-
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.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
I just want Bloomb to get cratered in the debate so we don't need to have this discussion anymore.
Primary Season is a very dark place.
Primary Season is a very dark place.
Types of Political-Economic Systems (that apply to America) from my Comparative Politics book
Social Democracy - Balance between freedom and equality, a midpoint between capitalism and socialism.
Liberalism - High freedom, low equality. Capitalism.
From my own research paper
Neoliberalism - an evolution of liberalism that paradoxically claims to decrease government intervention in markets while increasing government intervention in markets, exclusively favoring the rich and powerful and creating an international ruling class comprised of property hoarders and the political elite.
Under these definitions, which I think are fair, it's easy to place candidates.
Social Democracy - Balance between freedom and equality, a midpoint between capitalism and socialism.
Liberalism - High freedom, low equality. Capitalism.
From my own research paper
Neoliberalism - an evolution of liberalism that paradoxically claims to decrease government intervention in markets while increasing government intervention in markets, exclusively favoring the rich and powerful and creating an international ruling class comprised of property hoarders and the political elite.
Under these definitions, which I think are fair, it's easy to place candidates.
Yougov poll had half of 18-29 Democratic voters saying they would be disappointed if Bloomberg is the nominee, which was higher than any other candidate. I expect the numbers to get even worse because that was before all the oppo dropped.
I think most people understand (or have settled if you prefer into the belief) that to fix it, you must win first the current game with current rules, not an aspirational one where money is out of politics. The old addage that "not evil, but perfect is the enemy of the good" and that its result is the fact that we can't take an attitude of "perfect or nothing."
The thing is, under those definitions, I don't think any of the Democratic candidates qualify as neoliberal. All of them straightforwardly favor increased market intervention as a means or reducing inequality, even if they also praise the system writ large.
Send the Klobberer your energy.
So its really Republicans who are Neoliberals and not most Democrats.
I feel that we should ban the use of both "neoliberals" and "Bernie bros" in this thread. Both are really toxic to discussion on extreme ends (ie. progressives calling those who don't agree with them neoliberals, moderates calling progressives "bernie bros" etc.).
I feel that we should ban the use of both "neoliberals" and "Bernie bros" in this thread. Both are really toxic to discussion on extreme ends (ie. progressives calling those who don't agree with them neoliberals, moderates calling progressives "bernie bros" etc.).
If Bernie is at all concerned about winning those suburban women that he loses compared to Biden, Klobuchar might be a solid choice for VP. Could help in the Midwest as well.
His track record of who he surrounds himself with gives me almost no hope in that area.
His track record of who he surrounds himself with gives me almost no hope in that area.
Most Democrats are center-right, so no. Also, one is an actual term and the other is derived from twitter drama so I'm not sure what to say.
Who, exactly, is arguing this? "Too racist to vote for Bernie?" What?
I wrote a note to my state reps last asking for support for a bill that would remove exclusive single family zoning in dense parts of my state. I support open borders and free trade to reduce global poverty, and support carbon taxing/dividends because negative externalities at this scale are far too big to just let continue.
There is this equivalence that America's brand of regulatory capture ridden capitalism is some kind of failed neoliberalism, but actual neoliberal policies are daring and forward thinking progressive policy.
There is this equivalence that America's brand of regulatory capture ridden capitalism is some kind of failed neoliberalism, but actual neoliberal policies are daring and forward thinking progressive policy.
I think where the common interpretation lies is that neoliberals on the right further protect and empower the ruling class, and neoliberals on the left leave them alone and are liberals in every other sense. So a "true" liberal (yeah, I know lol) would attempt to take the ruling class out of the stratosphere back down to regular old rich, via something like a wealth tax.
That's all I got on that.
Eh, my mom is a true "G.R.I.T.S." and she is voting for Bernie at age 64. A lot of her friends are too, though it's a mixture of Bernie and Biden usually.
User Banned (2 weeks): trolling, previous related infractions
Nah that's rude
Most Democrats aren't AOC but most aren't also Joe Manchin either. Most Dems fall on the center-left end of things.
I mean, this is a discussion forum, where people attach their names to their opinions lol.
I don't know what "too racist to vote for Bernie" means, unless it's this:
We could use the same logic for voting here and say that leaving the ruling class alone is the same as empowering them, just as not voting for the democratic candidate in the GE is a vote for republicans. So they are essentially the same party in a weird way.
But then we're back to "high freedom, low equality." A classical liberal wouldn't be at all interested in reducing wealth inequality, they'd see it as the system working as intended.
