I know. But if I got the extra 300$ on my check I would spend more on useless junk throughout the year. Thus save less.invest less.
I cannot decipher this.
I know. But if I got the extra 300$ on my check I would spend more on useless junk throughout the year. Thus save less.invest less.
The latter is of course not surprising considering South Carolina is more populous than the previous two states combined.
Meanwhile, now we know Biden does well in states Trump will fucking crush in the General!
What do you mean? Why would private industries scale better than worker-owned ones? The whole point of middle manager bloat is because one person can't run, say, Amazon, but one person can hold a seat on a board of Amazon directors and relay their orders to their lieutenants, who relay them to their lieutenants, and so on and so forth. But when you try to scale this forever you wind up creating a class of middle managers who don't do anything useful except pass authority around, but are still extensively compensated, while the people who actually keep the firm afloat fight for scraps at the bottom of the ladder. My primary goal is simply to give the workers collective power over the structure of the firm through the mechanism of democracy. If the workers see a need for a manager they should feel free to install one, but they should also be free to divest them of their authority. Presumably, the workers would compensate themselves adequately from the revenue of the firm. Modern firms are already highly democratic out of sheer necessity of organization, I just want to put workers on top of the chain of command.Some worker-owned industries would be fine, but I struggle to see how it'd scale properly.
I don't get this actully. Surely democratic socialism is easier to implement than municipalism?You lose me in the democratic socialism, but have my bear-riding cossacks for devolving things to the municipality.
Not how this works. For one, plenty of people are employed by small businesses, owned by people who will not be affected by any proposed wealth taxes. Second, the wealth tax is not applied to their business, its applied to personal wealth. Obviously the progressive candidates want to increase business taxes as well but that also won't depress employment.The wealthy own all the businesses. Increasing the tax on them and the tax on their businesses too much will hurt unemployment
I don't know how you can possibly say that you want her to pull the platform left and then turn around to say you don't know who else you would support when there is another candidate whose policy positions are the same as--if not more left than--hers still in the running.
These are honestly the kind of posts (and not necessarily from you, in particular) that make me wonder about what Warren's supporters here are looking for.
In all honesty hurting unemployment isn't necessarily a bad thing. You could use unemployment in the exact same manner as Republicans believe low unemployment works, as a way to force companies to increase wages and benefits to attract employment.The wealthy own all the businesses. Increasing the tax on them and the tax on their businesses too much will hurt unemployment
You understand the economy is not just supply-side driven correct?The wealthy own all the businesses. Increasing the tax on them and the tax on their businesses too much will hurt unemployment
Since when do 60-80 percent of people vote Republican? And when did I call anyone a piece of shit? I asked you why you vote Republican despite supposedly caring about the homeless.I disagree with that.
If you seriously believe that than you think half the country are just serious pieces of shit. Of course there's dems in the wild who are as well.
So you think 60-80 percent of the country are just downright terrible people?
I don't know how you can possibly say that you want her to pull the platform left and then turn around to say you don't know who else you would support when there is another candidate whose policy positions are the same as--if not more left than--hers still in the running.
These are honestly the kind of posts (and not necessarily from you, in particular) that make me wonder about what Warren's supporters here are looking for.
Btw voter turnout in SC (527,728) crushed 2016 (370,904) but was slightly less than 2008 (532,468).
Turnout continues to impress, for the most part (massive side-eye at Iowa).Btw voter turnout in SC (527,728) crushed 2016 (370,904) but was slightly less than 2008 (532,468).
My first choice was Warren, but Increasingly lack confidence in her ability to win relative to many of her peers, Bernie most of all. So I am actually interested in why it is you still believe she can?I said that I wouldn't know where to go because I don't believe Bernie or anyone else except Warren can beat Trump in the general. Why would I back Bernie when I think his nomination would ensure a Trump victory? So that's where I'm at. Obviously on policy I agree with a lot of what he's saying, even if I don't think he's really thought deeply about how to get those ideas realized as Warren does. But that's all moot if he fails to get elected.
