|
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 |
Dude, when just about anyone here talks about Democracy the separation of powers and so on is included, there is no reason for this whole tangent.
It's like when some say the US is not a Democracy, it's a Republic... Hurrdurr.
|
On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B.
If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better.
The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists.
|
|
|
On July 19 2023 22:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 21:29 SEB2610 wrote:On July 19 2023 00:01 JimmiC wrote:
The lefts messaging sucks and it is super elitist at this point. This thread is a perfect example (while an extreme example) of what is wrong. They need to go with something simple like, we want our country to be like Denmark and then show everything they have that Americans do not and that they do it with less money than Americans spend. Whenever Denmark is brought up in context of American political discourse (whether by Fox News or Bernie Sanders), I always wonder how well the actual realities of Denmark is known. For instance, here Denmark is held up as an example of what the American left wants to USA to look like; What part? The part where abortion is illegal after 12th week of pregnancy (rarely granted exemption can be granted by board of doctors if medical implications occur) — a harsher cut-off than blue states? The part where there is no minimum wage? The part where Danish border integrity is actually maintained? The part where Denmark is a culturally and ethnically homogeneous high-trust society? The part where Denmark holds the current record for longest on average European pre-trial detentions? Its not like I think its a utopia LOL. Also, from your points you need to do more reading than rightwing meme's it's given you some real bad information on what is important to a person like me. The part they should copy, and Denmark is not the only one, is their political systems, rules on political donations, corruption, fairness in media and all sorts of others. You can always cherry pick problems from anywhere on anything. Good luck not getting banned this time!
If the points I mentioned are matters of no significance to you, fair enough.
As for rules on political donations, corruption, fairness of media, I agree with you that Denmark fares better. What about the Danish political system do you favor?
|
On July 19 2023 23:39 Velr wrote:
Dude, when just about anyone here talks about Democracy the separation of powers and so on is included, there is no reason for this whole tangent.
It's like when some say the US is not a Democracy, it's a Republic... Hurrdurr.
Fair enough. I thought my tangent gives insight into the nuances of democracy, which would help understand the true cause of the Supreme Court ruling. Democracy eats itself because the system is being gamed using democratic means. But maybe people understand that already.
|
On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists. For one your talking about the party when you mean the voter. Voters vote for X instead of Y.
And secondly, as you should well know, America is a 2 party system. Or rather it is a FPTP system which by its nature will naturally move to a 2 party system. Another party on the left would split the vote and there are enough right wing voters in the US that any significant split on the left means the right wins, basically every time.
This isn't a case of "omg the Democratic party is so shit". It's what happens when one preformed coalition splits and the other doesn't.
And thirdly your, again, avoiding the entire point of my post. How do we get from A to B, regardless of what specifically B might be.
|
On July 19 2023 21:29 SEB2610 wrote:
The part where Danish border integrity is actually maintained?
I am in Germany. We are the only land-border that denmark has. I can just walk into Denmark. Or drive a car there. Or take a train. There is no border integrity being maintained. There is a tiny chance that i will be spot-checked, but that is it.
|
On July 20 2023 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists. For one your talking about the party when you mean the voter. Voters vote for X instead of Y. And secondly, as you should well know, America is a 2 party system. Or rather it is a FPTP system which by its nature will naturally move to a 2 party system. Another party on the left would split the vote and there are enough right wing voters in the US that any significant split on the left means the right wins, basically every time. This isn't a case of "omg the Democratic party is so shit". It's what happens when one preformed coalition splits and the other doesn't. And thirdly your, again, avoiding the entire point of my post. How do we get from A to B, regardless of what specifically B might be.
I should have said "support" instead of "vote for" as to avoid this petty critique (though obviously politicians vote too).
The notion of "splitting the vote" is splitting Republicans and Democrats on the side voting/working against making things better with socialists on the other.
A key thing to recognize is that Republicans did this with the tea party to a degree and it worked. They lost some winnable elections in exchange for pushing the party/country toward their (heinous) politics and are in a coin flip to win in 2024. So while I disagree with your framing generally, even if it were accurate, it's not a sound argument against doing it.
Democrats could have done that with Bernie Sanders (a social democrat, not even a socialist) who was polling better than Hillary against Trump (so they might not have even had to lose) and that was too much for them (I'm speaking especially about "progressives" that claimed to be more aligned with Bernie Sanders but argued Hillary was the better option for electability/pragmatic reasons).
This notion that a socialist party is bad electorally is contingent on how deplorable Democrats and their voters are. The FPTP stuff is just used as a copout so Democrats and their supporters don't have to reconcile their nefarious politics.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23763 Posts
On July 19 2023 21:29 SEB2610 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 00:01 JimmiC wrote:
The lefts messaging sucks and it is super elitist at this point. This thread is a perfect example (while an extreme example) of what is wrong. They need to go with something simple like, we want our country to be like Denmark and then show everything they have that Americans do not and that they do it with less money than Americans spend. Whenever Denmark is brought up in context of American political discourse (whether by Fox News or Bernie Sanders), I always wonder how well the actual realities of Denmark is known. For instance, here Denmark is held up as an example of what the American left wants to USA to look like; What part? The part where abortion is illegal after 12th week of pregnancy (rarely granted exemption can be granted by board of doctors if medical implications occur) — a harsher cut-off than blue states? The part where there is no minimum wage? The part where Danish border integrity is actually maintained? The part where Denmark is a culturally and ethnically homogeneous high-trust society? The part where Denmark holds the current record for longest on average European pre-trial detentions?
