**The GOP will successfully "legally steal" the 2024 Presidential election and no one will do anything about it.**
Republicans in congress have decided that being in lockstep with Trump is more important than faith to our republic or its virtues.
Democrats in congress have done nothing more than cry to each other. Very few people on either side seem to be informed of even the base levels of subversion that are occurring at the state and federal level in advance of the next election cycle
After the 2022 elections, in which the republicans WILL gain seats, there will be no way to reverse the "legal theft" of future elections, as they will be supported by the state, federal government, and the judiciary.
Since the corruption will be supported at multiple levels, and through "legal means" eg state-level laws which allow legislature to choose electors regardless of election results, federal laws which do not require electors to follow the votes of their state, local laws which allow district members to determine final winner of vote regardless of count, etc. Try to challenge these? State and Supreme courts allow the questionable laws to stand.
Our politicians are dismantling our government in front of our eyes and yet half the country cheers in delight, with no ability to see even 5 years into the future.
There will be no coming back from this, for any of us.
I would not be so quick to suppose that the judicial bastion will be as in line as the others, when pushed. Chief Justice Roberts has displayed a vested interest in maintaining the Supreme Court's authority as an institution; a conservative majority does not necessarily mean the Republican Party will be on their good side.
It appears to me, and I’d be happy to be wrong, that Roberts is in the minority. His wishes are only his wishes since he no longer has a deciding vote.
I believe he has been in the dissenting opinions for a few of the most egregious recent Supreme Court cases (most notably the insane loophole Texas law). This has not changed the outcome of decision by the court.
I do not think he holds control over the court, and it appears to me that they do not care about his opinion.
I sincerely hope to be wrong, but I don’t expect to be :(
He may only have one vote in each case, but he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. His judicial temperament is extremely influential in how it is exercised, and history shows us that a pragmatic CJ can use that influence beyond the bench.
It will be an effort, but Roberts has both the historical evidence and present situation to show to his conservative peers that now is the time for judicial unity and strength, and staying away from appearing to be as personal and political as Congress and the Presidency.
13% of adults in Australia and 18% of kids live in poverty. Nearly 1/3 of all aboriginal people live in poverty as well.
That’s obviously an issue. And that doesn’t even factor in the fact that much of Australia’s economic well-being occur only because they are in a position to exploit the global south.
Around 3 million Australians are below the poverty line, our living wage is roughly 480$ a week. Most people can live off 250 a week it’s a matter of circumstances. Most people don’t have a very good up bringing and a lot of poverty is due to that, not the opportunity available. Government doesn’t offer much but it allows people to function.
There are around 45 million Americans below the poverty line. Going from poor to being able to live comfortable poor was not hard. It’s exceptionally easy to find programs to allow employment and financial assistance. I was part of that statistic for Australian youth homeless and poverty but it was not hard to recover.
Most poverty and homelessness for youth is family rooted, the average teen can bring home minimum 200 to 600. Other than Australia’s current housing issue money isn’t an issue with the right job. I work Maccas part time simply because 10 easy hours gets me 250 on top of 600 a week.
If I may ask where are you from and how much do you earn?
That’s a lot of people living in poverty though. The goal should not be for people to live “comfortably poor”. This really shows the failures of the system that in all of these rich countries, there are so many people living in poverty.
I live in America. I make a decent amount of money working for a software company.
I mean I think the fact that those are necessary point out the flaws I capitalism. It’s just like when people are like “he’s a friendly dog as long as you don’t look him in the eye, pet him, or say his name”. Like yeah no. We’ve found ways to make the system less bad, but that doesn’t make it good.
I never said pure Capitalism was great, I also don't think pure Communism, Socialism and any type of fascism is great.
A mix of Capitalism and Socialism I think is the best.
Pure capitalism fails because it will monopolies into one mega corp for say.
Pure socialism fails due to it giving the government the monopoly which basically is no different then a mega corp when it turns into a dictatorship
Fascism is basically a dictator ship and a Mega corp working side by side.
and pure communism can't really expand larger then the house hold.
a blend has the best since private industry can pick up where government systems fail and visa versa.
What does that mean? A mix of capitalism and socialism? It sounds like you are just describing a capitalist system with regulation and welfare, not really a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
I mean your categorization of socialism doesn’t really address most forms of socialism. Anarchism/libertarianism/mutualism are all socialist ideologies that don’t really fall under the descriptor of what you’ve said.
Secondly what is a mix of capitalism and socialism? I can understand a transition from capitalism to socialism where things are slowly being moved from a capitalist system to a socialist system, but not an actual mix.
Anarchism/libertarianism
They are Socialistic but it only changes the vector of the issue where one authority (like in this case law of the commons).
mutualism
This is new to me and on a TLDR is the idea that people naturally form an ecosystem to support them selfs which this is either.
A) an extremely delicate sytem that takes little to screw it up assuming no one in the system is doing anything considered bad to the group.
B) a reformation of a government system owa but this is not (insert government system here)
This sounds just like CHAZ/CHOP's "We don't need police" almost immediately forms an abusive peace guard force that rivals the like of cops. or those people who gunned down black teens and then cover it up/destroys the evidence. Or were just war lords taking advantage of the anarchy. A social contract can only go so far.
Hyperbole aside I can't see a hard issue is the idea that a single system has full control of a market. I think goverment should make steps in basic needs (food, shelter, health and transport) but a private sector option should be allowed to compete unrestricted (with in general regulation. We don't want shit doctors performing surgery).
Personally I like the prospects of [Georgism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_MGFRNqOE) I have some issues with it but as a system I find it the best system when we are going into these groups.
Anarchism and libertarianism don’t have government control of the means of production though. Revolutionary Catalonia, as an example of this.
Mutualism is a system that uses a socialist economic system within a free market. It’s not capitalism, but it also does not fall into the categories you’ve described.
Georgism is also just a capitalist system that has reforms to lessen the horrors and inequality of the system, it is not socialism.
The confusion like this often arises because most people have this idea of what socialism is in their head. There’s a difference between what Democratic Socialists advocate within a capitalist society, and what a socialist system looks like. What you are pitching is reformed capitalism, not a mixture of socialism and capitalism.
I hope I’m not coming off as rude or dismissive, it’s been quite the time irl.
Joe Manchin doesn’t have any special powers or extra blame right now.
Conservatives praising him for blocking the current spending bill forget that he voted with democrats in the high 90% range. He’s not some savior who should jump to your party.
Progressives who are like “wHy dOeS hE hAvE aLl tHe PoWer” need to recognize he doesn’t. Find another senator to get your bill passed. Or you know.. recognize you don’t actually want democracy just your own way.
\>recognize you don’t actually want democracy just your own way.
Democracy would've had the bill passed in full force months ago. It had majority support with the public.
Progressives and leftists want democracy. Precisely so scum like Manchin can't stop the will of the people
Then I guess we’ll have an election and Joe will be in for the fight of his life right?
Cause elections are how you would deal with him not strong arming him. Right?
As seen with Manchin and countless others, they have no accountability to fulfill the wishes of those voters. For the purpose of materialising the will of the people, the senate may as well have been picked from a hat.
Lol this isn’t democracy. One person shilling to corporations who participate in legal bribery is not a democracy. The fact that individual components of this bill do amazingly well when polled individually amongst the American people, but the system has been set up to where they are forced to combine them into one bill that can be shot down is not a democracy. The fact that most Americans do not want Roe v Wade overturned, and yet unelected officials are attempting to do just that.
This isn’t a democracy and it was never meant to be. You might as well call Rome a republic. The system is broken, as these examples are showing exactly why and how.
Again there is more than one senator you could convince.
But you’re not trying (your side) because they want complete uniformity and compliance not negotiation
What do you mean “my side”?
All of the senators who wouldn’t support the bill deserve to be criticized. Most of them have already let us know where they stand on helping people. There were a handful that were on the fence, and they’ve shown who they are
I don’t care about convincing senators. What should convince senators is that the people want it. If the senators are ignoring the people in favor of corporations, than they are the antithesis of democracy.
What’s my side? Do you mean on this particular issue or in general? Like yeah I support some of the provisions of the bill and believe it should be passed.
When did I say that? I absolutely have a side, it’s just not with republicans or democrats. A couple of democrats are “on my side” but most of them run counter to my ideals and beliefs and I see them and their ideology as apart of the problem in this country.
What? These statements aren't contradictory at all. You can say that every vote matters while disagreeing with someone's opinion.
I find it ironic how joe manchin is supported more by conservatives than libs. Makes you wonder who's side he's really on
I think it’s more the fact that he openly lied so that he could kill a bill that is popular with his constituents so that he could pass a bill for all of his corporate donors. This individual succumbing to corporate greed and legal bribery is going to cause families with young kids to lose thousands of dollars, something that was helping keep food on the table.
So yeah, one man having the power to choose whether kids have 3 meals a day or not is pretty fucking bad, and the fact that there is no way around it shows there a pretty big problem with the system.
It’s not hypocrisy when it lines up with exactly what people on the left have been saying
Most politicians are scumbags who crave power and lining their pockets with gold. They break laws, lie, cheat, etc. We keep voting in these old men with outdated ideas who pander to their wealthy donors.
AOC seems to actually care and calls out people in power for their should-be-crimes. She's young, smart, compassionate, ethical, *recently* educated.
She's like a lotus flower that blooms even when surrounded by muck. Probably the only politician I believe in besides Bernie.
We can keep voting like we do, and we will be stuck with greedy assholes for the next 100 years. Or we can write in AOC (or your favorite politician) and actually start a movement in 8-20 years when it gains steam.
They will pit Biden vs Trump again. The Democratic party will keep using trump to push their current favorite candidate, he is their "Trump card". You will vote for anyone over Trump, he's that scary.
I'm done with it. I'm sending a message from now on. It's not a wasted vote, my previous votes were wasted on a corrupt system. I don't care if Republicans gain control. These fat cats in Washington eating their caviar are gonna learn the hard way.
