|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 14 2020 19:03 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2020 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:The thing that gets me about Democrats is that they could pick anyone to be their leader and after the biggest primary they chose Biden. No reasonable person would put a group like that in charge of anything were it not for a more nightmarish opponent. Which is why Biden explicitly said we need a Republican party and told millennials "The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break." If Biden pulls off the unimaginable and beats Trump it'll be despite his best efforts. EDIT: @Zero Here's the archive archive.is I will never understand this logic. As a socialist, I have a hard time understanding that getting rid of Trump in favor of ANYBODY isn't first priority. Bernie himself agrees. Even if you don't agree with Biden, he is still of the same party as some progressives you do agree with, right? Centre/left infighting is the best gift you can possibly give the Trump campaign, and you will be part of the blame if Trump wins.
There's no better gift for Trump than the one Democrats gave him in Biden. Too early to be blaming anyone besides Trump and Biden voters for whichever ends up president though. It's a weak defense for what is already clearly a weak nominee imo.
|
Because as a progressive I am not ok with decades of making concessions to the Republicans and shifting further and further right as they do. We've been doing this for 20 years and what do we have to show for it?
If the neo-Liberal strategy is to keep shifting further and further right in order to appease swing voters, then the Republicans don't NEED to win to get what they want.
I also don't believe that strategy works anymore because it alienates enough people especially minorities and young people to just stay home and not vote at all. I see it all the time plenty of my friends feel this way.
Look at how Obama won, he ran on a progressive platform, he promised a bunch of things that he never actually delivered on because even when trying to compromise with Republicans, he was obstructed and fillibustered everywhere he went. The Republicans aren't interested in working with Democrats no matter how moderate they are. It's a waste of fucking time trying to appease them.
Progressives SHOULD be standing and demanding the Democrats to listen to them. If they want our votes then they need to listen to us too. If we aren't being represented then what is the point of voting for them? Just to keep the Republicans out? Well like I said, moderate Democrats today remind me of what Moderate Republicans were less than 10 years ago. The fact we've had more than one Republican Congressman or Senator switch parties and no one can tell the difference is a huge indicator of that.
|
On April 14 2020 19:03 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2020 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:The thing that gets me about Democrats is that they could pick anyone to be their leader and after the biggest primary they chose Biden. No reasonable person would put a group like that in charge of anything were it not for a more nightmarish opponent. Which is why Biden explicitly said we need a Republican party and told millennials "The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break." If Biden pulls off the unimaginable and beats Trump it'll be despite his best efforts. EDIT: @Zero Here's the archive archive.is I will never understand this logic. As a socialist, I have a hard time understanding that getting rid of Trump in favor of ANYBODY isn't first priority. Bernie himself agrees. Even if you don't agree with Biden, he is still of the same party as some progressives you do agree with, right? Centre/left infighting is the best gift you can possibly give the Trump campaign, and you will be part of the blame if Trump wins.
You forgot who you're talking to. GH doesn't agree with Bernie. He thinks Bernie is a weak watered down almost useless version of the socialist change that actually needs to happen. Bernie was about the bare minimum he considers acceptable. He doesn't really believe even Bernie is enough to get the changes we need, but it's the minimum shift in the right direction. To draw an analogy: he sees the choice between Biden and Trump as you or I had to choose between Goebbels and Hitler. Sure, Goebbels is probably not quite as bad as Hitler, but both are profoundly awful. Would you vote for Goebbels?
|
On April 14 2020 09:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2020 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2020 05:42 BigFan wrote:On April 14 2020 03:26 CorsairHero wrote:
Bernie endorses Biden. Does this mean all of Bernie supporters on here will now vote for Biden? lol. Biden literally doesn't want my vote + Show Spoiler + so of course he won't get it. What 2016 and 2020 has taught me is that nothing about Trump would stop Democrats from voting for an identical candidate with a D next to their name if Republicans found someone worse. Ivanka (D) vs Trump Jr. (R) may very well be in our near future. That's an even shitter campaign thing than the basket of deplorables comment. At least the deplorables was somewhat blown up out of context and taken to mean something she didn't intend. This is outright telling people that would vote for Biden to fuck off. Outright saying if you're a Socialist, go somewhere else. And this is why Trump will get four more years. The race hasn't even started and Biden's already doing stupid shit.