There isn’t a minimum wage because unions are generally a lot stronger, and thus negotiate decent de facto minimum wages.
Which, coming from the left I’m fine with, and aware of. I think it’s preferable to have a stronger labour movement than to lack that and rely on legislation to prevent base exploitation. Plus minimum mandated wages can be an overly crude mechanism in a large nation with huge economic variation.
People want higher wages, I don’t feel they overly care via which mechanism that is achieved.
Ethnic homogeneity is basically irrelevant, except that it is as it pertains to a high-trust society. The US patently is not the latter, and ethnicity clearly is a factor here, but a multi-ethic society is not innately doomed to be so. My native Nothern Ireland is one of the more ethnically homogenous regions in Europe and it’s certainly extremely divided upon national identity grounds, so yeah culture is important as well.
But yes, a high trust society, also desirable. If I could transplant that to my native land, that’s an easy decision to make.
Denmark’s record on pre-trial detentions isn’t ideal but if we’re comparing to the US justice system, numbers of prisoners, reasons those prisoners are in there, recidivism rates etc then it’s a night and day comparison.
Never mind stuff like healthcare, I’d assume most people don’t think Denmark is a complete utopia so they’re not making comparisons through that lens.
|
On July 20 2023 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists. For one your talking about the party when you mean the voter. Voters vote for X instead of Y. And secondly, as you should well know, America is a 2 party system. Or rather it is a FPTP system which by its nature will naturally move to a 2 party system. Another party on the left would split the vote and there are enough right wing voters in the US that any significant split on the left means the right wins, basically every time. This isn't a case of "omg the Democratic party is so shit". It's what happens when one preformed coalition splits and the other doesn't. And thirdly your, again, avoiding the entire point of my post. How do we get from A to B, regardless of what specifically B might be. I should have said "support" instead of "vote for" as to avoid this petty critique (though obviously politicians vote too). The notion of "splitting the vote" is splitting Republicans and Democrats on the side voting/working against making things better with socialists on the other. A key thing to recognize is that Republicans did this with the tea party to a degree and it worked. They lost some winnable elections in exchange for pushing the party/country toward their (heinous) politics and are in a coin flip to win in 2024. So while I disagree with your framing generally, even if it were accurate, it's not a sound argument against doing it. Democrats could have done that with Bernie Sanders (a social democrat, not even a socialist) who was polling better than Hillary against Trump (so they might not have even had to lose) and that was too much for them (I'm speaking especially about "progressives" that claimed to be more aligned with Bernie Sanders but argued Hillary was the better option for electability reasons). This notion that a socialist party is bad electorally is contingent on how deplorable Democrats and their voters are. The FPTP stuff is just used as a copout so Democrats and their supporters don't have to reconcile their nefarious politics. No the massive difference is that the Tea Party won their primaries. That's how they forced themselves on to the national stage.
What Bernie did wasn't winning the primary, nor has there been a massive progressive wave, that I know of, winning primaries for the House or Senate seats since.
The tea party isn't a new party, it isn't splitting the vote. Its trying to win primaries and then voting for whoever ends up having an R next to their name.
And this forum was largely in favour of Sanders winning the primary, tho he had some hick ups following his interviews if I remember correct which resolved around how he was actually going to implement any of his policies. Which ironically is exactly where we still are 8 years later, with progressives having lots of idea's but no clue how to actually get anywhere close to making them happen without praying for a miracle.
(and before you say the Democratic establishment through tooth and nail to keep Bernie out, they did, the GOP also fought and is still fighting to get the tea party out. But the difference is that they managed regardless)
|
On July 20 2023 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2023 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists. For one your talking about the party when you mean the voter. Voters vote for X instead of Y. And secondly, as you should well know, America is a 2 party system. Or rather it is a FPTP system which by its nature will naturally move to a 2 party system. Another party on the left would split the vote and there are enough right wing voters in the US that any significant split on the left means the right wins, basically every time. This isn't a case of "omg the Democratic party is so shit". It's what happens when one preformed coalition splits and the other doesn't. And thirdly your, again, avoiding the entire point of my post. How do we get from A to B, regardless of what specifically B might be. I should have said "support" instead of "vote for" as to avoid this petty critique (though obviously politicians vote too). The notion of "splitting the vote" is splitting Republicans and Democrats on the side voting/working against making things better with socialists on the other. A key thing to recognize is that Republicans did this with the tea party to a degree and it worked. They lost some winnable elections in exchange for pushing the party/country toward their (heinous) politics and are in a coin flip to win in 2024. So while I disagree with your framing generally, even if it were accurate, it's not a sound argument against doing it. Democrats could have done that with Bernie Sanders (a social democrat, not even a socialist) who was polling better than Hillary against Trump (so they might not have even had to lose) and that was too much for them (I'm speaking especially about "progressives" that claimed to be more aligned with Bernie Sanders but argued Hillary was the better option for electability reasons). This notion that a socialist party is bad electorally is contingent on how deplorable Democrats and their voters are. The FPTP stuff is just used as a copout so Democrats and their supporters don't have to reconcile their nefarious politics. No the massive difference is that the Tea Party won their primaries. That's how they forced themselves on to the national stage. + Show Spoiler +
What Bernie did wasn't winning the primary, nor has there been a massive progressive wave, that I know of, winning primaries for the House or Senate seats since.
