Political Discussion

ayayrawn said:
Figured this was coming the moment Biden, an otherwise pretty terrible candidate, finally won and immediately renegged on stimulus checks. Treating right now as the calm between the shit storms (not that now isn't a shit storm but you know what i mean).
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Where's my $600?
This is all they remember. Dems promised to send out $2000 checks if they were elected and they couldn't even do that right.

TenderLovingKiller® said:
Funny to me is how when a Progressive candidate or policy fails the media/talking head blame the Progressives for being out of touch but if a Moderate Dem, like Terry McAuliffe loses they still blame Progressives for pushing the party too far to the Left. It seems to me if the progressive Left has to foot the blame either way then we might as well be putting forward only Progressive candidates. If Terry McAuliffe supposedly as liberal as Bernie, then aren’t we better off putting up actual Sanders-esque Progressives since we’re damned either way?
Click to expand...
In most instances, as in this instance, the reason for the failure had nothing to do with progressive policies. If we put up progressive candidates that cannot be bought by corporate interests, how are our politicians expected to keep insider trading? And what about all those vacations and speaking gigs from lobbyists? How are they supposed to afford private jet fuel to go to conferences on climate change? And what do you want these people to do for healthcare? Go on one of those abysmal marketplace plans? What will happen to the carefully constructed web of nepotism that these people come to rely on? Really, you are talking about burning down a huge system of bribery, lying and cheating, and displacing all of the sadists holding office.

Any progressive policy is going to be unrealistic because it calls for redistribution away from these people.
 
nolalady said:
Exactly.
Where's my $600?
This is all they remember. Dems promised to send out $2000 checks if they were elected and they couldn't even do that right.


In most instances, as in this instance, the reason for the failure had nothing to do with progressive policies. If we put up progressive candidates that cannot be bought by corporate interests, how are our politicians expected to keep insider trading? And what about all those vacations and speaking gigs from lobbyists? How are they supposed to afford private jet fuel to go to conferences on climate change? And what do you want these people to do for healthcare? Go on one of those abysmal marketplace plans? What will happen to the carefully constructed web of nepotism that these people come to rely on? Really, you are talking about burning down a huge system of bribery, lying and cheating, and displacing all of the sadists holding office.

Any progressive policy is going to be unrealistic because it calls for redistribution away from these people.
Click to expand...
That’s kinda my point. The majority of Dems support progressive ideas. The only reason they put forward moderate candidates is because they feel like a moderate would be more competitive, but if the GOP are gonna paint these moderate candidates as Left of Che Guevara and when the Moderates lose, the media is gonna blame the Progressive Left for pushing the party to the extremes then why not put up actual Progressives with actual progressive agendas. Right now it feels like Progressives get most of the blame when Dems lose and very little of the actual power when they win.
 
Last edited:
TenderLovingKiller® said:
That’s kinda my point. The majority of Dems support progressive ideas. The only reason they put forward moderate candidates is because they feel like moderate would be more competitive, but if the GOP are gonna paint these moderate candidates as Left of Che Guevara and when the Moderates lose, the media is gonna blame the Progressive Left for pushing the party to the extremes then why not put out put up actual Progressives with actual progressive agendas. Right now it feels like Progressives get most of the blame when Dems lose and very little of the actual power when they win.
Click to expand...
You nailed it. Politically, Republicans are taking more and more risks - some pay off, others don't. But you could argue that the approach reflects an authenticity that appeals to and connects with certain voters. Meanwhile, Democrats seem terrified of doing anything bold or risky, which appeals to...well, I can't think of anyone. A progressive agenda has massive potential to benefit a broad swath of Americans, but to the middle of the road voter, these moderate candidates (being labeled as progressives, or socialists) look and sound like garden variety politicians. That's just not going to move the needle, especially in 2021 and beyond.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
That’s kinda my point. The majority of Dems support progressive ideas. The only reason they put forward moderate candidates is because they feel like moderate would be more competitive, but if the GOP are gonna paint these moderate candidates as Left of Che Guevara and when the Moderates lose, the media is gonna blame the Progressive Left for pushing the party to the extremes then why not put out put up actual Progressives with actual progressive agendas. Right now it feels like Progressives get most of the blame and very little of the actual power.
Click to expand...
The majority of democratic leadership does not have progressive ideas. They are neoliberals and believe that government power should be ceded to "market forces" (AKA let's privatize everything). Democratic leadership says that they cannot do progressive ideas because the democratic leadership is owned by special interests. Progressives would run if they could raise any campaign dollars, but all of those are taken by more "traditional" democrats.
 
