All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Bruce Wayne]

Capitalism is far from perfect, but Communism isn't the answer. It's not like that ideology hasn't had problems with bureaucracy (for example, Chernobyol) or issues helping its less fortunate citizens.

Its not like Communism has figured out how to be fair to all people, quite the opposite.

1) Modern day China isn't Communist. It's a mixed capitalist system modeled more after post-War Japan and South Korea where government leverage over deposit and savings banks are used to further fund the development of private industry and private firms. It's the main reason why China has suddenly taken off in the last 30 years while before that, it was the North Korea of the 50s/60s.

2) The mistreatment of the native inhabitants in Xinjiang has always been an issue and existed before the current PRC (as is the suspicion of other ethnic minorities). The Qing committed genocide there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide). In a nutshell Xinjiang is the Chinese Wild West and Uighurs are the Indians and the Han Chinese are the settlers that want their land.

[CJStriker]

New Data Shows Biden Smashing 80-Year Record In Victory Over Trump!

[InformationGeek]

Looks like Biden has his chief of staff picked out, Ron Klain. Heard a few things people were eh on him, but he has the chops for the job and has good experience in other areas, working with the Obama administration on Eola and the recovery act. I look forward to not thinking about him beyond the basics.

[Tendrin]

Looks like Biden has his chief of staff picked out, Ron Klain. Heard a few things people were eh on him, but he has the chops for the job and has good experience in other areas, working with the Obama administration on Eola and the recovery act. I look forward to not thinking about him beyond the basics.

I have my concerns given his track record but I'll wait for the rest of the cabinet picks to round out before I express any concern. There's a lot of preemptive doomsaying from the usual suspects.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Looks like Biden has his chief of staff picked out, Ron Klain. Heard a few things people were eh on him, but he has the chops for the job and has good experience in other areas, working with the Obama administration on Eola and the recovery act. I look forward to not thinking about him beyond the basics.

AOC, Elizabeth Warren, as well as moderates all like him a lot.

So politically, Biden's got this in one.

[Mister Mets]

And those should be open to all as well...I think the only one saying the other elections shouldn't be holidays as well are the voices in your mind as it hasn't been suggested by anyone here that I've seen. All I've seen are statements that because conservative politicians are against even talking about making Presidential elections Federal holidays that it's a joke to think they'd be for it on other elections...which seems about right.

But all of that sidesteps the larger point in that, who cares if the people pushing for might have ulterior motives if the end result is for the good?

I spent much of the day arguing back and forth on this.

In the morning, I wrote "I am always a bit suspicious about arguments to make Election Day a national holiday, which don't take into account that most elections were decided before November. It seems like an effort to get people involved when the race is between Republicans and Democrats, but not at the primary stage, when the race is more likely to determine the individual who will represent a district or a state."

Anyone could have said that the same policy should be extended to be primaries. But that's not the argument they make.

Tendrin and WBE went after me for being a Republican. Revolutionary_Jack did suggest that primaries should be treated diferently, writying "Obviously at the Primary level, it's the political parties and their base who vote for their candidates and give them party mandate...whereas on Election Day the entire country votes and decides on the ballot."

As for "who cares if the people pushing for might have ulterior motives if the end result is for the good?" there are a few responses.

It does matter if people are claiming to stand up for a principle when it's really about self-interest. The moral high ground has rhetorical power, so we should point out when the motives are less pure. We should be honest in all discussions, even if it doesn't favor our side.

The end result isn't necessarily for the good if we focus on one part of the process, but not the part that really determines the identity of the majority of officeholders. At that point, it seems like a distraction.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I have to wonder if Andrew Yang will get the Secretary of Labor position. He wants it and has sent signals to Vince McMahon he's coming to lay the smack down on his ass soon. I'm sure Vince is NONE TO HAPPY about this election and the thought Yang has already said he plans to push the company on its Independent Contractors deal ahead.

[Tami]

I have my concerns given his track record but I'll wait for the rest of the cabinet picks to round out before I express any concern. There's a lot of preemptive doomsaying from the usual suspects.

Aside from his many years of experience, he and Biden have worked together before, they know each other and they get along with each other and there is little or no chance that Biden would fire him or that he would quite for the reasons many of Trump's picks have quit.

