|
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 October 05 2020 07:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor.  I'm not saying it is great or even good in the USA, particularly for the people in your situation. It is a travesty that the richest country in the world does not have the smallest poor, best Healthcare and education. Right now I believe your country is suffering from short sighted and selfish decisions made by the few and not for the many. With that being said there is an absolutely huge cost for a revolution (not just death and injury, but for infrastructure, education and the very environment you are concerned with. And with the environment it works somewhat like time value of money in that a big bad couple of the years is way worse even if you end up better eventually (have to be way better) then it is now) on top of that outside of our little community here there is way more right wing than left wing people. When people here socialism they think USSR, Cuba, Venezuela and so on, not Scandinavia. This is especially true as you go down in education at wealth. The most desperate people are not going to be pulling i the direction you want. The Bernie movement was great but the people it pulled were mostly students, and educated middle-class. For example the really desperate people are not at all concerned with student loans and the environment is less of an issue with them. Until a message resonates with those desperate people I think it is almost guaranteed to be right libertarian won. And no matter what said wins, a revolution would end likely the way they have mostly over the last 100 years, which is either instantly worse for l but those in power, or mildly better for the people short term then worse and great for those in power. There is very few of examples of them actually bettering things for the people. Someone else mentioned it but I think the best play is what the tea party did for the Republicans and threaten to leave and start your own party to force the dems to make concessions and move left out of fear of losing elections.
The bolded probably isnt going to work, any single person in this thread who has advocated for Lesser-of-Two-Evils should know why, too. Progressives are frequently denounced for being ideological purists, and thats what the bolded calls for, people holding their politicians to a standard of behavior before voting for them, and the Lesser-of-Two-Evils mindset is going to hold that back so long as Republicans keep Republicaning and Democrats take advantage of that to nominate their own Republican-Lite candidates.
Not to mention that incrementalism trying to change through these longer term political systems ignores the suffering of the people during that interim period. In the case of a revolution things could certainly get worse, but things are getting worse now, so whats the difference? The world looks to me as though its either things get worse and continue to get worse until a revolution of some variety happens. I don't believe America is competent enough to keep this level of wealth disparity, right now is about as peaceful as a revolution could go, the worse it gets the more Guillotine-y its going to get. Americans dont even need a unified comprehensive platform to unite behind, just a message as simple as "the rich need to go."
EDIT: Also, I might have been the one advocating for creating a Progressive bloc to Tea Party the Democrats with, lol
|
On October 05 2020 07:46 Nevuk wrote:
Trump is currently being driven around the hospital so he can wave at supporters. That's crazy. He's 100% infectious, does the secret service et al get life insurance? He's in an armored car with locked windows.
I bet when they signed to give their life for the office of the president they didn't expect it would be the president himself that is the risk to their lives. Imagine being ordered to go on the Coronamobile so Trump can encourage a croud of not-social-distancing MAGA folk outside the hospital. Worth it.
|
|
|
On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor.
I think what might work is a political revolution against the ruling political elites.
When Trump was elected a lot of pundits were saying that it was a brick tossed through the window of the elites. I've been listening and understanding more and more of that. Your politicians have so long echoed this fake facade of America being the "land of opportunity" and the "home of the free" and the "greatest nation on Earth" when it really hasn't been any of those things since the late 60s. As someone else said earlier you can trace a lot of the decline to the various wars. Trump disrupted the status quo and said "America has gone bad and we need to make America great again." In order for the country to improve it needs to be able to confront its failures and decline.
It seems to me like there could be a good presidential route of the Democratic party with a Trump-lite who uses relatively incendiary language while pushing for some institutional changes(i.e. single payer healthcare) but especially with a focus on political reforms. I think they could sway quite a lot of voters over to them to while also threatening the establishment in a manner similar to Trump.
|
On October 05 2020 08:11 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 07:54 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 07:43 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor. I'm not saying it is great or even good in the USA, particularly for the people in your situation. It is a travesty that the richest country in the world does not have the smallest poor, best Healthcare and education. Right now I believe your country is suffering from short sighted and selfish decisions made by the few and not for the many. With that being said there is an absolutely huge cost for a revolution (not just death and injury, but for infrastructure, education and the very environment you are concerned with. And with the environment it works somewhat like time value of money in that a big bad couple of the years is way worse even if you end up better eventually (have to be way better) then it is now) on top of that outside of our little community here there is way more right wing than left wing people. When people here socialism they think USSR, Cuba, Venezuela and so on, not Scandinavia. This is especially true as you go down in education at wealth. The most desperate people are not going to be pulling i the direction you want. The Bernie movement was great but the people it pulled were mostly students, and educated middle-class. For example the really desperate people are not at all concerned with student loans and the environment is less of an issue with them. Until a message resonates with those desperate people I think it is almost guaranteed to be right libertarian won. And no matter what said wins, a revolution would end likely the way they have mostly over the last 100 years, which is either instantly worse for l but those in power, or mildly better for the people short term then worse and great for those in power. There is very few of examples of them actually bettering things for the people. Someone else mentioned it but I think the best play is what the tea party did for the Republicans and threaten to leave and start your own party to force the dems to make concessions and move left out of fear of losing elections. The bolded probably isnt going to work, any single person in this thread who has advocated for Lesser-of-Two-Evils should know why, too. Progressives are frequently denounced for being ideological purists, and thats what the bolded calls for, people holding their politicians to a standard of behavior before voting for them, and the Lesser-of-Two-Evils mindset is going to hold that back so long as Republicans keep Republicaning and Democrats take advantage of that to nominate their own Republican-Lite candidates. Not to mention that incrementalism trying to change through these longer term political systems ignores the suffering of the people during that interim period. In the case of a revolution things could certainly get worse, but things are getting worse now, so whats the difference? The world looks to me as though its either things get worse and continue to get worse until a revolution of some variety happens. I don't believe America is competent enough to keep this level of wealth disparity, right now is about as peaceful as a revolution could go, the worse it gets the more Guillotine-y its going to get. Americans dont even need a unified comprehensive platform to unite behind, just a message as simple as "the rich need to go." I do not believe you guys are united on that front, if you were there were not be so many people who are poor voting for a billionaire and cheering when he does not pay taxes. There is much more billionaire worship than there is billionaire hate in the USA. The lesser of two evils after the primary is the right Game theory in my mind, and before it, it is getting enough people to vote for candidates forcing change, and the change you want. I really can't understand the logic that Bernie supporters can't get the support to beat the Dems in the primary but will get the support to win on the streets. The right wing militias are organized, violent and trained. Antifa is the opposite on at least 2 of the three and outnumbered. I really can't see any point where a revolution works out well for the people or the environment.
