|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 03 2018 10:34 Introvert wrote:That was pointing out a double standard, no need to misunderstand the argument. edit: xDaunt's post was actually closer to what you were looking for, lol
Not sure why the thread let you get away with that one, you were clearly saying that; cf. "Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter?" "But everyone is always asking if posters are going to be consistent on this topic, and they forget that so far, the conservatives have been".
The trouble that you're going to have with a both sides approach to this issue is that even if we accept that the dude who shot Scalise last year was influenced by Bernie, which I think we can, that's certainly possible, there's not much that Bernie can change about his discourse to make that less likely. It's not like he's advocating for violence, ever. Meanwhile the rhetoric of the right and especially Trump is often agressive, against a lot of different types of people. A double standard feels justified when considering the difference in discourse there.
|
On July 03 2018 15:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 14:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:22 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lol man.
The reason I questioned you being on the left is your suggestion that people's sole motivation is profit. I never said "Maduro is great" but that's cool too.
Of course rising costs cause some businesses to close. My argument wasn't incredibly dense in text or concept. It's the same one FDR made when he created the minimum wage.
Do your thing though;. Much like this, you didn't have an argument. You interjected yourself into a conversation with a snide comment to make yourself feel superior. The question with some back ground info was about a better way to to fund the working poor then just raising minimum wage. Instead of providing some value, you were a dick, avoided the question, and claimed that businesses that go under should? Right now I don't know if your point of view is that we should continue to raise minimum wage, or if you think there is a better way. Maybe you think minimum wage should be 100 dollars a hour. I have no clue, you don't post you position you just insult me and mine, then dodge any question I ask by claiming your just too superior to answer such foolishness. It is getting old. Your video you posted that was "true" to help us all learn the "truth" is what said that about Maduro. If you don't believe why did you post it? You genuinely aren't able to follow it and I'm not upset about it. Like I said originally, I support a FJG but distrust our elected officials to enact something like that. I confronted the myth that minimum wage drives job losses. There's no real world evidential support for that (beyond some marginal differences). The underlying position being the same one that created the minimum wage that if it does cause them to go out of business they don't deserve to exist. You can disagree if you want. If you believe this to be the case. Why wouldn't we simply raise minimum wage to 100 dollars per hour, would this not solve our problems? And why do you not trust our elected officials, but do trust Chavez/Maduro? Because $100 is far beyond a living wage and would be a stupid idea based on a complete lack of understanding of why we have minimum wage in the first place. Because we assassinate people who genuinely believe what Chavez was advocating (whether you believe he did it or not). Because USA has attempted to assassinate people who believe what Chavez was advocating you trust him to govern and implement policy? I don't understand the logic? The USA has also tried to assassinate Right wing dictators does this make them more trustworthy? (what I'm trying to say is America trying to assassinate someone does not make them more or less trustworthy, you would hope that it would make them less but sadly history shows otherwise in some cases) So if not 100 then how about 25? The issue with minimum wage is that the number doesn't matter. What matters is the take home amount compared to cost of living and the opportunity for people gain those jobs. The reason 100 wouldn't work is not because it far beyond a living wage, it wouldn't be far beyond in a very short period of time. Inflation would take over and it would be the same or worse then before, Cost of living would go way up, and there would be way less jobs. You can't simply adjust one lever and not impact the other levers. This is why people are looking into other ways of getting money to the working poor. No I would trust Chavez more to reallocate resources to poor people than the people who try to assassinate people for trying to do that. Shouldn't be tough to understand. I guess since you're new here you think you're saying something we haven't discussed at length several times before. just fyi I'm familiar with the inflationary aspects of approaching issues like this with stuff like minimum wage or a UBI. I mean we've been discussing the merits and problems of minimum wage here going back years. That's why I find your posts so amusing. But like I said man do your thing. I've told you twice now that I'm a proponent of FJG over both anyway so just let it go. And as for you thinking Im some how right wing in this regard the plan i suggested means taking money away from the government instead of business owners. I would then make up this government