How do you even come to that conclusion? The ad doesn't say absolutely anything regarding what Biden may think about socialists. Merely that he doesn't consider himself one. Is that surprising to anyone? The ad is not even aimed at left-leaning people. It's aimed at swing voters who may see socialism as a boogeyman. It's meant to reassure them that it's safe to vote for Biden.
|
On April 14 2020 19:37 Vindicare605 wrote:
I also don't believe that strategy works anymore because it alienates enough people especially minorities and young people to just stay home and not vote at all. I see it all the time plenty of my friends feel this way.
.
You mean those young people and minorities who couldn't even be arsed to vote for Bernie in the primaries so he could beat the supposedly worst candidate?
As much as I would have prefered Bernie (given the choices available), I feel the results of this primary are quite clear.
In 2016 there was the story of Bernie losing because of the evil establishment, shelling tons of money, exploiting the woman bonus and using super delegates.
But Trump winning would show everyone that Bernie is the only solution. Also with the population aging, certainly those fools not voting for him would soon die out!
And here we are in 2020...
Bernie vs an old white dude who can barely speak 3 sentences, has run an absolute budget campaign while super delegates are a thing of the past and Trump turned out even worse than expected. We can read great stats about Bernies approval amongst the young and his grassroots fund raising.
And Bernie simply lost the primaries by way bigger margins than 2016.
It wasn't the DNC who "gave you Biden". He was the winner of the primary. The primary, if Bernie would have even close to the backing some people suggest he has should have won easily.
It might be sad to see, but progressivism in the US is nothing but a very loud minority...
|
On April 14 2020 19:46 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2020 09:27 iamthedave wrote:On April 14 2020 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2020 05:42 BigFan wrote:On April 14 2020 03:26 CorsairHero wrote:
Bernie endorses Biden. Does this mean all of Bernie supporters on here will now vote for Biden? lol. Biden literally doesn't want my vote + Show Spoiler + so of course he won't get it. What 2016 and 2020 has taught me is that nothing about Trump would stop Democrats from voting for an identical candidate with a D next to their name if Republicans found someone worse. Ivanka (D) vs Trump Jr. (R) may very well be in our near future. That's an even shitter campaign thing than the basket of deplorables comment. At least the deplorables was somewhat blown up out of context and taken to mean something she didn't intend. This is outright telling people that would vote for Biden to fuck off. Outright saying if you're a Socialist, go somewhere else. And this is why Trump will get four more years. The race hasn't even started and Biden's already doing stupid shit. How do you even come to that conclusion? The ad doesn't say absolutely anything regarding what Biden may think about socialists. Merely that he doesn't consider himself one. Is that surprising to anyone? The ad is not even aimed at left-leaning people. It's aimed at swing voters who may seem socialism as a boogeyman. It's meant to reassure them that it's safe to vote for Biden.
Well the last part is how you would come to the conclusion, isn't it? The centrist liberals are the ones who picked you to be the face of liberalism against socialism, and you're still going for reassurance of them over reach for new voters. How could they possibly be scared of you? You're their guy. And the fact that this is still your concern after this primary, that definitely says something clear regarding what you (or at least your campaign) may think about socialists.
On April 14 2020 20:18 mahrgell wrote:
You mean those young people and minorities who couldn't even be arsed to vote for Bernie in the primaries so he could beat the supposedly worst candidate?
As much as I would have prefered Bernie (given the choices available), I feel the results of this primary are quite clear.
In 2016 there was the story of Bernie losing because of the evil establishment, shelling tons of money, exploiting the woman bonus and using super delegates.
But Trump winning would show everyone that Bernie is the only solution. Also with the population aging, certainly those fools not voting for him would soon die out!
And here we are in 2020...
Bernie vs an old white dude who can barely speak 3 sentences, has run an absolute budget campaign while super delegates are a thing of the past and Trump turned out even worse than expected. We can read great stats about Bernies approval amongst the young and his grassroots fund raising.
And Bernie simply lost the primaries by way bigger margins than 2016.
It wasn't the DNC who "gave you Biden". He was the winner of the primary. The primary, if Bernie would have even close to the backing some people suggest he has should have won easily.
It might be sad to see, but progressivism in the US is nothing but a very loud minority...