I cant say this enough, I caution you referencing the voting population of the US because at BEST HALF OF THE US VOTES.
Half. HALF of that half supports Trump.
You put SO MUCH emphasis on the American voting system but Americans just do not vote in numbers that you can use to deduce political values from particularly strongly.
And that half part is only true in the best of cases, which primaries are not. Not to mention that primaries aren't even actual elections, I mean courts have said that the parties can pick and choose who they want, there is only the facade of true democracy in primaries anyways. This faith in the systems to do the right thing feels absolutely insane to me when America has spent years routinely proving our systems only work when they are operated in good faith, which I'd argue almost noone in our political system operates with.
Media crapped on Bernie, the moderates ganged up on him on Super Tuesday, the Democrats played their hand in order to make Bernie lose. Obviously I'm not saying they fucked with the ballots on Super Tuesday or anything (Iowa was fucking sketchy though, frankly my faith is shattered enough to call everything about Iowa SUS) but its clear that the Democrats exert influence to stifle politicians that advocate for popular policies that might adversely impact their pocketbooks.
Limiting any and all hope for political change to a single malformed political apparatus that is beholden exclusively to itself feels so awful to me, I don't understand how anyone who actually understands how shitty it is to be impoverished in America can feel comfortable advocating for it as the way to go.
Also, gun owning left-wingers are definitely a thing, and frankly I think they're likely to be more effective than a lot of the right wing military/pig LARPers, granted effectiveness also comes with a certain expectation of discipline and I would sooner expect a right wing military LARPer to fire randomly into a crowd if they so much as felt a fart slip out of their ass.
Black Panthers, etc.
Anyways, I'm legitimately curious what it would take for you to completely lose faith in American electoral institutes, like legitimately.
Like would it require concrete proof of Democrats ignoring/fabricating votes and directly deciding their candidate, and if that is the bar does it have to be overall or does any particular state race clear the threshold?
I'm not trying to be an ass I'm just curious, faith in these institutions has been so eroded in me I don't actually know what it would take for someone who believes in them to have their faith shaken/eroded enough to be roughly where I'm at, lol.
On October 05 2020 08:21 WarSame wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor. I think what might work is a political revolution against the ruling political elites. When Trump was elected a lot of pundits were saying that it was a brick tossed through the window of the elites. I've been listening and understanding more and more of that. Your politicians have so long echoed this fake facade of America being the "land of opportunity" and the "home of the free" and the "greatest nation on Earth" when it really hasn't been any of those things since the late 60s. As someone else said earlier you can trace a lot of the decline to the various wars. Trump disrupted the status quo and said "America has gone bad and we need to make America great again." In order for the country to improve it needs to be able to confront its failures and decline. It seems to me like there could be a good presidential route of the Democratic party with a Trump-lite who uses relatively incendiary language while pushing for some institutional changes(i.e. single payer healthcare) but especially with a focus on political reforms. I think they could sway quite a lot of voters over to them to while also threatening the establishment in a manner similar to Trump.
The sentiment is 100% there in my opinion (for whatever thats actually worth, lol) the problem with the bottom paragraph is it assumes the Democrats would ever let someone like that be a powerful part of their party. They have and will marginalize voices that even as mild and supportive as Bernie Sanders (I mean, Joe fuckin Biden isn't evening campaigning for Joe Biden right now, and yet Bernie Sanders is out there campaigning for Joe Biden.) At this point I'm of the opinion blue voters are in lock step enough with the party line that they won't let it happen.
I mean, that sort of politician can obviously be super popular, Bernie is basically the best version of that politican but lite. After Trump though, I doubt either of these parties are going be letting themselves get taken over quite so easily, it would take overwhelming ultramassive groundswell to shift them from their corporate bedrock.
|
A lot of it is generational. The generational gap between those currently in power and the majority of the population is massive. I'm not sure it has ever happened in history, so it's somewhat unique. It's been made possible by advancements in life expectancy and medical knowledge.
The boomers were very conservative (economically) relative even to their parents and have held the reins of power for about 30 years now. Gen X was too small to really ever claim power in the same way. Proposing socialism to someone born in the height of the cold war sounds insane, but it sounds better than what we have now to may of those born after it.
2010 really wrecked the democratic party in a lot of ways - the only democrats in positions of power are either insanely old or extremely young. Normally some of the the 2020 candidates would have come up from state houses or governorships etc. from around the 2010 election, but almost all of of their candidates got wiped out in that election. The only one we had from around that cohort was Buttigieg, a mayor.
So all of the democrats with power are from a much more conservative generation than their voters. So they legitimately think Bernie is crazy for thinking anyone would support him, in spite of all evidence from polls that disagree with them.
(This is also part of why strict term limits have been a bad thing whenever they've been tried, btw. What effectively happens is that the lobbyists write the bills instead of the senators or representatives, because none of them have the experience to legislate effectively. Experience is a good thing in every job, and politicians are no different. The issue here isn't that democrats are refusing to retire, it's that they had no new blood injected for a decade)
A strict retirement age may be a better idea, but uh, good luck selling that one to elderly voters.
edit:
I reread this and realized my point may have not been communicated clearly. Within the decade, democrats will get dragged very far to the left, whether they want or not, purely due to generational shift. Neoliberals like Buttigieg are unicorns among millenials.
