All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Tami]

[Tami]

[Tami]

Karen Pence tells audience of women 'don't be afraid to get on your knees' for Donald Trump

Karen Pence urged women across America to pray for President Trump and praised his treatment of young women despite reports that the devoutly religious second lady was disgusted by the infamous Access Hollywood tape.

‘Don’t be afraid to get on your knees [and pray for the president],’ Pence told an audience of hundreds who turned out for a ‘Women for Trump’ event in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Wednesday.

[Mister Mets]

Lee J. Carter.

Would you like a 32 year old newly elected state legislator to be the presidential nominee?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Then perhaps you should do away with the labels as attacks. They are subjective and dismissive and do nothing to further the success of anything left of center.

Sustained criticism shifts the overton window.

In 2016, the Democratic nominee said medicare for all would never happen and that championing it was a waste of time. Three years later, and many in the primary have at least pretended to have a similar plan. Five years ago if you asked people if ICE should be abolished, I doubt even 5% would have yes. Last year that number was at 25%, and that number will only rise if people keep on the attack.

After the last presidential election cycle, you have people openly running as socialists and winning.

They will work, as long as they get louder as numbers grow.

Your posts reject the spectrum and ostracize ideologies that aren't as left as you are despite whatever you say here.

I reject liberalism as a form of left-wing politics. I do not reject the spectrum at all.

Socialism, anarchism, communism, democratic socialism are some that make up the left-wing. American libertarianism, conservatism, fascism, neoconservatism are some that up the right-wing.

The spectrum exists for me, some are more right than others, some are closer to the center, and variations of those listed above show up on the spectrum too.

(Or more common uses of left/center/right) You further demonstrate this lack of understanding about the spectrum when you post things suggesting capitalism is inherently bad and socialism isn't, even though both can be used as tools for aggressive conservatism and repression of progressive ideas.

Capitalism is inherently bad. Private ownership of the of the means of production is immoral.

Socialism can be used for bad, but it is not inherently immoral because the workers own the means of production.

When you have the State owning the means of production and betraying the workers, then it's bad but that isn't inherit to socialism, while private ownership is inherit to capitalism.

We are going to disagree on that, but that's where I stand on the issue.

When it comes to the US, I see capitalism as having no right to exist as the land was stolen from the natives. Decolonization means capitalism must go, even if it's good, which it isn't.

It's not your criticism that's problematic, it's the narrowness of it. Your posts represent a significant swath of leftism that is deeply problematic for winning elections.

The real problem is that people have to settle for Obama, the Clintons, and every other Democrat whose main appeal is that they aren't mindbogglingly evil as the Republicans.

What I, and others like me want are politicians that aren't going to supply weapons to other nations that carry out atrocities. politicians that aren't going to bomb the middle east and exploit the third world, that aren't going to support an apartheid state, wage wars, criminalize human movement and every other **** for brains US policy.

Winning elections isn't such a great victory if those elected continue fucking up the world.

[jetengine]

I mean I just settle for good personally. Would it be nice if Corbyn had a stronger media savvy to counteract the **** thrown at him by the corporate press ? Sure. But I'd rather vote for him then the Tories or Libdems

[Rosa Luxemburg]

I mean I just settle for good personally. Would it be nice if Corbyn had a stronger media savvy to counteract the **** thrown at him by the corporate press ? Sure. But I'd rather vote for him then the Tories or Libdems

We are settling though.

I don't think the people that voted for Obama wanted the US to continue bombing people, but that's what they got because the other guy would have been even worse. When one candidate is clearly better than the other, but still bombs the **** out of people, that should be a wake up call that the system doesn't work.

[Kusanagi]

We are settling though.

I don't think the people that voted for Obama wanted the US to continue bombing people, but that's what they got because the other guy would have been even worse. When one candidate is clearly better than the other, but still bombs the **** out of people, that should be a wake up call that the system doesn't work.

Not to be too much of a cynic, but this assumes that the majority of voters left or right care about this in a candidate. I, sadly, don't think they do.

[Tami]

Tulsi Gabbard Wants A New Job. A Primary Challenger Wants Her Current One.

As she makes a long shot bid for president, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is facing a serious threat at home: a primary challenger who has raised more money and received more high-profile endorsements than she has.

Hawaii state Sen. Kaiali’i Kahele (D) launched his primary bid against Gabbard, who has represented the state’s 2nd Congressional District since 2013, in January.

He believed her absence from the district she is representing and her sometimes polarizing stances — Gabbard only belatedly and seemingly reluctantly supported an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, for example, and drew criticism earlier this year after she refused to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — would give him an opening.

“What I really think is important is that we have leaders that are decisive, have some resolve, and are not motivated one way or another to go where the political trade winds blow,” Kahele told HuffPost, alluding to Gabbard.