The tea party isn't a new party, it isn't splitting the vote. Its trying to win primaries and then voting for whoever ends up having an R next to their name.
And this forum was largely in favour of Sanders winning the primary, tho he had some hick ups following his interviews if I remember correct which resolved around how he was actually going to implement any of his policies. Which ironically is exactly where we still are 8 years later, with progressives having lots of idea's but no clue how to actually get anywhere close to making them happen without praying for a miracle.
(and before you say the Democratic establishment through tooth and nail to keep Bernie out, they did, the GOP also fought and is still fighting to get the tea party out. But the difference is that they managed regardless)
One significant difference your analysis is missing (and my point) is that their supporters aligned with the Tea Party's (at least ostensible) policy intentions while Democrats and their supporters don't actually align with even tepid social democrat policy, despite the constant crowing that they do.
They exploit the system (which they have no plan for changing to prevent) to sluff off the moral condemnation that belongs with their deplorable intransigence.
|
On July 19 2023 17:42 Magic Powers wrote:
It's simple: when they allow for unilateral and unreasoned decisions affecting the population, without such decisions costing the decision-maker their position.
In the case of the US, the cost for the president to installing three favorable judges and thus skewing the SC's balance in a certain direction is small. You might say "but Trump wasn't re-elected. So the checks and balances work! There was a cost for him!" Until you realize the decision to overturn Roe v Wade happened under the next administration, and so Trump's decision will have very long-term effects caused by people who remain unanswerable long after the tyrant is no longer seated. They're not losing their seats. Maybe Trump's decision cost him his seat, but the fight is happening not only against Trump. He, completely unopposed, opened the door to several other tyrants, and suddenly representation goes out the window. Why? Because there's a lack of separation of powers. In a democracy, the president wouldn't have the power to unilaterally reform the SC. And the SC wouldn't have the power to overturn a landmark ruling without substantive reason when the population is so clearly in favor of the status quo. At least if they overturned it, they would not remain unopposed. Where are the checks and balances now? What can be done to undo the SC's actions? The SC did not even provide an explanation for this decision. Completely unanswereable in a democratic country. Absurd.
Did democracy allow for this outcome? Yes, Trump was elected democratically. Is it part of a functioning society? Certainly not.
So the debate shouldn't be about democracy this or democracy that. That's a red herring. A functioning society worries about much greater things than the basic voting method.
You can read SCOTUS's publicly available opinion (and syllabus) on the case of Dobbs here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
If you're aware of the reasoning then I'd postulate that you've arrived at a place where reasoning you don't like, doesn't count. That's great fuel for insurrections.
On July 19 2023 19:33 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 19:03 BlackJack wrote:On July 19 2023 18:33 Magic Powers wrote:On July 19 2023 18:14 BlackJack wrote:
By overturning Roe v Wade the Supreme Court returned the issue to the state legislatures. Now in California where the majority supports abortion they can allow abortions and in say Arkansas where the majority opposes abortion they can ban it. Regardless of how you feel about abortions and the right to access them, the argument that Dobbs is an affront to Democracy because it rejects the will of the majority makes little sense. And that adds to my point. Unchecked democracy is not good, it's tyranny. Edit (to elaborate): My point wasn't that overturning Roe v Wode is undemocratic. My point is that it shouldn't be a democratic decision to begin with. I only explained why neither making a democratic decision nor an undemocratic decision is good. It's both bad. The decision should have nothing to do with democracy, it should be a decision that is good for society. What is "good" is a matter of debate. The SC has ended the debate, not restarted it, by overruling Roe v Wade. There was little "debate" prior to Dobbs. If the people of the state of Arkansas opposed abortion and wanted to ban it in the first trimester of pregnancy in their state they had absolutely no recourse to do so because 7 judges in 1972 who are all dead now said so. Post-Dobbs if the people now living in Arkansas where abortion has been banned want access to abortion they can elect representatives to change their laws, they can elect representatives to amend their state constitution to enshrine abortion rights, or they can have a state referendum to allow abortion access. It's quite clear between these two decisions which one has more room for checks and balances and the will of the people. If however your point was that in your opinion abortion access is a fundamental right and any laws prohibiting access to abortion should be banned outright by decree then that's fine. It's an opinion I share, actually. I'm just not disillusioned into thinking this is the opinion with the checks and balances. I don't care if the people as a whole more generally oppose or support abortion. That to me is entirely irrelevant. I generally don't care about what the majority of people thinks. I'm not sure whether or not I've made this clear enough. I don't care about the majority any more than I care about the minority. I care about what's best for the people who are affected. They matter, no one else matters. The debate shouldn't take place between those who are unaffected. The ones involved should speak, the rest can listen. The SC justices are certainly not among the ones affected by abortion rights, and yet the SC unilaterally decided to overturn Roe v Wade without substantive reason. They did it because they could and for no other reason. That is unanswerable authority and should therefore not be accepted. A reasonable path forward would've been to formulate a number of alternatives to the existing abortion rights. Each of the points could've been debated and looked into for what's best for those involved. Instead what we got is a worse sitiation than what we had before. No one was asked and no better alternative was proposed. We went back to a worse situation and there's no recourse. The SC decision is final. This now allows states to act against the interest of a meaningful portion of the population, not because this is the right thing to do, but because they can. It's tyranny.