|
|
|
On October 05 2020 09:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 08:25 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 08:11 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 07:54 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 07:43 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor. I'm not saying it is great or even good in the USA, particularly for the people in your situation. It is a travesty that the richest country in the world does not have the smallest poor, best Healthcare and education. Right now I believe your country is suffering from short sighted and selfish decisions made by the few and not for the many. With that being said there is an absolutely huge cost for a revolution (not just death and injury, but for infrastructure, education and the very environment you are concerned with. And with the environment it works somewhat like time value of money in that a big bad couple of the years is way worse even if you end up better eventually (have to be way better) then it is now) on top of that outside of our little community here there is way more right wing than left wing people. When people here socialism they think USSR, Cuba, Venezuela and so on, not Scandinavia. This is especially true as you go down in education at wealth. The most desperate people are not going to be pulling i the direction you want. The Bernie movement was great but the people it pulled were mostly students, and educated middle-class. For example the really desperate people are not at all concerned with student loans and the environment is less of an issue with them. Until a message resonates with those desperate people I think it is almost guaranteed to be right libertarian won. And no matter what said wins, a revolution would end likely the way they have mostly over the last 100 years, which is either instantly worse for l but those in power, or mildly better for the people short term then worse and great for those in power. There is very few of examples of them actually bettering things for the people. Someone else mentioned it but I think the best play is what the tea party did for the Republicans and threaten to leave and start your own party to force the dems to make concessions and move left out of fear of losing elections. The bolded probably isnt going to work, any single person in this thread who has advocated for Lesser-of-Two-Evils should know why, too. Progressives are frequently denounced for being ideological purists, and thats what the bolded calls for, people holding their politicians to a standard of behavior before voting for them, and the Lesser-of-Two-Evils mindset is going to hold that back so long as Republicans keep Republicaning and Democrats take advantage of that to nominate their own Republican-Lite candidates. Not to mention that incrementalism trying to change through these longer term political systems ignores the suffering of the people during that interim period. In the case of a revolution things could certainly get worse, but things are getting worse now, so whats the difference? The world looks to me as though its either things get worse and continue to get worse until a revolution of some variety happens. I don't believe America is competent enough to keep this level of wealth disparity, right now is about as peaceful as a revolution could go, the worse it gets the more Guillotine-y its going to get. Americans dont even need a unified comprehensive platform to unite behind, just a message as simple as "the rich need to go." I do not believe you guys are united on that front, if you were there were not be so many people who are poor voting for a billionaire and cheering when he does not pay taxes. There is much more billionaire worship than there is billionaire hate in the USA. The lesser of two evils after the primary is the right Game theory in my mind, and before it, it is getting enough people to vote for candidates forcing change, and the change you want. I really can't understand the logic that Bernie supporters can't get the support to beat the Dems in the primary but will get the support to win on the streets. The right wing militias are organized, violent and trained. Antifa is the opposite on at least 2 of the three and outnumbered. I really can't see any point where a revolution works out well for the people or the environment. I cant say this enough, I caution you referencing the voting population of the US because at BEST HALF OF THE US VOTES. Half. HALF of that half supports Trump. You put SO MUCH emphasis on the American voting system but Americans just do not vote in numbers that you can use to deduce political values from particularly strongly. And that half part is only true in the best of cases, which primaries are not. Not to mention that primaries aren't even actual elections, I mean courts have said that the parties can pick and choose who they want, there is only the facade of true democracy in primaries anyways. This faith in the systems to do the right thing feels absolutely insane to me when America has spent years routinely proving our systems only work when they are operated in good faith, which I'd argue almost noone in our political system operates with. Media crapped on Bernie, the moderates ganged up on him on Super Tuesday, the Democrats played their hand in order to make Bernie lose. Obviously I'm not saying they fucked with the ballots on Super Tuesday or anything (Iowa was fucking sketchy though, frankly my faith is shattered enough to call everything about Iowa SUS) but its clear that the Democrats exert influence to stifle politicians that advocate for popular policies that might adversely impact their pocketbooks. Limiting any and all hope for political change to a single malformed political apparatus that is beholden exclusively to itself feels so awful to me, I don't understand how anyone who actually understands how shitty it is to be impoverished in America can feel comfortable advocating for it as the way to go. Also, gun owning left-wingers are definitely a thing, and frankly I think they're likely to be more effective than a lot of the right wing military/pig LARPers, granted effectiveness also comes with a certain expectation of discipline and I would sooner expect a right wing military LARPer to fire randomly into a crowd if they so much as felt a fart slip out of their ass. Black Panthers, etc. Anyways, I'm legitimately curious what it would take for you to completely lose faith in American electoral institutes, like legitimately. Like would it require concrete proof of Democrats ignoring/fabricating votes and directly deciding their candidate, and if that is the bar does it have to be overall or does any particular state race clear the threshold? I'm not trying to be an ass I'm just curious, faith in these institutions has been so eroded in me I don't actually know what it would take for someone who believes in them to have their faith shaken/eroded enough to be roughly where I'm at, lol. On October 05 2020 08:21 WarSame wrote:On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor. I think what might work is a political revolution against the ruling political elites. When Trump was elected a lot of pundits were saying that it was a brick tossed through the window of the elites. I've been listening and understanding more and more of that. Your politicians have so long echoed this fake facade of America being the "land of opportunity" and the "home of the free" and the "greatest nation on Earth" when it really hasn't been any of those things since the late 60s. As someone else said earlier you can trace a lot of the decline to the various wars. Trump disrupted the status quo and said "America has gone bad and we need to make America great again." In order for the country to improve it needs to be able to confront its failures and decline. It seems to me like there could be a good presidential route of the Democratic party with a Trump-lite who uses relatively incendiary language while pushing for some institutional changes(i.e. single payer healthcare) but especially with a focus on political reforms. I think they could sway quite a lot of voters over to them to while also threatening the establishment in a manner similar to Trump. The sentiment is 100% there in my opinion (for whatever thats actually worth, lol) the problem with the bottom paragraph is it assumes the Democrats would ever let someone like that be a powerful part of their party. They have and will marginalize voices that even as mild and supportive as Bernie Sanders (I mean, Joe fuckin Biden isn't evening campaigning for Joe Biden right now, and yet Bernie Sanders is out there campaigning for Joe Biden.) At this point I'm of the opinion blue voters are in lock step enough with the party line that they won't let it happen. I mean, that sort of politician can obviously be super popular, Bernie is basically the best version of that politican but lite. After Trump though, I doubt either of these parties are going be letting themselves get taken over quite so easily, it would take overwhelming ultramassive groundswell to shift them from their corporate bedrock. It would take electoral fraud on a fairly massive scale. As bad as the states are compared to other democratic countries, they are that much better and then some than authoritarian ones. I also think the "ganging up" on Bernie thing is over played, there was more of them, that is kind of how it works. As to the media, they play to what sells and why are people going to overtake the media "propaganda" to revolt if they can't overcome to it to even outvote. I also think an actual revolution is huge risk, and a shit ton of work. While I agree not many vote, I'm not sure it is going to be that easy to convince those that don't that this revolution will work and the amount of sacrifice it take to vote through long line ups and all the other bull shit sucks, but it does not come close to the other. When you look at the support for peaceful protests and then for riots there is a dramatic difference. When you look at Hong Kong, what is happening to them is far more scary and Dramatic than what is going on in the USA and I'm not sure they are going to get enough public support for a revolution. I do think the calculus will change for a lot of people if the Covid recession turns into a depression but I think the government will provide enough stimulus to keep things going. And even full fledged depression did not lead to a revolution last time, though it did provide enough support to make governmental change.Also, if I was a American I'd go down the immigration route before revolution. Because even if it got bad enough to the point where I would be willing to put my family at risk the way joining a revolution would, I would not trust enough of the others to be willing and on the right side to help me.