nolalady said:
The majority of democratic leadership does not have progressive ideas. They are neoliberals and believe that government power should be ceded to "market forces" (AKA let's privatize everything). Democratic leadership says that they cannot do progressive ideas because the democratic leadership is owned by special interests. Progressives would run if they could raise any campaign dollars, but all of those are taken by more "traditional" democrats.
Click to expand...

Yeah you don’t have a left or progressive party at all. Dems are centre right, much closer to the Tories than labour if you want an analogy with the UK as a comparison point. It feels like they contain a few progressives just because it’s actually only place they can live, albeit uncomfortably, on your spectrum. If it makes you feel any better even over here in Europe we can’t get any progressive policies passed either beyond those used as vote bribes in the run up to, or fallout from, an election.
 
Last edited:
Yet all those center right Dems are classified as "Extremists" by Republicans these days as it has more effect than saying socialists or communists.

It's like anything that's just a little bit further left than the republican party baseline are a danger that need to be stopped at all costs.
 
Joe Mac said:
Yeah you don’t have a left or progressive party at all. Dems are centre right, much closer to the Tories than labour if you want an analogy with the UK as a comparison point. It feels like they contain a few progressives just because it’s actually only place they can live, albeit uncomfortably, on your spectrum. If it makes you feel any better even over here in Europe we can’t get any progressive policies passed either beyond those used as vote bribes in the run up to, or fallout from, an election.
Click to expand...
Yep, yep, yep. The Democrat party decided in the 1970's to make a shift away from populism and towards neoliberalism, and the only reason I really see for this shift is greed at the top. The Republicans are just neoconservatives which means that they believe in the "free market" (just don't ask them why we, as tax payers, have to keep bailing out large corporations who make bad business decisions) and the privatization of government, they just bring a Bible to their meetings. And this is why nothing gets done, because at the end of the day, everyone with any power believes that government should be privatized and populism is a dirty word. The only socialism we participate in is corporate socialism, because the only reason government should intervene is to keep the markets running as investors have come to expect them to run--which is to keep inflation artificially low as to encourage investment (this leads to asset price rise which leads to inflation, but a cycle seems to be too difficult of a concept for these people to understand). This whole thing is eventually going to break because nothing lasts forever, including a 2% inflation rate.
 
nolalady said:
Yep, yep, yep. The Democrat party decided in the 1970's to make a shift away from populism and towards neoliberalism, and the only reason I really see for this shift is greed at the top. The Republicans are just neoconservatives which means that they believe in the "free market" (just don't ask them why we, as tax payers, have to keep bailing out large corporations who make bad business decisions) and the privatization of government, they just bring a Bible to their meetings. And this is why nothing gets done, because at the end of the day, everyone with any power believes that government should be privatized and populism is a dirty word. The only socialism we participate in is corporate socialism, because the only reason government should intervene is to keep the markets running as investors have come to expect them to run--which is to keep inflation artificially low as to encourage investment (this leads to asset price rise which leads to inflation, but a cycle seems to be too difficult of a concept for these people to understand). This whole thing is eventually going to break because nothing lasts forever, including a 2% inflation rate.
Click to expand...