From what I gather you're trying to say the majority can be wrong about something, so we should go to the people "affected" to know what's right, even though the majority of them might be wrong, and also you're gatekeeping who is "affected" like you're stuck on level 1 analysis - one of the first general points against abortion is the people who it affects can't speak up for themselves.
Anything can be a right if you just ask the people who like it. Progressive jurisdictions are doing an exceptional job at protecting the rights of shoplifters and thieves.
But look. We polled students and they said they wanted free university. Minimum wage workers will always want it increased. Teachers' unions will always want longer vacations and less hours. How about people affected by a gun ban - I'm guessing you wouldn't go off of "listening" to the NRA - your calculus here is capricious and entirely opportunistic to the specific issue at hand only. This is both not workable and ignores the fact that everything affects everybody eventually in society. That's why we all get to participate.
The US is pretty well set when it comes to rights. What it needs more of is responsibility.
And a super important check and balance in a republic is called "the rule of law." This "no recourse" business is just headline propaganda. The Democrats are capable of passing laws on healthcare, as recent history proves. Could have done it at any time they had power the last 50 years. Or used the art of the deal to pass it in a bipartisan way. SCOTUS hasn't made abortion illegal. As was said before, state legislatures can pass laws as they want, but also anyone could pass a federal law, Republicans have only signaled basically they won't support a national ban - so passing a federal law shouldn't be much of an issue as you insist most people are for abortion anyway, even though that's not relevant for some other reason. No, that really is the issue - if the issue is popular, and just, and most people support it, then just pass a law. The entire system isn't broken just because one person didn't get their way once.
One judge in Iowa has just used judicial review to block an abortion ban the state legislature passed.
https://apnews.com/article/iowa-six-weeks-abortion-ban-lawsuit-ad0bb52064d094b91f5efbc135ed4437
|
On July 20 2023 01:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2023 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2023 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists. For one your talking about the party when you mean the voter. Voters vote for X instead of Y. And secondly, as you should well know, America is a 2 party system. Or rather it is a FPTP system which by its nature will naturally move to a 2 party system. Another party on the left would split the vote and there are enough right wing voters in the US that any significant split on the left means the right wins, basically every time. This isn't a case of "omg the Democratic party is so shit". It's what happens when one preformed coalition splits and the other doesn't. And thirdly your, again, avoiding the entire point of my post. How do we get from A to B, regardless of what specifically B might be. I should have said "support" instead of "vote for" as to avoid this petty critique (though obviously politicians vote too). The notion of "splitting the vote" is splitting Republicans and Democrats on the side voting/working against making things better with socialists on the other. A key thing to recognize is that Republicans did this with the tea party to a degree and it worked. They lost some winnable elections in exchange for pushing the party/country toward their (heinous) politics and are in a coin flip to win in 2024. So while I disagree with your framing generally, even if it were accurate, it's not a sound argument against doing it. Democrats could have done that with Bernie Sanders (a social democrat, not even a socialist) who was polling better than Hillary against Trump (so they might not have even had to lose) and that was too much for them (I'm speaking especially about "progressives" that claimed to be more aligned with Bernie Sanders but argued Hillary was the better option for electability reasons). This notion that a socialist party is bad electorally is contingent on how deplorable Democrats and their voters are. The FPTP stuff is just used as a copout so Democrats and their supporters don't have to reconcile their nefarious politics. No the massive difference is that the Tea Party won their primaries. That's how they forced themselves on to the national stage. + Show Spoiler +
What Bernie did wasn't winning the primary, nor has there been a massive progressive wave, that I know of, winning primaries for the House or Senate seats since.
The tea party isn't a new party, it isn't splitting the vote. Its trying to win primaries and then voting for whoever ends up having an R next to their name.
And this forum was largely in favour of Sanders winning the primary, tho he had some hick ups following his interviews if I remember correct which resolved around how he was actually going to implement any of his policies. Which ironically is exactly where we still are 8 years later, with progressives having lots of idea's but no clue how to actually get anywhere close to making them happen without praying for a miracle.
(and before you say the Democratic establishment through tooth and nail to keep Bernie out, they did, the GOP also fought and is still fighting to get the tea party out. But the difference is that they managed regardless) One significant difference your analysis is missing (and my point) is that their supporters aligned with the Tea Party's (at least ostensible) policy intentions while Democrats and their supporters don't actually align with even tepid social democrat policy, despite the constant crowing that they do. They exploit the system (which they have no plan for changing to prevent) to sluff off the moral condemnation that belongs with their deplorable intransigence. The crazies are a majority of Republicans, the progressives are not a majority of Democrats.