So which is your working theory, that the progressives didn't show up to vote or that they're nothing but a very loud minority? Either we don't have the numbers and it doesn't matter that we don't vote or we have the numbers but we're lazy fucks, it can't be both. Similarly, we can't at the same time be a minority that doesn't matter and be the group that will cause Biden to lose the election if we don't show up for him, there are two conflicting theories of leftism in the US at play here.
I think it's kind of fucked up to talk dismissively about voters not showing up in a context where so much effort is put into motion so that they don't. It's not the context that you or I know, for us it's very easy to vote (and granted, a lot of people still don't do it). We would never have to wait in line for hours to get to vote, we don't run the risk of losing our job if we take too long of a break on a work day, the party in charge of the election didn't cancel a bunch of polling places, effectively making it harder for our voices to be heard...
Even with an electorate that was heavily composed of older people, so boomers, a deplorable generation that I hope will be criticized in history books, we still saw the main progressive causes hit over 50% support in all of the states that asked the question. This puts into question your theory that progressivism is a minority opinion that sounds louder than it is.
So then, what were they facing? An old dude that can barely put three sentences together, but that had a media ready to thoroughly gaslight you into thinking that he was completely coherent and it's just a stutter, while at the same time focusing for weeks on a heart attack. That waited until he was the only option left to even mention his rape accusation, and do so in a way that was so inconsistent with how they treated Kavanaugh that it's both laughable and disgusting at the same time (specifically calling out NYTimes here). An old dude that is "electable", even though that was the first time ever he won states in a primary after several tries and he has remarkably few very enthusiastic voters. A DNC that clearly played favorites in Iowa. The whole thing about all the moderates dropping out at the same time while the progressive stayed in to split votes, her campaign propped up by donations from a megadonor that clearly, clearly wanted to hurt Sanders more than she wanted Warren to win. A media that insisted Bernie wasn't the frontrunner after he won the first three states in a contest where nobody had won the first two states and lost in the past.
You saw all this happen and you still think there's a meaningful difference between 2020 and 2016 in terms of establishment? That is a ludicrous position.
|
On April 14 2020 20:46 Nebuchad wrote:Well the last part is how you would come to the conclusion, isn't it? The centrist liberals are the ones who picked you to be the face of liberalism against socialism, and you're still going for reassurance of them over reach for new voters. How could they possibly be scared of you? You're their guy. And the fact that this is still your concern after this primary, that definitely says something clear regarding what you (or at least your campaign) may think about socialists.
No, that still doesn't tell us anything about what Biden/his campaign think about socialists. Not in the slightest. Only what they think the people they are addressing this to think about socialists.
And Biden can't just assume that swing voters paid close attention to the Democratic primaries. Ignoring the swing voters was one of the reasons why Hilary lost, wasn't it? If Biden's campaign thinks that swing voters may consider socialists as a boogeyman, addressing that is not surprising. His campaign is probably counting left-leaning people choosing a lesser evil in the end. That's not unreasonable.
|
At what point do progressives take responsibility for the fact that they didn't vote in the Democratic primary though? It seems that, for various reasons, Sanders supporters didn't put their money where their mouths were during the primary. (Plenty of us did, of course, but it wasn't even close to being enough.) They didn't vote, and they certainly didn't out-vote the moderate liberals. Besides being the smaller of the two groups, it appears that the demographics that Sanders supposedly energized didn't even show for Sanders when it mattered the most, and now they're whining about Biden winning the primary and Biden going up against Trump, as if the primary was somehow stolen from progressives.
|
On April 14 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2020 20:46 Nebuchad wrote:Well the last part is how you would come to the conclusion, isn't it? The centrist liberals are the ones who picked you to be the face of liberalism against socialism, and you're still going for reassurance of them over reach for new voters. How could they possibly be scared of you? You're their guy. And the fact that this is still your concern after this primary, that definitely says something clear regarding what you (or at least your campaign) may think about socialists. No, that still doesn't tell us anything about what Biden/his campaign think about socialists. Not in the slightest. Only what they think the people they are addressing this to think about socialists. And Biden can't just assume that swing voters paid close attention to the Democratic primaries. Ignoring the swing voters was one of the reasons why Hilary lost, wasn't it? If Biden's campaign thinks that swing voters may consider socialists as a boogeyman, addressing that is not surprising. His campaign is probably counting left-leaning people choosing a lesser evil in the end. That's not unreasonable.