Okay, come on dude, what lessons did America learn from its last major depression? What changes occurred? How is America right now better than America under the Bush Depression era? We're already past the dramatic flashy part of the Corona Virus, the ship has sailed on adequately taking care of the American population, once a vaccine is available the ship will have sailed so far around the world that itll have arrived back at port. We are getting at best one more stimulus. The only "change" was to Obama. Thats not change.
I'd go down the revolution route and then immigrate personally, I think your ordering is wrong imo. I'd rather chance an improved US that I can stay in, even if it winds up a flaming mess (more of one anyways,) then, hey, I can leave then. I think we come from fundamentally different societal positions though, from my vague recollection you aren't of the class that is interested in taking risks to your life/lifestyle, etc.
On October 05 2020 08:55 Nevuk wrote:
A lot of it is generational. The generational gap between those currently in power and the majority of the population is massive. I'm not sure it has ever happened in history, so it's somewhat unique. It's been made possible by advancements in life expectancy and medical knowledge.
The boomers were very conservative (economically) relative even to their parents and have held the reins of power for about 30 years now. Gen X was too small to really ever claim power in the same way. Proposing socialism to someone born in the height of the cold war sounds insane, but it sounds better than what we have now to may of those born after it.
2010 really wrecked the democratic party in a lot of ways - the only democrats in positions of power are either insanely old or extremely young. Normally some of the the 2020 candidates would have come up from state houses or governorships etc. from around the 2010 election, but almost all of of their candidates got wiped out in that election. The only one we had from around that cohort was Buttigieg, a mayor.
So all of the democrats with power are from a much more conservative generation than their voters. So they legitimately think Bernie is crazy for thinking anyone would support him, in spite of all evidence from polls that disagree with them.
(This is also part of why strict term limits have been a bad thing whenever they've been tried, btw. What effectively happens is that the lobbyists write the bills instead of the senators or representatives, because none of them have the experience to legislate effectively. Experience is a good thing in every job, and politicians are no different. The issue here isn't that democrats are refusing to retire, it's that they had no new blood injected for a decade)
A strict retirement age may be a better idea, but uh, good luck selling that one to elderly voters.
edit:
I reread this and realized my point may have not been communicated clearly. Within the decade, democrats will get dragged very far to the left, whether they want or not, purely due to generational shift. Neoliberals like Buttigieg are unicorns among millenials.
I wish I had your faith in a path leftwards. The thing that keeps me skeptical/hopeless on it is how do you drag the Democrats leftward?
They will fight it tooth and nail and we'd need a serious mass die off to get an immediate shift in power.
Maybe if Nancy Pelosi gets knocked off her pedestal and we see Shahid Buttar take her spot I'll start to feel like maybe the shift can happen, but in the meantime? We have Pro-Cop Biden and Copala Harris for President at a time of massive civil unrest because of police violence, Biden openly shows contempt for progressive policies and progressives in general, Kamala Harris has a history of literally insulting young people.
The future of the Democrats is looking to be Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris, and frankly its a grimdark future as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
On October 05 2020 10:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 09:46 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 09:36 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 08:25 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 08:11 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 07:54 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 07:43 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor. I'm not saying it is great or even good in the USA, particularly for the people in your situation. It is a travesty that the richest country in the world does not have the smallest poor, best Healthcare and education. Right now I believe your country is suffering from short sighted and selfish decisions made by the few and not for the many. With that being said there is an absolutely huge cost for a revolution (not just death and injury, but for infrastructure, education and the very environment you are concerned with. And with the environment it works somewhat like time value of money in that a big bad couple of the years is way worse even if you end up better eventually (have to be way better) then it is now) on top of that outside of our little community here there is way more right wing than left wing people. When people here socialism they think USSR, Cuba, Venezuela and so on, not Scandinavia. This is especially true as you go down in education at wealth. The most desperate people are not going to be pulling i the direction you want. The Bernie movement was great but the people it pulled were mostly students, and educated middle-class. For example the really desperate people are not at all concerned with student loans and the environment is less of an issue with them. Until a message resonates with those desperate people I think it is almost guaranteed to be right libertarian won. And no matter what said wins, a revolution would end likely the way they have mostly over the last 100 years, which is either instantly worse for l but those in power, or mildly better for the people short term then worse and great for those in power. There is very few of examples of them actually bettering things for the people. Someone else mentioned it but I think the best play is what the tea party did for the Republicans and threaten to leave and start your own party to force the dems to make concessions and move left out of fear of losing elections. The bolded probably isnt going to work, any single person in this thread who has advocated for Lesser-of-Two-Evils should know why, too. Progressives are frequently denounced for being ideological purists, and thats what the bolded calls for, people holding their politicians to a standard of behavior before voting for them, and the Lesser-of-Two-Evils mindset is going to hold that back so long as Republicans keep Republicaning and Democrats take advantage of that to nominate their own Republican-Lite candidates. Not to mention that incrementalism trying to change through these longer term political systems ignores the suffering of the people during that interim period. In the case of a revolution things could certainly get worse, but things are getting worse now, so whats the difference? The world looks to me as though its either things get worse and continue to get worse until a revolution of some variety happens. I don't believe America is competent enough to keep this level of wealth disparity, right now is about as peaceful as a revolution could go, the worse it gets the more Guillotine-y its going to get. Americans dont even need a unified comprehensive platform to unite behind, just a message as simple as "the rich need to go." I do not believe you guys are united on that front, if you were there were not be so many people who are poor voting for a billionaire and cheering when he does not pay taxes. There is much more billionaire worship than there is billionaire hate in the USA. The lesser of two evils after the primary is the right Game theory in my mind, and before it, it is getting enough people to vote for candidates forcing change, and the change you want. I really can't understand the logic that Bernie supporters can't get the support to beat the Dems in the primary but will get the support to win on the streets. The right wing militias are organized, violent and trained. Antifa is the opposite on at least 2 of the three and outnumbered. I really can't see any point where a revolution works out well for the people or the environment. I cant say this enough, I caution you referencing the voting population of the US because at BEST HALF OF THE US VOTES. Half. HALF of that half supports Trump. You put SO MUCH