I think I'm done participating in these election threads though. The overwhelming Bernie bias leaves no room for alternate opinions.
28% of the electorate are registered Republicans, 28% are registered Democrats and the rest are "independent"
Welcome to democracy! You thought that those who don't win or get at least second in the first 2-3 primaries should get the f out? Then you're wrong, especially if by any chance your candidate is in the lead after a mere fraction of primaries.
Of course not. But just be honest about it instead of posting nonsense.Maybe they just don't like Bernie? Is that so hard to believe?
My first choice was Warren, but I don't think she can win at all. So I am actually interested in why it is you still believe she can?
Also, a huge portion of Nevada's turnout was the early vote, which Iowa didn't have.Honostly I think we saw the limit to Iowa's ability this year. If we had more than 2008 turn out there this year I think people would have gone mad.
That's good vs 2016. But vs 2008 it's not as good as it looks since there's been like 10% population growth in the state since then. Of course, you have to beat 2008 numbers by quite a bit to match for population growth in a lot of states.Btw voter turnout in SC (527,728) crushed 2016 (370,904) but was slightly less than 2008 (532,468).
when you put it like that, maybe there's room for a candidate to run for President on an Independent ticket.
Also, a huge portion of Nevada's turnout was the early vote, which Iowa didn't have.
End caucuses forever.
Ok, here is my question for you, as someone for whom Warren is also my first choice, but Bernie is a close second: why are you so certain that Bernie would lose to Trump, and Warren would win...when Warren flat-out cannot win in the primaries? What's the basis for this argument?I said that I wouldn't know where to go because I don't believe Bernie or anyone else except Warren can beat Trump in the general. Why would I back Bernie when I think his nomination would ensure a Trump victory? So that's where I'm at. Obviously on policy I agree with a lot of what he's saying, even if I don't think he's really thought deeply about how to get those ideas realized as Warren does. But that's all moot if he fails to get elected.
I think I'm done participating in these election threads though. The overwhelming Bernie bias leaves no room for alternate opinions.
Of course not. But just be honest about it instead of posting nonsense.
California is not the worst state to be poor in by pretty much any metric. That would be places like Mississippi or Florida.
Back in 2016 it would be simple to assume that Trump was a disjunctive president even more so now with Bernie being the front runner for the dem nomination. Trump definitely signaled the end of the Reagan era and Bernie screams a Reconstructive president but i can't shake the fact of how the republican party has rallied around trump. If trump wins in november, i suspect the next 50 years of american politics would be influenced by him with dems becoming more moderate and republicans doubling down on insane trumpian conservatism (Typing this made me realise how likely a Don Jr run eventually is, ugh). In a way it feels like either trump or sanders could be Reconstructive presidents or one of the moderate dem wins and then I guess trump is just an anomaly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.Skowronek describes what he calls the sequence of "political time," a cycle that has held true more than 200 years. He claims all of presidential history follows a distinct pattern: "Reconstructive" presidents like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan (to take only the last two cycles) transform American politics in their own image, clearing the field of viable competition and setting the terms of political debate. They are followed by hand-picked successors (Harry S. Truman and George H.W. Bush) who continue their predecessors' policies and do little more than articulate an updated version of their ideas. They are usually succeeded in turn by presidents whom Skowronek calls "pre-emptive"—Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton—who represent the opposite party but adopt the basic framework of the reigning orthodoxy. Next comes another faithful servant of that orthodoxy (John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson; George W. Bush), followed by another preemptive opposition leader (Richard Nixon, Barack Obama) who again fails to overturn it. The final step in the sequence is a "disjunctive" president—usually somebody with little allegiance to the orthodoxy who is unable to hold it together in the face of the escalating crises it created and to which it has no response. The last disjunctive president, in Skowronek's schema, was Jimmy Carter.
I'm comparatively a neophyte. My impression is M-Ls don't like electoral politics but I also know that Marxism-Leninism isn't the only extant wing of socialism and that they tend towards a more revolutionary outlook.I mean what is your understanding here? Since that seems to be condescension.
