• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.
If liberal solutions are so effective, why are issues of inequality getting worse rather than better? As long as the owners of capital control political power, they aren't going to be very willing to help the poor. This is actually against their interests, because living wages are much less profitable.

As for "screwing the rich", elite individuals hold disproportionate sway in politics. Equality is important not just because of inherent ethical problems with some people having more than others, but because inequality prevents the have-nots from properly addressing their own collective concerns.



That's an imaginary distinction. Sanders and Warren constantly get flak for being overly idealistic, simply for proposing solutions more radical than the Democratic party line.

Maybe it is a little more complicated than that, or liberals were not focused on income inequality until recently? It also shouldn't mean that socialists have higher moral standing. I say quite a few the claim to be socialist are just that way to improve their own lives and not others they might end up hurting. Like some already argued many socialists probably aren't interested in areas outside the borders. Are there many socialists that advocate that once they get into power they'll use the US wealth and influence to help other poorer countries( if referring to global income equality)?
 
That's an imaginary distinction. Sanders and Warren constantly get flak for being overly idealistic, simply for proposing solutions more radical than the Democratic party line.

I'm an idealist. I believe health care is a human right. I believe in universal coverage. That is an ideal that I won't give up.

I don't believe single payer is the only way to get there. I'm open to workable alternatives. That's the difference between an idealist and an idealogue.

Idealists don't give up on their goals, ideologues don't give up on their solutions. They're married to them. They think only their pet policy is the way to solve a problem.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Wait.. I wake from a nap and find that Trump has given praise for Saddam Hussein?!

tumblr_n2evlqgunn1sbf1mqo2_500.gif
 

itschris

Member
Burlington Free Press: Bernie Sanders requests rally on eve of DNC

Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign has asked permission to hold a rally in Philadelphia on July 24, the eve of the Democratic National Convention.

The permit application for the event — which would involve an estimated 15,000 to 40,000 people in Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park — is one of ten applications filed with the Philadelphia mayor's office for pro-Sanders protests, marches and demonstrations during the convention.

Several events have already secured approval, including multiple "March for Bernie" events throughout the week organized by activist Billy Taylor and a "Black Men for Bernie" rally on July 27-28, according to a list provided by the mayor's office.

The official Sanders campaign rally application is still pending.

Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs was quoted in June telling the website Philly.com that Sanders would deliver a "victory statement" at the proposed July 24 rally. Reached Tuesday, Briggs declined to share details.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Maybe it is a little more complicated than that, or liberals were not focused on income inequality until recently? That also shouldn't mean that socialists have higher moral standing. I say quite a few the claim to be socialist are just that way to improve their own lives and not others they might end up hurting. Like some already argued many socialists probably aren't interested in areas outside the borders. Are there many socialists that advocate that once they get into power they'll use the US wealth and influence to help other poorer countries?

I would say the vast majority of socialists believe in proletarian internationalism but it doesn't come up much outside of internal dialogue because, well, why would it? Americans aren't interested in that. Very few voters are going to say "I like that guy" when he goes on about the need to liberate East African workers from Chinese capital or whatever, or the necessity of world revolution, or even something like increasing overseas aid in general. I think that's why someone like Bernie, who talks about protectionist methods, more easily gained attention, because his proposals focus entirely on Americans and voters who have been hit by the changed economy can more easily relate to that.

Nationalism is usually only supported by socialists as a temporary step against foreign imperial interests (see: all those revolutions the USSR funded).
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Well, Sanders won't be speaking at the convention. What a fuckwit.

I almost have built up the frustration to go back and collect a list of all the people who said this would not happen.
As I recall, I was told I was getting worried over nothing. Sanders would endorse after the primaries were over, etc, etc.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Maybe it is a little more complicated than that, or liberals were not focused on income inequality until recently? It also shouldn't mean that socialists have higher moral standing. I say quite a few the claim to be socialist are just that way to improve their own lives and not others they might end up hurting. Like some already argued many socialists probably aren't interested in areas outside the borders. Are there many socialists that advocate that once they get into power they'll use the US wealth and influence to help other poorer countries( if referring to global income equality)?

