|
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 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values.
That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe.
It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication.
EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime).
|
On October 28 2020 04:18 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 04:16 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 28 2020 03:59 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 03:56 farvacola wrote:On October 28 2020 03:39 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 28 2020 03:33 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 03:23 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. Ironically I think voting Democrat is the best way to bring fiscal conservatism back into the political dialogue. Republicans in office borrow and spend with the approval of Democrats. Democrats in office borrow and spend with the opposition of Republicans. That said, the cynic in me thinks Democrats should just stop taxing everyone under $100k in a new tax plan. They seem fine with the ultra rich hoarding all the income so they might as well narrow taxes to just target them if they’re willing to accept that degree of inequality. And the Republicans just got away with paying for another massive tax cut (after the Bush 2 ones) with borrowing without any kind of political repercussions. If the rules don’t matter and you can just do whatever the fuck you like then they should just commit to nobody paying taxes. If populism is the game then play it to win. I agree. Every time I see Federal Republicans spend the way they do, I'm just like "How is this conservatism again." I want a party that will focus on paying down the national debt and stop spending (sans Natural Disasters and Diseases). On October 28 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:
As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. I'm with you on the disappointment regarding fiscal conservatism. It's just way too dead currently. The reasons for this are many, but we shouldn't get into it unless you're interested. The big problem with universal party primary voting is strategic voting. Almost every single time, the incumbent politician will win his/her primary. The voters of that party are incredibly incentivized to vote in the opposing party's primary to choose an easier opponent for their preferred candidate. That's a very obvious force to nominate the more "extreme" opponent, to almost guarantee your incumbent an easier fight. Such a case easily trouncing the minority that want to have a partial win no matter who is elected. (California is even worse: Democrats strategically vote for Republicans, because only the top-2 primary winners go to the ballot. Democrat + Republican on statewide office = Democrat always wins. Democrat + Democrat on statewide office = The Democrat with the early lead can lose.) I totally get that argument. And it's one that I held for a while regarding just voting on weaker opponents. But given this and the last election (and some older ones), I'm willing to accept that risk. Especially when it's easy to change an amendment here in Florida if we find that it is to a detriment of both parties. I just think we should go to ranked voting everywhere and see what happens if the experiment would work. I would love to be able to start voting 3rd party first then major party second so that my vote still isnt "wasted" Ranked voting is one of my favorite proposals moving forward, it's an elegantly simple way to change things and the downsides are much less than with other proposals like term limits. Any suggestions on where to read up on ranked voting? https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)Basically, let's say libertarians who normally just vote Republican in elections now get a chance to vote Libertarian. If the voting break down goes something like 45 Dem, 45 Rep, and 10 Lib, and every lib voter had Rep as a 2nd choice, then the final result is actually 45 Dem, 55 Rep and the Rep wins the seat. For a better example of how they might actually impact elections strongly, think the 2016 elections. With states as close like Michigan, it was a separation of 10k votes but over 250k votes that went to 3rd party (170k to Johnson, 50k to Stein, 50k to others). In this situation, even if Trump has more votes than Clinton, if there were more voters who chose Clinton as a 2nd choice over Trump, then Clinton would have eventually won the vote since she would've crossed the 50+1 threshold after all the 3rd party votes went back into the top 2. The pros is obvious, you can now vote for a 3rd party but have your vote counted to the 2 major parties (assuming the two major parties are still the highest vote getters). What it encourages is more 3rd party voting for candidates that actually fill your political affiliation the closest. This is why in many European countries, there exists a bunch of different parties. In an ideal world, what would occur would be a split of both Republican and Democrat parties into Social Democrats, Traditional Democrats, Conservatives, and whatever the Trump Republicans are today. Then you have the inclusion of the libertarians, random green parties. Thank you for that explanation! Would love to see it spread to more states
To put it simply, you rank your votes for the candidates you wish in order.
Then there are several steps. You eliminate the candidate(s) with the lowest amount of votes, and redistribute to th next choice on the ballots of those who voted for him/them.