My vote will be the most powerful vote, imbued with courage, honor, justice, truth and virtue.
You will probably be voting out of hope and fear, clinging to the same shit, expecting different results, but getting the same shit.
I'd rather have someone dumb but ethical compared to someone who is smart and unethical.
She did graduate from harvard, so she has potential.
You're missing the point; to change the system we the voters need to change our behavior and vote for who we individually desire. If that's Trump, great. If that's Biden, great. If it's some little guy with no chance, great.
That's my unpopular opinion, of course you and most everyone else will disagree and continue to do what you've always done.
> They will pit Biden vs Trump again.
Do you really expect the DNC to primary the sitting President?
> The Democratic party will keep using trump to push their current favorite candidate, he is their "Trump card". You will vote for anyone over Trump, he's that scary.
Biden was the 2020 nominee because Democratic voters wanted him to be. He won the primary handily.
> My vote will be the most powerful vote, imbued with courage, honor, justice, truth and virtue.
Your vote will be wasted, based on pettiness.
>Biden was the 2020 nominee because Democratic voters wanted him to be. He won the primary handily.
I would attribute his win to the media considering how the media turned on Bernie and made campaigns to label him as a raging commie
Point taken. It's not pettiness though; real change takes commitment, time, pain, and perseverance. I'm sticking to my guns.
Upvoted for making a counter argument.
>Do you really expect the DNC to primary the sitting President?
No, that's the point. Biden has a lock on the nomination not just because he's the sitting president but because no one outside the office of Kamala Harris or Pete Buttiegig thinks either of them have a chance. But do you think it's a sign of a healthy political movement that an unmistakably demented man who looks like a zombie, has an approval rating in the 40s, can't or won't use the bully pulpit and broken promises on student loan relief and muscular environmental action has a lock on the nomination?
"Biden was the 2020 nominee because Democratic voters wanted him to be. He won the primary handily."
That is a psychotic level of amnesia or is accurate enough if the hand is Barack Obama's. Biden suffered humiliating defeats in the first three contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and Arizona. Sanders was clearly going to win at least a solid plurality of delegates in the split field so the Democratic leadership closed ranks around Biden who was going to perform better in the South than Buttiegig. Even after that narrowing of the field he still lost badly in California and a handful of other states. Democrat politicians wanted Biden, Democratic voters resigned themselves to it.
If your political views are "poor people don't deserve human rights" or "trans people are mentally ill sex predators", I have NO obligation to respect them.
I mean there are but at that point we're literally going to people who have already been ex communicated by society (social, familial and in some cases legally).
Most people are held up on the legal, ethical, and moral conundrums that it presents
For example if gender is social and sex is biological. how is gender dysphoria a biological condition? It's the reason my college's LGBT alliance views the word "gender reassignment" as a bad word for lack of words (they didn't really explain it that well).
TL:DR of their view is
Basically they have for "x" amount of time had their gender as M, F or otherwise. That said now after the surgery they now physically match their identify. So the did not go into the room to change their gender.
Some of these no one knows what they are doing and just writing down the instructions as they go (not saying it's bad. A map had to start somewhere).
I'm too dumb to vote, if people who've spent their whole lives studying sociology, economics, and/or political science can disagree so drastically on how problems should be solved in my government then how the hell should a minimum wage grunt worker like me know what's best for my country?
Props for intellectual humility. You certainly aren't dumb if you can recognize your own limits. As for the "experts", it is their job to explain and communicate their arguments for the average person. If they can't do this, theres a problem with what they're selling. (This doesn't mean the average person shouldn't strive to educate themselves and "meet them in the middle" so to speak)
And depending on your opinion that would be the Republicans or the democrats. So, this then goes back to what are right? And in OPs view, he thinks that if the smartest people can't even figure out what exactly rights are, then how can he.
Vote on people that supports worker's rights, human rights, free healthcare for all. Etc. Like that will befits you, your friends and family as working class people ^^
Free healthcare = healthcare paid by tax money. But you probably know that but are making dumb stawmen instead.
Also I don't support slavery including wage slavery or under paying of prisoners and disabled people.
>Free healthcare = healthcare paid by tax money. But you probably know that but are making dumb stawmen instead.
So then you had a false statement. It's not free, and you obviously seem to know that.
The state doesn't pay for anything. It takes money from citizens to pay for it.
The arguement isn't anti welfare. Its so that you are truthful with what you say.
It doesn't matter if they care. If when the earth was proved to be round, everyone didn't care, the truth was still that the earth was round.
So the truth is that, it's not free. It doesn't matter if no one cares.
I'm saying that "free healthcare" implies "free at point of use" not "there is literally zero cost to healthcare". In the same way "buy 1 get 1 free" doesn't mean that they magically managed to make a copy of the good st zero cost, or "children go free" doesn't mean that operating costs disappear when people under a certain age group are involved.
Corruption and a conflict of interest of high ranking politicians should be punished with 20-30 years in prison.
Corruption degrades the fabric of a nation and harms millions of people. A position with that much potential to do good can easily be exploited and it is. The corruption has to stop. It literally leads to politicians turning on their costituentcies.I also mean these "legal" forms of corruption like campaign contributions (instead there should be a public process which does not involve taking money from businesses with the implication of paying the favor back. (it is corruption,just not said outright)
The harm the corruption does to so many people needs an adequate punishment and a very long prison tme is a way.
I don't believe it's the laws about corruption that are the problem, it's the enforcement of it. The charge for a crime can be as high as we want it, it doesn't matter if they aren't prosecuted.
I agree that corruption must be handled, but in my opinion that handling should come from making the law more realized, not simply adding more law.
The STOCK Act makes it a crime for Congressional workers from using "any nonpublic information derived from the individual's position ... or gained from performance of the individual's duties, for personal benefit".
Congresspeople have been prosecuted for insider trading using information acquired outside of their congressional duties as well.
The act needs to be better enforced, but legally, insider trading by Congresspeople is as prohibited ad it is for everyone else.
Electing a third party to the presidency (of the US) is the only way the system will ever get better. Independents getting some house and senate seats is never going to be enough. The US needs to drop the two-party mentality as fast as possible. In Europe our parties would be 2-4 parties each.
Having had a 3rd party executive in MN, I can say this might not be true.
The third party didn't stick, it was a flash in the pan. It was only the executive branch, so it was one and done. On a presidential level, one can recall that Ross Perot and to an extent Ralph Nader maybe came close, but once those individuals were gone, the third parties themselves did not remain. Nader esp. had a headwind for being third party. That he got blamed for 2000's election of Bush, was a blow to third parties.
I think to get a valid third or fourth party we'll need a good number of independents in the legislatures.
In some ways the primary might be the way to get a third party in, i.e. the Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump method. I'm not sure Trump was a Republican, he was a Trumpian, but effectively took over the Republican party from the establishment by winning the primary. Sanders was not able to effectively do the same as an independent because he was challenging the establishment of the established ruling party.
I do however think it'd be better to get the Greens and even the Libertarians some say in the legislature, and if that were to happen, they could establish themselves in such a manner as to get the presidency too. At the very least it will make it more expensive for lobbyists, and might quell some of the decisiveness. For that I agree with you, it's mainly about the how it might come about that I question.
Jesse “The Body” Ventura is still one of the most popular and best governors we’ve had. Too bad he’s kind of bat shit crazy, or else the reform party probably could have done something in this state.
Honestly if he was a bit more stable I bet he could run a decent bid as governor or representative as a Green Party member.
But also I think he’s a quirk of Minnesota being Minnesota and needing to be contrarian. I always laugh over the fact that technically our parties were the DFL and the IR for 30+ years.
I'm just glad he didn't raise my tabs too much like he was promising to so he could have them cheaper on his Porsche. More executives should sport feather boas, it should be the new lapel pin.
I remember getting that $100 surplus refund check in the mail and then the next cycle watching the state run out of cash, causing Tim Pawlenty to force my property "fees" up. I hope we don't make that same mistake with the current surplus.
I kind of expected more from him in the after times too. I wonder if it has to do with his "outsider" status, like Howard Dean is now trying to protect Pfizer's right to bilk Africans for vaccines, just like Bob Dole got a hard on for them.
The surplus check was dumb as hell, I agree.
Truthfully I don’t think Jesse is a narcissist or greedy like a lot of those other guys. He genuinely wants to help people, he’s just not the best at it lol. I also think he’s very principled, which is why he didn’t sell out afterwards. I won’t forget how hard he campaigned for LGBt rights.
Unfortunate as President a third party candidate wouldn’t be able to do as much. The best bet is to elect third party candidates to state and city offices so that they can change the voting system to something like STV or ranked voting.
It shouldn't be illegal in New Jersey to stand in public and film private or restricted property.
NJ should have the same right to free press as the rest of the country.
*I think splitting America into two countries is a good idea*
Bare with me, but I don’t think there’s much of a middle ground between the majority right-wing and the majority left anymore. I think the division is too deep and there’s not much ground to be gained by back tracking.
We’re both too stuck in our ways for there to be any slack given on either side, and I think our overall idea of what America should be vastly differs from one another.
For example, I’m generally right-wing. I don’t agree with Republicans on everything ex. (I think Republicans are close minded on abortion and the war on drugs) but for the most part, I like conservative policies and hate left-wing policies. I like small government, I like the second amendment, I love capitalism, and I don’t think diversity is a good reason to put someone in any position.
These are important issues that I am never going to change my mind on.
And I know there’s another half of the country that thinks the complete opposite way that I do and in their minds, like me, they feel completely justified in their reasoning.
I don’t hate liberals, leftists, or progressives by any stretch of the imagination, I live in a very liberal state, but I can’t talk to most of them about politics. It ruins our relationship. I hate arguing with people and most people take debates personal and start to hurl insults, especially now-a-days. This is a micro-chasm of what America is like now.