Marxist socialism is internationalist by nature. "Workers of the world, unite!" is the last line of the Manifesto. Essentially all socialists are concerned with global wealth distribution. Some socialists even support revolutionary intervention, like Soviet participation in the Spanish Civil War or Cuban involvement in Angola.

More importantly, the abolition of capitalist institutions would end the flow of wealth from the global south to the global north, as Nigerian oil and Peruvian copper would be managed by Nigerians and Peruvians.
 

Ecotic

Member
A friend of mine is a huge Bernie supporter and steadfastly believes Hillary is a lying, immoral crook. And I was trying to persuade her that yeah, regardless there's more to the Presidency than just personality. So I drew her this.

 

shem935

Banned
Well, Sanders won't be speaking at the convention. What a fuckwit.

I almost have built up the frustration to go back and collect a list of all the people who said this would not happen.

I didn't catch on immediately but yeah that is what that means huh. Something something no difference between an ideologue and an idealist something something.

That difference could not be more stark between Warren and Sanders behavior right now to be honest.
 

Bowdz

Member
Who didn't see this shit coming? Jesus Christ. You don't probe something to death if the outcome doesn't go your way, Boy Blunder.

It's fucking crazy. Going after the FBI for being partisan will only appeal to a small subset of voters who already distrust Clinton but will look TERRIBLE to the bulk of the independent electorate. It is so blatantly partisan that it makes Benghazi look like an apolitical non partisan venture.

The damage against Clinton and her trustworthiness is already done. Mission accomplished guys. Her unfavorables are through the roof. She is trusted less than Trump. You guys won. Comey also gave you everything you need to attack her through the fall. His statement was scathing. Just say you respect the FBI and will accept their recommendation and then use his words to batter Clinton until election day. Instead, they have decided to fuck that situation up and lose any advantage they could have gained.
 
I would say the vast majority of socialists believe in proletarian internationalism but it doesn't come up much outside of internal dialogue because, well, why would it? Americans aren't interested in that. Very few voters are going to say "I like that guy" when he goes on about the need to liberate East African workers from Chinese capital or whatever, or the necessity of world revolution, or even something like increasing overseas aid in general. I think that's why someone like Bernie, who talks about protectionist methods, more easily gained attention, because his proposals focus entirely on Americans and voters who have been hit by the changed economy can more easily relate to that.

Nationalism is usually only supported by socialists as a temporary step against foreign imperial interests (see: all those revolutions the USSR funded).

Well it depends, if you want to help the poor and deal with the issue of global income equality not really mentioning on how you are supposed to deal with it outside the borders doesn't really seem genuine . Most candidates have a plan of some sort of how we should deal with the world, but that is a moderate or small part of the campaign. A person like Bernie does not have to make his campaign centered around it, but bring it up like how some candidates bring up foreign policy. Solving the issue of global income equality can help it solve it here.

Marxist socialism is internationalist by nature. "Workers of the world, unite!" is the last line of the Manifesto. Essentially all socialists are concerned with global wealth distribution. Some socialists even support revolutionary intervention, like Soviet participation in the Spanish Civil War or Cuban involvement in Angola.

More importantly, the abolition of capitalist institutions would end the flow of wealth from the global south to the global north, as Nigerian oil and Peruvian copper would be managed by Nigerians and Peruvians.

But solving global income equality isn't a focus or it doesn't seem like. As I said many don't really talk how do we solve it outside just ranting. Even Bernie Sanders did not make it a focus. I believe that solving the issue requires more than just focusing on the US because of how powerful the corporations are and how many countries export their own citizens. How do we go about abolishing capitalist institutions in Nigeria and Peru? How would the US deal with it? Again socialist seem more interested in isolation and are protectionist. But again socialism in the US is disorganized and is more down to the individual.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
That's an imaginary distinction. Sanders and Warren constantly get flak for being overly idealistic, simply for proposing solutions more radical than the Democratic party line.

It's not though. Sanders gets flack for being an ideologue, not for being an idealist. There's a pretty distinct difference between the two.

I'm an idealist. I believe health care is a human right. I believe in universal coverage. That is an ideal that I won't give up.

I don't believe single payer is the only way to get there. I'm open to workable alternatives. That's the difference between an idealist and an idealogue.