[Tendrin]

I spent much of the day arguing back and forth on this.

In the morning, I wrote "I am always a bit suspicious about arguments to make Election Day a national holiday, which don't take into account that most elections were decided before November. It seems like an effort to get people involved when the race is between Republicans and Democrats, but not at the primary stage, when the race is more likely to determine the individual who will represent a district or a state."

Anyone could have said that the same policy should be extended to be primaries. But that's not the argument they make.

Tendrin and WBE went after me for being a Republican. Revolutionary_Jack did suggest that primaries should be treated diferently, writying "Obviously at the Primary level, it's the political parties and their base who vote for their candidates and give them party mandate...whereas on Election Day the entire country votes and decides on the ballot."

As for "who cares if the people pushing for might have ulterior motives if the end result is for the good?" there are a few responses.

It does matter if people are claiming to stand up for a principle when it's really about self-interest. The moral high ground has rhetorical power, so we should point out when the motives are less pure. We should be honest in all discussions, even if it doesn't favor our side.

The end result isn't necessarily for the good if we focus on one part of the process, but not the part that really determines the identity of the majority of officeholders. At that point, it seems like a distraction.

Yeah, it's almost like the party you spend a lot of time defending has a history of suppressing the vote or something because it's scared more people voting means them being less likely to win. I mean, it's not like we don't have prominent Republicans out there saying 'if we don't do something about mail in voting republicans will never get elected again!' I already told you I'd be fine with having a 'national primary day' too, but we both know, for accuracy's sake, that there an election that has to happen regardless of the outcome of a primary, and that increased turn out in no way garauntees a democratic victory... as we saw just a couple weeks ago.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I have to wonder if Andrew Yang will get the Secretary of Labor position. He wants it and has sent signals to Vince McMahon he's coming to lay the smack down on his ass soon. I'm sure Vince is NONE TO HAPPY about this election and the thought Yang has already said he plans to push the company on its Independent Contractors deal ahead.

Andrew Yang isn't very qualified -- he's a rich businessman and philanthropist not a bureaucrat -- and giving an important government post to a rich dude because he ran a cool attention grabbing campaign is kind of the whole "Anti-Trump" thing innit. Yang doesn't have a sense of day to day, of doing paperwork and so on.

Bernie Sanders has expressed interest and I think he would be excellent but he's a Senator from a state with a GOP governor, meaning should Sanders enter the cabinet, GOP Governor back home could send a Republican or a nominally Independent right-winger to take his place and the Senate is Dems 1 short right now, and will merely be neck-and-neck if the Dems take GA. That also means no Warren, because same deal, Senator from MA which has GOP governor.

I honestly don't know who they should pick but it shouldn't be any corporate shill for sure.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

-- Jim Crow laws were never enforced in the North. (That's actually why some 6-7 million African-American left the South during the Great Migration and came up North bringing with them Blues, Jazz and a whole host of things).
-- Civil Rights Programs were supported by unions (UAW, and even Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters of all people) and by a good chunk of the working people.
-- In no way did Civil Rights ultimately pass because rich people decided to make a gift to African-Americans.

It's both false and demoralizing to suggest and claim that any social advancement and improvement under capitalism is somehow fake, false, and so on. Marx himself never took that view.

A lot of Northern industrialists came against Jim Crow by the 1960s. They were the people MLK and Malcolm X were talking about when critiquing the privileged Northern elites that were against segregation but didn't want to fight racism anywhere else.

It's by no means the only factor for why social advancements happened, but it probably sped up the process a bit. The system also encourages these attitudes in everyday people, to an extent (again, I'm talking about the long run). I mean, as bad as capitalism is, it's better than what we had before. It does put a lot more emphasis on freedom and equality compared to, say, feudalism and monarchy, even if overall it doesn't value it enough.

See, I agree that because a section of the population is racist now doesn't mean they'll always be racist...but at the same time, you do have to acknowledge the reality and allow responsibility and accountability. You can't simply write away the racism that exists and say it's about class.