shortfall with a small raise to the higher tax brackets and high profit businesses. This last part is mostly gibberish to me, but I guess it looks like you missed me saying the comment about asking if you were on the left wasn't about minimum wage or your plan it was about your suggestion that people's sole motivation for business was profit. Because i never said that. But i do think very few people start or keep businesses to lose money. Almost all have the expectation of making a livable wage and the hope of more. And i think that is fair. Got you, so you understand that I am new and have not been a part of the discussion so instead of catching me up or teaching me you choose to belittle me and talk down to me. Do you think this makes you more a elitist or a bully? As for Chavez, no I understand why you do. I just dont understand why it is such a blind trust. It is one thing to give someone the benefit of the doubt it is another to blindly trust in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Much like when I told you about the people I knew from there you automatically claimed they were the displaced elite (they were not). And then when i pointed out they were part of the thousands leaving every day you called it rightwing propaganda. It is fine to give people the benefit of the doubt if you agree with what you are saying. But it makes sense to check to see if they are living those values not simply professing them. This is what I was responding to: There needs to be an incentive of profit to exist to encourage people to start businesses which in turn give jobs to others. If not why would you? I disagree. I think the many things people do without any hope of profit demonstrates that rather plainly. You assumed an ignorance on my part that was based off of not doing something like searching my username with a keyword to see if it's something I've discussed before. As for your obsession on Chavez, we established you were going to think whatever you wanted about that stuff and I had no interest in explaining to you my position or changing your mind. The statement that you quoted does not mean that people only start businesses for profit. It means it is ONE of the reasons people start a business. With how you nit pick everything I type im not sure how you missed this. Sure people do lots of things without the expectation or hope of profit. I myself had kids. But if you have an example of some businesses started by people with no expectation or hope of any current or future profits, please enlighten me. I wouldn't be shocked if there are one two but I think 99% have that.
Non-profit organizations?
|
On July 03 2018 15:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 14:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 14:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:22 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 13:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 13:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lol man.
The reason I questioned you being on the left is your suggestion that people's sole motivation is profit. I never said "Maduro is great" but that's cool too.
Of course rising costs cause some businesses to close. My argument wasn't incredibly dense in text or concept. It's the same one FDR made when he created the minimum wage.
Do your thing though;. Much like this, you didn't have an argument. You interjected yourself into a conversation with a snide comment to make yourself feel superior. The question with some back ground info was about a better way to to fund the working poor then just raising minimum wage. Instead of providing some value, you were a dick, avoided the question, and claimed that businesses that go under should? Right now I don't know if your point of view is that we should continue to raise minimum wage, or if you think there is a better way. Maybe you think minimum wage should be 100 dollars a hour. I have no clue, you don't post you position you just insult me and mine, then dodge any question I ask by claiming your just too superior to answer such foolishness. It is getting old. Your video you posted that was "true" to help us all learn the "truth" is what said that about Maduro. If you don't believe why did you post it? You genuinely aren't able to follow it and I'm not upset about it. Like I said originally, I support a FJG but distrust our elected officials to enact something like that. I confronted the myth that minimum wage drives job losses. There's no real world evidential support for that (beyond some marginal differences). The underlying position being the same one that created the minimum wage that if it does cause them to go out of business they don't deserve to exist. You can disagree if you want. If you believe this to be the case. Why wouldn't we simply raise minimum wage to 100 dollars per hour, would this not solve our problems? And why do you not trust our elected officials, but do trust Chavez/Maduro? Because $100 is far beyond a living wage and would be a stupid idea based on a complete lack of understanding of why we have minimum wage in the first place. Because we assassinate people who genuinely believe what Chavez was advocating (whether you believe he did it or not). Because USA has attempted to assassinate people who believe what Chavez was advocating you trust him to govern and implement policy? I don't understand the logic? The USA has also tried to assassinate Right wing dictators