Seems to me like progressives wanting to force their opinions onto the rest of Americans when they are a minority of a subset of the American people is rather tyrannical. No matter how righteous you might feel about your convictions...
So considering that progressives are a minority of a subset. How do you get anything done?
still haven't heard a single thing about how we're getting from A to B. Only about how unfair life is.
|
On July 20 2023 01:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 17:42 Magic Powers wrote:
It's simple: when they allow for unilateral and unreasoned decisions affecting the population, without such decisions costing the decision-maker their position.
In the case of the US, the cost for the president to installing three favorable judges and thus skewing the SC's balance in a certain direction is small. You might say "but Trump wasn't re-elected. So the checks and balances work! There was a cost for him!" Until you realize the decision to overturn Roe v Wade happened under the next administration, and so Trump's decision will have very long-term effects caused by people who remain unanswerable long after the tyrant is no longer seated. They're not losing their seats. Maybe Trump's decision cost him his seat, but the fight is happening not only against Trump. He, completely unopposed, opened the door to several other tyrants, and suddenly representation goes out the window. Why? Because there's a lack of separation of powers. In a democracy, the president wouldn't have the power to unilaterally reform the SC. And the SC wouldn't have the power to overturn a landmark ruling without substantive reason when the population is so clearly in favor of the status quo. At least if they overturned it, they would not remain unopposed. Where are the checks and balances now? What can be done to undo the SC's actions? The SC did not even provide an explanation for this decision. Completely unanswereable in a democratic country. Absurd.
Did democracy allow for this outcome? Yes, Trump was elected democratically. Is it part of a functioning society? Certainly not.
So the debate shouldn't be about democracy this or democracy that. That's a red herring. A functioning society worries about much greater things than the basic voting method. You can read SCOTUS's publicly available opinion (and syllabus) on the case of Dobbs here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdfIf you're aware of the reasoning then I'd postulate that you've arrived at a place where reasoning you don't like, doesn't count. That's great fuel for insurrections. Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 19:33 Magic Powers wrote:On July 19 2023 19:03 BlackJack wrote:On July 19 2023 18:33 Magic Powers wrote:On July 19 2023 18:14 BlackJack wrote:
By overturning Roe v Wade the Supreme Court returned the issue to the state legislatures. Now in California where the majority supports abortion they can allow abortions and in say Arkansas where the majority opposes abortion they can ban it. Regardless of how you feel about abortions and the right to access them, the argument that Dobbs is an affront to Democracy because it rejects the will of the majority makes little sense. And that adds to my point. Unchecked democracy is not good, it's tyranny. Edit (to elaborate): My point wasn't that overturning Roe v Wode is undemocratic. My point is that it shouldn't be a democratic decision to begin with. I only explained why neither making a democratic decision nor an undemocratic decision is good. It's both bad. The decision should have nothing to do with democracy, it should be a decision that is good for society. What is "good" is a matter of debate. The SC has ended the debate, not restarted it, by overruling Roe v Wade. There was little "debate" prior to Dobbs. If the people of the state of Arkansas opposed abortion and wanted to ban it in the first trimester of pregnancy in their state they had absolutely no recourse to do so because 7 judges in 1972 who are all dead now said so. Post-Dobbs if the people now living in Arkansas where abortion has been banned want access to abortion they can elect representatives to change their laws, they can elect representatives to amend their state constitution to enshrine abortion rights, or they can have a state referendum to allow abortion access. It's quite clear between these two decisions which one has more room for checks and balances and the will of the people. If however your point was that in your opinion abortion access is a fundamental right and any laws prohibiting access to abortion should be banned outright by decree then that's fine. It's an opinion I share, actually. I'm just not disillusioned into thinking this is the opinion with the checks and balances. I don't care if the people as a whole more generally oppose or support abortion. That to me is entirely irrelevant. I generally don't care about what the majority of people thinks. I'm not sure whether or not I've made this clear enough. I don't care about the majority any more than I care about the minority. I care about what's best for the people who are affected. They matter, no one else matters. The debate shouldn't take place between those who are unaffected. The ones involved should speak, the rest can listen. The SC justices are certainly not among the ones affected by abortion rights, and yet the SC unilaterally decided to overturn Roe v Wade without substantive reason. They did it because they could and for no other reason. That is unanswerable authority and should therefore not be accepted. A reasonable path forward would've been to formulate a number of alternatives to the existing abortion rights. Each of the points could've been debated and looked into for what's best for those involved. Instead what we got is a worse sitiation than what we had before. No one was asked and no better alternative was proposed. We went back to a worse situation and there's no recourse. The SC decision is final. This now allows states to act against the interest of a meaningful portion of the population, not because this is the right thing to do, but because they can. It's tyranny. From what I gather you're trying to say the majority can be wrong about something, so we should go to the people "affected" to know what's right, even though the majority of them might be wrong, and also you're gatekeeping who is "affected" like you're stuck on level 1 analysis - one of the first general points against abortion is the people who it affects can't speak up for themselves. Anything can be a right if you just ask the people who like it. Progressive jurisdictions are doing an exceptional job at protecting the rights of shoplifters and thieves. But look. We polled students and they said they wanted free university. Minimum wage workers will always want it increased. Teachers' unions will always want longer