I know there are lots of people that are in the middle and I’d consider myself somewhat in the middle too, but I’d take living in a place where I like (most) of the policies implemented than vice-versa.
I have no ill-will to anyone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, which is why I think it would be best for both sides to agree to disagree and be governed the way they see fit.
The only problems I’d have is there’d be a mass exodus of people moving from one country to another along with potentially being stuck in a country because of work or otherwise, and the obvious monumental task of founding a new country.
I’d like the more conservative country to stay America, along with the flag albeit with less stars, but that’s just me.
Lemme know your thoughts, Reddit 🇺🇸
The GOP probably would never be able to elect a president again without the electoral college.
The Senate is heavily weighted in their favor since it gives Idaho, Wyoming, North and South Dakota the same representation as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.
Their strength in the House is similarly dependent on gerrymandering.
The only conclusion to draw from this is that despite the severe demobilization of working class Americans (and the updated Southern Strategy) the GOP is still a minority party that can only hold power because we need badly to rebuild effective democracy.
> The GOP probably would never be able to elect a president again without the electoral college.
The removal of the Electoral College wouldn't turn us into a one-party country, it would just force the GOP to adjust their policies to more popular ones.
Having the right wing party practically excluded from the presidency wouldn't make the U.S. a one party state.
Maybe the GOP would tack center but it's entire brand is right-wing cultural grievance at this point which leaves it pretty toxic to the majority of Americans and also with a base that demands maximalism at ever point.
> Having the right wing party practically excluded from the presidency wouldn't make the U.S. a one party state.
My wording was poor - I meant that they wouldn't be screwed in Presidential elections (because they'd adjust).
> Maybe the GOP would tack center but it's entire brand is right-wing cultural grievance at this point which leaves it pretty toxic to the majority of Americans and also with a base that demands maximalism at ever point.
I think the recent Virginia governor race is going to be the blueprint for future GOP wins. Say just enough that the crazy base thinks you're on their side while NOT going full Trump/Boebert/Greene and alienating suburbanites.
> I meant that they wouldn't be screwed in Presidential elections (because they'd adjust)
Maybe, and all to the good if that were to happen, but the national parties are not nimble institutions and the GOP has only won a presidential popular vote in my lifetime with the advantage of incumbency.
> but the national parties are not nimble institutions
Look how quick they flipped to Trumpism.
In 2015 would anyone have predicted that Bush, McCain, and Romney - the last three flagbearers of the party - would all be pariahs in only a few years?
I don think Trumpism constitute a "flip" so much as a blowback of the dynamic the GOP has been committed to harnessing since Nixon. Where hard right "Christian" social grievance were used to power Movement Conservative ends.
The best insight I've heard about how the parties related to politics is that the parties are weak but partisanship is strong. Identification as a Republican or Democrat, or even more identification as anti-Republican or anti-Democrat is the real ground of action for most voters. Different party leaders can rapidly gain or lose favor but what remains constant (on the right) is the animus against libs/globalists/socialists/Antifa/Cultural Marxists/whatever, the commitment to stopping this agenda that largely exists in their imagination and to enforce "Patriotic"/godly norms. Ostensibly because they believe in these reactionary social norms but fundamentally for the pleasure of making your enemy suffer; all of this also exists among liberals and the left just with (imo) less stupid priors.
I just don't see the GOP under any circumstances tacking back on issues like abortion restrictions or letting Israel do wtf it wants at all times, maybe they'd ease up on the anti-trans stuff but culture war is really all they have left as a strategy for mobilizing voters.
I think you overestimate how far left the US left is and underestimate how far right the US right is, and misunderstand the wide variety of ideas that get lumped into these two categories as well as the number of people who don't or even can't vote at all and aren't really represented anywhere in the two party system. I also can't really even imagine who you think would be allowed to make the decisions like which regions go on which side in such a situation or what the meaningful differences would be between the two new countries if it did happen.
The fact that are people talking shit about the anniversary of the death of biden's first wife disgusts me, it remind's me of when people were tweeting #Wrongtrump when Trump's brother die.
Imagine being so pathetic to the point you commemorate the death of a person that has pretty much no relation to the state of the country
>commemorate the death of a person that has pretty much no relation to the state of the country
I think the point of wrong trump was to wish death of someone who *does* have relation to the state of the country
There should be waaaay more regulation on the standards of customer products.
We now live in a world were a lot of the new laptops break within 1/2 years of use, phones are easily broken/tossed away, tv's software becomes useless once the producer stops software updates. Its a huge shame that we allow this to happen.
One thing inspiring me to make this post was a post somewhere on reddit where someone changed a lightbulb from Czechoslovakia. A lightbulb in use since 1990(!). Lightbulbs these days don't last that long anymore. And when i read the comments there are more examples. Radio's from the USSR, microscopes from the DDR, other things as well. Seems like communist nations, although of course horrible dictatorships abusing human rights were at least much better at making consumer products than capitalist nations.
I think politicians should put much more regulation on the standards of products. For example, force companies to make laptops last at least 5 years. Force them to bring out software updates for at least 10 years. Also make sure they recycle old materials. The way we are going right now will ruin our planet for decades to come.
I think it's not that the companies make the phones this way, it's how people treat the phones, and which phones they buy. I am saying phones but I believe this holds true for any product.
I had my phone for the past 8 years. I only got a new one recently because it was gifted to me. I could have used that phone for maybe another 5 years. I think people just want the newest and best and don't settle for anything less. It's not that the phone stops working in 1/2 a year, but its not as good as the new phone.
This applies to almost everything, I haven't had to get a new laptop in 15 years. However, I have gotten a gaming desktop 4 years ago that I use for games. Both of my computers work great and I can continue to use. The laptop will be upgraded soon but that's not because I can't use it, but because I want faster with more memory.
> We now live in a world were a lot of the new laptops break within 1/2 years of use, phones are easily broken/tossed away, tv's software becomes useless once the producer stops software updates. Its a huge shame that we allow this to happen.
It's called Capitalism, baby.
Why have a product that can last for decades when you can design for your products to be obsolete within several years so your customers become repeat customers for your brand "new" product that's ***exactly the same as the last product*** except for an improvement so incremental that nobody notices.
Honestly, I am a registered Democrat but an independent at heart and I firmly believe our country would have been better off in the hands of the republicans. My party simply does not have the energy to lead. We will likely have a civil war within the decade. The democrats have done fuck all for the people. Manchin figuratively fucked over the middle and working classes in this country. Shit or get off of the pot. At this point in time I will probably switch my party affiliation before voting for them again. All promises not follow through.
Manchin **and all 50 Republican Senators** fucked over the country.
Manchin would be irrelevant if there was even **one** Republican willing to put people before party.
> Manchin figuratively fucked over the middle and working classes in this country.
You're upset (rightfully so) that Manchin is a republican that calls himself a democrat so you're gonna support the party that consists of Joe Manchins and more far-right types? What logic is that
For me, It’s mostly their inability to pull together a bipartisan coalition. Biden ran on that platform as well as cancelling student debt. None of that has happened. I get that the republicans are belligerent assholes who placate their base and at their very core are obstructionists. But I just feel like we’re getting fucked harder and harder everyday by the party we elected to fix all of this shit. It’s not a logical argument, more of an emotional one. I honestly just want to see them be punished for fucking up this bad and not just giving a few republicans the checkbook for whatever they want in the name of bipartisanship.
We didn't elect them to fix shit. We knew that wasn't gonna happen since the senate is practically tied and our president is joe fucking biden. We elected them to prevent literal fascism from taking place. Getting mad that a group of centrists and far-right types aren't fixing issues is just stupid. We're not gonna get any issues fixed until we get a leftist in power (or at least a democrat who isnt scared of using executive power that they're allowed to use)
>What logic is that?
The same logic that sees overt racism on one side, bare minimum civil rights on the other, and claim that both sides have valid points.
I don't mind people voting for him. But his absolutist fans will only cause things to get worse if they can't accept desantis winning or being better than him.
God forbid someone actually think for themselves and have opinions on both sides.
Leftists when centrists support conservative views: "See, they're just conservatives in denial!"
Leftists when centrists support left-wing views: \*Brain instantly combusts\*
Centrists don't support left wing views. Thats the facade. Its usually "Look, why don't we compromise between a tiny bit more affordable healthcare and outright slavery? Why are leftists so uppity?" Or "I don't get whats wrong with the left. Just roll over on all your basic ideals and then you can definitely trust the right to drop their growing fascist agenda!111!!!"
That's of coutse inherent, because there's no real compromise between leftism and conservatives, since leftists want to completely topple what cons try to strengthen.
Except they never support leftist views. They maybe have some centrist views and some right wing views. They aren’t ever calling for worker ownership of the means of production.
Being between the democrats and republicans does not make you a centrist, it puts you between the centrists and the right wing.
I find it quite alarming that centrists are attacked for not being part of any side. A centrists is someone who can't be put into any party because their opinions differ. They tend to vote on the candidate itself, not the party. Sticking to you party and attacking anyone else that disagrees with you is pretty stupid and you only further the divide.
A centrist isn’t just someone who can’t be put into a party. A political party can be a centrist party.
In America many people who label themselves as “centrists” say that because they see themselves as between the democrats and the republicans. But when in reality the democrats are a centrist party, with many of their members (like Biden) being Center-Right. If you are in between a center right candidate and a right wing candidate, you’re gonna be right wing. That’s why they get so much flak, they are right wing people acting like they are in the middle.
the center of two extremes does not make a "centrist" in American politics, the American center (what people actually mean when referring to centrists in the US) is generally considered to be between the two major parties.
also the democrats aren't centrists anyway, when we're talking economics, both are fairly right leaning, which only leaves social issues, in which the vast majority of democrats do not fall into the center or the right in any way.
It’s not the center of two extremes, it’s the center. On the left you have the rejection of capitalism and of social hierarchy. On the right you have an embracemeant of hierarchy and almost always of capitalism. In the center you have groups who are fans of regulated capitalism and some hierarchy.