They also wouldn't be particularly interested in reducing racism or any other of the social equality stuff American liberals want. Liberal in the American sense doesn't really have much of anything to do with the terms being used here, tbh. And using "neoliberal" as a sort of parallel to "neoconservative" aimed at Democrats is kind of silly, because again, none of them actually believe in any of the working definitions of the word I've seen used, aside from the general "an American liberal who does stuff I don't like."
I mean, yeah, that's been the main argument behind these categorizations for pretty much my entire life, which I largely agree with.
So... this is an interesting argument. More interesting than most of the "both parties are the same" takes I've seen, anyway.
I would argue that it's too class reductionist to actually apply to anything, though. Dems not being on board with totally dismantling capitalism doesn't mean they're not interested in altering the power structures that empower the real world ruling classes, to their detriment.
If political ideologies were pizzas, would neoliberalism be pineapple?
yeah I don't see how a pro gun advocate doesn't get dragged in a spectacular way on today's college campuses. Those kids have lived with the terror and dread of mass shootings for years now.
Ben Shapiro is coming to my school in March, despite a huge effort to keep him away. Student Government voted overwhelmingly to pay him using $17,500 of our student activity funds, collected as part of our tuition. UCF student government is run by a frat + College Republican combo. Our president is buddies with the campus conservative leaders. UF rejected this shit and lost a lawsuit to the org representing Shapiro which accused them of unfairly stifling the free speech of conservatives on campus.
Florida 😞
Florida 😞
Are you a parody account? If you somehow want to pretend capitalism is something "devoid of thought and political ideology", I hope you can at least be convinced that the act of trying to uphold capitalism involves plenty of thought and political ideology.
For the most part they have no incentive to alter power structures in a way that's meaningful to minorities or poor people because the ruling class has a larger amount of influence on them than those other people.
And I think it's more true in 2020 than in recent decades that not enough feels the same as not at all to a growing group of voters rather than ideological extemists.
If this is as straightforward as you're making it out to be, I'm curious: what's the explanation for change happening at all? Because though it hasn't been as through or as fast as as it should be, the party has pushed for a number of things that explicitly put them on the outs with entrenched power structures, even to their explicit political detriment.
I would attribute this to the 2008 recession more than anything else. The response (or lack thereof) was shaped by inter party dynamics at least as much as intra party.
I'd say its akin to Dorothy opening the curtains and seeing some bullshit. It's the same political move.
As in forever? Or just recently? I'd say education along with job prospects not being there for the educated. There will always be well educated people pushing for structural change that the political hegemony has to appease. It's just been accelerated with things like youtube, twitch, and basically mandatory college degrees for entry level jobs.
I think you need to read Slobodian or any other contemporary political scientists who have a particular focus on neoliberalism -this would facilitate not mixing some vague internet sourced understanding of neoliberalism with the going rate within political science.
This understanding of neoliberalism does not deny or contradict the ideological cornerstones that the free actions of individuals are best represented collectively in the market that provides an optimum distribution of goods possible. Or their idea that attempting to interfere in the operation of the market is a recipe for inefficiency.
That pushes exactly against the previous argument you were making, though. Well educated people tend to be better off and more a part of the economic ruling class than less educated people. 2008 definitely lead to there being a header job market but still.
And yeah, this does extend back a ways. The environmentalist movement is sort of a great example since literally all of the money is on the other side of the issue.
That's a hell of a headshot they used there. TBH she was probably a little caught off guard by the Klobmentum.
Not currently, no. An education is no longer a guarantee for a job anymore. Also, people with college degrees aren't a part of the ruling class. Is someone that makes 80k a year a part of the ruling class, or a multi-millionaire? Educated people are the backbone to progress.
This matches up with my own research on the topic. In public it's advertised as minimizing interference, but it has actually increased interference. It's just targeted at a specific group of beneficiaries that are believed to be responsible for the growth generated by the market.
Sorry, I expanded a little bit in an edit. Being well educated still means you're much better off, even if you're not a multimillionaire.
Driving 2700 miles to NV sounds like anger management issues being taken out on her staff, tbh. Like, that's the kind of distance where flying them would be cheaper on top of a few days faster.
Yes, let's count on people who have never voted before to maybe swoop in and save us, and also them covering up other demographics lost. Where those votes are is also worth consideration. I honestly don't know what the age trends are in the rust belt.
Scaling org capacity was always Amy's challenge out of NH, that story is not surprising.
That said, these yuuuge ground campaigns and organizing have had mixed results.
That said, these yuuuge ground campaigns and organizing have had mixed results.
But not well off enough to influence politics in any way possible. Someone making 100k a year doesn't have the extra income to influence a legislator to push tax breaks, they are not part of the ruling class at all. A multi-millionaire or billionaire? yeah, most likely. Again, being educated does not guarantee a much better off standing in terms of material conditions. Teachers alone prove that.
- Status