does this make them more trustworthy? (what I'm trying to say is America trying to assassinate someone does not make them more or less trustworthy, you would hope that it would make them less but sadly history shows otherwise in some cases) So if not 100 then how about 25? The issue with minimum wage is that the number doesn't matter. What matters is the take home amount compared to cost of living and the opportunity for people gain those jobs. The reason 100 wouldn't work is not because it far beyond a living wage, it wouldn't be far beyond in a very short period of time. Inflation would take over and it would be the same or worse then before, Cost of living would go way up, and there would be way less jobs. You can't simply adjust one lever and not impact the other levers. This is why people are looking into other ways of getting money to the working poor. No I would trust Chavez more to reallocate resources to poor people than the people who try to assassinate people for trying to do that. Shouldn't be tough to understand. I guess since you're new here you think you're saying something we haven't discussed at length several times before. just fyi I'm familiar with the inflationary aspects of approaching issues like this with stuff like minimum wage or a UBI. I mean we've been discussing the merits and problems of minimum wage here going back years. That's why I find your posts so amusing. But like I said man do your thing. I've told you twice now that I'm a proponent of FJG over both anyway so just let it go. And as for you thinking Im some how right wing in this regard the plan i suggested means taking money away from the government instead of business owners. I would then make up this government shortfall with a small raise to the higher tax brackets and high profit businesses. This last part is mostly gibberish to me, but I guess it looks like you missed me saying the comment about asking if you were on the left wasn't about minimum wage or your plan it was about your suggestion that people's sole motivation for business was profit. Because i never said that. But i do think very few people start or keep businesses to lose money. Almost all have the expectation of making a livable wage and the hope of more. And i think that is fair. Got you, so you understand that I am new and have not been a part of the discussion so instead of catching me up or teaching me you choose to belittle me and talk down to me. Do you think this makes you more a elitist or a bully? As for Chavez, no I understand why you do. I just dont understand why it is such a blind trust. It is one thing to give someone the benefit of the doubt it is another to blindly trust in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Much like when I told you about the people I knew from there you automatically claimed they were the displaced elite (they were not). And then when i pointed out they were part of the thousands leaving every day you called it rightwing propaganda. It is fine to give people the benefit of the doubt if you agree with what you are saying. But it makes sense to check to see if they are living those values not simply professing them. This is what I was responding to: There needs to be an incentive of profit to exist to encourage people to start businesses which in turn give jobs to others. If not why would you? I disagree. I think the many things people do without any hope of profit demonstrates that rather plainly. You assumed an ignorance on my part that was based off of not doing something like searching my username with a keyword to see if it's something I've discussed before. As for your obsession on Chavez, we established you were going to think whatever you wanted about that stuff and I had no interest in explaining to you my position or changing your mind. Nothing was established anywhere but your own mind. I talked about current situations you argued chavez but showed a video about mainly maduro. I kept acknowledging Chavez and pointing out he was not great either and trying to bring it back to current and you kept bring it back and like you pointed out speaking down to me and laughing at me. You never answered if you preferred bully or elitist. So until you do I shall just use either. You have the obsession with Chavez I was talking about current V when you jumped in and began your bullying. (Take your way back machine to page 381 I respond to post about current V, where you are talking about maduros performance. It takes a large number of posts for me to get to Chavez, who I says rule was not nearly as bad. But I attribute you that more too the price of oil then his leadership since maduro is following his principles, was high up in his government, and his family stil holds all tge important positions. You then accuse me of blaming socialism. I say no just these guys, you post that video showing me how wrong I am about how it actually is in V. It spirals down from there.)The statement that you quoted does not mean that people only start businesses for profit. It means it is ONE of the reasons people start a business. With how you nit pick everything I type im not sure how you missed this. Sure people do lots of things without the expectation or hope of profit. I myself had kids. But if you have an example of some businesses started by people with no expectation or hope of any current or future profits, please enlighten me. I wouldn't be shocked if there are one two but I think 99% have that.