Yep the whole free market thing only works when companies are not too big to fail. Speculators (I hate the term investor because beyond the IPO they aren’t) have to be able to take losses as well as gains to temper things going crazy. As it is things have just been allowed to go crazy and poor people pay the price.
 
ayayrawn said:
Lol

View attachment 116462
Click to expand...
This is ultimately why the Democrats are going to loose the primaries in 2022 and they will probably give away the presidency in 2024 unless they about face. But right now, all anyone sees is big businesses paying off Democrats to reverse course on populist policies. When dental and vision care for Medicare recipients and lower cost drug pricing is nixed, it just confirms to people that these politicians are in the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Joe Mac said:
Yep the whole free market thing only works when companies are not too big to fail. Speculators (I hate the term investor because beyond the IPO they aren’t) have to be able to take losses as well as gains to temper things going crazy. As it is things have just been allowed to go crazy and poor people pay the price.
Click to expand...
The only way to have a free market is to have a mechanism to continue competition without the conglomeration of capital--that is to say, mathematically speaking, money attracts money, and the more money you have, the faster the rate you attract that money. This isn't because this person makes the best widget. This person's wild success was that they were able to gain enough money in the short term--the long term success of this individual (or any individual in their place) is basically mathematical law. There's nothing great or wonderful that the J.P. Morgan Chase's did other than have money. Their success was as imminent as the product of 6 times 7. And now we revere the Bezos, Gates, and Musk as some sort of geniuses, when it's just that they are playing the same game the Rockefellers and Chases played, amass wealth and that wealth will attract more.
 
nolalady said:
This is ultimately why the Democrats are going to loose the primaries in 2022 and they will probably give away the presidency in 2024 unless they about face. But right now, all anyone sees is big businesses paying off Democrats to reverse course on populist policies. When dental and vision care for Medicare recipients and lower cost drug pricing is nixed, it just confirms to people that these politicians are in the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

The only way to have a free market is to have a mechanism to continue competition without the conglomeration of capital--that is to say, mathematically speaking, money attracts money, and the more money you have, the faster the rate you attract that money. This isn't because this person makes the best widget. This person's wild success was that they were able to gain enough money in the short term--the long term success of this individual (or any individual in their place) is basically mathematical law. There's nothing great or wonderful that the J.P. Morgan Chase's did other than have money. Their success was as imminent as the product of 6 times 7. And now we revere the Bezos, Gates, and Musk as some sort of geniuses, when it's just that they are playing the same game the Rockefellers and Chases played, amass wealth and that wealth will attract more.
Click to expand...

Yep and we’re almost obligated to bail them out when they do go tits up because they also tend to be the financial institutions that the like of us have our deposits. There really should be more of a separation between companies that speculate on the market and those that hold our money. But then banking regulation seems to be the dirtiest of dirty words in the political world when it’s what the rest of the populace are screaming for.
 
@RenegadeMonster here's a little something to add to your homelessness file:

California’s Long Beach City College said it will allow homeless students to sleep in their vehicles at the university’s parking garage.

The school announced Monday that its “Safe Parking Program” program is meant to help unhoused students at the university and provide a safe space for them to park overnight.

Enrolled students who are homeless are able to stay at the Pacific Coast Campus parking structure seven nights a week, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

thehill.com

California college allowing homeless students to sleep in parked cars

California’s Long Beach City College said it will allow homeless students to sleep in their vehicles at the university’s parking garage. The school announced Monday that its “Safe Parking…
thehill.com thehill.com

It's so nice that our institutions can be flexible and work with students who have barriers... *heavy sarcasm*
 
nolalady said:
he only way to have a free market is to have a mechanism to continue competition without the conglomeration of capital--that is to say, mathematically speaking, money attracts money, and the more money you have, the faster the rate you attract that money. This isn't because this person makes the best widget. This person's wild success was that they were able to gain enough money in the short term--the long term success of this individual (or any individual in their place) is basically mathematical law. There's nothing great or wonderful that the J.P. Morgan Chase's did other than have money. Their success was as imminent as the product of 6 times 7. And now we revere the Bezos, Gates, and Musk as some sort of geniuses, when it's just that they are playing the same game the Rockefellers and Chases played, amass wealth and that wealth will attract more.
Click to expand...
i think i linked this before, but this is aninteresting article of mathematical models of free markest that basically always go towards inequality the end
www.scientificamerican.com

Is Inequality Inevitable?

