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

[Theleviathan]

Did I miss the declaration that you cant br a capitilist and a progressive?

[numberthirty]

She is not a pure socialist, she is a progressive. She is a champion of consumer rights. She did not vote on the last Military bill, neither did Sanders. To not vote for her against Trump is pure foolishness. If that is your position, you are beyond reason.

Every time there has been a vote on said budget.

What were her votes?

If you have to narrow it down to a single vote, that probably says a lot.

Also, a lot of people are just not down with "Vote Against..." While I know that is hard for some folks who post here to wrap their minds around, it is a thing.

[numberthirty]

Did I miss the declaration that you cant br a capitilist and a progressive?

If you are a pro-capitalist who is taking donations from a folks who work for the big tech companies, you aren't just a "Capitalist".

Is there some really narrow path to doing it? Sure.

Is that what's happening? Come on.

She is "Actual Center..." That's only "Progressive..." to some Americans who don't want to look at reality.

Is she acceptable? Sure. Just gimme a break on "Progressive..."

[numberthirty]

For reference...

- https://www.leftvoice.org/Elizabeth-...-of-War-Budget

Elizabeth Warren Votes for Massive Increase of War Budget

Elizabeth Warren votes for a defense budget that is higher than the one that Donald Trump requested.

[Kirby101]

Every time there has been a vote on said budget.

What were her votes?

If you have to narrow it down to a single vote, that probably says a lot.

Also, a lot of people are just not down with "Vote Against..." While I know that is hard for some folks who post here to wrap their minds around, it is a thing.

What I see is someone who would rather see the country descend into the turmoil that is Trump than accept any comprimise on their perfect candidate. But you aren't a real Democrat anyway. Just someone who would rather see the world burn than see progress.

Either that or you want to do a perfect imitaion of a Russian bot doing what they can to get Trump re-elected.

[numberthirty]

What I see is someone who would rather see the country descend into the turmoil that is Trump than accept any comprimise on their perfect candidate. But you aren't a real Democrat anyway. Just someone who would rather see the world burn than see progress.

Again, what about the facts of her actual votes?

As for me not being a "Real" Democrat...

I'm not even a Democrat, never mind whatever a "Real" Democrat is supposed to look like.

Also, already pointed out that all but two of the Democrats up for the nomination would get my vote. I think about three of them would face plant, but I would vote for them.

At least a few times.

Doesn't mean I'm going to start throwing around "Progressive..." like you are one just because you took a breath today.

[numberthirty]

Also, these "Russian Bots..." folks seem to see everywhere?

Why would they spend so much time detailing why Preacher was a failure as an adaptation?

Never mind the time spent on Hickman potentially rebooting the "Teen Titans..." IP.

[PwrdOn]

Did I miss the declaration that you cant br a capitilist and a progressive?

The fundamental conflict between capitalism and progressivism is that while it is true that market forces can produce incredible innovations and dramatically raise the quality of life for many people, this is ultimately not the end goal of most capitalists. The kind of cutthroat competition that generates most of the gains in a free market system is also seen by most entrepreneurs as a painful burden that they would like to rid themselves of once their companies are big enough to do so. We see this time after time in industry after industry, formerly forward-thinking companies grow to a sufficient size where they can start taking down all their rivals, and settle into a comfortable monopolistic existence. But if you were to use government regulation to force companies to compete and innovate in perpetuity, few people would bother going into business at all, that rent extraction phase is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that all companies look forward to.

The challenge of progressives is to develop an economic model that can deliver steady, sustainable growth, rather than the brief sugar highs followed by calamitous crashes and long periods of stagnation that capitalism tends to produce. An economy that focuses on social welfare and preserving the environment is obviously not going to be able to match the kind of technological innovation that a purely market economy will be able to, but will undoubtedly be better off in the long run because it won't burn through its resources quite so fast and won't have nearly as much social upheaval.

[Tami]

'Devastating.' Latina Professor and University Officials Respond to Students Burning Book About White Privilege

On Wednesday night, students at Georgia Southern University (GSU) ripped and burned copies of a Latina author’s book about a woman of color navigating life at a predominately white university. The burning happened after Jennine Capó Crucet, author of Make Your Home Among Strangers and a professor at the University of Nebraska, spoke at the university about the book and her personal experiences. Make Your Home Among Strangers follows a young Cuban woman who has to balance the needs of her family with being a minority at a predominately white elite university.

Crucet’s book was assigned to incoming freshman at GSU who each go through a “first-year experience” course, and the university had invited her to speak about it at their campus. Several students who spoke with BuzzFeed on the condition of anonymity said attending the discussion was mandatory. GSU did not immediately respond to TIME’s request for clarification.

After reading from the book and sharing some personal anecdotes, Crucet took questions from the audience. She received a contentious question from a student who took issue with her opinions on white privilege.

“I noticed that you made a lot of generalizations about the majority of white people being privileged,” the student asked, according to GSU student newspaper The George-Anne. “What makes you believe that it’s okay to come to a college campus, like this, when we are supposed to be promoting diversity on this campus, which is what we’re taught. I don’t understand what the purpose of this was.”