vacations and less hours. How about people affected by a gun ban - I'm guessing you wouldn't go off of "listening" to the NRA - your calculus here is capricious and entirely opportunistic to the specific issue at hand only. This is both not workable and ignores the fact that everything affects everybody eventually in society. That's why we all get to participate. The US is pretty well set when it comes to rights. What it needs more of is responsibility. And a super important check and balance in a republic is called "the rule of law." This "no recourse" business is just headline propaganda. The Democrats are capable of passing laws on healthcare, as recent history proves. Could have done it at any time they had power the last 50 years. Or used the art of the deal to pass it in a bipartisan way. SCOTUS hasn't made abortion illegal. As was said before, state legislatures can pass laws as they want, but also anyone could pass a federal law, Republicans have only signaled basically they won't support a national ban - so passing a federal law shouldn't be much of an issue as you insist most people are for abortion anyway, even though that's not relevant for some other reason. No, that really is the issue - if the issue is popular, and just, and most people support it, then just pass a law. The entire system isn't broken just because one person didn't get their way once. One judge in Iowa has just used judicial review to block an abortion ban the state legislature passed. https://apnews.com/article/iowa-six-weeks-abortion-ban-lawsuit-ad0bb52064d094b91f5efbc135ed4437
Right, I just "don't like their reasoning".
"Abortion in Alabama is illegal. Under section 26-23H-4 of the Code of Alabama in the U.S. state of Alabama, it is unlawful for an abortion to be performed unless it is deemed absolutely necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the pregnant woman. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.[1]
Since 2014, multiple attempts were made to criminalize abortion any time after the detection of embryonic cardiac activity (commonly referred to as a 'fetal heartbeat'),[note 1] which effectively banned any abortion beyond 21 days after fertilization. These attempts to criminalize abortion were unsuccessful largely due to the law's early deadline being perceived as an implicit violation of the right to abortion that was established by Roe v. Wade. When the US Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022, it eliminated the previous legal protections offered at the federal level for abortions. The Human Life Protection Act was enacted as part of an unsuccessful attempt to challenge and overturn Roe. Until June 2022, the HLPA served as a trigger law, set to criminalize all abortion immediately[2] should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, such as in the leaked draft opinion regarding Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.[3] Upon the issuance of a final opinion in that case, the state successfully sought dissolution of an injunction against enforcement of the HLPA, and the law is currently in effect."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Alabama
Alabama (and at least ten other states) is now more backwards than some of the most backwards European countries. Regarding abortion it's more backwards than some countries that Trump would consider backwards. Good job. But I just "don't like their reasoning". Sure.
|
On July 20 2023 01:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 01:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2023 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2023 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2023 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? [quote] It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic.
I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed.
There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get.
Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter.
This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists. For one your talking about the party when you mean the voter. Voters vote for X instead of Y. And secondly, as you should well know, America is a 2 party system. Or rather it is a FPTP system which by its nature will naturally move to a 2 party system. Another party on the left would split the vote and there are enough right wing voters in the US that any significant split on the left means the right wins, basically every time. This isn't a case of "omg the Democratic party is so shit". It's what happens when one preformed coalition splits and the other doesn't. And thirdly your, again, avoiding the entire point of my post. How do we get from A to B, regardless of what specifically B might be. I should have said "support" instead of "vote for" as to avoid this petty critique (though obviously politicians vote too). The notion of "splitting the vote" is splitting Republicans and Democrats on the side voting/working against making things better with socialists on the other. A key thing to recognize is that Republicans did this with the tea party to a degree and it worked. They lost some winnable elections in exchange for pushing the party/country toward their (heinous) politics and are in a coin flip to win in 2024. So while I disagree with your framing generally, even if it were accurate, it's not a sound argument against doing it. Democrats could have done that with Bernie Sanders (a social democrat, not even a socialist) who was polling better than Hillary against Trump (so they might not have even had to lose) and that was too much for them (I'm speaking especially about "progressives" that claimed to be more aligned with Bernie Sanders but argued Hillary was the better option for electability reasons). This notion that a socialist party is bad electorally is contingent on how deplorable Democrats and their voters are. The FPTP stuff is just used as a copout so Democrats and their supporters don't have to reconcile their nefarious politics. No the massive difference is that the Tea Party won their primaries. That's how they forced themselves on to the national stage. + Show Spoiler +
What Bernie did wasn't winning the primary, nor has there been a massive progressive wave, that I know of, winning primaries for the House or Senate seats since.
The tea party isn't a new party, it isn't splitting the vote. Its trying to win primaries and then voting for whoever ends up having an R next to their name.
And this forum was largely in favour of Sanders winning the primary, tho he had some hick ups following his interviews if I remember correct which resolved around how he was actually going to implement any of his policies. Which ironically is exactly where we still are 8 years later, with progressives having lots of idea's but no clue how to actually get anywhere close to making them happen without praying for a miracle.
