popular action and there's nothing even remotely close to that on the horizon.
|
On February 13 2018 19:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 19:36 sc-darkness wrote:On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. Abolishing political parties led to communist regime in my country. The same might not happen in the US, but it will be anarchy for sure. I think it's better to just have a few more parties, then competition will probably sort them out. The issue that people can't believe GH doesn't get is that the two party system is baked right into the election system in the country. You'd have to ground up change everything about elections in order to get away from the two party system.
I'd be willing to bet a little bit of money that if the democratic party ever becomes full blown leftwing and the rest of the circumstances doesn't change, you'll have a liberal third party in a heartbeat.
|
You want actual change? In tiny steps from the bottom up, working hard to get better people elected or in positions within the party.
You don't do it by standing outside shouting 'you all suck'.
|
|
|
Pfft, bribes are clearly a personal matter, StealthBlue. It's not to be discussed in public. They were right to follow the rules on not discussing personal things while on the stand and dragging her away.
|
On February 13 2018 20:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 19:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 13 2018 19:41 Sermokala wrote:On February 13 2018 19:36 sc-darkness wrote:On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. Abolishing political parties led to communist regime in my country. The same might not happen in the US, but it will be anarchy for sure. I think it's better to just have a few more parties, then competition will probably sort them out. The issue that people can't believe GH doesn't get is that the two party system is baked right into the election system in the country. You'd have to ground up change everything about elections in order to get away from the two party system. People don't understand why GH doesn't get that tanking the democratic party won't do anything but tank the democratic party. He doesn't actually support anything he says to happen he just wants to sit at the top of the moral pile and smugly dismiss anyone who tries to actually do something. Once you realize he doesn't care for political legitimacy you understand a lot more about his posting. I think its worse than this though. Its not only that the two party system is baked into the election system, its that corruption, greed and a nihilistic view on public good is the foundation of ANY political system. I'm a socialist but I can't name a single socialist government that wasn't utterly corrupt. I would struggle to name any government at all that wasn't utterly corrupt. The checks in the system that exist now are the best thing we really have to fight that but its like pissing in the wind. You can't pin your hopes on a total dismantling of the system though, because it would take something utterly extraordinary to achieve that and more harm than good would probably come of it. It's not that I don't get it, it's that I don't think rolling over and giving up is an option I can live with. Governments are just collections of people and we have to improve ourselves if we want our government to improve. With people on the "left" thinking supporting coups in countries they don't care about is "meh" then of course our government will overthrow leaders they don't like. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable hearing it's not a bunch of idiots who don't agree with them or corrupt politicians that are the root of the problem but their own complacency with/hopeless dependence on it not significantly changing.
there are many options in between rolling over and giving up and what you're proposing (which isn' really much of a proposal either). If you were proposing some of those you'd get a lot more reception. It's also simply wrong to call what the other people here are/would be proposing rolling over and giving up.
you're ignoring all those options in favor of a crazy pseudoplan.
|
On February 13 2018 20:29 Gorsameth wrote:
You want actual change? In tiny steps from the bottom up, working hard to get better people elected or in positions within the party.
You don't do it by standing outside shouting 'you all suck'.
Two things.
1. I do a lot more than yell from the outside about them sucking.
2.Get Out (applies in a different way to someone like yourself)
|
The White House's Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal, released Monday, calls for work requirements for those who receive public housing subsidies and slashes funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by $8.8 billion.
The budget outline also zeroes out the Public Housing Capital Fund, dedicated to rehabilitating and modernizing public housing developments, and eliminates the Community Development Block Grant which local governments can use at their discretion to address a variety of community and infrastructure needs.
In a tweet, HUD Secretary Ben Carson pointed to a goal of "self-sufficiency."
The budget underscores the administration's push for Congress to pass legislation to add work requirements to "require able-bodied individuals to shoulder more of their housing costs and provide an incentive to increase their earnings." It also wants "greater private sector involvement" to finance the revitalization of housing units.
Source
Ben Carson is Uncle Tom to the highest degree and should not be in any position of power that affects human beings lives. He may be a fantastic surgeon, but he's a shit politician. This budget is DOA.
|
Yeah it's a good thing that Trump's budget will likely go entirely ignored by Congress.
|
Who will Trump to defense of I wonder...
|
Was he pumping his chest and being Mr. Dig Bick a few years ago so brazenly?
|
Ottoman slap? I thought Turkey forgot about its past already. On the other hand, they still have that Erdogan guy...
|
On February 13 2018 16:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. I mean say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, dude. At least it's an ethos.
Are you implying I'm a nihilist? I really don't think I am.
On February 13 2018 17:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 16:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what? We abolish the Democrats, we abolish the Republicans, we don't go with a third party? We just go home, build communities there, and... nobody votes in federal elections? Again, my point is just that the analogy doesn't work. As long as we're electing people to federal government, we are, in the analogy, "in a relationship." If we somehow get an entire government of politicians unaffiliated with any political party, I suppose we could say that's analogous to casually hooking up with a bunch of different people, but at that point we're really stretching. Being "single" would require not electing anyone.
Look, I don't care that much anyway, and I need to go to bed. I'll just say that for the vast majority of people here, the following statements seem true:
1. There does not appear to be any politically viable way to replace either political party at the moment.
2. Even if you could, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that hypothetical replacement parties would be better.
3. Meanwhile, there's a huge difference in outcomes depending on which of the two parties gets power.
Saying things like "the status quo is unacceptable" doesn't really engage with any of those three statements, which is why it tends to fall on deaf ears when you're preaching your "abandon the two parties" stuff. In GH's eyes, number 3 is not true. They are all corporate sellouts. Half of them pay lip service to what he wants from his politicians, but do nothing to further those causes (and are willing to trade them away for stuff he doesn't care about). The others don't pay lip service, but at the end of the day, their policies are not really any worse than the other ones' bullshit. So if you believe that (3) is essentially not true, should you still care about (1) and (2)? Or should you just agitate until enough ppl want to try it. If the outcome sucks then you deal with that then, but given that the outcome sucks right now, you don't have much to lose right? Now I don't agree with him, but I understand that point of view. And regarding corruption in politics I think it is the right approach. When he brought up a corrupt senator for Illinois, the overwhelming response was "yeah, that sucks. But it's Illinois, what else did you expect?" Clearly he expects you to hold politicians to a higher standard than that. It might be "Illinois" (or Rhode Island, or New Jersey, or, or, or, or...), but after they get elected they will be in DC, where they will be governing *you* and not just the corrupt citizens of Illinois. And just as it wasn't ok for Republicans to support a pedophile in Alabama just because he would be another warm body on their side when the votes get tallied, it's not ok for the Democrats to support a corrupt sleazebag in Illinois for essentially the same reasons. And if you believe both the Democratic and Republican parties are so far gone that they can't be changed, it makes absolute sense to advocate a new way. Even if it'll initially suck.
I mean, I know he doesn't. I was pointing out why I don't think he'll convince anyone else. Of those statements, (3) seems unambiguously true anyway - how can you not see any difference in policy outcomes between Trump's administration and Obama's? - but all you'd really need to reject his viewpoint is (1). It's basically politically impossible to replace a party.
He keeps talking about it like the Dems are a security blanket we're afraid to be separated from, but it's closer to if that blanket were grafted to our skin somehow. It's not just that it might be dangerous or scary to separate from it, although that might be true too. It's that there is little reason to think it's within our power. Like sure, 2016 was bad and the Dems are reeling, but the Republicans survived Watergate. They limped through a very thorough public demonstration that they were literal criminals engaged in clandestine operations to steal elections. And sure, it probably hurt them for a few elections, but within a decade they were back in power.
So in terms of viable political outcomes, a "forsake the Dems" movement from the left would, in its wildest dreams, do little more than take the wind out of their sails for a few years. That's (1). Then there's the fact that viability aside, every third party I've seen looks worse than the Dems, and they're not even in power. The systemic factors that tend to corrupt Democrats and Republicans now would apply just as much to hypothetical future Greens or Libertarians; the Citizens United decision would still allow infinite campaign money; ethical guidelines would still have holes allowing various ways for politicians to enrich themselves. That's (2). Meanwhile the Republicans mop up, gerrymander things even worse, and continue to be cartoon villains. That's (3).
So I hope Illinois rejects that corrupt billionaire (assuming he's as corrupt as GH says, I haven't independently researched it). But if they don't, the range of reasonable reactions from my perspective would be either "that sucks, we need to work harder to make the Democrats be less shitty" or "I give up, we're all doomed." Third party fantasies are basically just political escapism.
|
On February 13 2018 06:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 05:46 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better. Did you ever stop to think that your personal experience in no way countenances against the notion that for every one person you see making poor choices with their food stamps, there are orders of magnitude more making good choices that you just don't see? I know from experience that's the case. I was raised on beans and rice bought with food stamps. My mom made food stamps go an extremely long way. I've also known people who desperately need nutritional guidance and education. Many don't even realize how bad junk food is.
My mother is upper middle class and basically only eats toast with camembert and olives, my father always wonders how she is still alive. My brother only eats junk food and recently told me he didn’t see the point of having a kitchen since he was never cooking anything anyway.
This is kinda why I think every child should be forced to have school lunches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