Wealth naturally trickles up in free-market economies, model suggests
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
 
www.cnn.com

John Deere considers using overseas plants and US strikebreakers

John Deere says it is looking at all options to provide products to its customers, including possibly using strikebreakers or importing equipment from overseas factories it operates.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Basically to sum it up. John Deere is doing very well and making great profits.

Union workers want better compensation as part of their contract / package and rejected the package John Deere provided because they felt it didn't provide workers with enough compensation.

John Deere is now considering moving factories overseas if workers continue to demand better wages and strike.

Basically, like what happens most often with globalization and capitalism. They rather offshore than pay increased wages.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
www.cnn.com

John Deere considers using overseas plants and US strikebreakers

John Deere says it is looking at all options to provide products to its customers, including possibly using strikebreakers or importing equipment from overseas factories it operates.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Basically to sum it up. John Deere is doing very well and making great profits.

Union workers want better compensation as part of their contract / package and rejected the package John Deere provided because they felt it didn't provide workers with enough compensation.

John Deere is now considering moving factories overseas if workers continue to demand better wages and strike.

Basically, like what happens most often with globalization and capitalism. They rather offshore than pay increased wages.
Click to expand...
But right now the problem they are having is that there aren't any overseas factories with this production knowledge. So basically, they were trying to get some employees to go down to Mexico and show the workers there how to do the job for less wages. Every employee that was asked, refused to go. So while management says that it's going to move operations overseas, and this is, at best, a stall tactic, but I'm glad to see them refuse to train the workers. John Deere got push back on the years of worker exploitation, so they want to go and do it in another country where workers have fewer rights. If you want to know what one of the biggest points of contention is, it's that those being hired on now, are tiered into a job with lower pay and lower benefits. These workers don't and will never get as much as the older workers--and since Deere is so ingrained in the community, you often get multiple generations of families working for them. These workers kept seeing their kids get the shaft on pay and benefits, and part of why they are striking is to insure better pay for these workers in the long run. I've been reading a lot about this and I really like that the workers are fighting back and standing up to globalism, which is just modern day colonialism.
 
nolalady said:
But right now the problem they are having is that there aren't any overseas factories with this production knowledge. So basically, they were trying to get some employees to go down to Mexico and show the workers there how to do the job for less wages. Every employee that was asked, refused to go. So while management says that it's going to move operations overseas, and this is, at best, a stall tactic, but I'm glad to see them refuse to train the workers. John Deere got push back on the years of worker exploitation, so they want to go and do it in another country where workers have fewer rights. If you want to know what one of the biggest points of contention is, it's that those being hired on now, are tiered into a job with lower pay and lower benefits. These workers don't and will never get as much as the older workers--and since Deere is so ingrained in the community, you often get multiple generations of families working for them. These workers kept seeing their kids get the shaft on pay and benefits, and part of why they are striking is to insure better pay for these workers in the long run. I've been reading a lot about this and I really like that the workers are fighting back and standing up to globalism, which is just modern day colonialism.
Click to expand...
Also, this is always the threat when negotiations a new labor contract. Deere floats stuff like this out to press in hopes that it will drive up support for their next offer. There are lots in of quality tractor manufacturers, part of the reason John Deere is the most popular manufacturer in the US is because they still make tractors in the US. If they were to close up shop and move elsewhere they would severely damage their brand image. I understand their is lots of other countries that buy farm equipment but The US still has some of the worlds best farmland and wealthiest consumer base.

My grandpa preferred his Deutz-Allis tractor anyhow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top