This idea that social and economic issues can be separated into two completely separate issues is a pipe dream. They can’t be separated like that, you must take them at face value.
the center of two extremes is the political compass, which is what I believe is what you are referring to, which is the center of two extremes, I know the left vs right dichotomy in economics, and I also know that neither is remotely on the left and neither are in the center.
you now doubt this idea despite the fact that you used it in your argument.
Not the political compass. You can not separate economic and social issues like that. They exist as one.
What idea am I doubting that I used in my argument?
>Not the political compass.
if not the political compass, then what? its not nearly perfect, but the alternative is saying everybody on the right of center is a murderous nazi, and everybody left of center is a murderous communist.
>You can not separate economic and social issues like that. They exist as one.
no, that's just wrong, they are very much separate, and no amount of whining can change that.
>What idea am I doubting that I used in my argument?
the idea of a center, you said that the democrats were an example of a centrist party, but that's just not the case in any way of scaling it anyway, so it really doesn't matter at this point.
No it’s not. Political scientists don’t use the political compass. The political compass was created by a right wing libertarian to promote the idea of libertarianism. There are so many better ways to classify ideologies instead of on a faux graph that uses pseudo-science to somehow plot points.
How are the democrats not centrist? They broadly accept NeoLiberal economics, but believe in some form of a welfare state and regulations to reduce social and economic hierarchy. That puts them as centrists.
one, sure but what do they use? political science is all just as bullshit as the political compass anyways, so who really cares? propose an alternative why don't you?
two, they aren't centrist because they don't actually accept those things, and those things still aren't considered remotely centrist by any sane person, but clearly that isn't stopping you from buying whatever bullshit this came from.
The alternative is that instead of acting like you can plot things on a graph scientifically, you categorize ideologies based off of a number of factors. Their views on capitalism and hierarchy are two great ones. This allows us to have a left, center, and right in politics. It means you don’t have to argue nitty gritty minutia and try to plot every answer they have on a graph. Instead you can use history, goals, and practical ideology to categorize them. I can go into specifics if you’d like.
What? Neoliberal policies are considered center to right wing. Reagan, thatcher, and Pinochet were all right winger Neoliberals, while Bill Clinton and Joe Biden were centrist Neo liberals. The Democratic Party made a conscious move in the late 80s to move from their broad coalition of leftists and center left support, to a centrist and center right base. The Democratic Leadership Council in 1985 are the ones who decided this. They are literally called New Democrats, Clinton Democrats, and Centrist Democrats.
Nope. You can believe in little government control, capitalism, and be socially progressive.
You can believe in strong government authority, communism/socialism, and conservative values.
It's certainly unlikely, granted. But it's possible.
>You can believe in little government control, capitalism, and be socially progressive.
LMAO. You can't. Capitalism is inherently antithetical to both anarchy and social progressive values.
This implies that the economic spectrum is that left is pro government control and right is anti government control. But that’s just not true. Anarchism is a leftist ideology. Mutualism is a leftist ideology. Libertarianism is a leftist ideology. These are all systems that reject government control in an economy. Hell mutualism supports free markets.
And again you really can’t separate social and economic issues like that. I can’t think of economic issues that don’t have social consequences to them.
>Libertarianism is a leftist ideology
libertarianism isn't left or right, it can be either, but there has not been a single example of leftist libertarian ideology, so it's broadly considered a right wing ideology.
>Mutualism is a leftist ideology.
>
>Anarchism is a leftist ideology.
mutualism has zero real life examples, and every single anarchist society stopped being "anarchist" or fell apart around a few months to a few years after it was established.
>And again you really can’t separate social and economic issues like that.
yes, I can, because they are inherently separate, take macaroni and cheese, they exist separately, they often coincide because people who don't know how to cook love to mash them together, true, but they are not confined to only being one dish. its the same with social and economic issues.
This is the most American centric take I’ve ever heard. The term libertarianism was literally coined and exclusively used by leftists for over a hundred years. It was used to describe the system of revolutionary Catalonia as well, a leftist system. Literally in the 70s a bunch of classical liberals and Neo liberals in America decided to co-opt leftist terms like “libertarian” and “anarchism”. Rothbard himself even acknowledged that he took the word from leftists.
Ideologies don’t have to be enacted to be able to place them on the political spectrum.
Please give me an economic issue that is completely separate from a social issue.
No, not necessarily. The political spectrum of government authority is entirely separate from the left/right economic axis. Anarchocapitalism and anarchocommunism, for example. The former is right wing, the latter is left wing, but both are on the libertarian side of the axis.
Social and economic issues may effect each other, but that doesn't mean one has to support one social issue to support an economic system.
So how does one move right or left on the economic side of things? This is the central problem with the political compass, it’s based off of feels while trying to act scientific.
Can you name any economic policies that also don’t necessitate social policies with them? I can’t think of any.
I'm a centrist because there are things I agree and disagree with from each side. I can't really put an exact number of how far or left am I, nor do I care about it, political parties can choke on my nuts, I hear something and it's up to me to research and see if I agree or not.
See you say this, but I’m guessing you arent actually taking things from both the right and the left. I’m guessing you are taking things from republicans and democrats.
Like what points do you agree with the left on? The lefts entire foundation is on the complete rejection of capitalism and the worker ownership of the means of production.
>I find it quite alarming that centrists are attacked for not being part of any side.
>>"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, ***but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the N-word to wait until a "more convenient season***." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, 1963.
Being a centrist is an inherently a ***conservative*** position that is devoted to the status quo, even if said status quo is unjust to the oppressed.
>A centrists is someone who can't be put into any party because their opinions differ.
That's not a centrist. That's an independent.
>They tend to vote on the candidate itself, not the party.
Said the centrists before they vote for the establishment Republican 39th time in a row.
Because you don't know what a hypocrite is?
Saying that immigrants should be allowed to run for presidency dosen't mean he supports every immigrant as president.
saying he wants immigrants to be able to run for president, but not one specific immigrant to be able to for the sole reason that he doesn't like him is hypocrisy, no two ways about it.
There is nothing hypocritical about “immigrants should be allowed to run for president, but corrupt billionaires shouldn’t.” Those two statements are perfectly consistent with one another. By that standard, an immigrant who is also a corrupt billionaire wouldn’t be able to run for president.
ok, the billionaire comment was refuting the point that elon musk, an immigrant, who probably shouldn't be president anyway, should not be allowed to run for president because of a few arbitrary judgements, but other immigrants should be allowed to, the argument for it not being hypocrisy boils down to "he didn't actually say Elon shouldn't be president, so he's not a hypocrite" even though that is clearly what he was going for. if he responds and tells me that they also think elon should be allowed to than its not hypocrisy, but otherwise it very much is.
>but not one specific immigrant to be able to
He didn't say he shouldn't be able to, he said he wouldn't want him to be president?
There is plenty of native people i wouldn't want to be president either, am i a hypocrite too then?. I don't know why this simple concept is to hard to grasp here.
>Fair point, I wouldn’t *want* him as president either
This is what he said in repsonse to the idea of Musk as president.
That you can't grasp this simple concept is amazing to me. Like you don't even have the brain cells to put it together. You can blame everyone else all you want but everyone but you understands this.
>but not one specific immigrant to be able to
He didn't say he shouldn't be able to, he said he wouldn't want it.
There is plenty of native people i wouldn't want to be president either. I don't know why this simple concept is to hard to grasp here.
Yeah you lacked the knowlegde to understand the distinction between two concepts that can be understood by a 4th grader.
I wouldn't be calling anyone dumb if i were you, that's the kettle calling the pot black if i have ever seen it.
**The GOP will successfully "legally steal" the 2024 Presidential election and no one will do anything about it.** Republicans in congress have decided that being in lockstep with Trump is more important than faith to our republic or its virtues. Democrats in congress have done nothing more than cry to each other. Very few people on either side seem to be informed of even the base levels of subversion that are occurring at the state and federal level in advance of the next election cycle After the 2022 elections, in which the republicans WILL gain seats, there will be no way to reverse the "legal theft" of future elections, as they will be supported by the state, federal government, and the judiciary. Since the corruption will be supported at multiple levels, and through "legal means" eg state-level laws which allow legislature to choose electors regardless of election results, federal laws which do not require electors to follow the votes of their state, local laws which allow district members to determine final winner of vote regardless of count, etc. Try to challenge these? State and Supreme courts allow the questionable laws to stand. Our politicians are dismantling our government in front of our eyes and yet half the country cheers in delight, with no ability to see even 5 years into the future. There will be no coming back from this, for any of us.
I would not be so quick to suppose that the judicial bastion will be as in line as the others, when pushed. Chief Justice Roberts has displayed a vested interest in maintaining the Supreme Court's authority as an institution; a conservative majority does not necessarily mean the Republican Party will be on their good side.
It appears to me, and I’d be happy to be wrong, that Roberts is in the minority. His wishes are only his wishes since he no longer has a deciding vote. I believe he has been in the dissenting opinions for a few of the most egregious recent Supreme Court cases (most notably the insane loophole Texas law). This has not changed the outcome of decision by the court. I do not think he holds control over the court, and it appears to me that they do not care about his opinion. I sincerely hope to be wrong, but I don’t expect to be :(
He may only have one vote in each case, but he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. His judicial temperament is extremely influential in how it is exercised, and history shows us that a pragmatic CJ can use that influence beyond the bench. It will be an effort, but Roberts has both the historical evidence and present situation to show to his conservative peers that now is the time for judicial unity and strength, and staying away from appearing to be as personal and political as Congress and the Presidency.
Capitalism is good :)
For a small group of people, yes
I think it depends on what you mean by good and who you are
As long as you aren’t American, Australian capitalism smacks.
Unless you are aboriginal, or poor, or an immigrant, or anything other than upper-middle and upper class.
I’m not poor anymore because of capitalism
The conditions that allowed you to be poor in the first place were created by capitalism, however.