emphasis on the American voting system but Americans just do not vote in numbers that you can use to deduce political values from particularly strongly. And that half part is only true in the best of cases, which primaries are not. Not to mention that primaries aren't even actual elections, I mean courts have said that the parties can pick and choose who they want, there is only the facade of true democracy in primaries anyways. This faith in the systems to do the right thing feels absolutely insane to me when America has spent years routinely proving our systems only work when they are operated in good faith, which I'd argue almost noone in our political system operates with. Media crapped on Bernie, the moderates ganged up on him on Super Tuesday, the Democrats played their hand in order to make Bernie lose. Obviously I'm not saying they fucked with the ballots on Super Tuesday or anything (Iowa was fucking sketchy though, frankly my faith is shattered enough to call everything about Iowa SUS) but its clear that the Democrats exert influence to stifle politicians that advocate for popular policies that might adversely impact their pocketbooks. Limiting any and all hope for political change to a single malformed political apparatus that is beholden exclusively to itself feels so awful to me, I don't understand how anyone who actually understands how shitty it is to be impoverished in America can feel comfortable advocating for it as the way to go. Also, gun owning left-wingers are definitely a thing, and frankly I think they're likely to be more effective than a lot of the right wing military/pig LARPers, granted effectiveness also comes with a certain expectation of discipline and I would sooner expect a right wing military LARPer to fire randomly into a crowd if they so much as felt a fart slip out of their ass. Black Panthers, etc. Anyways, I'm legitimately curious what it would take for you to completely lose faith in American electoral institutes, like legitimately. Like would it require concrete proof of Democrats ignoring/fabricating votes and directly deciding their candidate, and if that is the bar does it have to be overall or does any particular state race clear the threshold? I'm not trying to be an ass I'm just curious, faith in these institutions has been so eroded in me I don't actually know what it would take for someone who believes in them to have their faith shaken/eroded enough to be roughly where I'm at, lol. On October 05 2020 08:21 WarSame wrote:On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor. I think what might work is a political revolution against the ruling political elites. When Trump was elected a lot of pundits were saying that it was a brick tossed through the window of the elites. I've been listening and understanding more and more of that. Your politicians have so long echoed this fake facade of America being the "land of opportunity" and the "home of the free" and the "greatest nation on Earth" when it really hasn't been any of those things since the late 60s. As someone else said earlier you can trace a lot of the decline to the various wars. Trump disrupted the status quo and said "America has gone bad and we need to make America great again." In order for the country to improve it needs to be able to confront its failures and decline. It seems to me like there could be a good presidential route of the Democratic party with a Trump-lite who uses relatively incendiary language while pushing for some institutional changes(i.e. single payer healthcare) but especially with a focus on political reforms. I think they could sway quite a lot of voters over to them to while also threatening the establishment in a manner similar to Trump. The sentiment is 100% there in my opinion (for whatever thats actually worth, lol) the problem with the bottom paragraph is it assumes the Democrats would ever let someone like that be a powerful part of their party. They have and will marginalize voices that even as mild and supportive as Bernie Sanders (I mean, Joe fuckin Biden isn't evening campaigning for Joe Biden right now, and yet Bernie Sanders is out there campaigning for Joe Biden.) At this point I'm of the opinion blue voters are in lock step enough with the party line that they won't let it happen. I mean, that sort of politician can obviously be super popular, Bernie is basically the best version of that politican but lite. After Trump though, I doubt either of these parties are going be letting themselves get taken over quite so easily, it would take overwhelming ultramassive groundswell to shift them from their corporate bedrock. It would take electoral fraud on a fairly massive scale. As bad as the states are compared to other democratic countries, they are that much better and then some than authoritarian ones. I also think the "ganging up" on Bernie thing is over played, there was more of them, that is kind of how it works. As to the media, they play to what sells and why are people going to overtake the media "propaganda" to revolt if they can't overcome to it to even outvote. I also think an actual revolution is huge risk, and a shit ton of work. While I agree not many vote, I'm not sure it is going to be that easy to convince those that don't that this revolution will work and the amount of sacrifice it take to vote through long line ups and all the other bull shit sucks, but it does not come close to the other. When you look at the support for peaceful protests and then for riots there is a dramatic difference. When you look at Hong Kong, what is happening to them is far more scary and Dramatic than what is going on in the USA and I'm not sure they are going to get enough public support for a revolution. I do think the calculus will change for a lot of people if the Covid recession turns into a depression but I think the government will provide enough stimulus to keep things going. And even full fledged depression did not lead to a revolution last time, though it did provide enough support to make governmental change.Also, if I was a American I'd go down the immigration route before revolution. Because even if it got bad enough to the point where I would be willing to put my family at risk the way joining a revolution would, I would not trust enough of the others to be willing and on the right side to help me. Okay, come on dude, what lessons did America learn from its last major depression? What changes occurred? How is America right now better than America under the Bush Depression era? We're already past the dramatic flashy part of the Corona Virus, the ship has sailed on adequately taking care of the American population, once a vaccine is available the ship will have sailed so far around the world that itll have arrived back at port. We are getting at best one more stimulus. The only "change" was to Obama. Thats not change. I'd go down the revolution route and then immigrate personally, I think your ordering is wrong imo. I'd rather chance an improved US that I can stay in, even if it winds up a flaming mess (more of one anyways,) then, hey, I can leave then. I think we come from fundamentally different societal positions though, from my vague recollection you aren't of the class that is interested in taking risks to your life/lifestyle, etc. On October 05 2020 08:55 Nevuk wrote:
A lot of it is generational. The generational gap between those currently in power and the majority of the population is massive. I'm not sure it has ever happened in history, so it's somewhat unique. It's been made possible by advancements in life expectancy and medical knowledge.
The boomers were very conservative (economically) relative even to their parents and have held the reins of power for about 30 years now. Gen X was too small to really ever claim power in the same way. Proposing socialism to someone born in the height of the cold war sounds insane, but it sounds better than what we have now to may of those born after it.
2010 really wrecked the democratic party in a lot of ways - the only democrats in positions of power are either insanely old or extremely young. Normally some of the the 2020 candidates would have come up from state houses or governorships etc. from around the 2010 election, but almost all of of their candidates got wiped out in that election. The only one we had from around that cohort was Buttigieg, a mayor.
So all of the democrats with power are from a much more conservative generation than their voters. So they legitimately think Bernie is crazy for thinking anyone would support him, in spite of all evidence from polls that disagree with them.