Do it again until you have 2 candidates left, then you have your winner.
In an image :
![[image loading]](https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/fairvote/pages/10467/attachments/original/1521140725/SF-Results.png?1521140725)
|
On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect.That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values.
Actually, you're pretty insightful. The real problem here is that citizens have these views and elect these people with viewpoints so hated from the thread, and a democratic system means these citizens cannot be so easily marginalized. The dominant narrative is that the millions of people that have these views are not an absolute voter advantage, and gain undue power from the system of states voting and the ancient compromise between big states and small states (to give big states not incredible power over the small states by means of the population differential).
Incremental change is one solution, so far as it hopes to persuade the average voter to change their mind, and raise a new generation with different biases. The other is increased devolution of powers to states and counties; so you don't have to worry about the rural states since they have very little power over the functioning of your state with its huge urban centers. Of course, the progressive viewpoint is one of forcing everything to operate nationally in either legislative, executive, or Supreme Court actions that apply universally.
I'm fine losing the fight locally and at the state level. I'm a Californian; most of my votes do not matter and my policy goals don't have a shred of a chance to succeed in my state in the next several decades. I'm very familiar with losing fights.
The real argument, and it might reduce to a cultural argument, is to what degree is a simple majority of citizens across the United States able to trod on state rights and foist their grand plans on every state of the union. Particularly speaking, to what extent is the United States just United Citizens of America, states be damned? The second argument is to what degree does this justify a national divorce, so states that favor low taxation and low welfare systems can operate according to their wishes, and the big welfare states can have it their way too. Big states can force their citizens to fund extensive hospital subsidies, pre-pay medical "insurance," unemployment, poverty programs, housing, religious freedoms balancing, broad executive order, and the smaller states don't have to care about it because they're left alone.
|
United States43982 Posts
States aren’t a meaningful designation of much these days. They’re not internally homogeneous nor in any way uniform. There’s no reason for California to be one state while New England is many. California could be broken up without violating any logical component of the system. Within a Federal system states theoretically have the sovereignty and grant powers to an interstate body (as opposed to a unitary state like the UK). In practice though the US has failed to retain state sovereignty in any meaningful way and the states, as they currently exist, don’t make much sense.
|
On October 28 2020 05:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect.That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. Actually, you're pretty insightful. The real problem here is that citizens have these views and elect these people with viewpoints so hated from the thread, and a democratic system means these citizens cannot be so easily marginalized. The dominant narrative is that the millions of people that have these views are not an absolute voter advantage, and gain undue power from the system of states voting and the ancient compromise between big states and small states (to give big states not incredible power over the small states by means of the population differential). Incremental change is one solution, so far as it hopes to persuade the average voter to change their mind, and raise a new generation with different biases. The other is increased devolution of powers to states and counties; so you don't have to worry about the rural states since they have very little power over the functioning of your state with its huge urban centers. Of course, the progressive viewpoint is one of forcing everything to operate nationally in either legislative, executive, or Supreme Court actions that apply universally. I'm fine losing the fight locally and at the state level. I'm a Californian; most of my votes do not matter and my policy goals don't have a shred of a chance to succeed in my state in the next several decades. I'm very familiar with losing fights. The real argument, and it might reduce to a cultural argument, is to what degree is a simple majority of citizens across the United States able to trod on state rights and foist their grand plans on every state of the union. Particularly speaking, to what extent is the United States just United Citizens of America, states be damned? The second argument is to what degree does this justify a national divorce, so states that favor low taxation and low welfare systems can operate according to their wishes, and the big welfare states can have it their way too. Big states can force their citizens to fund extensive hospital subsidies, pre-pay medical "insurance," unemployment, poverty programs, housing, religious freedoms balancing, broad executive order, and the smaller states don't have to care about it because they're left alone.
To what degree would the smaller states agree to be "left alone" and go further in poverty when they have a mainly subsidised agricultural/mining/industry economy, and seeing these subsidies dry up ?