Idealists don't give up on their goals, ideologues don't give up on their solutions. They're married to them. They think only their pet policy is the way to solve a problem.

Exactly. Most people in here are idealists, Warren is an idealist. Obama is an idealist. Hell, on certain issues Hillary is an idealist. No one in this thread has an issue with idealists, saying we do is dishonest. We have problems with ideologues.
 
Well, Sanders won't be speaking at the convention. What a fuckwit.

I almost have built up the frustration to go back and collect a list of all the people who said this would not happen.
As I recall, I was told I was getting worried over nothing. Sanders would endorse after the primaries were over, etc, etc.

Look. The FBI Primary was just over a few hours ago. We haven't even finished counting all the votes. Let Bernie feel like a special butterfly for a few......no, I can't even muster up enough energy to be an asshole towards Bernie anymore.

I love how the Burlington paper said he "came in second" to Hillary. You know. In a two person race. He came in 2nd.

raw
 

I wish the press would just ask him these questions over and over again:

- Why are you acting like a child?

- Why are you wasting secret service resources?

- Why are you intent on burning bridges?

- Why can't you just accept the unprecedented kindness the DNC gave to you?

- Do you want to be remembered as Nader 2.0?

- How would you feel if the DNC decided to run a democrat in Vermont for your seat just to spite you?

Just over and over again until he snaps and just admits that he is wasting everyone's time.
 
If liberal solutions are so effective, why are issues of inequality getting worse rather than better? As long as the owners of capital control political power, they aren't going to be very willing to help the poor. This is actually against their interests, because living wages are much less profitable.

False equivalency; wealth inequality is getting worse, but that's not because the poor are getting poorer (generally) but because the rich are getting richer. 2/3 of the vanishing American middle class is moving UP out of the bracket. The 1/3 is a problem, to be sure, but treating wealth inequality as the be-all end-all is missing the point, largely. The refrigerator image gets rightly mocked, but at the same time, if standard of living is going up it's going up.

Now, all that isn't to say that we don't have a wealth distribution issue. That 1/3 of the middle class departures going downwards is largely due to eroded worker rights and the demise of pro-worker culture in the States, but that doesn't require a radical departure from capitalism to fix, it needs stronger unions.

As for "screwing the rich", elite individuals hold disproportionate sway in politics. Equality is important not just because of inherent ethical problems with some people having more than others, but because inequality prevents the have-nots from properly addressing their own collective concerns.

But, again, fighting to solve or reduce inequality is not the same as "screw the rich." Wealth isn't finite. You can make the poor richer without making the rich poorer, or at least, not significantly poorer. This is demonstrated by the effects of globalization on real-world poverty statistics. The worker's rights issues presented are admittedly pretty goddamn far from ideal, but it still beats starving to death, and it opens up the possibility of the transition to something better.
 

itschris

Member
what is in his head? is this Weaver's doing?

Well, an optimistic interpretation is that the "victory statement" will be about the concessions they've obtained in the party platform, leading to an endorsement of Hillary. Of course, given that this is Bernie we're talking about, I'm not so sure.
 
Only white people are academics?

Fuck that, you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said. The socialists I know in LA certainly aren't "academic Marxists" of the type I was describing earlier. The friend of mine in New York wouldn't dream of actually getting down in the trenches the way my friends have.
 

In retrospect keeping the current thread title was probably a good idea even with the indictment/obama rally news today. Anyway I'm not really that annoyed, I saw the list of people campaigning with Hillary and it took me a good 3-4 minutes to realize that Bernie wasn't on the list. Refusing to concede and dragging this all the way out really accelerated Bernie towards irrelevance faster than I ever thought it would.
 
I wish the press would just ask him these questions over and over again:

- Why are you acting like a child?

Because the millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street have created a corrupt campaign finance system!

- Why are you wasting secret service resources?

Look, we live in the only country on earth in which health care is not a human right.

- Why are you intent on burning bridges?

: wags finger in your general direction :

- Why can't you just accept the unprecedented kindness the DNC gave to you?

I'm going to do something radical. I'm going to tell you the truth. And the truth is...RIGGED!