I have friends who run art collectives and music promotion agencies knowing that they will make zero profit. They generally tour around the country and sleep on people's floors wherever they go. They do it for the love of their job and lifestyle attached to it.
The same for full time musicians and artists in general.
|
On July 03 2018 12:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:17 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 03 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 09:31 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 03 2018 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I like a federal jobs guarantee more than a minimum wage, but I don't trust our elected officials not to turn it into conscripted labor.
As for minimum wage it doesn't cause businesses to close, but if it does, good. The business shouldn't exist anyway. Yeah who wants those jobs to exist...... A full time or near-to-it job that does not make enough to pay rent, in a country with next to no safety net, only serves to slightly slow down rot and put a bandaid over a still festering wound. Now you make it to 40 off of dead-end labour rather than 37. Fucking marvelous. If the jobs that weren't enough didn't exist at all and the population of the US wasn't so politically complacent / understood how bullshit the bootstrap rhetoric was, people might actually press their representatives to start making serious change. And maybe not elect people actively sabotaging the minimal safety nets that do exist. Not directed at you specifically, but I live in South Africa and I have a family member who can get proper, full-time psychiatric care without emptying the collective bank. A job that can keep you alive while sharing a 1-room apartment between two people means nothing when you get sick. It means nothing if you want a child. It means nothing if literally anything goes wrong, which it will. The situation is the US is seriously fucked, and having a few more minimum wage jobs where people get to keep an extra 10% of nothing they're paid isn't gonna improve the situation in a meaningful way, if at all. A lot of the restaurant jobs that were lost paid quite well.Here people tip at least 15% an up to 25% of the tab. The server then keeps a large % of those tips. But also "tips" out to the rest of the staff. The servers makes minimum wage the rest of the staff typically maker more. It was not uncommon for a server to make 30-50 dollars a hour. These are hard incomes for people to replace. If most of your earnings are in tips, the tax break on the wage isn't going to help in any appreciable way. If people are adding 15-25% extra to every meal but you can't afford to raise your worker wages slightly, I'm skeptical. And a few servers in prime location making over $30 an hour are hardly the norm for minimum wage work. Overall I don't really feel like this point makes much of a difference to band-aid on a bullet-wound situation with minimum wage work. The servers are not the people who needed minimum wages raised or the tax break, and they are susposed to claim their tips (though many don't) But it was a case of a unintended cause of the raise of minimum wage increase, less jobs some decent paying ones. A lot of university students use serving as way to make good money in limited hours so they can afford their education. as well.
I concede that in the tipping culture of the US, raising minimum wage for servers might cause more issues than it's worth (for that class of job specifically). Although this already wouldn't be an issue under the conditions where servers can be paid below minimum wage.
I do think having what you take home rely on patron generosity is a serious problem, and the tipping culture overall seems like an adaptation to a very toxic attitude towards wage labour in the first place.
And for most wage labour, dropping taxes just won't make a meaningful difference. It also reinforces the precedent that political will to try change things just *cannot* be directed at actually raising the minimum wage. I think raising minimum wage (even if maybe with a caveat for waiting jobs, although I'm not sure of this) is still going to be a much better use of political capital, and be a lot more effective for the average minimum wage worker.
|
It's worth pointing out that (at least last time I checked) there's been two studies done on the effects of a $15 min wage in Seattle - one comes to the conclusion it's good, one comes to the conclusion it's bad, both sets of authors have acknowledged the difficulty in knowing for sure while also being criticised enormously for partisanship, methodology etc. The only interesting argument that exists around the $15 min wage is the moral one, as a result, and I'm sure if the left couched arguments for a $15 min wage in moral terms they'd be more and more successful with it.
|
Would that work in country where half the electorate appears to have abandoned morality? Where a significant amount of people beleive that morality = bible? A country where the morality of a social and health benefit system appears to be hated by half the electorate?
|
On July 03 2018 20:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Would that work in country where half the electorate appears to have abandoned morality? Where a significant amount of people beleive that morality = bible? A country where the morality of a social and health benefit system appears to be hated by half the electorate?