That tells us what they think the people they are addressing think about socialists, and the fact that they are addressing these people over socialists (which, again, in american speech, means something like "mildly social democratic") tells us what they think about socialists.
It may be hard not to lose track of how deeply rightwing you have to be to look at Biden and think "I'm concerned that this guy might be a socialist, I need to be reassured"... This is a swing that's on a whole different playground.
DPB: never, I hope. Happy birthday :p
|
' When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total, and that's the way it's got to be' - actual quote from Trump yesterday.
+ Show Spoiler +
Lot of talk about the dilemma of leftist voters but think about the dilemma of second amendment voters now, they have to vote for gun control, or vote for the actual tyrant that their guns are supposed to protect them from.
|
On April 14 2020 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:On April 14 2020 20:46 Nebuchad wrote:Well the last part is how you would come to the conclusion, isn't it? The centrist liberals are the ones who picked you to be the face of liberalism against socialism, and you're still going for reassurance of them over reach for new voters. How could they possibly be scared of you? You're their guy. And the fact that this is still your concern after this primary, that definitely says something clear regarding what you (or at least your campaign) may think about socialists. No, that still doesn't tell us anything about what Biden/his campaign think about socialists. Not in the slightest. Only what they think the people they are addressing this to think about socialists. And Biden can't just assume that swing voters paid close attention to the Democratic primaries. Ignoring the swing voters was one of the reasons why Hilary lost, wasn't it? If Biden's campaign thinks that swing voters may consider socialists as a boogeyman, addressing that is not surprising. His campaign is probably counting left-leaning people choosing a lesser evil in the end. That's not unreasonable. That tells us what they think the people they are addressing think about socialists, and the fact that they are addressing these people over socialists (which, again, in american speech, means something like "mildly social democratic") tells us what they think about socialists. It may be hard not to lose track of how deeply rightwing you have to be to look at Biden and think "I'm concerned that this guy might be a socialist, I need to be reassured"... This is a swing that's on a whole different playground. DPB: never, I hope. Happy birthday :p
Yes, but it doesn't even hint at what they think. They may think that left-leaning people will largely suck it up and vote for Biden because another term of Trump is far worse from their perspective. Or that left-leaning people are not active enough for their votes to matter. Or that swing voters simply outnumber them and convincing those is more important than reassuring left-leaning people who'd consider voting for Biden.
I think you may be downplaying how tainted the word "socialist" is in the American discourse. I'm pretty sure that's the case for many Democrats, let alone swing voters.
|
On April 14 2020 19:46 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2020 09:27 iamthedave wrote:On April 14 2020 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2020 05:42 BigFan wrote:On April 14 2020 03:26 CorsairHero wrote:
Bernie endorses Biden. Does this mean all of Bernie supporters on here will now vote for Biden? lol. Biden literally doesn't want my vote + Show Spoiler + so of course he won't get it. What 2016 and 2020 has taught me is that nothing about Trump would stop Democrats from voting for an identical candidate with a D next to their name if Republicans found someone worse. Ivanka (D) vs Trump Jr. (R) may very well be in our near future. That's an even shitter campaign thing than the basket of deplorables comment. At least the deplorables was somewhat blown up out of context and taken to mean something she didn't intend. This is outright telling people that would vote for Biden to fuck off. Outright saying if you're a Socialist, go somewhere else. And this is why Trump will get four more years. The race hasn't even started and Biden's already doing stupid shit. How do you even come to that conclusion? The ad doesn't say absolutely anything regarding what Biden may think about socialists. Merely that he doesn't consider himself one. Is that surprising to anyone? The ad is not even aimed at left-leaning people. It's aimed at swing voters who may see socialism as a boogeyman. It's meant to reassure them that it's safe to vote for Biden.
The visual language of that sticker is obvious; it is saying that being a Democrat means not being a Socialist (or a Plutocrat, but I don't think plutocrats are a relevant voting base). The entire point of it is to buy in and rally as a big Democratic hoo-hah, and it very explicitly is saying Socialists aren't invited. Think of all the things he could have picked to put in there instead of 'socialist', that left-leaning group who just had their candidate drop out and are stinging from the defeat and have a history of needing to be convinced to vote for you and then think 'hmm, now why would Biden put that in there save to indicate that he's not a Socialist and therefore won't be representing Socialist concerns?'