While what they produce is vital, it is urban centers and the tertiary bringing up the tax money. That would only serve to further the divide between rural and urban states, and empovering even more rural areas that would be "left alone" while they deserve investment.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/
While the intent is good, you then don't really have a country anymore. There is a need to redistribute wealth to areas that need it. If you don't, a lot of people will just leave and entire areas would die out. Imagine the USA without any (or at least a lot less) subsidies to agriculture or fossil oils ? Gonna be ugly, real fast.
|
On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime).
I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on.
It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate.
I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other.
|
On October 28 2020 05:21 KwarK wrote:
States aren’t a meaningful designation of much these days. They’re not internally homogeneous nor in any way uniform. There’s no reason for California to be one state while New England is many. California could be broken up without violating any logical component of the system. Within a Federal system states theoretically have the sovereignty and grant powers to an interstate body (as opposed to a unitary state like the UK). In practice though the US has failed to retain state sovereignty in any meaningful way and the states, as they currently exist, don’t make much sense.
States also wildly disenfranchise voters. There is no reason to vote republican in washington, oregon or cali. They will never win, no matter what. Their votes are just tossed in the toilet every election.
|
On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime). I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other.
I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though.
Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism?
|
On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime). I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism?
I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas.
|
On October 28 2020 05:32 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 05:17 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect.That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. Actually, you're pretty insightful. The real problem here is that citizens have these views and elect these people with viewpoints so hated from the thread, and a democratic system means these citizens cannot be so easily marginalized. The dominant narrative is that the millions of people that have these views are not an absolute voter advantage, and gain undue power from the system of states voting and the ancient compromise between big states and small states (to give big states not incredible power over the small states by means of the population differential). Incremental change is one solution, so far as it hopes to persuade the average voter to change their mind, and raise a new generation with different biases. The other is increased devolution of powers to states and counties; so you don't have to worry about the rural states since they have very little power over the functioning of your state with its huge urban centers. Of course, the progressive viewpoint is one of forcing everything to operate nationally in either legislative, executive, or Supreme Court actions that apply universally. I'm fine losing the fight locally and at the state level. I'm a Californian; most of my votes do not matter and my policy goals don't have a shred of a chance to succeed in my state in the next several decades. I'm very familiar with losing fights. The real argument, and it might reduce to a cultural argument, is to what degree is a simple majority of citizens across the United States able to trod on state rights and foist their grand plans on every state of the union. Particularly speaking, to what extent is the United States just United Citizens of America, states be damned? The second argument is to what degree does this justify a national divorce, so states that favor low taxation and low welfare systems can operate according to their wishes, and the big welfare states can have it their way too. Big states can force their citizens to fund extensive hospital subsidies, pre-pay medical "insurance," unemployment, poverty programs, housing, religious freedoms balancing, broad executive order, and the smaller states don't have to care about it because they're left alone. To what degree would the smaller states agree to be "left alone" and go further in poverty when they have a mainly subsidised agricultural/mining/industry economy, and seeing these subsidies dry up ? While what they produce is vital, it is urban centers and the tertiary bringing up the tax money. That would only serve to further the divide between rural and urban states, and empovering even more rural areas that would be "left alone" while they deserve investment. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/While the intent is good, you then don't really have a country anymore. There is a need to redistribute wealth to areas that need it. If you don't, a lot of people will just leave and entire areas would die out. Imagine the USA without any (or at least a lot less) subsidies to agriculture or fossil oils ? Gonna be ugly, real fast.
Smaller states now have a history of weighing the trade off of "left alone." If they want the subsidies delivered by the bounty of federal taxes, vote against the people that think all the other bullshit the fed wastes money on will outweigh it immensely every single time. You can already see the value of putting personal profits, or short-term economic gain, against other, greater values in the support for Trump's tariffs. The extent to which this is seen as punishing Chinese practices (don't give me shit about the extent to which tariffs don't achieve this, I'm making a different point here) has high support even considering the economic impact on their own soybeans, etc. The greater goal is rated higher. Look at several interviews conducted on the farmers affected by Trump's tariffs over the past years to seek this.
I fundamentally disagree on the "need to redistribute wealth to areas that need it." That's assuming the premise that a country can't be a country without massive redistributory practices. A state should be able to choose against your premise, and bear the results. I can imagine a much happier midwest without massive agricultural and fossil fuel subsidies. I also find it quizzical on how lefties can actually attack corporate welfare with state low-income welfare policies, but hands-off the same corporate welfare for big agro-business and big oil. Freedom is the freedom to choose against major wealth redistribution and giant subsidy programs to select (favored) industries.
If they want to bring back robbing Peter to pay Paul, see what their own tax base can bear, via a vote affecting their own tax base. I'm sure you'd still arrive with the smaller programs focused actual starvation poverty, the elderly, widows, etc. (The healing to THE DISCOURSE ALONE from debating within a state how much money to tax from themselves and their neighbors and redistribute to farmers would be well worth it)
|
On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime). I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow?
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it.
And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime). I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow?
We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best.
|
On October 28 2020 06:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 05:32 Nouar wrote:On October 28 2020 05:17 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect.That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. Actually, you're pretty insightful. The real problem here is that citizens have these views and elect these people with viewpoints so hated from the thread, and a democratic system means these citizens cannot be so easily marginalized. The dominant narrative is that the millions of people that have these views are not an absolute voter advantage, and gain undue power from the system of states voting and the ancient compromise between big states and small states (to give big states not incredible power over the small states by means of the population differential). Incremental change is one solution, so far as it hopes to persuade the average voter to change their mind, and raise a new generation with different biases. The other is increased devolution of powers to states and counties; so you don't have to worry about the rural states since they have very little power over the functioning of your state with its huge urban centers. Of course, the progressive viewpoint is one of forcing everything to operate nationally in either legislative, executive, or Supreme Court actions that apply universally. I'm fine losing the fight locally and at the state level. I'm a Californian; most of my votes do not matter and my policy goals don't have a shred of a chance to succeed in my state in the next several decades. I'm very familiar with losing fights. The real argument, and it might reduce to a cultural argument, is to what degree is a simple majority of citizens across the United States able to trod on state rights and foist their grand plans on every state of the union. Particularly speaking, to what extent is the United States just United Citizens of America, states be damned? The second argument is to what degree does this justify a national divorce, so states that favor low taxation and low welfare systems can operate according to their wishes, and the big welfare states can have it their way too. Big states can force their citizens to fund extensive hospital subsidies, pre-pay medical "insurance," unemployment, poverty programs, housing, religious freedoms balancing, broad executive order, and the smaller states don't have to care about it because they're left alone. To what degree would the smaller states agree to be "left alone" and go further in poverty when they have a mainly subsidised agricultural/mining/industry economy, and seeing these subsidies dry up ? While what they produce is vital, it is urban centers and the tertiary bringing up the tax money. That would only serve to further the divide between rural and urban states, and empovering even more rural areas that would be "left alone" while they deserve investment. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/While the intent is good, you then don't really have a country anymore. There is a need to redistribute wealth to areas that need it. If you don't, a lot of people will just leave and entire areas would die out. Imagine the USA without any (or at least a lot less) subsidies to agriculture or fossil oils ? Gonna be ugly, real fast. Smaller states now have a history of weighing the trade off of "left alone." If they want the subsidies delivered by the bounty of federal taxes, vote against the people that think all the other bullshit the fed wastes money on will outweigh it immensely every single time. You can already see the value of putting personal profits, or short-term economic gain, against other, greater values in the support for Trump's tariffs. The extent to which this is seen as punishing Chinese practices (don't give me shit about the extent to which tariffs don't achieve this, I'm making a different point here) has high support even considering the economic impact on their own soybeans, etc. The greater goal is rated higher. Look at several interviews conducted on the farmers affected by Trump's tariffs over the past years to seek this. I fundamentally disagree on the "need to redistribute wealth to areas that need it." That's assuming the premise that a country can't be a country without massive redistributory practices. A state should be able to choose against your premise, and bear the results. I can imagine a much happier midwest without massive agricultural and fossil fuel subsidies. I also find it quizzical on how lefties can actually attack corporate welfare with state low-income welfare policies, but hands-off the same corporate welfare for big agro-business and big oil. Freedom is the freedom to choose against major wealth redistribution and giant subsidy programs to select (favored) industries. If they want to bring back robbing Peter to pay Paul, see what their own tax base can bear, via a vote affecting their own tax base. I'm sure you'd still arrive with the smaller programs focused actual starvation poverty, the elderly, widows, etc. (The healing to THE DISCOURSE ALONE from debating within a state how much money to tax from themselves and their neighbors and redistribute to farmers would be well worth it)
I'm not even sure how to take the fact that "let rural states be happier by being left alone" is even an idea after what happened in Europe when rural and mining areas were in fact left alone after mining receded.