I don't buy the framing that it's all about class, or that the Trump phenomenon is 50% about class and 50% about race (or whatever other numbers we substitute). I think all the framing around trying to split these things into pieces of pie and how big each slice is is the wrong way to think about it. A better way of looking at it is that economic inequality creates artificial scarcity, which leads to people becoming bitter and angry, which then leads to them being convinced by propaganda that it was the minorities who took their wealth. What I just said acknowledges the existence and prevalence of racism without blaming anyone for systemic problems or drawing attention away from economic issues.

One more note on personal responsibility: I am not denying that Trump supporters are partly responsible for their racism and for endorsing the man. Everyone is partly responsible for their actions because everyone has some agency. The question is what's with the laser-fixation on Trump supporters when they are not the main agents that lead to Trump's rise. The rich, the neoliberals, the Republican Party, and the media* are all far more culpable in the rise of Trump than most of Trump's voters are. Even if we boil it down to just people being racist, the Establishment is still more culpable than your average Trump voter because of years of propaganda and things like the Southern Strategy.

*I'm including the media because they propped him up for years as a TV personality even though he was always a conman, and later gave him free airtime during the 2015-16 election so they could get rich. That and they lied to the American public for years which Trump exploited to his advantage.

To be honest, I am a lot less centrist-apologist than I have come across as, if that makes any sense. I have been pretty angry and upset at the shameless and cowardly way the Dem House Moderates are spinning the story of election. Not that it's surprising I guess. I probably would be less defensive about this if I responded to you now.

I apologize if I came across stand-offish or like I was scolding. Some of your initial wording I admit I found frustrating but that has nothing to do with you specifically. I've seen people get radicalized before, both online and in real life, and it usually had to do with the way the media (and sometimes ordinary lefties) can be dismissive towards their grievances. So I can get pretty invested in this because I've seen it happen directly and it genuinely scares me.

[Tendrin]

Aside from his many years of experience, he and Biden have worked together before, they know each other and they get along with each other and there is little or no chance that Biden would fire him or that he would quite for the reasons many of Trump's picks have quit.

Yeah, this is politics. Personal relationships matter.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Andrew Yang isn't very qualified -- he's a rich businessman and philanthropist not a bureaucrat -- and giving an important government post to a rich dude because he ran a cool attention grabbing campaign is kind of the whole "Anti-Trump" thing innit. Yang doesn't have a sense of day to day, of doing paperwork and so on.

Bernie Sanders has expressed interest and I think he would be excellent but he's a Senator from a state with a GOP governor, meaning should Sanders enter the cabinet, GOP Governor back home could send a Republican or a nominally Independent right-winger to take his place and the Senate is Dems 1 short right now, and will merely be neck-and-neck if the Dems take GA. That also means no Warren, because same deal, Senator from MA which has GOP governor.

I honestly don't know who they should pick but it shouldn't be any corporate shill for sure.

While Trump has failed as a businessman and we see that with his refusal to read reports and more. I don't see that from Yang who seemingly is successful and likely does read reports etc. Now I do think he will get it ? Ehhh don't know. Biden will likely weigh who can do the job and won't fall into Trump's trap of placing moronic people in positions for the hell of it.

[MiddleMan]

I have to wonder if Andrew Yang will get the Secretary of Labor position. He wants it and has sent signals to Vince McMahon he's coming to lay the smack down on his ass soon. I'm sure Vince is NONE TO HAPPY about this election and the thought Yang has already said he plans to push the company on its Independent Contractors deal ahead.

if he isn't the Secretary of Labor, he's going to know who is

and yes, he's going to crawl up Vinces ass with a microscope

[MiddleMan]

Yeah, it's almost like the party you spend a lot of time defending has a history of suppressing the vote or something because it's scared more people voting means them being less likely to win. I mean, it's not like we don't have prominent Republicans out there saying 'if we don't do something about mail in voting republicans will never get elected again!' I already told you I'd be fine with having a 'national primary day' too, but we both know, for accuracy's sake, that there an election that has to happen regardless of the outcome of a primary, and that increased turn out in no way garauntees a democratic victory... as we saw just a couple weeks ago.

if you go back to the Rock The Vote movment in the mid 90s, that was mostly Democrats and Independents funding and supporting that movement

Republicans have never NEVER encouraged more people to vote, just that people vote for them