It would if we had capable federal politicians who knew how to legislate; sadly, this currently isn't the case and likely won't be for some time. I'll also add that it's definitely less than half, I'd wager only around 30-40% subscribe to your example of morality in governance. That minority has its influence magnified by how our system is setup, which, of course, leads to the obvious: it's time to change that system lol
|
Well I did deliberately write electorate, as opposed to people, to denote the balance of political power, as opposed to the amount of people, but whatever I am just splitting hairs.
|
On July 03 2018 20:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Would that work in country where half the electorate appears to have abandoned morality? Where a significant amount of people beleive that morality = bible? A country where the morality of a social and health benefit system appears to be hated by half the electorate?
Honestly I don't know - but what's the alternative? A part of me suspects that the only impetus for left wing change will be cataclysmic war, financial crash, environmental disaster etc
EDIT: there's enough evidence out there that shows more equal countries perform better on every single quality of life indicator measurable, both on average and often when you only look at the richer half (as in, often more equality makes the rich better off in terms of e.g mental health as well). It's up to the left to articulate and present a vision of a more equal, better off society and while I've no idea how successful they can be I get the feeling an ideological, moral approach rather than a dry presentation of academic evidence on any issue will be more effective.
|
On July 03 2018 21:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Well I did deliberately write electorate, as opposed to people, to denote the balance of political power, as opposed to the amount of people, but whatever I am just splitting hairs.
Ahh yes, didn't notice that, it's a key difference imo, so you're right to split hairs in that way.
As to kollin's point, the '18 elections will be a proving ground for ideological leftism's chances, but from where I'm at, I think it will succeed. Relatedly, I was delighted to see Ms. Ocasio-Cortez endorse Abdul El-Sayed for Michigan governor and I hope she sets a trend in terms of far reaching solidarity among leftist candidates.
|
In a legal setback for the Trump administration's immigration policies, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled that the government may not arbitrarily detain people seeking asylum.
The ruling comes in a case challenging the administration's policy of detaining people even after they have passed a credible fear interview and await a hearing on their asylum claim.
The lead plaintiff in the case is a teacher from Haiti, Ansly Damus, who has been confined in Ohio for more than a year-and-a-half. He fled his homeland fearing violence and political persecution and asked for asylum in the United States. An immigration judge granted him asylum not just once, but twice. But Damus remains locked up indefinitely as the government appeals those decisions.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, in his 38-page opinion, said that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated its own procedures by not granting Damus release under what's known as humanitarian parole.
"This Opinion does no more than hold the Government accountable to its own policy, which recently has been honored more in the breach than the observance. Having extended the safeguards of the Parole Directive to asylum seekers, ICE must now ensure that such protections are realized," Judge Boasberg wrote.
The judge's decision came in response to a lawsuit filed in March by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.
"The ruling in the Damus case stands for the principle that the government cannot apply a blanket policy of detaining asylum seekers for the purpose of deterring people from coming into the United States to seek asylum," said ACLU deputy legal director Cecillia Wang.
Typically, asylum-seekers must pass a "credible fear" interview to convince authorities that they face a threat of persecution at home. If they pass, they are usually eligible for release pending a hearing, unless they are considered a flight risk or a danger to the public. At least, that is how it worked during the Obama administration.
But according to the ACLU lawsuit, everything changed under the Trump administration. Asylum-seekers in five ICE field offices in Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Newark and Philadelphia are being detained with no hope of being released.
"We had a clear record, as the court noted, showing that in these five ICE field offices there really was a very clear pattern in what previously resulted in release of asylum seekers at a rate of ninety percent based on individualized consideration really dwindled down to near zero," Wang said.