In the first two quarters of 2019, Kahele raised $399,000 in campaign contributions, more than quadruple Gabbard’s $83,000. Three former Hawaii governors have endorsed him. And there are signs of trouble for Gabbard: A recent Public Policy Polling survey found that a majority of District 2 constituents support her dropping out of the congressional race altogether. In the same poll, she led Kahele 48 to 26 in a head-to-head matchup, but the fact that 27% of voters in the district were undecided shows that he has a clear path to victory in next year’s primary.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Trump’s Plan To Privatize Medicare

Trump supporters don't care. They think its hurting Da Poors and think their leader cares for them only. They will pay the price comically and later realize just how steep it is once they go for Medicare or use it now.

[Tami]

Trump supporters don't care. They think its hurting Da Poors and think their leader cares for them only. They will pay the price comically and later realize just how steep it is once they go for Medicare or use it now.

Nearly everyone pays into Medicare via payroll deductions. How much do you want to bet that Trump's plan would continue to take money out of the working class' pockets while still charging them for medical insurance?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Not to be too much of a cynic, but this assumes that the majority of voters left or right care about this in a candidate. I, sadly, don't think they do.

Actually, you're right.

I recall the last 2012 poll I saw about drone strikes had it at a 62% approval rating. So I guess most of the people that voted Obama didn't disapprove.

But that number dropped to 58% in 2015, so we got to keep pushing against it.

Anyway, my usage is almost up, so you all will be free of my rantings for the rest of the month.

[Theleviathan]

Winning elections isn't such a great victory if those elected continue fucking up the world.

This is a flawed mentality. You can feel we're settling and rail against the "lesser of two evils" thinking, I won't take you up on those because those concerns do have validity. But arching progress towards the good is still significantly better than sharp or bent turns against it. It may not be happening at the pace you approve, but it's still better than regression.

Nothing about voting for that prevents you from continuing to steer the conversation left. Steer it left, do as much as you can, and then for pete's sake be an adult and vote for the less destructive choice. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is inherently bad. Private ownership of the of the means of production is immoral.

Socialism can be used for bad, but it is not inherently immoral because the workers own the means of production.

When you have the State owning the means of production and betraying the workers, then it's bad but that isn't inherit to socialism, while private ownership is inherit to capitalism.

We are going to disagree on that, but that's where I stand on the issue.

Yes I disagree because you are tailoring the definitions to fit your argument. There is nothing antithetical to having workers own production in capitalism either. In fact, we have many companies now where that's the case. More to the point - there is nothing inherent in either economic model that makes it immoral. Morality is a concern that enters when human beings are involved. And because of that, there is simply no system immune to it. Socialism, in every form it has ever taken on our planet, has lead to rampant exploitation and immoral behavior. (I'd argue far worse and with a far higher degree of likelihood of happening, but that's another issue) Same for capitalism. Why? Humans suck. So what is the least sucky version we've found? It appears to be a capitalistic society with significant, progressive government oversight.

I sympathize with you for not wanting to settle. But you can't let that feeling drive demonstrably poor decision making and then try to justify it with warped definitions. At some point, dealing in reality is important and having a strategy to succeed matters.

[PaulBullion]

Sanders is essentially "United States Hard Left..." Which is "Actual Just Left Of Center..." in most places.

He is pretty far left on white male issues.

[PwrdOn]

This is a flawed mentality. You can feel we're settling and rail against the "lesser of two evils" thinking, I won't take you up on those because those concerns do have validity. But arching progress towards the good is still significantly better than sharp or bent turns against it. It may not be happening at the pace you approve, but it's still better than regression.

Nothing about voting for that prevents you from continuing to steer the conversation left. Steer it left, do as much as you can, and then for pete's sake be an adult and vote for the less destructive choice. The two are not mutually exclusive.



Yes I disagree because you are tailoring the definitions to fit your argument. There is nothing antithetical to having workers own production in capitalism either. In fact, we have many companies now where that's the case. More to the point - there is nothing inherent in either economic model that makes it immoral. Morality is a concern that enters when human beings are involved. And because of that, there is simply no system immune to it. Socialism, in every form it has ever taken on our planet, has lead to rampant exploitation and immoral behavior. (I'd argue far worse and with a far higher degree of likelihood of happening, but that's another issue) Same for capitalism. Why? Humans suck. So what is the least sucky version we've found? It appears to be a capitalistic society with significant, progressive government oversight.

I sympathize with you for not wanting to settle. But you can't let that feeling drive demonstrably poor decision making and then try to justify it with warped definitions. At some point, dealing in reality is important and having a strategy to succeed matters.

You have to look past all of these ideological distinctions and think about the practical implications of "progressive capitalism" though. Capitalism succeeds in the ways that it does because market forces push companies to maximize profits by any means possible whether benign, like improving efficiency or innovating, or malignant, like suppressing wages or price gouging. This surplus can then be reinvested in the company, and when taking in the effects of compound interest and economies of scale, this is what enables the kind of explosive growth and dynamism you see in market economies. By contrast, a company primarily owned by workers would naturally seek to distribute most of its income to its workers, and while this is fine on a local level, without that maniacal drive for efficiency these types of companies just wouldn't be able to compete internationally.