Worker-controlled industries, as I elaborated to Addie.Also, what is your understanding of modern democratic-socialism?
I started with personal critiques of capitalism/imperialism and went looking for alternatives, eventually settling on democratic socialism. I've read some Marx and Engels but in no sense have I consumed the entire corpus of work related to socialism. Seems a bit of a waste of time really, just judging by the historical efficacy of scholarship, it looks like you can dedicate your whole life to study of socialism and never make an impact on the material world, at best you become a voice on the periphery like Chomsky or Zizek.Because on the surface you seem to be ignoring that the whole of modern socialism is largely predicated on critiques and reconciliations around Marx/Engels and more recent texts?
Yes we know, we've been trying to explain that to him for like 10 pages now.I can second Florida, along with Mississippi and Texas from my friend struggling in poverty. That user you quoted has no idea what he's talking about.
Why would Warren be better? I mean she hasn't won any states or even come close really and her campaign has been mismanaged. I like Warren but she's done nothing to suggest that she wouldn't get steamrolled by Trump.I said that I wouldn't know where to go because I don't believe Bernie or anyone else except Warren can beat Trump in the general. Why would I back Bernie when I think his nomination would ensure a Trump victory? So that's where I'm at. Obviously on policy I agree with a lot of what he's saying, even if I don't think he's really thought deeply about how to get those ideas realized as Warren does. But that's all moot if he fails to get elected.
I think I'm done participating in these election threads though. The overwhelming Bernie bias leaves no room for alternate opinions.
Do you want to win by 30 delegates or 0
its gonna be really weird when Bernie wins 9 states, Biden wins 5 and theres Klob with MN
Yes we know, we've been trying to explain that to him for like 10 pages now.
I have never once posted that. You are welcome to find any example where I did, and I'll admit my error. I prefer Bernie (obviously), but I don't think ill of Warren at all.Then be honest, too and and stop spreading bullshit like "she's not as trustworthy as Bernie!" (see above) How does that sound?
What do you mean? Why would private industries scale better than worker-owned ones? The whole point of middle manager bloat is because one person can't run, say, Amazon, but one person can hold a seat on a board of Amazon directors and relay their orders to their lieutenants, who relay them to their lieutenants, and so on and so forth. But when you try to scale this forever you wind up creating a class of middle managers who don't do anything useful except pass authority around, but are still extensively compensated, while the people who actually keep the firm afloat fight for scraps at the bottom of the ladder. My primary goal is simply to give the workers collective power over the structure of the firm through the mechanism of democracy. If the workers see a need for a manager they should feel free to install one, but they should also be free to divest them of their authority. Presumably, the workers would compensate themselves adequately from the revenue of the firm. Modern firms are already highly democratic, I just want to put workers on top of the chain of command.
Currently, authority in a firm passes like this: shareholders -> board of directors -> CEO -> COO/CTO, etc -> however many layers of middle management -> workers
My preferred restructure: workers -> board of elected worker reps -> elected managers -> workers
I don't get this actully. Surely democratic socialism is easier to implement than municipalism?
Trust me, I feel you. I grew up in the South and Midwest, half my family are Republicans. Some of it is living in a different reality, some is just a lack of empathy.I've been reading, slowly. Sometimes hard to catch up. Living back in New York, there are far more opportunities for those in poverty than I could ever imagine back in Florida. No way in hell I'd imagine California is worse than Texas. He's living in a fantasy. You have my sympathies. I've lived with Republicans for 14 years living in Florida and the South. They live in a different universe.
That's where I am largely at with her.I think its odd that anyone would think her to have a better chance than Biden or Bernie. And I'm not high on Biden because of his voting record, history of the type of soft corruption you expect from long serving politicians and generally speaking like my grandad.
Her political instincts so far are dreadful and she got baited into that whole DNA test by Trump out of all people.
Trust me, I feel you. I grew up in the South and Midwest, half my family are Republicans. Some of it is living in a different reality, some is just a lack of empathy.
I acknowledge this, which is why I personally draw the line at democratic socialism instead of going full anarcho-communism. I recognize the need for mass organization (especially with regards to climate change) and the state is the best apparatus to organize the populace so I'm not enthusiastic about about dissolving the state like some other leftists can be.where there isn't value in taking advantage of economies of scale, such as spreading risk pools
I have never once posted that. You are welcome to find any example where I did, and I'll admit my error. I prefer Bernie (obviously), but I don't think ill of Warren at all.
I don't like Bernie because I think socialism removes human incentive. That's what redistribution does. It take the incentive away from poor people. Since poor people will be the main benefactors to redistribution. Then it makes middle class upset because they won't benefit much from redistribution. It makes the upper class want to make less so their wealth won't be taken.I noticed you ignored my response but I am not letting this go either.
1.) The one person most interested in assuring your union position you are refusing to vote for?
2.) There is no strong evidence, and actually more evidence to the contrary, that taxing the ultra wealthy would massively harm employment. In fact, what most studies show is that in a situation such as ours, redistribution would actually jolt demand and promote production. As rich people holding cash in banks because they have so much they don't know what to do with all of it isn't the most efficient way to grow an economy and sustain it.
I mean what generates more jobs and growth? One rich guy buying one large mansion and one Lamborghini, or several dozen regular joes buying an economy car and a three bedroom house? Keeping in mind all the downstream opportunities that come with it? From parts/maintenance/assembly line/fuel purchases/car washes/accessories/lawn care/insurance etc.
That the phrase "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is repeated unironically, by the very people it was created to criticize, I think speaks volumes about the sheer idiocy of that mindset.The phrase pull yourself up by your bootstraps originally meant "doing something impossible" cause, you know, you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps
Personally i propose we make the poorest fight to the death in a coliseum. That way we give people incentive to not be poor, as they will dieI don't like Bernie because I think socialism removes human incentive. That's what redistribution does. It take the incentive away from poor people. Since poor people will be the main benefactors to redistribution. Then it makes middle class upset because they won't benefit much from redistribution. It makes the upper class want to make less so their wealth won't be taken.
The more you make, the more they take is the age old saying. But how far can you push it?
Addressing the union stuff. I don't worry too much about which candidate supports unions the most. I have a skilled trade. I specialize in commercial hvac so if my union disasolved I wouldn't suddenly make less. I'm not dependent on the union. I am state and federally certified I can go anywhere in the country and do my job.
I don't like Bernie because I think socialism removes human incentive. That's what redistribution does. It take the incentive away from poor people. Since poor people will be the main benefactors to redistribution. Then it makes middle class upset because they won't benefit much from redistribution. It makes the upper class want to make less so their wealth won't be taken.
The more you make, the more they take is the age old saying. But how far can you push it?
Addressing the union stuff. I don't worry too much about which candidate supports unions the most. I have a skilled trade. I specialize in commercial hvac so if my union disasolved I wouldn't suddenly make less. I'm not dependent on the union. I am state and federally certified I can go anywhere in the country and do my job.
No I ment that if tou view half the population is evil.(Republicans) and on top of that some people are inherently just evil(so let's say 20% of dems) that would mean 70% of the country are evil.Since when do 60-80 percent of people vote Republican? And when did I call anyone a piece of shit? I asked you why you vote Republican despite supposedly caring about the homeless.
Er...takes the incentive away from poor people to do what, exactly? Because right now poor people in this country struggle to survive. What incentive are you worried about them losing?I don't like Bernie because I think socialism removes human incentive. That's what redistribution does. It take the incentive away from poor people. Since poor people will be the main benefactors to redistribution. Then it makes middle class upset because they won't benefit much from redistribution. It makes the upper class want to make less so their wealth won't be taken.
The more you make, the more they take is the age old saying. But how far can you push it?
Addressing the union stuff. I don't worry too much about which candidate supports unions the most. I have a skilled trade. I specialize in commercial hvac so if my union disasolved I wouldn't suddenly make less. I'm not dependent on the union. I am state and federally certified I can go anywhere in the country and do my job.