They died out and have a lot of empty or dying villages with old people, no youngsters, no shops, no services, no jobs, nothing. It's ugly.
I'll just rebound on Trump's tariffs. Farmers are happy about tariffs ? Great. What do tariffs mean ? Products coming in from China are taxed. Let's take your soybean example. Several things can happen.
- China lowers their prices to stay competitive in the US. US taxpayers pay the tax. US farmers are not better off and get billions in subsidies, funded by... the tax paid by american consumers.
- China sells at the same price, less is imported. US taxpayers pay the tax on the imported items. Soybean prices increase due to the increased tariffs, US farmers get more competitive and can sell more soybeans in the USA. The bill has increased for US consumers, effectively subsidising the soybean industry by increasing prices across the US to give it to the farmers.
In what scenario I didn't think of are farmers not receiving money from US consumers in the form of either US tax revenue, or increased prices ?
Tariffs are a way to subsidise your local industry to favor it against foreign products. Subsidising local agricultural areas and products are an integral part of the equation for EVERY area on earth, because if your local agriculture dies, you're dependant on others for vital interests.
If you remove subsidies/tariffs, your lose entire pans of it, and I really don't believe farmers will be happier...
Those subsidies and tax revenues are their lifeline. These are the areas against taxation and subsidies, all for "leave me alone, I don't wanna pay for others", while they are the ones mostly living off it, and they know it. This is the thing I can't understand. It's not specific to the US.
|
United States43982 Posts
On October 28 2020 06:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 05:32 Nouar wrote:On October 28 2020 05:17 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect.That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. Actually, you're pretty insightful. The real problem here is that citizens have these views and elect these people with viewpoints so hated from the thread, and a democratic system means these citizens cannot be so easily marginalized. The dominant narrative is that the millions of people that have these views are not an absolute voter advantage, and gain undue power from the system of states voting and the ancient compromise between big states and small states (to give big states not incredible power over the small states by means of the population differential). Incremental change is one solution, so far as it hopes to persuade the average voter to change their mind, and raise a new generation with different biases. The other is increased devolution of powers to states and counties; so you don't have to worry about the rural states since they have very little power over the functioning of your state with its huge urban centers. Of course, the progressive viewpoint is one of forcing everything to operate nationally in either legislative, executive, or Supreme Court actions that apply universally. I'm fine losing the fight locally and at the state level. I'm a Californian; most of my votes do not matter and my policy goals don't have a shred of a chance to succeed in my state in the next several decades. I'm very familiar with losing fights. The real argument, and it might reduce to a cultural argument, is to what degree is a simple majority of citizens across the United States able to trod on state rights and foist their grand plans on every state of the union. Particularly speaking, to what extent is the United States just United Citizens of America, states be damned? The second argument is to what degree does this justify a national divorce, so states that favor low taxation and low welfare systems can operate according to their wishes, and the big welfare states can have it their way too. Big states can force their citizens to fund extensive hospital subsidies, pre-pay medical "insurance," unemployment, poverty programs, housing, religious freedoms balancing, broad executive order, and the smaller states don't have to care about it because they're left alone. To what degree would the smaller states agree to be "left alone" and go further in poverty when they have a mainly subsidised agricultural/mining/industry economy, and seeing these subsidies dry up ? While what they produce is vital, it is urban centers and the tertiary bringing up the tax money. That would only serve to further the divide between rural and urban states, and empovering even more rural areas that would be "left alone" while they deserve investment. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/While the intent is good, you then don't really have a country anymore. There is a need to redistribute wealth to areas that need it. If you don't, a lot of people will just leave and entire areas would die out. Imagine the USA without any (or at least a lot less) subsidies to agriculture or fossil oils ? Gonna be ugly, real fast. Smaller states now have a history of weighing the trade off of "left alone." If they want the subsidies delivered by the bounty of federal taxes, vote against the people that think all the other bullshit the fed wastes money on will outweigh it immensely every single time. You can already see the value of putting personal profits, or short-term economic gain, against other, greater values in the support for Trump's tariffs. The extent to which this is seen as punishing Chinese practices (don't give me shit about the extent to which tariffs don't achieve this, I'm making a different point here) has high support even considering the economic impact on their own soybeans, etc. The greater goal is rated higher. Look at several interviews conducted on the farmers affected by Trump's tariffs over the past years to seek this. I fundamentally disagree on the "need to redistribute wealth to areas that need it." That's assuming the premise that a country can't be a country without massive redistributory practices. A state should be able to choose against your premise, and bear the results. I can imagine a much happier midwest without massive agricultural and fossil fuel subsidies. I also find it quizzical on how lefties can actually attack corporate welfare with state low-income welfare policies, but hands-off the same corporate welfare for big agro-business and big oil. Freedom is the freedom to choose against major wealth redistribution and giant subsidy programs to select (favored) industries. If they want to bring back robbing Peter to pay Paul, see what their own tax base can bear, via a vote affecting their own tax base. I'm sure you'd still arrive with the smaller programs focused actual starvation poverty, the elderly, widows, etc. (The healing to THE DISCOURSE ALONE from debating within a state how much money to tax from themselves and their neighbors and redistribute to farmers would be well worth it)
Redistribution is a macroeconomic necessity due to a shared currency. When two economies of differing size and development share a single currency then the relationship between the economy and inflation/interest rates becomes dislocated. It’s something that has been studied a lot since the EU expansion but wasn’t something that was understood in classical liberal (Austrian) economics. In classical economic theory when a state imports more value than it exports the valuation of the currency will adjust to restore the balance. But the New Mexican dollar is pegged to the Californian dollar at a fixed exchange rate of 1:1, New Mexico can’t lose relative purchasing power and make its exports more competitive until parity is restored.
The balance of trade deficit will inevitably result in all the dollars being held by the more developed states while the less developed ones are held hostage by a monetary policy that has no relationship to their economic reality. They’re not competitive but they cannot become competitive. In the medium term the simplest fix for this is to simply give them some of the currency back by locating army bases, Federal institutions, and so forth there.
This is also why Germany suffers from its balance of trade surplus. All the Euros flow into Germany from the Eastern EU which results in them being both unable to compete with Germany due to the shared currency and unable to afford German goods. To stimulate German exports Germany sends them all their money back so they can use it to buy more German goods. Economics is weird.
|
These could easily be enough to decide the election, especially if Biden wins FL. If he doesn't, then we'll probably need to also wait for PA and maybe MI.
|
On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals.
The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime). I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics.
Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics?
A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy
|
|
|
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me.
|
On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property".
The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that.
It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime). I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? Show nested quote +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy
I'm a social democrat, scandinavian way and have absolutely nothing to do with the third way. So somewhere at the left of Sanders. The fact that you call me a neoliberal tells me that either you actually never understood anything I said or don't know what the word means. I'll give you the benefit of the word and go for the second option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