- Do you want to be remembered as Nader 2.0?

: finger wagging intensifies :

- How would you feel if the DNC decided to run a democrat in Vermont for your seat just to spite you?

I'd respond to this, but I have to go hang out with the Pope at the Vatican again. Did you hear about the bird? It was a YUGE deal.
 

Iolo

Member
It means Clinton was influential and the lead proponent of a policy that turned away the children coming in droves to the border from the war torn regions of Central America.


Ok, definitely only saw this on Facebook and had not seen the Twitter comments.

Sure you did, Louisa.
 
Been getting anime girl ads forced upon me by neogaf lately. The other one showed an Asian cartoon character evolving larger breasts as she leveled up from 1 to 5 to 10.

A92kHSU.jpg


This is all very dignified

Can't wait for the mountain dew and fleshlight ads in the future

What are CVS and why would you need 200 of them

Hold on, I been watching a senran kagura let's play on YouTube

Shit
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
It's fucking crazy. Going after the FBI for being partisan will only appeal to a small subset of voters who already distrust Clinton but will look TERRIBLE to the bulk of the independent electorate. It is so blatantly partisan that it makes Benghazi look like an apolitical non partisan venture.

The damage against Clinton and her trustworthiness is already done. Mission accomplished guys. Her unfavorables are through the roof. She is trusted less than Trump. You guys won. Comey also gave you everything you need to attack her through the fall. His statement was scathing. Just say you respect the FBI and will accept their recommendation and then use his words to batter Clinton until election day. Instead, they have decided to fuck that situation up and lose any advantage they could have gained.
You're forgetting that they're in crisis mode. They are going to lose badly unless they stick a Hail Mary.
 

Plumbob

Member
Guys this email thing looks really bad, this is going to improve prospects for Trump

Essentializes and epitomizes the idea Clinton is above the law for the casual observer

It's not even about persuading people to vote for Trump, all they have to do is disillusion enough liberals to not vote for anybody or vote 3rd party
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Guys this email thing looks really bad, this is going to improve prospects for Trump

Essentializes and epitomizes the idea Clinton is above the law for the casual observer

It's not even about persuading people to vote for Trump, all they have to do is disillusion enough liberals to not vote for anybody or vote 3rd party

K huelen
 

pigeon

Banned
Stick your nose outside of this thread

I'm not talking about facts, I'm talking about optics

Optics aren't real, that's why they're called optics.

If this is bad then let's wait for the polls to say so. (And even then we should wait til after the DNC reminds marginal Democrats of why they're marginal Democrats.)
 
At this point I have the crazy feeling the GOP would rather get negative media coverage for investigating clinton for the nth time because it takes media time away from Trump and gives the media something different to harass them on.
 

Armaros

Member
At this point I have the crazy feeling the GOP would rather get negative media coverage for investigating clinton for the nth time because it takes media time away from Trump and gives the media something different to harass them on.

Especially since even during Hillary's supposed worst time, Trump is still righting more material to get attacked on.
 

johnsmith

remember me
To elaborate on that:

Hillary Clinton: Unaccompanied Minors ‘Should Be Sent Back’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/hillary-clinton-immigration_n_5507630.html



Her response to the crisis comes off a little lacking in empathy, but this is also a pretty complicated problem. The tweet in question is hardly fair to her full position on the matter.

So she was just backing Obama and his administration's policy. I don't see why she would be in any way responsible.

It means Clinton was influential and the lead proponent of a policy that turned away the children coming in droves to the border from the war torn regions of Central America.

Citation needed. She hadn't been Secretary of State for over a year when this blew up in the summer of 2014.

Too soon. Huelen was so excited this morning, and couldn't even make it through the day.
 

royalan

Member
This eliminates Kaine from the running, as far as I'm concerned.

As much as I hate to admit it, Hillary needs to pick the cleanest candidate in the running. Because Comey just gave the GOP enough ammo to drag out this email crap for months.

And nobody will be able to convince that wasn't the entire point.
 

Emarv

Member
The FBI salt on my Facebook tonight is unreal.

I need that RNC speaker list to drop already so people can start talking about Mike Ditka and Vince McMahon. I can't handle anymore memes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom