All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[jetengine]

And you are correct. I'm center-left in my politics. Some older folks I'm close with came from Eastern Europe so I'm naturally suspicious of any authoritarian system such as Soviet-style Communism. I've learned a great deal from these friends about politics and recent history. I'll be blunt, in the behavior of many "Bernie Bros" (for lack of a better term) I see the seeds of authoritarianism (as I did with many Trump supporters in 2015 - 2016) - primarily in their hatred of perceived "enemies" and complete inability to admit the possible faults of their leader and/or idealogy.

Thats just American politics though frankly. When the GOP invoke religious overtones and push the "If you dont obey your not a patriot button" of course people are going to hate them. Their policies are bonkers and destructive.

I mean over here we hate the Tories more then ever, but 10 years of government austerity followed by the rampant on air racism, classism, corruption and sheer ignorance tends to do that.

[PwrdOn]

There's this strange tactic leftists use in debates by normalising what crazy things Sanders does, like supporting left wing dictators, and pretending like the real world is on the same page as their inner circle where Communism is accepted, rather than a death knell for a candidate to publicly endorse. They're going to discover what works in Vermont is a disaster on the national stage. This could be Sanders saying there right words to sooth the Communist side of the left, as well. Wonder how many people he'd lose if they thought he wasn't a deep cover Communist disguised as a DemSoc.

If you want to talk about living in bubbles, remember that the capitalist West only comprises about 10% of the world's population, and that just about everywhere else socialists are still alive and well as a political movement and hard left governments have wielded power for significant periods in the history of nearly all of these countries. Beyond obvious examples like the USSR or China, there was also India under Nehru or the Pink Tide states in Latin America, and obviously it's easy to label them all as failures because they lagged behind their industrialized contemporaries in development. However, in just about every case socialist regimes presided over a significant increase in the standard of living over what had come before, and the fall of these governments led not to freedom and prosperity but a reversion to right wing dictatorships and economic and societal stagnation, like we see in much of Eastern Europe these days. We in the West only ever talk about gulags and purges when we think of the USSR, but it is indisputable that life for the average citizen was far better than it was under the tsars, and has only gotten worse under Putin, who kept all the authoritarian tendencies people hated about the Soviets but none of that focus on communal development that they liked. If we were to take off those nationalistic goggles for a second, an objective view would probably conclude that socialism failed largely because the countries that tried to implement it didn't have much in the way of resources to begin with, and redistributing it was just like spreading too little butter over too much bread, and that if these policies were tried in countries that did have an abundance of wealth to go around, such as in Scandinavia, they've met with resounding success.

[Tendrin]

I mean over here we hate the Tories more then ever, but 10 years of government austerity followed by the rampant on air racism, classism, corruption and sheer ignorance tends to do that.

Not enough of you hate the Tories enough, though. :P

[jetengine]

If you want to talk about living in bubbles, remember that the capitalist West only comprises about 10% of the world's population, and that just about everywhere else socialists are still alive and well as a political movement and hard left governments have wielded power for significant periods in the history of nearly all of these countries. Beyond obvious examples like the USSR or China, there was also India under Nehru or the Pink Tide states in Latin America, and obviously it's easy to label them all as failures because they lagged behind their industrialized contemporaries in development. However, in just about every case socialist regimes presided over a significant increase in the standard of living over what had come before, and the fall of these governments led not to freedom and prosperity but a reversion to right wing dictatorships and economic and societal stagnation, like we see in much of Eastern Europe these days. We in the West only ever talk about gulags and purges when we think of the USSR, but it is indisputable that life for the average citizen was far better than it was under the tsars, and has only gotten worse under Putin, who kept all the authoritarian tendencies people hated about the Soviets but none of that focus on communal development that they liked. If we were to take off those nationalistic goggles for a second, an objective view would probably conclude that socialism failed largely because the countries that tried to implement it didn't have much in the way of resources to begin with, and redistributing it was just like spreading too little butter over too much bread, and that if these policies were tried in countries that did have an abundance of wealth to go around, such as in Scandinavia, they've met with resounding success.

Not helped by the 800 pound red white and blue gorilla in the room going "You GET NOTHING NOTHING " cause sanctioning anyone who immediately goes left irrespective of their threat level doesnt help your society

[jetengine]

Not enough of you hate the Tories enough, though. :P

Cause people are fucking idiots too blinkered by Brexit and love island. The north voted for Boris THE NORTH. He's already started to **** them over, hopefully reinforcing what Thatcher taught them, never trust a tory.

[Steel Inquisitor]

If you want to talk about living in bubbles, remember that the capitalist West only comprises about 10% of the world's population, and that just about everywhere else socialists are still alive and well as a political movement and hard left governments have wielded power for significant periods in the history of nearly all of these countries. Beyond obvious examples like the USSR or China, there was also India under Nehru or the Pink Tide states in Latin America, and obviously it's easy to label them all as failures because they lagged behind their industrialized contemporaries in development. However, in just about every case socialist regimes presided over a significant increase in the standard of living over what had come before, and the fall of these governments led not to freedom and prosperity but a reversion to right wing dictatorships and economic and societal stagnation, like we see in much of Eastern Europe these days. We in the West only ever talk about gulags and purges when we think of the USSR, but it is indisputable that life for the average citizen was far better than it was under the tsars, and has only gotten worse under Putin, who kept all the authoritarian tendencies people hated about the Soviets but none of that focus on communal development that they liked. If we were to take off those nationalistic goggles for a second, an objective view would probably conclude that socialism failed largely because the countries that tried to implement it didn't have much in the way of resources to begin with, and redistributing it was just like spreading too little butter over too much bread, and that if these policies were tried in countries that did have an abundance of wealth to go around, such as in Scandinavia, they've met with resounding success.

This is about Communism, not socialism itself. It's possible to have socialism without replacing it as another brand of fascism, which can be done with Communism, as well. But not with your examples who are full blown dictatorships. Communism hasn't been internationally relevant since the Soviet Union fell, socialism has had its fits and starts in other countries like Latin America but recently what victories it had is crumbling to the right wing (Brazil) and while there are socialist states which are active they are few in number. Of course socialism hasn't died as a concept, socialist parties are global but in the west they have a bad track record of victories.

Many of the countries acknowledged aren't simply "failures" they are dictatorships, from the beginning of the regime change to a Communist economic model. Not that this part of your post matters as its goal post shifting, the discussion is about Communism and its impact on the West.

You're right that there are good things Communism has made for its citizens, that's whitewashed when the atrocities are whitewashed or ignored entirely. Sanders isn't known anywhere near as much for discussing the destruction Communist countries have caused but he sure likes talking about what good they've done. Which would be red meat for any Communist within hearing distance, it says "Hey, Sanders understands me. He's on my side, maybe he's a Communist too, but he's not going to admit that on national tv." It's apologia, and I don't condone apologia for any fascist state, right or left.

Capitalism has its own problems, and blood on its hands. Replacing Communism with Putin was wrong, I'll admit that. This contrarian stance, however, didn't explain why the Communists were really any better. I'm sure I could find good things Putin's Russia's made, as well, but I won't use that as excuse that its a disaster state which should be condemned. Politics should be more about whether something is on the left and on the right, dictatorships are wrong in either political climate.

You can't blame everything on socialism and Communists failures on America and capitalism, it's not like they are helpless puppies. The USSR was a force which realigned many countries to socialism/Communism, whose impact is felt to this day and other countries like China reflect that legacy, too. Countries have their own flaws embedded in their culture and political battle lines, which seep into how its implemented - it's why Communism/socialism sweeping over America won't heal its own built in discrepancies with racism, white supremacy and classism.

Then why aren't you using examples like Scandinavia? That's far less politically sensitive than USSR or Castro's Cuba. This is why Sanders speaking about socialism can backfire, he's going to get more people to take his word in good faith with that than Communist dictatorships. He should know this. It'd make appealing to liberals and progressives who don't like him think he's less problematic about socialism with that angle.

You bring up an intriguing thought with socialism and Communism's stability, it's far less robust than capitalism is and capitalism remains a dominant ideology. Partial socialism systems, like Scandinavia have shown greater endurance in this arena, so why aren't you supporting them rather than dictatorships like the USSR?

Communism isn't = socialism, so when someone speaks about the former they don't necessarily mean the latter. Those ideologies are diverse, so why not cut off the tyrannically elements. All they do is hurt socialism's reputation with the public.

This ins't a socialist world, it's a capitalist one and this goes double for running for office in America.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Elementary School Employee Diagnosed With First Coronavirus Case In Oregon

America’s Broken Social Safety Net Can’t Withstand The Coronavirus

Millions are uninsured, and many more face skyrocketing insurance costs. Others don’t have paid sick days.

Northern California Woman With Coronavirus In Serious Condition

Trump Touts Border Wall In Face Of Coronavirus: ‘Border Security Is Health Security’

Health experts told HuffPost that a wall at the southern U.S. border is “not going to keep [the virus] out.” By the by, let's ignore the part about how the virus came from Asia, NOT South America. This is just more xenophobia from Trump.

Obama ‘Ebola Czar’ Delivers Scathing Assessment Of Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Response

Stock Market Plunge Delivers Worst Week For Wall Street Since 2008

The stock swoon is being driven by fear that the coronavirus outbreak will derail the global economy.

====================

In non-coronavirus news:

Mike Bloomberg Doubles Down On Anti-Muslim Policy Like Too Many Leaders Before Him

Since 9/11, politicians haven’t been held to account for the harmful Islamophobic programs they’ve put in place.

**********

A Mother Was Burned With Acid In Mexico. The U.S. Government Still Sent Her Back.

Lawyers hope a new federal court injunction will prevent her from being returned to Mexico a third time.

**********

Far-Right Politicians Are Using Coronavirus To Push Anti-Immigration Xenophobia

Right-wing party leaders across Europe are calling for closed borders and spreading dangerous misinformation.

**********

Even Among White Evangelicals, Women Are Less Likely To Favor Trump

What men may characterize as strong leadership, women see as bullying and abusive language, experts say.

**********

Hilton Hotel To Host Neo-Confederate Group Conference On Last Day Of Black History Month

A North Carolina branch of the hotel chain will host a Sons of Confederate Veterans gathering, even after a racial justice group expressed concerns.

[PwrdOn]

This is about Communism, not socialism itself. It's possible to have socialism without replacing it as another brand of fascism, which can be done with Communism, as well. But not with your examples who are full blown dictatorships. Communism hasn't been internationally relevant since the Soviet Union fell, socialism has had its fits and starts in other countries like Latin America but recently what victories it had is crumbling to the right wing (Brazil) and while there are socialist states which are active they are few in number. Of course socialism hasn't died as a concept, socialist parties are global but in the west they have a bad track record of victories.

Many of the countries acknowledged aren't simply "failures" they are dictatorships, from the beginning of the regime change to a Communist economic model. Not that this part of your post matters as its goal post shifting, the discussion is about Communism and its impact on the West.

You're right that there are good things Communism has made for its citizens, that's whitewashed when the atrocities are whitewashed or ignored entirely. Sanders isn't known anywhere near as much for discussing the destruction Communist countries have caused but he sure likes talking about what good they've done. Which would be red meat for any Communist within hearing distance, it says "Hey, Sanders understands me. He's on my side, maybe he's a Communist too, but he's not going to admit that on national tv." It's apologia, and I don't condone apologia for any fascist state, right or left.

Capitalism has its own problems, and blood on its hands. Replacing Communism with Putin was wrong, I'll admit that. This contrarian stance, however, didn't explain why the Communists were really any better. I'm sure I could find good things Putin's Russia's made, as well, but I won't use that as excuse that its a disaster state which should be condemned. Politics should be more about whether something is on the left and on the right, dictatorships are wrong in either political climate.

You can't blame everything on socialism and Communists failures on America and capitalism, it's not like they are helpless puppies. The USSR was a force which realigned many countries to socialism/Communism, whose impact is felt to this day and other countries like China reflect that legacy, too. Countries have their own flaws embedded in their culture and political battle lines, which seep into how its implemented - it's why Communism/socialism sweeping over America won't heal its own built in discrepancies with racism, white supremacy and classism.

Then why aren't you using examples like Scandinavia? That's far less politically sensitive than USSR or Castro's Cuba. This is why Sanders speaking about socialism can backfire, he's going to get more people to take his word in good faith with that than Communist dictatorships. He should know this. It'd make appealing to liberals and progressives who don't like him think he's less problematic about socialism with that angle.