(This is also part of why strict term limits have been a bad thing whenever they've been tried, btw. What effectively happens is that the lobbyists write the bills instead of the senators or representatives, because none of them have the experience to legislate effectively. Experience is a good thing in every job, and politicians are no different. The issue here isn't that democrats are refusing to retire, it's that they had no new blood injected for a decade)
A strict retirement age may be a better idea, but uh, good luck selling that one to elderly voters.
edit:
I reread this and realized my point may have not been communicated clearly. Within the decade, democrats will get dragged very far to the left, whether they want or not, purely due to generational shift. Neoliberals like Buttigieg are unicorns among millenials. I wish I had your faith in a path leftwards. The thing that keeps me skeptical/hopeless on it is how do you drag the Democrats leftward? They will fight it tooth and nail and we'd need a serious mass die off to get an immediate shift in power. Maybe if Nancy Pelosi gets knocked off her pedestal and we see Shahid Buttar take her spot I'll start to feel like maybe the shift can happen, but in the meantime? We have Pro-Cop Biden and Copala Harris for President at a time of massive civil unrest because of police violence, Biden openly shows contempt for progressive policies and progressives in general, Kamala Harris has a history of literally insulting young people. The future of the Democrats is looking to be Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris, and frankly its a grimdark future as far as I can tell. I was talking about the great depression. I always think of the Bush one as a recession, I think you underestimate how long a revolution would take. Also the survival rate of the early adopters. But I could also be wrong. I also find it so strange that you have such a love for a country that you would rather fight and possibly die for it rather than leave. It is almost like Stockholm syndrome for your country. If it has always been shit for you go somewhere better! I get the family stuff, but I'd rather be away then put mine at risk. @Nevuk I look forward to centrists complaining there is no party for them! Maybe that will be what will finally bring about a third party.  
Its not so much about love, its about hopelessness, and immigrating is hard when you're poor. I think we just have fundamentally different class perspectives in the end, my life isn't worth as much in my eyes because my life is shit and I don't really have much to lose. You have things to lose so your life holds more value.
|
|
|
Think Nev and Zam are doing just fine but figured some things should be mentioned because they are common misconceptions.
When people here socialism they think USSR, Cuba, Venezuela and so on, not Scandinavia.
Scandinavia isn't socialism/socialist and people shouldn't think of them as such. They are social democracies. It's also important to know that social democracy and socialism are fundamentally opposed to each other so people should take any commentary from someone making that mistake with that in mind.
For example: If revolution is what truly want start working on it, start trying to organize rally's protests and so on.
Zambrah is working on it just fine, the first revolution is in your own mind, which is what the oft misunderstood "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" is all about. Until one has had that, their advice on/critique of revolution is little more than reactionary nonsense.
|
|
|
I would describe most of your posts you make to mine as reactionary nonsense, since you don't appear to have the ability to do anything other than take sentences out of context and strawman them.
I typically only respond to a line or two of your posts because they are iterations of popular talking points that I think should be addressed. I don't typically engage with you anymore because I find your perspective rudimentary and mostly uninformed about the relevant subject matter. Your use of 'reactionary' here is emblematic of that obliviousness imo.
|
|
|
I just don't think anything productive can come out of attempting that kind of conversation with you again at this point. If someone was genuinely curious about that line of questioning and engaging in good faith I'd likely at least entertain getting into it. It probably also wouldn't belong in the US politics thread.
|
Gah. Not interested in this continued fight.
GH stated that Scandinavia isn't socialist and explained why.
You attempted to pick a fight on the grounds that USSR etc are -not- socialist, but did not further explain why you don't believe they are socialist, and instead pre-empted an argument with sassy "not something you will ever admit" statements.
It isn't a productive discussion and it still isn't interesting. GH (I gather) doesn't like you or doesn't feel like he gains any ground trying to explain things to you, and you clearly don't like or respect GH or his opinion.
So just... stop. Just stop it. Please. I'm so fucking tired of this coming up every few pages, Jimmi. You have fine discussions and points with other people, but I don't believe you can engage rationally with GH anymore.
|
|
|
@ your reply jimmi - fair enough.
WSJ reports Trump Didn’t Disclose First Positive Covid-19 Test While Awaiting a Second Test on Thursday
As the virus spread among the people closest to him, Mr. Trump also asked one adviser not to disclose results of their own positive test. “Don’t tell anyone,” Mr. Trump said, according to a person familiar with the conversation.
Mr. Trump and his top advisers also aimed to keep such a close hold on the early positive results that his campaign manager, Bill Stepien, didn’t know that Hope Hicks, one of the president’s closest White House aides, had tested positive on Thursday morning until news reports later that evening, according to a person familiar with the matter. The Trump campaign said Friday evening that Mr. Stepien had tested positive.
One hand does not know what the other one is doing, it is quite the spectacle really. Maybe the Walking Dead had it right all along . . .
“I’m glued to Twitter and TV because I have no official communication from anyone in the West Wing,” an administration official said.
The lack of clear communication about who was getting the virus has extended to reports on the president’s status as he undergoes treatment.
Mr. Stepien and the rest of the Trump campaign first learned of Ms. Hicks’ positive test from Bloomberg News, and weren’t consulted on whether to proceed with a Thursday trip to New Jersey, a campaign official said.
Just imagine being Chris Christie, carrying water and helping with the debate prep and getting done like that by hearing it from the news. A guy in his physical shape getting the virus, no matter what else that has got to be a terrible situation for him.
Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, said on Friday that he learned about the initial positive tests at the White House on Thursday through news reports. No one had contacted him even though he had spent much of the past week with Mr. Trump.
Mr. Christie tested positive for the virus on Saturday, he said on Twitter, and a few hours later checked himself into Morristown Medical Center.