As a result, Judge Boasberg ordered the government to conduct case-by-case reviews of more than a thousand other asylum-seekers who have been denied release by those five ICE field offices.
"To be clear, in finding that injunctive relief is warranted in this case, this Court is simply ordering that Defendants do what they already admit is required– follow the ICE Directive when adjudicating asylum-seekers' detention. The Directive provides a framework of minimum protections for those claiming refugee status, and, as Defendants acknowledge, it is binding on the Government. To mandate that ICE provide these baseline procedures to those entering our country – individuals who have often fled violence and persecution to seek safety on our shores – is no great judicial leap," Judge Boasberg concluded.
A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment on Judge Boasberg's ruling.
Source
In another highlight for how messed up our asylum system is, a judge ordered the release of a man that was granted asylum twice. But ICE refused to release him because the goverment was appealing the decision. And five other field offices have done the same thing since Trump took office, refusing to release thousands of other asylum seekers that were granted asylum. The Judge ruled that the man needs to be released and ICE needs to show merit when detaining someone. That the existence of an appeal or the plans to file one are not sufficient grounds to hold someone. And now they have to review the other cases, but I doubt that will happen. ICE doesn't care about the rule of law.
|
On July 03 2018 21:11 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 20:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Would that work in country where half the electorate appears to have abandoned morality? Where a significant amount of people beleive that morality = bible? A country where the morality of a social and health benefit system appears to be hated by half the electorate? Honestly I don't know - but what's the alternative? A part of me suspects that the only impetus for left wing change will be cataclysmic war, financial crash, environmental disaster etc EDIT: there's enough evidence out there that shows more equal countries perform better on every single quality of life indicator measurable, both on average and often when you only look at the richer half (as in, often more equality makes the rich better off in terms of e.g mental health as well). It's up to the left to articulate and present a vision of a more equal, better off society and while I've no idea how successful they can be I get the feeling an ideological, moral approach rather than a dry presentation of academic evidence on any issue will be more effective.
Depends on what you mean by the left. The American left, which according to some posters here simply mean the Democratic party is actually a party with values that are to the right of the political spectrum. I don't view left and right as useful descriptors in the first place, so I could be wrong, but a more equal society starts off with equality of opportunity, which rather strangely, there doesn't seem to be any American political appetite for, nor does American culture seem to view equality of opportunity to be a preferable state of being in the first place. For instance my American cousins would happily say they are for equality, but in their psyche, they truly do not beleive in it, they do not act like they beleive in the innate dignity of people who they beleive are socialeconomically inferior to them. Of course I am generalising, but a more equal society doesn't appear to be within the general political space of USA currently.
|
On July 03 2018 21:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 21:11 kollin wrote:On July 03 2018 20:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Would that work in country where half the electorate appears to have abandoned morality? Where a significant amount of people beleive that morality = bible? A country where the morality of a social and health benefit system appears to be hated by half the electorate? Honestly I don't know - but what's the alternative? A part of me suspects that the only impetus for left wing change will be cataclysmic war, financial crash, environmental disaster etc EDIT: there's enough evidence out there that shows more equal countries perform better on every single quality of life indicator measurable, both on average and often when you only look at the richer half (as in, often more equality makes the rich better off in terms of e.g mental health as well). It's up to the left to articulate and present a vision of a more equal, better off society and while I've no idea how successful they can be I get the feeling an ideological, moral approach rather than a dry presentation of academic evidence on any issue will be more effective. Depends on what you mean by the left. The American left, which according to some posters here simply mean the Democratic party is actually a party with values that are to the right of the political spectrum. I don't view left and right as useful descriptors in the first place, so I could be wrong, but a more equal society starts off with equality of opportunity, which rather strangely, there doesn't seem to be any American political appetite for, nor does American culture seem to view equality of opportunity to be a preferable state of being in the first place. For instance my American cousins would happily say they are for equality, but in their psyche, they truly do not beleive in it, they do not act like they beleive in the innate dignity of people who they beleive are socialeconomically inferior to them. Of course I am generalising, but a more equal society doesn't appear to be within the general political space of USA currently.
Very true it doesn't appear to be currently, that's why I think some enormous national disaster - even greater than 2008 - will have to be the catalyst for left wing change.
|
Waiting around for a sufficiently disastrous disaster to serve as an impetus for real change is not a luxury that we have. Besides, the disaster is already here.
|
On July 03 2018 22:13 farvacola wrote:
Waiting around for a sufficiently disastrous disaster to serve as an impetus for real change is not a luxury that we have. Besides, the disaster is already here.
That something serious (Trump) is impacting upper-middle class liberal white people is the only thing that give me hope.
Twitter is full of liberals that proudly say they wouldn't be even a fraction as motivated to action if they had Hillary in office while for countless marginalized groups the difference would be minimal. For instance, Black people, while certainly at risk under a trump administration aren't measurably worse off in many ways than we were under the Obama administration.
|
On July 03 2018 22:13 farvacola wrote:
Waiting around for a sufficiently disastrous disaster to serve as an impetus for real change is not a luxury that we have. Besides, the disaster is already here.
I was about to say, the military is building camps to hold 20,000 to 40,000 undesirables for an undisclosed amount of time. And for the misdemeanor crime of crossing the border we are taking away people’s children, sometimes forever. The disaster is ongoing.
|
On July 03 2018 22:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 22:13 farvacola wrote:
Waiting around for a sufficiently disastrous disaster to serve as an impetus for real change is not a luxury that we have. Besides, the disaster is already here. That something serious (Trump) is impacting upper-middle class liberal white people is the only thing that give me hope. Twitter is full of liberals that proudly say they wouldn't be even a fraction as motivated to action if they had Hillary in office while for countless marginalized groups the difference would be minimal. For instance, Black people, while certainly at risk under a trump administration aren't measurably worse off in many ways than we were under the Obama administration.
Tell that to black immigrants, especially Haitians. I'm sure they'd disagree.
|
So Scott Pruitt at EPA has apparently been carefully scrubbing meetings with industry representatives from his public calendar. Wonder if this will be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finally pushing him out? I'm doubtful; he's proved remarkably resistant compared to the other scumlords that got forced out of the cabinet. The whistleblower is testifying before Congress, though, so something might come of it.
|
On July 03 2018 22:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 22:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 22:13 farvacola wrote:
Waiting around for a sufficiently disastrous disaster to serve as an impetus for real change is not a luxury that we have. Besides, the disaster is already here. That something serious (Trump) is impacting upper-middle class liberal white people is the only thing that give me hope. Twitter is full of liberals that proudly say they wouldn't be even a fraction as motivated to action if they had Hillary in office while for countless marginalized groups the difference would be minimal. For instance, Black people, while certainly at risk under a trump administration aren't measurably worse off in many ways than we were under the Obama administration. Tell that to black immigrants, especially Haitians. I'm sure they'd disagree.
You think Haitians were fans of Hillary? I didn't say " any people of African heritage are not worse off at all in any way" though, so I doubt they would.
|
On July 03 2018 22:13 farvacola wrote:
Waiting around for a sufficiently disastrous disaster to serve as an impetus for real change is not a luxury that we have. Besides, the disaster is already here.
I don't think it's a luxury that's at hand, but I do think it might end up being the reality of change. The nature of the Trump disaster is unfortunately one that erodes and damages the institutions by which left wing change can be brought about, so while Trump might be 'good' in the sense he mobilises upper middle class liberals, the damage he is wreaking to American political structures - when compared to, for example, the fairly minimal direct damage an economic collapse would have on political structures - makes any political response to the problems those on the left want to solve harder and harder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