You bring up an intriguing thought with socialism and Communism's stability, it's far less robust than capitalism is and capitalism remains a dominant ideology. Partial socialism systems, like Scandinavia have shown greater endurance in this arena, so why aren't you supporting them rather than dictatorships like the USSR?

Communism isn't = socialism, so when someone speaks about the former they don't necessarily mean the latter. Those ideologies are diverse, so why not cut off the tyrannically elements. All they do is hurt socialism's reputation with the public.

This ins't a socialist world, it's a capitalist one and this goes double for running for office in America.

It's a capitalist world because most of the wealth and power is in the hands of capitalists, but no matter how you slice it the overwhelming majority of hearts and minds globally favor greater economic justice over our twisted idea of "freedom." Yes, the right wing is ascendant politically these days, but it is honestly a bizarre reading of events to take the electoral success of fascist cretins like Bolsonaro, Modi, Netanyahu, Duterte, etc. as some condemnation of socialism, especially when the key to defeating these types of leaders is for a more muscular left wing opposition to really take ownership of what we believe in to sell a more hopeful vision of the future to the people, rather than resorting to the kind of milquetoast centrism that the authoritarian right has absolutely feasted on and which each of those leaders steamrolled in recent elections.

Also, fixating on labels is a waste of time. If we're talking about the actual definitions that the proponents of these poiltical theories used, communism refers to "stateless" socialism where society has evolved past the need for a government to enforce communal cooperation and people willingly share and care for each other without needing to be coerced into doing so. In practice, self-identified communists tended to be more in favor of revolutionary change to bring about the workers' paradise whereas socialists preferred working within pre-existing electoral structures, but the predictable resistance of the wealthy to having their property taken away generally meant that communists could never quite move past that coercive stage.

The reason that we always say that Bernie would be considered a moderate by global standards is that he advocates for just about the mildest version of socialism imaginable, given that he's trying to run for president instead of inciting the masses to revolt and especially because nearly all of his policies are focused on the American worker, rather than advocating for an international working class coalition like a true Marxist would. And of course even though the media will focus on a handful of statements he made about Cuba or the Soviet Union, on the campaign trail Bernie is far more likely to reference Denmark or Sweden, never mind that despite the wonderful reputation of these countries, they have plenty of problems with racism and frankly bizarre cultural conservatism that is starting to bubble to the surface in the odd political climate of modern Europe.

[Kieran_Frost]

Technically Pete hasn't won any states. Because they STILL haven't called Iowa, and Bernie won the popular vote and is only down .08th a Delegate. So no, he hasn't won any.

Yes he has... I truly, TRULY hope that was genuine ignorance, and not intentionally spreading fake news. Though considering how politically active you are, I somehow doubt you'd have missed this.

Pete Buttigieg officially wins Iowa, awarded more delegates than Bernie Sanders
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rded-more-del/

Iowa officially gives Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely by Sanders
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...nders-n1132531

I get that you guys despise Sanders, and yeah You do. Just vote when he's in the general. Talk about him now to get it out of the system, but vote when he's the nominee. Unless the paranoid Centrists want to destroy the party, when he has more delegates. Because if that happens, Sanders is a write-in, and screw unity.

I'm not voting for Boot Edge Edge or Bloomberg...

I really don't understand Sanders supporters. Who goes out of their way to be this... ughhh, I don't know the word? Intentionally uncompromising? Openly hostile? Not a team player, in any sense of the word, with other Democrates.

The only logically conclusion I can come to regarding how unlikeable and hateful Sanders supporters are, is they are actually Trump supporters; intentionally making Sanders super unlikeable, so moderates won't vote for him. I cannot think of a Democrate who has inspired this much mass open hostility in my memory.

[PwrdOn]

Yes he has... I truly, TRULY hope that was genuine ignorance, and not intentionally spreading fake news. Though considering how politically active you are, I somehow doubt you'd have missed this.

Pete Buttigieg officially wins Iowa, awarded more delegates than Bernie Sanders
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rded-more-del/



I really don't understand Sanders supporters. Who goes out of their way to be this... ughhh, I don't know the word? Intentionally uncompromising? Openly hostile? Not a team player, in any sense of the word, with other Democrates.

The only logically conclusion I can come to regarding how unlikeable and hateful Sanders supporters are, is they are actually Trump supporters; intentionally making Sanders super unlikeable, so moderates won't vote for him. I cannot think of a Democrate who has inspired this much mass open hostility in my memory.

You call us closet Trump supporters when you're the one citing a right wing propaganda rag that was founded by a goddamned cult leader?

[Kieran_Frost]

You call us closet Trump supporters when you're the one citing a right wing propaganda rag that was founded by a goddamned cult leader?

I'm from the UK, I have literally no idea about who owns American newspapers (I know Fox News is whats his name, Murdoch? Right?). Are you saying the articles are lying? (I also linked NBC, are they equally ring wing propaganda?)

[Kieran_Frost]

Are these all right-wing news stations? I genuinely don't know. Are you saying they are lying? Apologies if so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa officially gives Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely by Sanders
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysi...allenge/25118/
The Iowa caucus has finally, officially confirmed today that Pete Buttigieg is the winner.

Iowa Officially Gives Pete Buttigieg The Largest Delegate Count
https://www.iheart.com/content/2020-...elegate-count/

Iowa officially gives Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely by Sanders
https://twnews.us/us-news/iowa-offic...ely-by-sanders

[PwrdOn]

I'm from the UK, I have literally no idea about who owns American newspapers (I know Fox News is whats his name, Murdoch? Right?). Are you saying the articles are lying? (I also linked NBC, are they equally ring wing propaganda?)

It's a common mistake that people make because the Washington Times picked that name to sound more credible, probably hoping that people would confuse it with the New York Times or the Washington Post which are considered the papers of record over here. But in terms of content they are more on the level of Breitbart or Drudge Report and are not to be trusted.

As for the actual results, it doesn't really matter who "wins" Iowa because it's not a winner take all system anyway, and the delegates are distributed according to some weird system nobody understands. The contest is mostly important as an early barometer to weed out the contenders from the pretenders, and while Sanders and Buttigieg polled about evenly it's misleading to take this as an indication they have equally viable pathways to nomination, because Bernie has a broad and diverse base of support nation wide, whereas Pete appeals to a very narrow segment of the country and only did as well as he did in Iowa because he focused almost all of his campaigning there. And there's a good reason why most voters are wary of supporting him, Buttigieg simply doesn't have much of a track record to run on and even what little there is is still controversial, such as his handling of the local police force. He's not selling much of a coherent policy vision either, so all that he has going for him is this notion that he's some young charismatic figure like JFK or Obama whose sheer magnetism and force of personality can carry him to victory, and I'm sorry, but he just isn't that.

Are these all right-wing news stations? I genuinely don't know. Are you saying they are lying? Apologies if so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa officially gives Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely by Sanders
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysi...allenge/25118/
The Iowa caucus has finally, officially confirmed today that Pete Buttigieg is the winner.

Iowa Officially Gives Pete Buttigieg The Largest Delegate Count
https://www.iheart.com/content/2020-...elegate-count/

Iowa officially gives Buttigieg the largest delegate count, followed closely by Sanders
https://twnews.us/us-news/iowa-offic...ely-by-sanders

Never heard of any of those. Try NYT or WaPo if you want credible sources. The Wall Street Journal also works if you want a mainstream paper with a more conservative bent. You should generally avoid getting your information from any website that originated as a TV station or, God forbid, from social media, because all of those are fundamentally entertainment rather than news, and thus will always lean toward clickbait articles to pump up those engagement metrics rather than providing sound, objective analysis.

[jetengine]

Whilst I get the actual reasons Right Wing leaders want borders closed is Xenophobia...it mat actually be useful in slowing Corona Virus since people just arent following what their told.

Plus its not as bad as the Norks whom just killed the first person who had it in their nation.

[PwrdOn]

Whilst I get the actual reasons Right Wing leaders want borders closed is Xenophobia...it mat actually be useful in slowing Corona Virus since people just arent following what their told.

Plus its not as bad as the Norks whom just killed the first person who had it in their nation.

Just because closing the border in very extreme cases like this one is a prudent policy doesn't mean that the right wing is any less despicable for using this crisis as an opportunity to push their racist anti-immigration agenda. Besides, in order to really contain the spread of the virus you pretty much have to ban all travel in or out, not just selectively target certain ethnicities, which the anti-immigration folks are obviously against because then it might actually inconvenience THEM.