|
On October 05 2020 09:46 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 09:36 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 08:25 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 08:11 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 07:54 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 07:43 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor. I'm not saying it is great or even good in the USA, particularly for the people in your situation. It is a travesty that the richest country in the world does not have the smallest poor, best Healthcare and education. Right now I believe your country is suffering from short sighted and selfish decisions made by the few and not for the many. With that being said there is an absolutely huge cost for a revolution (not just death and injury, but for infrastructure, education and the very environment you are concerned with. And with the environment it works somewhat like time value of money in that a big bad couple of the years is way worse even if you end up better eventually (have to be way better) then it is now) on top of that outside of our little community here there is way more right wing than left wing people. When people here socialism they think USSR, Cuba, Venezuela and so on, not Scandinavia. This is especially true as you go down in education at wealth. The most desperate people are not going to be pulling i the direction you want. The Bernie movement was great but the people it pulled were mostly students, and educated middle-class. For example the really desperate people are not at all concerned with student loans and the environment is less of an issue with them. Until a message resonates with those desperate people I think it is almost guaranteed to be right libertarian won. And no matter what said wins, a revolution would end likely the way they have mostly over the last 100 years, which is either instantly worse for l but those in power, or mildly better for the people short term then worse and great for those in power. There is very few of examples of them actually bettering things for the people. Someone else mentioned it but I think the best play is what the tea party did for the Republicans and threaten to leave and start your own party to force the dems to make concessions and move left out of fear of losing elections. The bolded probably isnt going to work, any single person in this thread who has advocated for Lesser-of-Two-Evils should know why, too. Progressives are frequently denounced for being ideological purists, and thats what the bolded calls for, people holding their politicians to a standard of behavior before voting for them, and the Lesser-of-Two-Evils mindset is going to hold that back so long as Republicans keep Republicaning and Democrats take advantage of that to nominate their own Republican-Lite candidates. Not to mention that incrementalism trying to change through these longer term political systems ignores the suffering of the people during that interim period. In the case of a revolution things could certainly get worse, but things are getting worse now, so whats the difference? The world looks to me as though its either things get worse and continue to get worse until a revolution of some variety happens. I don't believe America is competent enough to keep this level of wealth disparity, right now is about as peaceful as a revolution could go, the worse it gets the more Guillotine-y its going to get. Americans dont even need a unified comprehensive platform to unite behind, just a message as simple as "the rich need to go." I do not believe you guys are united on that front, if you were there were not be so many people who are poor voting for a billionaire and cheering when he does not pay taxes. There is much more billionaire worship than there is billionaire hate in the USA. The lesser of two evils after the primary is the right Game theory in my mind, and before it, it is getting enough people to vote for candidates forcing change, and the change you want. I really can't understand the logic that Bernie supporters can't get the support to beat the Dems in the primary but will get the support to win on the streets. The right wing militias are organized, violent and trained. Antifa is the opposite on at least 2 of the three and outnumbered. I really can't see any point where a revolution works out well for the people or the environment. I cant say this enough, I caution you referencing the voting population of the US because at BEST HALF OF THE US VOTES. Half. HALF of that half supports Trump. You put SO MUCH emphasis on the American voting system but Americans just do not vote in numbers that you can use to deduce political values from particularly strongly. And that half part is only true in the best of cases, which primaries are not. Not to mention that primaries aren't even actual elections, I mean courts have said that the parties can pick and choose who they want, there is only the facade of true democracy in primaries anyways. This faith in the systems to do the right thing feels absolutely insane to me when America has spent years routinely proving our systems only work when they are operated in good faith, which I'd argue almost noone in our political system operates with. Media crapped on Bernie, the moderates ganged up on him on Super Tuesday, the Democrats played their hand in order to make Bernie lose. Obviously I'm not saying they fucked with the ballots on Super Tuesday or anything (Iowa was fucking sketchy though, frankly my faith is shattered enough to call everything about Iowa SUS) but its clear that the Democrats exert influence to stifle politicians that advocate for popular policies that might adversely impact their pocketbooks. Limiting any and all hope for political change to a single malformed political apparatus that is beholden exclusively to itself feels so awful to me, I don't understand how anyone who actually understands how shitty it is to be impoverished in America can feel comfortable advocating for it as the way to go. Also, gun owning left-wingers are definitely a thing, and frankly I think they're likely to be more effective than a lot of the right wing military/pig LARPers, granted effectiveness also comes with a certain expectation of discipline and I would sooner expect a right wing military LARPer to fire randomly into a crowd if they so much as felt a fart slip out of their ass. Black Panthers, etc. Anyways, I'm legitimately curious what it would take for you to completely lose faith in American electoral institutes, like legitimately. Like would it require concrete proof of Democrats ignoring/fabricating votes and directly deciding their candidate, and if that is the bar does it have to be overall or does any particular state race clear the threshold? I'm not trying to be an ass I'm just curious, faith in these institutions has been so eroded in me I don't actually know what it would take for someone who believes in them to have their faith shaken/eroded enough to be roughly where I'm at, lol. On October 05 2020 08:21 WarSame wrote:On October 05 2020 06:15 Zambrah wrote:On October 05 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2020 01:34 LegalLord wrote:
The fact that rebuilding is difficult is one of the shittiest excuses one could devise for being anti-revolutionary. Everyone knows quite well that revolutions will cause immediate harm and risk going astray. The risk is accepted because the alternative is a slow descent into bad conditions with no chance of improvement.
Trying to tie that to the faults of incompetent governance leading to a mass exodus of career bureaucrats (which are talked up to be "good" in the preceding discussion) is more than a little disingenuous. Can you explain why there is no chance of improvement without revolution? And also do you know how many revolutions have been successful at dramatic improvements for the people over a longer period of time? You often state these as if they are fact but I see little to no evidence that they are even likely let alone true. Also, what system is there that does away with bureaucrats? If anything they have the least authority in liberal democracies compared to everything else. What makes bureaucrats bad? And how would you purprose to get rid of them? Its not that theres no chance of improvement without a revolution, its just looking at American politics it looks INCREDIBLY unlikely that meaningful change will occur. We have one party of regressive psychopaths, and we have another party completely enamored with enabling the regressive psychopaths and both are spiraling downwards at a rate that inspires precisely no confidence. As someone who has grown up in American poverty, America has NOT improved as a place to live since I was born. I remember not having healthcare growing up, last time Ive been to the fuckin dentist was when I was about 9 years old, wealth inequality continues to grow more and more severely, climate change continues to be something that politicians think can be shrugged off as secondary, and during a global pandemic that has caused immense turmoil for the American population massive amounts of wealth have shifted upwards and the government has sent ONE fucking check for 1200 dollars and shows precisely no signs of caring any time soon. It shouldn't be hard to see that a lot of people are seeing the US Government as a universal failure, it has a hard time holding up what should be basic human rights (like the right to choose what one does with their own body, yet Roe v. Wade is imperiled) why should we put our faith in an entity that can barely manage to do a bare-assed minimum to suddenly, after 40+ years, begin to actually work for the people it hasn't worked for for decades? I'm not sure specifically about your life situation, but it must not feel particularly desperate. For a lot of Americans, our lives FEEL DESPERATE. That is where revolutions looks appealing, where we look in at our lives and out at the society around us and feel like we're at a breaking point where we have so little to lose the