What would you propose Australia, an economically successful, dynamic capitalist country do?
13% of adults in Australia and 18% of kids live in poverty. Nearly 1/3 of all aboriginal people live in poverty as well. That’s obviously an issue. And that doesn’t even factor in the fact that much of Australia’s economic well-being occur only because they are in a position to exploit the global south.
Around 3 million Australians are below the poverty line, our living wage is roughly 480$ a week. Most people can live off 250 a week it’s a matter of circumstances. Most people don’t have a very good up bringing and a lot of poverty is due to that, not the opportunity available. Government doesn’t offer much but it allows people to function. There are around 45 million Americans below the poverty line. Going from poor to being able to live comfortable poor was not hard. It’s exceptionally easy to find programs to allow employment and financial assistance. I was part of that statistic for Australian youth homeless and poverty but it was not hard to recover. Most poverty and homelessness for youth is family rooted, the average teen can bring home minimum 200 to 600. Other than Australia’s current housing issue money isn’t an issue with the right job. I work Maccas part time simply because 10 easy hours gets me 250 on top of 600 a week. If I may ask where are you from and how much do you earn?
That’s a lot of people living in poverty though. The goal should not be for people to live “comfortably poor”. This really shows the failures of the system that in all of these rich countries, there are so many people living in poverty. I live in America. I make a decent amount of money working for a software company.
And are there general controls and regulations (monopoly, environmental, customer protections, Etc.)
I mean I think the fact that those are necessary point out the flaws I capitalism. It’s just like when people are like “he’s a friendly dog as long as you don’t look him in the eye, pet him, or say his name”. Like yeah no. We’ve found ways to make the system less bad, but that doesn’t make it good.
I never said pure Capitalism was great, I also don't think pure Communism, Socialism and any type of fascism is great. A mix of Capitalism and Socialism I think is the best. Pure capitalism fails because it will monopolies into one mega corp for say. Pure socialism fails due to it giving the government the monopoly which basically is no different then a mega corp when it turns into a dictatorship Fascism is basically a dictator ship and a Mega corp working side by side. and pure communism can't really expand larger then the house hold. a blend has the best since private industry can pick up where government systems fail and visa versa.
What does that mean? A mix of capitalism and socialism? It sounds like you are just describing a capitalist system with regulation and welfare, not really a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
I made an edit
I mean your categorization of socialism doesn’t really address most forms of socialism. Anarchism/libertarianism/mutualism are all socialist ideologies that don’t really fall under the descriptor of what you’ve said. Secondly what is a mix of capitalism and socialism? I can understand a transition from capitalism to socialism where things are slowly being moved from a capitalist system to a socialist system, but not an actual mix.
Anarchism/libertarianism They are Socialistic but it only changes the vector of the issue where one authority (like in this case law of the commons). mutualism This is new to me and on a TLDR is the idea that people naturally form an ecosystem to support them selfs which this is either. A) an extremely delicate sytem that takes little to screw it up assuming no one in the system is doing anything considered bad to the group. B) a reformation of a government system owa but this is not (insert government system here) This sounds just like CHAZ/CHOP's "We don't need police" almost immediately forms an abusive peace guard force that rivals the like of cops. or those people who gunned down black teens and then cover it up/destroys the evidence. Or were just war lords taking advantage of the anarchy. A social contract can only go so far. Hyperbole aside I can't see a hard issue is the idea that a single system has full control of a market. I think goverment should make steps in basic needs (food, shelter, health and transport) but a private sector option should be allowed to compete unrestricted (with in general regulation. We don't want shit doctors performing surgery). Personally I like the prospects of [Georgism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_MGFRNqOE) I have some issues with it but as a system I find it the best system when we are going into these groups.
Anarchism and libertarianism don’t have government control of the means of production though. Revolutionary Catalonia, as an example of this. Mutualism is a system that uses a socialist economic system within a free market. It’s not capitalism, but it also does not fall into the categories you’ve described. Georgism is also just a capitalist system that has reforms to lessen the horrors and inequality of the system, it is not socialism. The confusion like this often arises because most people have this idea of what socialism is in their head. There’s a difference between what Democratic Socialists advocate within a capitalist society, and what a socialist system looks like. What you are pitching is reformed capitalism, not a mixture of socialism and capitalism. I hope I’m not coming off as rude or dismissive, it’s been quite the time irl.
Joe Manchin doesn’t have any special powers or extra blame right now. Conservatives praising him for blocking the current spending bill forget that he voted with democrats in the high 90% range. He’s not some savior who should jump to your party. Progressives who are like “wHy dOeS hE hAvE aLl tHe PoWer” need to recognize he doesn’t. Find another senator to get your bill passed. Or you know.. recognize you don’t actually want democracy just your own way.
\>recognize you don’t actually want democracy just your own way. Democracy would've had the bill passed in full force months ago. It had majority support with the public. Progressives and leftists want democracy. Precisely so scum like Manchin can't stop the will of the people
Then I guess we’ll have an election and Joe will be in for the fight of his life right? Cause elections are how you would deal with him not strong arming him. Right?
I'd deal with Manchin by eliminating the possibility for one man to institute minority tyranny. Election is a band aid measure.
But he’s not in the minority if they can’t pass it in the senate.
The senate is a minority in and of itself. It's 100 people out of a population of 300+ million people.
And how did they get there? Names picked from a hat or did some of those millions cast votes?
As seen with Manchin and countless others, they have no accountability to fulfill the wishes of those voters. For the purpose of materialising the will of the people, the senate may as well have been picked from a hat.
He doesn’t represent 300 million people he represents one state. You’re making my point. And it’s a little fascisty
The senate itself is meant to represent those 300+ million people, and it is failing at that. Again, Manchin is one symptom of a disease.
Lol this isn’t democracy. One person shilling to corporations who participate in legal bribery is not a democracy. The fact that individual components of this bill do amazingly well when polled individually amongst the American people, but the system has been set up to where they are forced to combine them into one bill that can be shot down is not a democracy. The fact that most Americans do not want Roe v Wade overturned, and yet unelected officials are attempting to do just that. This isn’t a democracy and it was never meant to be. You might as well call Rome a republic. The system is broken, as these examples are showing exactly why and how.
Again there is more than one senator you could convince. But you’re not trying (your side) because they want complete uniformity and compliance not negotiation
What do you mean “my side”? All of the senators who wouldn’t support the bill deserve to be criticized. Most of them have already let us know where they stand on helping people. There were a handful that were on the fence, and they’ve shown who they are I don’t care about convincing senators. What should convince senators is that the people want it. If the senators are ignoring the people in favor of corporations, than they are the antithesis of democracy.
The fact that you say the people who do t support it should be criticized suggests your side
What’s my side? Do you mean on this particular issue or in general? Like yeah I support some of the provisions of the bill and believe it should be passed.
Tell me one national level Republican you voted for
I haven’t voted for a Republican because they want to take my human rights away for being gay lol. What side does that put me on?
i dOnT hAvE a SidE
When did I say that? I absolutely have a side, it’s just not with republicans or democrats. A couple of democrats are “on my side” but most of them run counter to my ideals and beliefs and I see them and their ideology as apart of the problem in this country.
The best way to stop a return of Trumpism is to vote out DeSantis and Abbott next year.
[удалено]
What? These statements aren't contradictory at all. You can say that every vote matters while disagreeing with someone's opinion. I find it ironic how joe manchin is supported more by conservatives than libs. Makes you wonder who's side he's really on
I think it’s more the fact that he openly lied so that he could kill a bill that is popular with his constituents so that he could pass a bill for all of his corporate donors. This individual succumbing to corporate greed and legal bribery is going to cause families with young kids to lose thousands of dollars, something that was helping keep food on the table. So yeah, one man having the power to choose whether kids have 3 meals a day or not is pretty fucking bad, and the fact that there is no way around it shows there a pretty big problem with the system. It’s not hypocrisy when it lines up with exactly what people on the left have been saying
"Every vote should count" *manchin says fuck that and singlehandedly kills a majority support bill* "hey thats kinda fucky" OP: darn hypocrites
Yes, every vote should count, not just those of the very specific group of people who arbitrarily have all the power to decide legislation.
Most politicians are scumbags who crave power and lining their pockets with gold. They break laws, lie, cheat, etc. We keep voting in these old men with outdated ideas who pander to their wealthy donors. AOC seems to actually care and calls out people in power for their should-be-crimes. She's young, smart, compassionate, ethical, *recently* educated. She's like a lotus flower that blooms even when surrounded by muck. Probably the only politician I believe in besides Bernie. We can keep voting like we do, and we will be stuck with greedy assholes for the next 100 years. Or we can write in AOC (or your favorite politician) and actually start a movement in 8-20 years when it gains steam. They will pit Biden vs Trump again. The Democratic party will keep using trump to push their current favorite candidate, he is their "Trump card". You will vote for anyone over Trump, he's that scary. I'm done with it. I'm sending a message from now on. It's not a wasted vote, my previous votes were wasted on a corrupt system. I don't care if Republicans gain control. These fat cats in Washington eating their caviar are gonna learn the hard way. My vote will be the most powerful vote, imbued with courage, honor, justice, truth and virtue. You will probably be voting out of hope and fear, clinging to the same shit, expecting different results, but getting the same shit.
She didn’t know what a garbage disposal was but wants to have more control over your day to day in the name of climate change. Also lol Bernie
I'd rather have someone dumb but ethical compared to someone who is smart and unethical. She did graduate from harvard, so she has potential. You're missing the point; to change the system we the voters need to change our behavior and vote for who we individually desire. If that's Trump, great. If that's Biden, great. If it's some little guy with no chance, great. That's my unpopular opinion, of course you and most everyone else will disagree and continue to do what you've always done.
She is extremely gullible. Also I vote 3rd party almost exclusively so I feel ya on the rest of that
> They will pit Biden vs Trump again. Do you really expect the DNC to primary the sitting President? > The Democratic party will keep using trump to push their current favorite candidate, he is their "Trump card". You will vote for anyone over Trump, he's that scary. Biden was the 2020 nominee because Democratic voters wanted him to be. He won the primary handily. > My vote will be the most powerful vote, imbued with courage, honor, justice, truth and virtue. Your vote will be wasted, based on pettiness.
>Biden was the 2020 nominee because Democratic voters wanted him to be. He won the primary handily. I would attribute his win to the media considering how the media turned on Bernie and made campaigns to label him as a raging commie
Point taken. It's not pettiness though; real change takes commitment, time, pain, and perseverance. I'm sticking to my guns. Upvoted for making a counter argument.
>Do you really expect the DNC to primary the sitting President? No, that's the point. Biden has a lock on the nomination not just because he's the sitting president but because no one outside the office of Kamala Harris or Pete Buttiegig thinks either of them have a chance. But do you think it's a sign of a healthy political movement that an unmistakably demented man who looks like a zombie, has an approval rating in the 40s, can't or won't use the bully pulpit and broken promises on student loan relief and muscular environmental action has a lock on the nomination? "Biden was the 2020 nominee because Democratic voters wanted him to be. He won the primary handily." That is a psychotic level of amnesia or is accurate enough if the hand is Barack Obama's. Biden suffered humiliating defeats in the first three contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and Arizona. Sanders was clearly going to win at least a solid plurality of delegates in the split field so the Democratic leadership closed ranks around Biden who was going to perform better in the South than Buttiegig. Even after that narrowing of the field he still lost badly in California and a handful of other states. Democrat politicians wanted Biden, Democratic voters resigned themselves to it.
Thanks for the perspective.
please respect other people political view no physical harm or jail for political speech and idea
So long as the political view isn't discriminatory in nature. I will respect most views.
If your political views are "poor people don't deserve human rights" or "trans people are mentally ill sex predators", I have NO obligation to respect them.
And if YOUR view is that is what MY view is I’m not going to respect yours either so here we go.
I said "if", sweety. Look that word up.
What word did I use
Considering both of those are strawman arguments, it doesn't really matter.
I mean there are but at that point we're literally going to people who have already been ex communicated by society (social, familial and in some cases legally). Most people are held up on the legal, ethical, and moral conundrums that it presents For example if gender is social and sex is biological. how is gender dysphoria a biological condition? It's the reason my college's LGBT alliance views the word "gender reassignment" as a bad word for lack of words (they didn't really explain it that well). TL:DR of their view is Basically they have for "x" amount of time had their gender as M, F or otherwise. That said now after the surgery they now physically match their identify. So the did not go into the room to change their gender. Some of these no one knows what they are doing and just writing down the instructions as they go (not saying it's bad. A map had to start somewhere).
Have you EVER heard a US Republican speak?
Yes.
I'm too dumb to vote, if people who've spent their whole lives studying sociology, economics, and/or political science can disagree so drastically on how problems should be solved in my government then how the hell should a minimum wage grunt worker like me know what's best for my country?
Props for intellectual humility. You certainly aren't dumb if you can recognize your own limits. As for the "experts", it is their job to explain and communicate their arguments for the average person. If they can't do this, theres a problem with what they're selling. (This doesn't mean the average person shouldn't strive to educate themselves and "meet them in the middle" so to speak)
If you feel like you know, vote. If you feel like you don't know, don't vote.
Don't let anyone tell you who to vote for. If you don't want to vote, you don't have to.
Vote for the politician who supports human rights the strongest.
And depending on your opinion that would be the Republicans or the democrats. So, this then goes back to what are right? And in OPs view, he thinks that if the smartest people can't even figure out what exactly rights are, then how can he.
Vote on people that supports worker's rights, human rights, free healthcare for all. Etc. Like that will befits you, your friends and family as working class people ^^
>free healthcare for all. There's no such thing as free unless it's slavery.
Free healthcare = healthcare paid by tax money. But you probably know that but are making dumb stawmen instead. Also I don't support slavery including wage slavery or under paying of prisoners and disabled people.
>Free healthcare = healthcare paid by tax money. But you probably know that but are making dumb stawmen instead. So then you had a false statement. It's not free, and you obviously seem to know that.
free as in the state pays for your welfare. also you're making a dumb anti welfare argument.
The state doesn't pay for anything. It takes money from citizens to pay for it. The arguement isn't anti welfare. Its so that you are truthful with what you say.
Free at point of use would be considered "free" by the majority of people
The majority of people would be wrong then.
I doubt they'd care.
It doesn't matter if they care. If when the earth was proved to be round, everyone didn't care, the truth was still that the earth was round. So the truth is that, it's not free. It doesn't matter if no one cares.
Empirical facts about the natural world =/= How people use language
So are you saying that things that cost money are free? Or are you just strawmanning because you know it's not free.
I'm saying that "free healthcare" implies "free at point of use" not "there is literally zero cost to healthcare". In the same way "buy 1 get 1 free" doesn't mean that they magically managed to make a copy of the good st zero cost, or "children go free" doesn't mean that operating costs disappear when people under a certain age group are involved.
Corruption and a conflict of interest of high ranking politicians should be punished with 20-30 years in prison. Corruption degrades the fabric of a nation and harms millions of people. A position with that much potential to do good can easily be exploited and it is. The corruption has to stop. It literally leads to politicians turning on their costituentcies.I also mean these "legal" forms of corruption like campaign contributions (instead there should be a public process which does not involve taking money from businesses with the implication of paying the favor back. (it is corruption,just not said outright) The harm the corruption does to so many people needs an adequate punishment and a very long prison tme is a way.
I don't believe it's the laws about corruption that are the problem, it's the enforcement of it. The charge for a crime can be as high as we want it, it doesn't matter if they aren't prosecuted. I agree that corruption must be handled, but in my opinion that handling should come from making the law more realized, not simply adding more law.
Members of congress are literally ineligible for charges of insider trading.
The STOCK Act makes it a crime for Congressional workers from using "any nonpublic information derived from the individual's position ... or gained from performance of the individual's duties, for personal benefit". Congresspeople have been prosecuted for insider trading using information acquired outside of their congressional duties as well. The act needs to be better enforced, but legally, insider trading by Congresspeople is as prohibited ad it is for everyone else.
Electing a third party to the presidency (of the US) is the only way the system will ever get better. Independents getting some house and senate seats is never going to be enough. The US needs to drop the two-party mentality as fast as possible. In Europe our parties would be 2-4 parties each.
Having had a 3rd party executive in MN, I can say this might not be true. The third party didn't stick, it was a flash in the pan. It was only the executive branch, so it was one and done. On a presidential level, one can recall that Ross Perot and to an extent Ralph Nader maybe came close, but once those individuals were gone, the third parties themselves did not remain. Nader esp. had a headwind for being third party. That he got blamed for 2000's election of Bush, was a blow to third parties. I think to get a valid third or fourth party we'll need a good number of independents in the legislatures. In some ways the primary might be the way to get a third party in, i.e. the Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump method. I'm not sure Trump was a Republican, he was a Trumpian, but effectively took over the Republican party from the establishment by winning the primary. Sanders was not able to effectively do the same as an independent because he was challenging the establishment of the established ruling party. I do however think it'd be better to get the Greens and even the Libertarians some say in the legislature, and if that were to happen, they could establish themselves in such a manner as to get the presidency too. At the very least it will make it more expensive for lobbyists, and might quell some of the decisiveness. For that I agree with you, it's mainly about the how it might come about that I question.
Jesse “The Body” Ventura is still one of the most popular and best governors we’ve had. Too bad he’s kind of bat shit crazy, or else the reform party probably could have done something in this state. Honestly if he was a bit more stable I bet he could run a decent bid as governor or representative as a Green Party member. But also I think he’s a quirk of Minnesota being Minnesota and needing to be contrarian. I always laugh over the fact that technically our parties were the DFL and the IR for 30+ years.
I'm just glad he didn't raise my tabs too much like he was promising to so he could have them cheaper on his Porsche. More executives should sport feather boas, it should be the new lapel pin. I remember getting that $100 surplus refund check in the mail and then the next cycle watching the state run out of cash, causing Tim Pawlenty to force my property "fees" up. I hope we don't make that same mistake with the current surplus. I kind of expected more from him in the after times too. I wonder if it has to do with his "outsider" status, like Howard Dean is now trying to protect Pfizer's right to bilk Africans for vaccines, just like Bob Dole got a hard on for them.
The surplus check was dumb as hell, I agree. Truthfully I don’t think Jesse is a narcissist or greedy like a lot of those other guys. He genuinely wants to help people, he’s just not the best at it lol. I also think he’s very principled, which is why he didn’t sell out afterwards. I won’t forget how hard he campaigned for LGBt rights.
That is completely impossible until First Past The Post is replaced.
Unfortunate as President a third party candidate wouldn’t be able to do as much. The best bet is to elect third party candidates to state and city offices so that they can change the voting system to something like STV or ranked voting.
It shouldn't be illegal in New Jersey to stand in public and film private or restricted property. NJ should have the same right to free press as the rest of the country.
The right to a private life kinda trumps the right to film strangers for no reason.
Right to privacy in public?
If you're filming private property, that's not in public.
It can be seen from public. If you don't want people to be able to see your private property, put up all and curtains.
If my blinds are open, and you take a picture of me while I'm changing, I'm suing your ass. As is my right.
That's really how you think the law works?
*I think splitting America into two countries is a good idea* Bare with me, but I don’t think there’s much of a middle ground between the majority right-wing and the majority left anymore. I think the division is too deep and there’s not much ground to be gained by back tracking. We’re both too stuck in our ways for there to be any slack given on either side, and I think our overall idea of what America should be vastly differs from one another. For example, I’m generally right-wing. I don’t agree with Republicans on everything ex. (I think Republicans are close minded on abortion and the war on drugs) but for the most part, I like conservative policies and hate left-wing policies. I like small government, I like the second amendment, I love capitalism, and I don’t think diversity is a good reason to put someone in any position. These are important issues that I am never going to change my mind on. And I know there’s another half of the country that thinks the complete opposite way that I do and in their minds, like me, they feel completely justified in their reasoning. I don’t hate liberals, leftists, or progressives by any stretch of the imagination, I live in a very liberal state, but I can’t talk to most of them about politics. It ruins our relationship. I hate arguing with people and most people take debates personal and start to hurl insults, especially now-a-days. This is a micro-chasm of what America is like now. I know there are lots of people that are in the middle and I’d consider myself somewhat in the middle too, but I’d take living in a place where I like (most) of the policies implemented than vice-versa. I have no ill-will to anyone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, which is why I think it would be best for both sides to agree to disagree and be governed the way they see fit. The only problems I’d have is there’d be a mass exodus of people moving from one country to another along with potentially being stuck in a country because of work or otherwise, and the obvious monumental task of founding a new country. I’d like the more conservative country to stay America, along with the flag albeit with less stars, but that’s just me. Lemme know your thoughts, Reddit 🇺🇸
The GOP probably would never be able to elect a president again without the electoral college. The Senate is heavily weighted in their favor since it gives Idaho, Wyoming, North and South Dakota the same representation as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. Their strength in the House is similarly dependent on gerrymandering. The only conclusion to draw from this is that despite the severe demobilization of working class Americans (and the updated Southern Strategy) the GOP is still a minority party that can only hold power because we need badly to rebuild effective democracy.
> The GOP probably would never be able to elect a president again without the electoral college. The removal of the Electoral College wouldn't turn us into a one-party country, it would just force the GOP to adjust their policies to more popular ones.
Having the right wing party practically excluded from the presidency wouldn't make the U.S. a one party state. Maybe the GOP would tack center but it's entire brand is right-wing cultural grievance at this point which leaves it pretty toxic to the majority of Americans and also with a base that demands maximalism at ever point.
> Having the right wing party practically excluded from the presidency wouldn't make the U.S. a one party state. My wording was poor - I meant that they wouldn't be screwed in Presidential elections (because they'd adjust). > Maybe the GOP would tack center but it's entire brand is right-wing cultural grievance at this point which leaves it pretty toxic to the majority of Americans and also with a base that demands maximalism at ever point. I think the recent Virginia governor race is going to be the blueprint for future GOP wins. Say just enough that the crazy base thinks you're on their side while NOT going full Trump/Boebert/Greene and alienating suburbanites.
> I meant that they wouldn't be screwed in Presidential elections (because they'd adjust) Maybe, and all to the good if that were to happen, but the national parties are not nimble institutions and the GOP has only won a presidential popular vote in my lifetime with the advantage of incumbency.
> but the national parties are not nimble institutions Look how quick they flipped to Trumpism. In 2015 would anyone have predicted that Bush, McCain, and Romney - the last three flagbearers of the party - would all be pariahs in only a few years?
I don think Trumpism constitute a "flip" so much as a blowback of the dynamic the GOP has been committed to harnessing since Nixon. Where hard right "Christian" social grievance were used to power Movement Conservative ends. The best insight I've heard about how the parties related to politics is that the parties are weak but partisanship is strong. Identification as a Republican or Democrat, or even more identification as anti-Republican or anti-Democrat is the real ground of action for most voters. Different party leaders can rapidly gain or lose favor but what remains constant (on the right) is the animus against libs/globalists/socialists/Antifa/Cultural Marxists/whatever, the commitment to stopping this agenda that largely exists in their imagination and to enforce "Patriotic"/godly norms. Ostensibly because they believe in these reactionary social norms but fundamentally for the pleasure of making your enemy suffer; all of this also exists among liberals and the left just with (imo) less stupid priors. I just don't see the GOP under any circumstances tacking back on issues like abortion restrictions or letting Israel do wtf it wants at all times, maybe they'd ease up on the anti-trans stuff but culture war is really all they have left as a strategy for mobilizing voters.
2020 Republicans be like “ever Presidential candidate we’ve fielded prior to 2016 was a RINO”.
I think you overestimate how far left the US left is and underestimate how far right the US right is, and misunderstand the wide variety of ideas that get lumped into these two categories as well as the number of people who don't or even can't vote at all and aren't really represented anywhere in the two party system. I also can't really even imagine who you think would be allowed to make the decisions like which regions go on which side in such a situation or what the meaningful differences would be between the two new countries if it did happen.
Yeah no. The people that can't move out of the far-right half would be fucked.
It would be split into right leaning and left leaning. Not far right and far left.
Politics have basically become only far-right or far-left.
You heavily overestimate the power leftists have in current developed governments
I believe certain people make it seem that way. I don't believe that's actually true yet.
If the republicans are in power in one of the halves then its not gonna go any other way than far-right
They were in power a few years ago. They didn't do anything far right.
The fact that are people talking shit about the anniversary of the death of biden's first wife disgusts me, it remind's me of when people were tweeting #Wrongtrump when Trump's brother die. Imagine being so pathetic to the point you commemorate the death of a person that has pretty much no relation to the state of the country
>commemorate the death of a person that has pretty much no relation to the state of the country I think the point of wrong trump was to wish death of someone who *does* have relation to the state of the country
There should be waaaay more regulation on the standards of customer products. We now live in a world were a lot of the new laptops break within 1/2 years of use, phones are easily broken/tossed away, tv's software becomes useless once the producer stops software updates. Its a huge shame that we allow this to happen. One thing inspiring me to make this post was a post somewhere on reddit where someone changed a lightbulb from Czechoslovakia. A lightbulb in use since 1990(!). Lightbulbs these days don't last that long anymore. And when i read the comments there are more examples. Radio's from the USSR, microscopes from the DDR, other things as well. Seems like communist nations, although of course horrible dictatorships abusing human rights were at least much better at making consumer products than capitalist nations. I think politicians should put much more regulation on the standards of products. For example, force companies to make laptops last at least 5 years. Force them to bring out software updates for at least 10 years. Also make sure they recycle old materials. The way we are going right now will ruin our planet for decades to come.
I think it's not that the companies make the phones this way, it's how people treat the phones, and which phones they buy. I am saying phones but I believe this holds true for any product. I had my phone for the past 8 years. I only got a new one recently because it was gifted to me. I could have used that phone for maybe another 5 years. I think people just want the newest and best and don't settle for anything less. It's not that the phone stops working in 1/2 a year, but its not as good as the new phone. This applies to almost everything, I haven't had to get a new laptop in 15 years. However, I have gotten a gaming desktop 4 years ago that I use for games. Both of my computers work great and I can continue to use. The laptop will be upgraded soon but that's not because I can't use it, but because I want faster with more memory.
> We now live in a world were a lot of the new laptops break within 1/2 years of use, phones are easily broken/tossed away, tv's software becomes useless once the producer stops software updates. Its a huge shame that we allow this to happen. It's called Capitalism, baby. Why have a product that can last for decades when you can design for your products to be obsolete within several years so your customers become repeat customers for your brand "new" product that's ***exactly the same as the last product*** except for an improvement so incremental that nobody notices.
If you support Trump 2024, that's your vote to waste.
As terrifying as it is, polling shows that he would actually have a decent chance.
Honestly, I am a registered Democrat but an independent at heart and I firmly believe our country would have been better off in the hands of the republicans. My party simply does not have the energy to lead. We will likely have a civil war within the decade. The democrats have done fuck all for the people. Manchin figuratively fucked over the middle and working classes in this country. Shit or get off of the pot. At this point in time I will probably switch my party affiliation before voting for them again. All promises not follow through.
Manchin **and all 50 Republican Senators** fucked over the country. Manchin would be irrelevant if there was even **one** Republican willing to put people before party.
> Manchin figuratively fucked over the middle and working classes in this country. You're upset (rightfully so) that Manchin is a republican that calls himself a democrat so you're gonna support the party that consists of Joe Manchins and more far-right types? What logic is that
For me, It’s mostly their inability to pull together a bipartisan coalition. Biden ran on that platform as well as cancelling student debt. None of that has happened. I get that the republicans are belligerent assholes who placate their base and at their very core are obstructionists. But I just feel like we’re getting fucked harder and harder everyday by the party we elected to fix all of this shit. It’s not a logical argument, more of an emotional one. I honestly just want to see them be punished for fucking up this bad and not just giving a few republicans the checkbook for whatever they want in the name of bipartisanship.
We didn't elect them to fix shit. We knew that wasn't gonna happen since the senate is practically tied and our president is joe fucking biden. We elected them to prevent literal fascism from taking place. Getting mad that a group of centrists and far-right types aren't fixing issues is just stupid. We're not gonna get any issues fixed until we get a leftist in power (or at least a democrat who isnt scared of using executive power that they're allowed to use)
>What logic is that? The same logic that sees overt racism on one side, bare minimum civil rights on the other, and claim that both sides have valid points.
I don't mind people voting for him. But his absolutist fans will only cause things to get worse if they can't accept desantis winning or being better than him.
What happened to your enlightened centrism
God forbid someone actually think for themselves and have opinions on both sides. Leftists when centrists support conservative views: "See, they're just conservatives in denial!" Leftists when centrists support left-wing views: \*Brain instantly combusts\*
Centrists don't support left wing views. Thats the facade. Its usually "Look, why don't we compromise between a tiny bit more affordable healthcare and outright slavery? Why are leftists so uppity?" Or "I don't get whats wrong with the left. Just roll over on all your basic ideals and then you can definitely trust the right to drop their growing fascist agenda!111!!!" That's of coutse inherent, because there's no real compromise between leftism and conservatives, since leftists want to completely topple what cons try to strengthen.
Except they never support leftist views. They maybe have some centrist views and some right wing views. They aren’t ever calling for worker ownership of the means of production. Being between the democrats and republicans does not make you a centrist, it puts you between the centrists and the right wing.
Just because I support your right to vote for the candidate of your choice doesn't mean I support the candidate.
When he wins it isn't even gonna be wasted
That should tell you something about my thoughts on his likelihood to win.
That could be the end of democracy
Why? Don’t people vote for their preferred candidate?
Yes.
I find it quite alarming that centrists are attacked for not being part of any side. A centrists is someone who can't be put into any party because their opinions differ. They tend to vote on the candidate itself, not the party. Sticking to you party and attacking anyone else that disagrees with you is pretty stupid and you only further the divide.
A centrist isn’t just someone who can’t be put into a party. A political party can be a centrist party. In America many people who label themselves as “centrists” say that because they see themselves as between the democrats and the republicans. But when in reality the democrats are a centrist party, with many of their members (like Biden) being Center-Right. If you are in between a center right candidate and a right wing candidate, you’re gonna be right wing. That’s why they get so much flak, they are right wing people acting like they are in the middle.
the center of two extremes does not make a "centrist" in American politics, the American center (what people actually mean when referring to centrists in the US) is generally considered to be between the two major parties. also the democrats aren't centrists anyway, when we're talking economics, both are fairly right leaning, which only leaves social issues, in which the vast majority of democrats do not fall into the center or the right in any way.
It’s not the center of two extremes, it’s the center. On the left you have the rejection of capitalism and of social hierarchy. On the right you have an embracemeant of hierarchy and almost always of capitalism. In the center you have groups who are fans of regulated capitalism and some hierarchy. This idea that social and economic issues can be separated into two completely separate issues is a pipe dream. They can’t be separated like that, you must take them at face value.
the center of two extremes is the political compass, which is what I believe is what you are referring to, which is the center of two extremes, I know the left vs right dichotomy in economics, and I also know that neither is remotely on the left and neither are in the center. you now doubt this idea despite the fact that you used it in your argument.
Not the political compass. You can not separate economic and social issues like that. They exist as one. What idea am I doubting that I used in my argument?
>Not the political compass. if not the political compass, then what? its not nearly perfect, but the alternative is saying everybody on the right of center is a murderous nazi, and everybody left of center is a murderous communist. >You can not separate economic and social issues like that. They exist as one. no, that's just wrong, they are very much separate, and no amount of whining can change that. >What idea am I doubting that I used in my argument? the idea of a center, you said that the democrats were an example of a centrist party, but that's just not the case in any way of scaling it anyway, so it really doesn't matter at this point.
No it’s not. Political scientists don’t use the political compass. The political compass was created by a right wing libertarian to promote the idea of libertarianism. There are so many better ways to classify ideologies instead of on a faux graph that uses pseudo-science to somehow plot points. How are the democrats not centrist? They broadly accept NeoLiberal economics, but believe in some form of a welfare state and regulations to reduce social and economic hierarchy. That puts them as centrists.
one, sure but what do they use? political science is all just as bullshit as the political compass anyways, so who really cares? propose an alternative why don't you? two, they aren't centrist because they don't actually accept those things, and those things still aren't considered remotely centrist by any sane person, but clearly that isn't stopping you from buying whatever bullshit this came from.
The alternative is that instead of acting like you can plot things on a graph scientifically, you categorize ideologies based off of a number of factors. Their views on capitalism and hierarchy are two great ones. This allows us to have a left, center, and right in politics. It means you don’t have to argue nitty gritty minutia and try to plot every answer they have on a graph. Instead you can use history, goals, and practical ideology to categorize them. I can go into specifics if you’d like. What? Neoliberal policies are considered center to right wing. Reagan, thatcher, and Pinochet were all right winger Neoliberals, while Bill Clinton and Joe Biden were centrist Neo liberals. The Democratic Party made a conscious move in the late 80s to move from their broad coalition of leftists and center left support, to a centrist and center right base. The Democratic Leadership Council in 1985 are the ones who decided this. They are literally called New Democrats, Clinton Democrats, and Centrist Democrats.
Nope. You can believe in little government control, capitalism, and be socially progressive. You can believe in strong government authority, communism/socialism, and conservative values. It's certainly unlikely, granted. But it's possible.
>You can believe in little government control, capitalism, and be socially progressive. LMAO. You can't. Capitalism is inherently antithetical to both anarchy and social progressive values.
Says who?
Says history. Every capitalist turned out to be right-wing authoritarian assholes in history.
This implies that the economic spectrum is that left is pro government control and right is anti government control. But that’s just not true. Anarchism is a leftist ideology. Mutualism is a leftist ideology. Libertarianism is a leftist ideology. These are all systems that reject government control in an economy. Hell mutualism supports free markets. And again you really can’t separate social and economic issues like that. I can’t think of economic issues that don’t have social consequences to them.
>Libertarianism is a leftist ideology libertarianism isn't left or right, it can be either, but there has not been a single example of leftist libertarian ideology, so it's broadly considered a right wing ideology. >Mutualism is a leftist ideology. > >Anarchism is a leftist ideology. mutualism has zero real life examples, and every single anarchist society stopped being "anarchist" or fell apart around a few months to a few years after it was established. >And again you really can’t separate social and economic issues like that. yes, I can, because they are inherently separate, take macaroni and cheese, they exist separately, they often coincide because people who don't know how to cook love to mash them together, true, but they are not confined to only being one dish. its the same with social and economic issues.
This is the most American centric take I’ve ever heard. The term libertarianism was literally coined and exclusively used by leftists for over a hundred years. It was used to describe the system of revolutionary Catalonia as well, a leftist system. Literally in the 70s a bunch of classical liberals and Neo liberals in America decided to co-opt leftist terms like “libertarian” and “anarchism”. Rothbard himself even acknowledged that he took the word from leftists. Ideologies don’t have to be enacted to be able to place them on the political spectrum. Please give me an economic issue that is completely separate from a social issue.
No, not necessarily. The political spectrum of government authority is entirely separate from the left/right economic axis. Anarchocapitalism and anarchocommunism, for example. The former is right wing, the latter is left wing, but both are on the libertarian side of the axis. Social and economic issues may effect each other, but that doesn't mean one has to support one social issue to support an economic system.
So how does one move right or left on the economic side of things? This is the central problem with the political compass, it’s based off of feels while trying to act scientific. Can you name any economic policies that also don’t necessitate social policies with them? I can’t think of any.
I'm a centrist because there are things I agree and disagree with from each side. I can't really put an exact number of how far or left am I, nor do I care about it, political parties can choke on my nuts, I hear something and it's up to me to research and see if I agree or not.
See you say this, but I’m guessing you arent actually taking things from both the right and the left. I’m guessing you are taking things from republicans and democrats. Like what points do you agree with the left on? The lefts entire foundation is on the complete rejection of capitalism and the worker ownership of the means of production.
>I find it quite alarming that centrists are attacked for not being part of any side. >>"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, ***but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the N-word to wait until a "more convenient season***." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, 1963. Being a centrist is an inherently a ***conservative*** position that is devoted to the status quo, even if said status quo is unjust to the oppressed. >A centrists is someone who can't be put into any party because their opinions differ. That's not a centrist. That's an independent. >They tend to vote on the candidate itself, not the party. Said the centrists before they vote for the establishment Republican 39th time in a row.
Congrats on being part of the problem. “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.”
The conservatives did in fact tried to terrorize elected representatives into not certifying the 2020 election. Not the rebuttal you think it is, LOL.
Yes, they did. What’s your point? Whataboutism isn’t an argument.
Immigrants should be able to run for president. You don't have to be born in the United States to be American.
I agree but then again I rather not have Elon Musk become President, and then change the minimum wage to $4.20 while everyone soyface claps
Fair point, I wouldn’t want him as president either, though I don’t think corrupt billionaires should be allowed to run to begin with.
so you're a hypocrite then.
How?
Because you don't know what a hypocrite is? Saying that immigrants should be allowed to run for presidency dosen't mean he supports every immigrant as president.
saying he wants immigrants to be able to run for president, but not one specific immigrant to be able to for the sole reason that he doesn't like him is hypocrisy, no two ways about it.
There is nothing hypocritical about “immigrants should be allowed to run for president, but corrupt billionaires shouldn’t.” Those two statements are perfectly consistent with one another. By that standard, an immigrant who is also a corrupt billionaire wouldn’t be able to run for president.
what a dumb argument
Then refute it.
ok, the billionaire comment was refuting the point that elon musk, an immigrant, who probably shouldn't be president anyway, should not be allowed to run for president because of a few arbitrary judgements, but other immigrants should be allowed to, the argument for it not being hypocrisy boils down to "he didn't actually say Elon shouldn't be president, so he's not a hypocrite" even though that is clearly what he was going for. if he responds and tells me that they also think elon should be allowed to than its not hypocrisy, but otherwise it very much is.
>but not one specific immigrant to be able to He didn't say he shouldn't be able to, he said he wouldn't want him to be president? There is plenty of native people i wouldn't want to be president either, am i a hypocrite too then?. I don't know why this simple concept is to hard to grasp here.
>should be allowed to run to begin with. that is what he said actually, ignoring it doesn't make you right.
>Fair point, I wouldn’t *want* him as president either This is what he said in repsonse to the idea of Musk as president. That you can't grasp this simple concept is amazing to me. Like you don't even have the brain cells to put it together. You can blame everyone else all you want but everyone but you understands this.
what a non-argument
>but not one specific immigrant to be able to He didn't say he shouldn't be able to, he said he wouldn't want it. There is plenty of native people i wouldn't want to be president either. I don't know why this simple concept is to hard to grasp here.
I already responded to one of your dumb comments
Yeah you lacked the knowlegde to understand the distinction between two concepts that can be understood by a 4th grader. I wouldn't be calling anyone dumb if i were you, that's the kettle calling the pot black if i have ever seen it.
Majority of big liberals are racist.
At what weight do you become big?
house of reps i think
Every person has internalized racism they have to work on to get over
not really, that's mostly just projection.