(and before you say the Democratic establishment through tooth and nail to keep Bernie out, they did, the GOP also fought and is still fighting to get the tea party out. But the difference is that they managed regardless) One significant difference your analysis is missing (and my point) is that their supporters aligned with the Tea Party's (at least ostensible) policy intentions while Democrats and their supporters don't actually align with even tepid social democrat policy, despite the constant crowing that they do. They exploit the system (which they have no plan for changing to prevent) to sluff off the moral condemnation that belongs with their deplorable intransigence. The crazies are a majority of Republicans, the progressives are not a majority of Democrats. Seems to me like progressives wanting to force their opinions onto the rest of Americans when they are a minority of a subset of the American people is rather tyrannical. No matter how righteous you might feel about your convictions... So considering that progressives are a minority of a subset. How do you get anything done? still haven't heard a single thing about how we're getting from A to B. Only about how unfair life is.
Really I'm mostly establishing that FPTP is used to deflect from reconciling that what you're saying is Democrats and their supporters need to be convinced to do things like end slavery in the US or just track how many people police kill and other tepid social democrat policy that treats people living in the US (and beyond) like human beings. Also that you're saying it's tyrannical not to do that through indefinitely debating those enslaved people's humanity and so on with Democrats along with engaging in electoralism.
As for A to B,+ Show Spoiler +Democrats/their supporters don't have a plan or framework so even if socialists didn't (socialists have several pathways/frameworks cooked up over 100+ years in collaboration with millions of people around the globe I implore people to dive into), that'd be a wash.
But me personally I align with revolutionary socialism inspired by folks like Karl Marx, Fred Hampton, Paulo Freire, Frantz Fanon, Kwame Ture, The Combahee River Collective, Angela Davis, Mariame Kaba, just to name a handful. I can't say that I perfectly align with any one of them or any with each other but what they do is operate under a collective framework of scientific socialism. Scientific/Revolutionary socialism, not oppression mitigation electoralism, is how we figure out how to get from A to B.
If you're wondering what kind of prescriptions that entails, it starts with things like collaboratively raising class consciousness/conscientização by bringing contradictions to the forefront and working through them with people that genuinely see something like Democrats failing for over a decade to just do something like require police to report how many people they kill as categorically unacceptable instead of protecting such perpetually and deplorably intransigent people/orgs like the Democrat party while rationalizing it as some variation of "how it works"/"that's life" type handwaving.
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 19 2023 21:29 SEB2610 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 00:01 JimmiC wrote:
The lefts messaging sucks and it is super elitist at this point. This thread is a perfect example (while an extreme example) of what is wrong. They need to go with something simple like, we want our country to be like Denmark and then show everything they have that Americans do not and that they do it with less money than Americans spend. Whenever Denmark is brought up in context of American political discourse (whether by Fox News or Bernie Sanders), I always wonder how well the actual realities of Denmark is known. For instance, here Denmark is held up as an example of what the American left wants to USA to look like; What part? The part where abortion is illegal after 12th week of pregnancy (rarely granted exemption can be granted by board of doctors if medical implications occur) — a harsher cut-off than blue states? The part where there is no minimum wage? The part where Danish border integrity is actually maintained? The part where Denmark is a culturally and ethnically homogeneous high-trust society? The part where Denmark holds the current record for longest on average European pre-trial detentions?
???
|
On July 20 2023 19:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 19:10 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 18:26 BlackJack wrote:On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote:On July 05 2023 21:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2023 19:59 Melliflue wrote:
This works both ways though. If you get your news from a right-wing source then you will see Farage's claims but little to nothing about Coutts financial requirements. Similarly if you use left-wing sources then you may never have seen Farage's initial claims but would have seen an article giving Coutts' side of the story, emphasising the missed financial requirements.
I don't like Farage at all but he claims Coutts have only now decided to enfore this financial requirement despite him violating it for most of the last 10 years. Apparently many people fail to meet the financial requirements for keeping an account with them but do not have their accounts closed.
He also claims that NatWest (Coutts' parent company) only offered him an account after the he went public.
I don't know what has happened. I do not trust Farage, but neither can I trust Coutts. I find it very strange that left-wing people are uncritically accepting the word of a bank exclusively for the wealthy. If a prominent left-wing person was in a similar position I expect the response here would be that Coutts are using the financial requirements as an excuse/a cover for a politically motivated action. If Farage's initial reaction hadn't been a lie then perhaps people would be more willing to believe his later explanations. Well they wouldn't because of his entire history of lies but you get my point I hope. And its always "but if this happened to the left they would do the same" and it is so rarely true. My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".) For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements. I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.) Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story. An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-britains-most-prestigious-bank-cancelled-nigel-farage/ You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with. I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues. I think anyone with common sense should find this extremely unsavory. Whether it should be "allowed" is another question.