Crucet described the question as “hostile,” and students began shouting at each other in the auditorium, she said in a public statement. After the Q&A, she said many students came forward to apologized to her. She added that they described relating to the protagonist in her novel, a young Latina attending a predominately white university.

The university decided to relocate Crucet to a different hotel outside of town after a crowd began to form outside her original lodging. Photos and videos of her book being burned also began to appear on social media, including by many who tagged Crucet in tweets. (Some of these messages have since been deleted.)

[Kirby101]

If you are a pro-capitalist who is taking donations from a folks who work for the big tech companies, you aren't just a "Capitalist".

Is there some really narrow path to doing it? Sure.

Is that what's happening? Come on.

She is "Actual Center..." That's only "Progressive..." to some Americans who don't want to look at reality.

Is she acceptable? Sure. Just gimme a break on "Progressive..."

You have a very non-standard definition of progressive then. Or you think that there are no Democratic progressives. You must hate that everyone refers to her and Sanders as the main progressive candidates.

[Tami]

The fundamental conflict between capitalism and progressivism is that while it is true that market forces can produce incredible innovations and dramatically raise the quality of life for many people, this is ultimately not the end goal of most capitalists. The kind of cutthroat competition that generates most of the gains in a free market system is also seen by most entrepreneurs as a painful burden that they would like to rid themselves of once their companies are big enough to do so. We see this time after time in industry after industry, formerly forward-thinking companies grow to a sufficient size where they can start taking down all their rivals, and settle into a comfortable monopolistic existence. But if you were to use government regulation to force companies to compete and innovate in perpetuity, few people would bother going into business at all, that rent extraction phase is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that all companies look forward to.

The challenge of progressives is to develop an economic model that can deliver steady, sustainable growth, rather than the brief sugar highs followed by calamitous crashes and long periods of stagnation that capitalism tends to produce. An economy that focuses on social welfare and preserving the environment is obviously not going to be able to match the kind of technological innovation that a purely market economy will be able to, but will undoubtedly be better off in the long run because it won't burn through its resources quite so fast and won't have nearly as much social upheaval.

Progressive Capitalism Is Not an Oxymoron

Despite the lowest unemployment rates since the late 1960s, the American economy is failing its citizens. Some 90 percent have seen their incomes stagnate or decline in the past 30 years. This is not surprising, given that the United States has the highest level of inequality among the advanced countries and one of the lowest levels of opportunity — with the fortunes of young Americans more dependent on the income and education of their parents than elsewhere.

But things don’t have to be that way. There is an alternative: progressive capitalism. Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron; we can indeed channel the power of the market to serve society.

Live Q&A With Joseph Stiglitz

In this bonus episode, Felix leads a live Q&A with Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on his new book People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent.

[numberthirty]

Progressive Capitalism Is Not an Oxymoron

Despite the lowest unemployment rates since the late 1960s, the American economy is failing its citizens. Some 90 percent have seen their incomes stagnate or decline in the past 30 years. This is not surprising, given that the United States has the highest level of inequality among the advanced countries and one of the lowest levels of opportunity — with the fortunes of young Americans more dependent on the income and education of their parents than elsewhere.

But things don’t have to be that way. There is an alternative: progressive capitalism. Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron; we can indeed channel the power of the market to serve society.

Live Q&A With Joseph Stiglitz

Sounds a lot like "You Can Win A Lot Of Money Playing Three Card Monte..."

[numberthirty]

You have a very non-standard definition of progressive then. Or you think that there are no Democratic progressives. You must hate that everyone refers to her and Sanders as the main progressive candidates.

It's like saying "Best Hitter On The Tee Ball Team..."

It's a stretch to actually try to turn that into "Best Hitter..."

So, yeah. That "standard" definition you seem to be talking about is people lying to themselves to try to do that.

As for "Hate", it's honestly not worth putting that kind of an emotional investment into.

Sanders? The guy is essentially talking about something that is a bit progressive with a component outside of the political alongside it.

Warren? She is "Actual Center..." When a lot of Democrats are "Actual Just Right Of Center...", she represents an improvement. I just don't see any point in lying to myself about what "Progressive..." means to try to justify my support for her. She is "Actual Center..." that's fine. In the current climate, it's one of the best of the realistic options. Doesn't mean I have to ignore that we are still talking about one of the best hitters in a tee ball league.

[PwrdOn]

Progressive Capitalism Is Not an Oxymoron



Live Q&A With Joseph Stiglitz

Many European countries have adopted these kinds of policies, and while they certainly appear to be delivering better living conditions for people there, it also means that European companies are far less efficient and less innovative than their American counterparts. With less value being created, their welfare systems are drawing from an ever shrinking pool which is obviously cannot last for much longer. This is why the initial wave of socialists were so keen on the idea of an international worker's revolution rather than simply embracing country-scale experiments in middle-way, democratic socialist systems. A capitalist nation anywhere is a threat to socialist nations everywhere, because it will inevitably draw away all of the talented people and produce innovations, at least in the short term, that state controlled economies can never match.

[Tendrin]

.... oh boy. ooooh boy.