You can't say 'this ad doesn't say he won't represent Socialists, it just panders to people who think Socialism is the literal devil, he's not saying anything bad about Socialism'. But by all means, show me the Biden ad that champions him as the Socialist hero GreenHorizons needs to galvanise his vote.
I mean, dude, you have the live response of an actual Socialist to that sticker to go off of. GH might be thorny at times, but I guarantee you he's not overreacting to that sticker. Any Socialist is going to take one look at that, extend the middle finger, and walk away from the election. This is as on-the-nose dumb as the basket of deplorables, except it's not a gaffe, it's an explicit fuck-you to a segment of his own voters.
|
On April 14 2020 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:
DPB: never, I hope. Happy birthday :p
Thank you 
On April 14 2020 21:37 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:' When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total, and that's the way it's got to be' - actual quote from Trump yesterday. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdZ1weIkaX0 Lot of talk about the dilemma of leftist voters but think about the dilemma of second amendment voters now, they have to vote for gun control, or vote for the actual tyrant that their guns are supposed to protect them from.
This is deeply disturbing, and I wonder what'll happen if it comes down to states rights vs. Trump prematurely insisting that states reopen. He's surely already ticked off that Easter has come and gone without the whole country being back to normal by now.
|
On April 14 2020 21:42 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2020 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:On April 14 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:On April 14 2020 20:46 Nebuchad wrote:Well the last part is how you would come to the conclusion, isn't it? The centrist liberals are the ones who picked you to be the face of liberalism against socialism, and you're still going for reassurance of them over reach for new voters. How could they possibly be scared of you? You're their guy. And the fact that this is still your concern after this primary, that definitely says something clear regarding what you (or at least your campaign) may think about socialists. No, that still doesn't tell us anything about what Biden/his campaign think about socialists. Not in the slightest. Only what they think the people they are addressing this to think about socialists. And Biden can't just assume that swing voters paid close attention to the Democratic primaries. Ignoring the swing voters was one of the reasons why Hilary lost, wasn't it? If Biden's campaign thinks that swing voters may consider socialists as a boogeyman, addressing that is not surprising. His campaign is probably counting left-leaning people choosing a lesser evil in the end. That's not unreasonable. That tells us what they think the people they are addressing think about socialists, and the fact that they are addressing these people over socialists (which, again, in american speech, means something like "mildly social democratic") tells us what they think about socialists. It may be hard not to lose track of how deeply rightwing you have to be to look at Biden and think "I'm concerned that this guy might be a socialist, I need to be reassured"... This is a swing that's on a whole different playground. DPB: never, I hope. Happy birthday :p Yes, but it doesn't even hint at what they think. They may think that left-leaning people will largely suck it up and vote for Biden because another term of Trump is far worse from their perspective. Or that left-leaning people are not active enough for their votes to matter. Or that swing voters simply outnumber them and convincing those is more important than reassuring left-leaning people who'd consider voting for Biden. I think you may be downplaying how tainted the word "socialist" is in the American discourse. I'm pretty sure that's the case for many Democrats, let alone swing voters.
That is fair enough, I probably am, especially when we're talking about the boomer generation specifically that is still the main voting bloc of the US for a few years. That being said, do you not also have doubts about the notion that a significant amount of the people who are not sure that Biden is not a socialist could be convinced to vote for him?
For the rest, I have not much to add. Strategy is indicative of ideology, unless you're being dishonest (for example like Obama or Trump were). And there's no evidence that Biden is being dishonest in this specific case, if anything he's running to the left of some of the positions he espoused in the past.
|
Rumor has it that Obama will formally endorse Biden sometime today.
|
On April 14 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2020 20:46 Nebuchad wrote:Well the last part is how you would come to the conclusion, isn't it? The centrist liberals are the ones who picked you to be the face of liberalism against socialism, and you're still going for reassurance of them over reach for new voters. How could they possibly be scared of you? You're their guy. And the fact that this is still your concern after this primary, that definitely says something clear regarding what you (or at least your campaign) may think about socialists. No, that still doesn't tell us anything about what Biden/his campaign think about socialists. Not in the slightest. Only what they think the people they are addressing this to think about socialists. And Biden can't just assume that swing voters paid close attention to the Democratic primaries. Ignoring the swing voters was one of the reasons why Hilary lost, wasn't it? If Biden's campaign thinks that swing voters may consider socialists as a boogeyman, addressing that is not surprising. His campaign is probably counting left-leaning people choosing a lesser evil in the end. That's not unreasonable.
The fucking sticker compares Plutocrats and Socialists, it’s a “Don’t worry I’m not one of these bad things denoted by the large red slash through them,) no one thinks a plutocrat is a good thing and it’s utilizing an association with plutocracy to make sure you know that he doesn’t like those dangerous socialists just like you!
|
Socialist means Venezuela for most americans.
Here is the thing:
- Europeans use socialists to mean social-democracy, think, Denmark.
- Americans have up to now used socialism to mean Cuba, Venezuela or the Soviet Union (think, dictatorship of the proletariat and state controlled economy).
- Young people use socialism for sone unicorn filled world that is not Denmark (not glamorous enough), but not Venezuela either, and not capitalism.
Among politicians,
- Sanders and the left wing politicians use socialism in a european way, but play on the appeal and the confusion of the term to get people who want to end capitalism (and dissolve the police) on board.
- Republicans use socialism to describe their opponents and play on the confusion of the term to pretend that what they want (Denmark) is Venezuela. It works like that: "Obamacare is socialism (Denmark) so it's socialism (Venezuela)." It's dumb and dishonest but then again, look at their base.
- Liberals do the same thing, except they don't want to alienate leftists, so they are a bit more low profile. This sticker of Biden is borderline dishonest because as always it plays on the confusion. Then again, so does Sanders, in a different way.
Everytime you read the word socialism in america, it's gonna be a dumpster fire if voluntary confusion and strawmanry, either to play on Mc Carthist old fear, or to exploit the immature fantasies of some left wing millenials.
No one wants Venezuela, and no one believes in unicorns. What people want on the left, from Biden to Sanders is the US to look a bit more or a lot more like Denmark. The word socialism is of no honest use in there.
Sanders made a gamble there: make young idealists with 0 sense of political realities vote for him, at the cost of giving infinite ammo to his opponents. I think it was a mistake. "Socialism" should be left where it belongs: in european terminology or to describe the USSR. And the left should be a bit honest and call themselves social democrats. That's what they are.
|
Norway28673 Posts
I think that poster is just him alleging to being a centrist, and that he cancelled out both plutocrat and socialist actually makes a fair amount of sense to me from that perspective (disregarding that I think a rather small % of people actually know what a plutocrat is). Basically he's making 'regular capitalism' be the middle ground, whereas plutocracy is the right wing and socialism the left wing, and he's neither of those two.
|
"immature fantasties of some left wing millenials," wow, this is precisely the kind of obnoxious condescending shit that moderate democrats accuse bernie supporters of doing while they then cry, "This is why noone likes you guys!1"
And for a country who needs to DISPEL THE FEAR OF SOCIALISM, continuing to treat the word like the boogeyman is a problem, else no progressive policy will ever get passed because we're going to keep getting dragged right because, "oh no, maybe we becomes the socialisms if people dont die cause poor!" Capitalism managed to salvage its reputation from the era of robber barons, theres no reason to just throw our hands up and yell, "well noone likes the word socialism in the US, guess we should just let them hate it forever," when we can continue trying to educate people on what socialist policy looks like and how it can work for America and more importantly, for Americans.
And I'll restate this again, socialism isn't "political ammo" the Republicans are already calling JOE BIDEN a socialist, the Republicans are ALWAYS going to call Democrats socialist, being so piss-pants scared about it because maybe the Republicans will be nice is the HEIGHT of the sort of fantasies you accuse the left of engaging in. But yeah, keep thinking pandering to Republican sensibilities is best for America.
|
Isn't left and right a bit dated for defining a position? Lots of parties adopt singular positions from the other camp around here, because some seem to be the only obvious choice.
You can be against uncontrolled immigration while being for affordable, less profit-focused healthcare. Doesn't that make you mixed left-right in the old definitions?
I'd prefer an approach that divides into more state oversight vs less nowadays for defining a course on a particular domain.
What could use more oversight is how capital is allocated to companies, while the oversight over individual citizens is way exaggerated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LMpCL5j.jpg)