Sorry blackjack, crossposting this from the UK thread, but I agree totally that this is extremely unsavory. I just don't think it's more unsavory than a cakeshop refusing to sell boutique cakes for a gay wedding. I know Introvert was cheering the cake shop's rights to choose whom to do business with. I didn't want to assume your position on that, and I didn't want to discuss it in the UK thread, because it's got nothing to do with UK politics, but do you agree with Introvert on this? And if so, why is making a decision to choose whom to do business with based on gender less unsavory than based on political opinion?
|
On July 20 2023 20:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 19:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 20 2023 19:10 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 18:26 BlackJack wrote:On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote:On July 05 2023 21:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2023 19:59 Melliflue wrote:
This works both ways though. If you get your news from a right-wing source then you will see Farage's claims but little to nothing about Coutts financial requirements. Similarly if you use left-wing sources then you may never have seen Farage's initial claims but would have seen an article giving Coutts' side of the story, emphasising the missed financial requirements.
I don't like Farage at all but he claims Coutts have only now decided to enfore this financial requirement despite him violating it for most of the last 10 years. Apparently many people fail to meet the financial requirements for keeping an account with them but do not have their accounts closed.
He also claims that NatWest (Coutts' parent company) only offered him an account after the he went public.
I don't know what has happened. I do not trust Farage, but neither can I trust Coutts. I find it very strange that left-wing people are uncritically accepting the word of a bank exclusively for the wealthy. If a prominent left-wing person was in a similar position I expect the response here would be that Coutts are using the financial requirements as an excuse/a cover for a politically motivated action. If Farage's initial reaction hadn't been a lie then perhaps people would be more willing to believe his later explanations. Well they wouldn't because of his entire history of lies but you get my point I hope. And its always "but if this happened to the left they would do the same" and it is so rarely true. My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".) For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements. I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.) Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story. An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-britains-most-prestigious-bank-cancelled-nigel-farage/ You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with. I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues. I think anyone with common sense should find this extremely unsavory. Whether it should be "allowed" is another question. Sorry blackjack, crossposting this from the UK thread, but I agree totally that this is extremely unsavory. I just don't think it's more unsavory than a cakeshop refusing to sell boutique cakes for a gay wedding. I know Introvert was cheering the cake shop's rights to choose whom to do business with. I didn't want to assume your position on that, and I didn't want to discuss it in the UK thread, because it's got nothing to do with UK politics, but do you agree with Introvert on this? And if so, why is making a decision to choose whom to do business with based on gender less unsavory than based on political opinion?
I always thought the cake shop lost that case but google tells me they won so it’s safe to say I don’t know the story well. I don’t think refusing service to a homosexual couple on religious grounds is any less unsavory than refusing service to someone for their speech.
|
On July 20 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 20:22 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 19:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 20 2023 19:10 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 18:26 BlackJack wrote:On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote:On July 05 2023 21:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2023 19:59 Melliflue wrote:
This works both ways though. If you get your news from a right-wing source then you will see Farage's claims but little to nothing about Coutts financial requirements. Similarly if you use left-wing sources then you may never have seen Farage's initial claims but would have seen an article giving Coutts' side of the story, emphasising the missed financial requirements.
I don't like Farage at all but he claims Coutts have only now decided to enfore this financial requirement despite him violating it for most of the last 10 years. Apparently many people fail to meet the financial requirements for keeping an account with them but do not have their accounts closed.
He also claims that NatWest (Coutts' parent company) only offered him an account after the he went public.
I don't know what has happened. I do not trust Farage, but neither can I trust Coutts. I find it very strange that left-wing people are uncritically accepting the word of a bank exclusively for the wealthy. If a prominent left-wing person was in a similar position I expect the response here would be that Coutts are using the financial requirements as an excuse/a cover for a politically motivated action. If Farage's initial reaction hadn't been a lie then perhaps people would be more willing to believe his later explanations. Well they wouldn't because of his entire history of lies but you get my point I hope. And its always "but if this happened to the left they would do the same" and it is so rarely true. My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".) For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements. I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.) Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story. An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-britains-most-prestigious-bank-cancelled-nigel-farage/ You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with. I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues. I think anyone with common sense should find this extremely unsavory. Whether it should be "allowed" is another question. Sorry blackjack, crossposting this from the UK thread, but I agree totally that this is extremely unsavory. I just don't think it's more unsavory than a cakeshop refusing to sell boutique cakes for a gay wedding. I know Introvert was cheering the cake shop's rights to choose whom to do business with. I didn't want to assume your position on that, and I didn't want to discuss it in the UK thread, because it's got nothing to do with UK politics, but do you agree with Introvert on this? And if so, why is making a decision to choose whom to do business with based on gender less unsavory than based on political opinion? I always thought the cake shop lost that case but google tells me they won so it’s safe to say I don’t know the story well. I don’t think refusing service to a homosexual couple on religious grounds is any less unsavory than refusing service to someone for their speech.
Are you saying that refusing service for the following two cakes is equally justified:
"I don't want to make a wedding cake for you because you're gay and the cake mentions two guys' names on it and has two little groom figurines" (client's sexual orientation)
vs.
"I don't want to make a party cake for you because you're a Nazi celebrating the Holocaust and the cake has a swastika and 'Jews should die' on it" (client's speech)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