prospect of risking what we do have looks pretty appealing. Incidentally America was founded on a revolution, so maybe we just like our chances of it turning out in our favor. I think what might work is a political revolution against the ruling political elites. When Trump was elected a lot of pundits were saying that it was a brick tossed through the window of the elites. I've been listening and understanding more and more of that. Your politicians have so long echoed this fake facade of America being the "land of opportunity" and the "home of the free" and the "greatest nation on Earth" when it really hasn't been any of those things since the late 60s. As someone else said earlier you can trace a lot of the decline to the various wars. Trump disrupted the status quo and said "America has gone bad and we need to make America great again." In order for the country to improve it needs to be able to confront its failures and decline. It seems to me like there could be a good presidential route of the Democratic party with a Trump-lite who uses relatively incendiary language while pushing for some institutional changes(i.e. single payer healthcare) but especially with a focus on political reforms. I think they could sway quite a lot of voters over to them to while also threatening the establishment in a manner similar to Trump. The sentiment is 100% there in my opinion (for whatever thats actually worth, lol) the problem with the bottom paragraph is it assumes the Democrats would ever let someone like that be a powerful part of their party. They have and will marginalize voices that even as mild and supportive as Bernie Sanders (I mean, Joe fuckin Biden isn't evening campaigning for Joe Biden right now, and yet Bernie Sanders is out there campaigning for Joe Biden.) At this point I'm of the opinion blue voters are in lock step enough with the party line that they won't let it happen. I mean, that sort of politician can obviously be super popular, Bernie is basically the best version of that politican but lite. After Trump though, I doubt either of these parties are going be letting themselves get taken over quite so easily, it would take overwhelming ultramassive groundswell to shift them from their corporate bedrock. It would take electoral fraud on a fairly massive scale. As bad as the states are compared to other democratic countries, they are that much better and then some than authoritarian ones. I also think the "ganging up" on Bernie thing is over played, there was more of them, that is kind of how it works. As to the media, they play to what sells and why are people going to overtake the media "propaganda" to revolt if they can't overcome to it to even outvote. I also think an actual revolution is huge risk, and a shit ton of work. While I agree not many vote, I'm not sure it is going to be that easy to convince those that don't that this revolution will work and the amount of sacrifice it take to vote through long line ups and all the other bull shit sucks, but it does not come close to the other. When you look at the support for peaceful protests and then for riots there is a dramatic difference. When you look at Hong Kong, what is happening to them is far more scary and Dramatic than what is going on in the USA and I'm not sure they are going to get enough public support for a revolution. I do think the calculus will change for a lot of people if the Covid recession turns into a depression but I think the government will provide enough stimulus to keep things going. And even full fledged depression did not lead to a revolution last time, though it did provide enough support to make governmental change.Also, if I was a American I'd go down the immigration route before revolution. Because even if it got bad enough to the point where I would be willing to put my family at risk the way joining a revolution would, I would not trust enough of the others to be willing and on the right side to help me. Okay, come on dude, what lessons did America learn from its last major depression? What changes occurred? How is America right now better than America under the Bush Depression era? We're already past the dramatic flashy part of the Corona Virus, the ship has sailed on adequately taking care of the American population, once a vaccine is available the ship will have sailed so far around the world that itll have arrived back at port. We are getting at best one more stimulus. The only "change" was to Obama. Thats not change. I'd go down the revolution route and then immigrate personally, I think your ordering is wrong imo. I'd rather chance an improved US that I can stay in, even if it winds up a flaming mess (more of one anyways,) then, hey, I can leave then. I think we come from fundamentally different societal positions though, from my vague recollection you aren't of the class that is interested in taking risks to your life/lifestyle, etc. Show nested quote +On October 05 2020 08:55 Nevuk wrote:
A lot of it is generational. The generational gap between those currently in power and the majority of the population is massive. I'm not sure it has ever happened in history, so it's somewhat unique. It's been made possible by advancements in life expectancy and medical knowledge.
The boomers were very conservative (economically) relative even to their parents and have held the reins of power for about 30 years now. Gen X was too small to really ever claim power in the same way. Proposing socialism to someone born in the height of the cold war sounds insane, but it sounds better than what we have now to may of those born after it.
2010 really wrecked the democratic party in a lot of ways - the only democrats in positions of power are either insanely old or extremely young. Normally some of the the 2020 candidates would have come up from state houses or governorships etc. from around the 2010 election, but almost all of of their candidates got wiped out in that election. The only one we had from around that cohort was Buttigieg, a mayor.
So all of the democrats with power are from a much more conservative generation than their voters. So they legitimately think Bernie is crazy for thinking anyone would support him, in spite of all evidence from polls that disagree with them.
(This is also part of why strict term limits have been a bad thing whenever they've been tried, btw. What effectively happens is that the lobbyists write the bills instead of the senators or representatives, because none of them have the experience to legislate effectively. Experience is a good thing in every job, and politicians are no different. The issue here isn't that democrats are refusing to retire, it's that they had no new blood injected for a decade)
A strict retirement age may be a better idea, but uh, good luck selling that one to elderly voters.
edit:
I reread this and realized my point may have not been communicated clearly. Within the decade, democrats will get dragged very far to the left, whether they want or not, purely due to generational shift. Neoliberals like Buttigieg are unicorns among millenials. I wish I had your faith in a path leftwards. The thing that keeps me skeptical/hopeless on it is how do you drag the Democrats leftward? They will fight it tooth and nail and we'd need a serious mass die off to get an immediate shift in power. Maybe if Nancy Pelosi gets knocked off her pedestal and we see Shahid Buttar take her spot I'll start to feel like maybe the shift can happen, but in the meantime? We have Pro-Cop Biden and Copala Harris for President at a time of massive civil unrest because of police violence, Biden openly shows contempt for progressive policies and progressives in general, Kamala Harris has a history of literally insulting young people. The future of the Democrats is looking to be Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris, and frankly its a grimdark future as far as I can tell.
The flippant answer is one death at a time, the same as in science. Or one birth at a time, in a different sense.
My more real answer:
From the ground up. The democratic party isn't an abstract monolith. It's just people. Granted, organized in a group, who do take a lot of their cues from the leaders of the party - but the leaders do need to have the approval (or at least indifference) of the body of the party.
Bernie has actually been pretty effective at getting some of his 2020 campaign personnel to work inside of Biden's campaign, and that probably has a better effect at getting the desired movement in the party establishment than the 2016 platform changes did.
It's honestly much too slow for the climate issue... but it's quite literally the best we'll get on it. Anything other than the current pure malevolent regression would be preferable. If Biden is put into office and starts signing off on new oil pipelines, I'll be on GH's side. On all other progressive issues I personally believe revolution would inevitably result in a worse outcome, especially given the political climate and layout of the country.
Keep in mind, just because things are bad doesn't mean they can't get worse. I know that isn't comforting to hear, and I've also been in very bad financial situations on and off a few times in my past due to health issues, but it is possible to find examples of civilizations that went from ... not great, but OK (or livable? not sure what to call it), to awful, within the span of a decade.
Sidenote: JimmiC asked me a while back for my thoughts on revolution, and I've been typing stuff on and off and trying to find some of my old postings, as I used to read a lot on the topic circa 2011 when postanarchism started to become an academic topic I was researching for my undergraduate thesis. So it'll come at some point, but basically anarchist thinkers have historically been skeptical and cautious when it comes to actual revolutions (there's been exactly uh, 1/3 of one once, and that was it), while Marxist thinkers have tended to embrace them(which is ironic, as few would guess that from the two groups' reputations).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
