-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT8| WHITE HOUSE ADMITS TO QUID PRO QUO WITH UKRAINE
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
It seems to me like right-wing economic policy and social policy are opposed, which is what makes the marriage so strange. Non-interventionist economic policies brought about by valuing free enterprise/"boot straps"/deregulation/etc. are incompatible with interventionist social policies based on "traditional values" and religion. And I guess it would also be incompatible between the (dozens of) Republicans who are concerned about climate change but who would also insist on small government.
There are lots of quality cap makers that make caps that look well constructed and fitting on the head. Trump is a cheapskate so all of his hats, especially the maga hats look like they rolled out of a sweatshop and look like shit. They're square and lopsided. The one that Kanye had was extra terrible.
Not really, since right-wing social policy is white supremacy, and right-wing economic policy is "cut everything that helps the poor," a group that disproportionately comprises PoC because of historical and structural barriers meant to keep them from attaining parity with white people.
It's redmeat to the shitty subsection of his supporters though to go after Shilliezabeth Warhawk.
Imagine bitching about gay marriage. In 2019. QUOTE="RailWays, post: 25389314, member: 2856"]
Glad he's getting back in the game
[/QUOTE]
Hey, I remember this! I was in hig... Errr Pre school!
Glad he's getting back in the game
[/QUOTE]
Hey, I remember this! I was in hig... Errr Pre school!
Why does he not look at people when he speaks to them, lol. Does he always do this in interviews?
Where I disagree is that I would describe right-wing social policy as non-interventionist, as well. The civil rights act, the voting rights act, laws establishing marriage equality, etc, are all laws that amount to an intervention to reduce peoples' opportunities to discriminate. "don't regulate my factory even if it's probably giving 50,000 people downwind of me cancer" can come from the same exact emotional place as "stores should be allowed to refuse service for bigoted reasons." The common theme is "it shouldn't matter if i harm people unless you catch me on tape stabbing someone. fuck off and deal with it.
there's also the southern strategy side of it, of course. social programs got demonized with racist concepts like Reagan's talk of welfare queens.
Last edited:
If wasn't obvious before, Bernie ain't trying to win the nomination.
except white males who are for free markets but against ssm
Well no, he is.
He's just an extraordinarily shitty candidate who got very lucky due to circumstance in 2016.
I mean, this is an attempt to set himself apart from her so he might win. This sort of thing won't work though because I don't know how many kill capitalism votes there are out there yet.
Surely this statement will help Warren get Bernie's voters so she can beat back Biden and this hellscape primary can end.
Just drop out
Just drop out
Kudos to Bernie for making Liz a more mainstream and moderate candidate!
Holy shit uptown Chicago is pricey. I'm here, uh, to research mayority white but deep blue neighborhoods!
Holy shit uptown Chicago is pricey. I'm here, uh, to research mayority white but deep blue neighborhoods!
He used to be in the 70s/80s
Also Teenager punk Beto was a straight up comrade
...Is this supposed to not make me vote for her, Bernie? Because it's not working.
people already call him a communist and if it's just semantics what does it matter
Racism and classism are definitely central drivers. It just always seems bonkers to me that poor white people in red states would continue voting for a party that cuts their access to social welfare provisions. My bafflement is partly because the mix of authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism is a bi, but also because racist and religious zealotry manages to overwhelm their own sense of well-being. Maybe the white people in those states aren't so poor as I imagine though.
That's a great point. Comparing the policies in terms of "freedom to" does bring them into closer alignment.
His spot on primetime Fox News is all but guaranteed. Shitbirds like Sarah Sanders are only "analysts". Jim is going to host his own show.
Tbh I'm not sure how else he would have answered the question "you're basically dying and Warren is the same as you so why should anyone vote for you instead?" By saying he's not really a capitalist
I guess he could have said he's Jewish, has a penis and also fuck the Patriots and Red Sox, but that probably wouldn't have been a great response either
He should have said she lacks a penis. Lean in on that crucial male vote offended by her joke that WaPo seems to think is very important.
Dems need to make sure Trump 100% owns the Turkish incursion, soon to be ethnic cleansing. I mean it's literally 1:1. Trump pulls American troops out, days later the atrocities begin. There's no grey area. If Democrats can't shine a spotlight on that then they don't deserve to be in politics.
I know i'm late on the Mueller takes, but as infuriating as the conclusion of his investigation was, Mueller was the type of person we needed in charge of the investigation.
We needed someone in charge of the investigation where there was absolutely no hint of bias, a life long registered republican who was appointed as FBI director by a republican president and confirmed by every republican senator.
So you could say Mueller sucks, but thats why we needed him, because someone who doesn't suck would have been ripped to pieces by the media as biased. Of course Fox/conservative media tried, but polling shows it was extremely ineffective outside of the hardcore trumpers because there was literally NOTHING that they could attach to to, there was not even a moll hill to make a mountain out of.
We needed someone in charge of the investigation where there was absolutely no hint of bias, a life long registered republican who was appointed as FBI director by a republican president and confirmed by every republican senator.
So you could say Mueller sucks, but thats why we needed him, because someone who doesn't suck would have been ripped to pieces by the media as biased. Of course Fox/conservative media tried, but polling shows it was extremely ineffective outside of the hardcore trumpers because there was literally NOTHING that they could attach to to, there was not even a moll hill to make a mountain out of.
Libertarians' support of "laissez-faire" is entirely contingent on their security in their economic circumstances and their acceptance within their peer group. This is why when either of these factors breaks down for them, such as being criticized by friends for their dumb opinions or losing their financial stability due to the cruelty of "free" markets, all those people who seem so confident championing free speech and economic non-intervention manage to rally behind figures that espouse a distinctly coercive and unegalitarian return to the mean for White America™.
At least the religious authoritarians are sometimes honest about their motives.
Actually maybe leaning into the patriots would be a better idea
"Do democrats really want to nominate someone who is a patriots fan? How can someone who supports Tom Brady be a champion for social justice"
*DNC crowd roars "BERNIE BERNIE", for the first time*
"Do democrats really want to nominate someone who is a patriots fan? How can someone who supports Tom Brady be a champion for social justice"
*DNC crowd roars "BERNIE BERNIE", for the first time*
I mean, I have a fairly low opinion of Sanders, but he does seem to genuinely get along with Warren and I assume he at least recognizes that suicide bombing her campaign is not a good way to move his agenda forward.
The other way he could have gone with this would have been to make a bigger deal about small differences in policy, sort of drawing a line and saying that Warren isn't a real progressive because she's not willing to go far enough. Instead he basically said that the difference between them is rhetorical, and rhetorical in a way that 80% of the country is going to side with her on. There's maybe a suggestion there that Warren might go squishy, but it's pretty light.
This is the equivalent of "warren used to be a republican!", just so you know
and these are even cornier
I don't see what's wrong with Bernie saying this...in a way.
It's fundamentally a true statement, I guess. Warren has described herself as a capitalist. Bernie has not. That is a difference...on paper. Really cheap paper.
I think it just comes off as petty because these two different labels don't really seem to be describing two different candidates in terms of the problems they see facing the country or how they'd solve them. Warren is kicking Bernie's ass because she's a better and more charismatic politician (...and she didn't just have a heart attack, no tea no shade). But she's not really saying anything different than Bernie is. So why do the different labels really matter?
Bernie's largest problem is that he has been unable to expand his base, how on earth does this help him in this regard?
How is it not massive breaking news on all stations that Turkey shelled American troops, anyway?
Agree to a small extent but no, Trump was able to malign Mueller and "18 angry Democrats". Brought up nonsensical gripe about Mueller playing golf in Trump resorts, etc. So much so that Mueller himself had to address this garbage.
Mueller did not do anyone favors. Republicans stuck hard with Trump, and the Trumpers dug in further with Strzok/Page garbage. If Mueller wanted to sway independents, he failed. They brushed it off.
Right-wing social can be both described as interventionist and non-interventionist depending on the context. Right-wingers would never advocate giving groups that have little social power more power; their aim is to keep them at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Obviously, they wouldn't propose policies giving oppressed groups equal rights and if they can get away with it they would enact laws that not so obviously restrict the rights of oppressed groups.
The Republican Party has a sizable portion of populist voters, but they are controlled by the elites of the party, they manged to convince the poor white man to support "fiscal conservationism" by convincing them that prosperity of the wealthy will eventually benefit them and also that their position won't be challenged by minority groups. Social welfare programs might benefit them and minorities as well , but cutting them will effect minorities more - their position in society is still maintained if they get cut. Politically some Republican's would rather cut it in such a way that wouldn't affect their base. It should be kept in mind that the populist portion of the party don't like the establishment faction, but they rather have them then potential liberal.
Trump manged to capture the populist and social conservative factions that is why many Republicans hated Trump at the beginning, he was an real outsider and had the support of voters that elite republicans controlled for a long time.
His grievances are theirs as well.
Interesting - I suppose that would really help in New Orleans. I recall that Obama also recorded a robocall for Doug Jones, but the Jones campaign ultimately decided against using it.
- Status