Michael Reagan is regarded really strangely by Republicans. My dad is a hardcore Reaganite conservative, and he always held this guy up as the "real son" of Ronald Reagan because he was as far-right as he was, while Ron Jr. is a filthy Dem.
-
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 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Michael Reagan is regarded really strangely by Republicans. My dad is a hardcore Reaganite conservative, and he always held this guy up as the "real son" of Ronald Reagan because he was as far-right as he was, while Ron Jr. is a filthy Dem.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You're right, this was lazy of me. Let me explain more clearly.
All issues are social issues. All issues. We care about issues because they affect someone, and that someone is a part of our society. If there were something that didn't affect anyone, it wouldn't be an issue, since nobody would care either way. Because of this, it is meaningless to talk about social issues. Economic issues are a social issue, just like everything else. Economic issues are just a particular subset of social issues. When you're saying "pick between economic issues or social issues", that doesn't make sense. It's like saying "pick between scarlet and red" - scarlet is a shade of red.
Conversely, and acknowledging your point directly: economic issues don't make up all social issues, no. There are some issues which are entirely separable from someone's economic position (although I would suggest they're less common than is first apparent). So, yes, black Americans are discriminated against independently of the fact they're poor. The problem is not solely reducible to economic terms, obviously. I have never denied and will never deny this.
However, separating these two things by calling one economic issues and one social issues just... makes no sense, it's like trying to separate red objects and scarlet objects. It confuses your thinking, because it makes you miss all of the many links between your economic position and your wider social position, and it makes you misunderstand what other people are arguing for. For example, someone else in this thread has said I'm arguing for a "rising tide lifts all boats" strategy; seemingly thinking that my end goal is economic issues and I'm simply arguing that incidentally they improve the conditions of minorities. No. Wrong. I'm arguing that we should focus on economic issues because they are the most influential social issue for the boats I really care about. I'm arguing we should focus on economic issues because it is the most effective way of improving the situation of women and black Americans.
Will racism be solved if we address economic issues? No. Again, I'm not arguing that. Racism is not reducible to economic issues. However, racism has a strong interrelationship with economic issues. For example: the main actionable component of racism, the main way that black Americans are discriminated against, is through their economic situation. Yes, black Americans have lower life expectancies and worse outcomes even when accounting for their income, because racism is not reducible to economics - but if you do a statistical breakdown of mortality rates, you can see that the additional impact of being black is relatively small compared to the impact of being poor. That is to say: the biggest (by no means the only) component of institutional racism is the poverty in which it keeps black Americans.
As a thought experiment: suppose you ended absolutely all conscious discrimination against black Americans overnight - the fabled colourblind world. Even after 50, 100, 150 years, you would still expect to see black Americans having worse health outcomes, worse political outcomes, worse social outcomes, because even after flipping the switch that made everyone instantly colourblind, black Americans would continue to have worst educational prospects and worse social mobility and worse health outcomes on account of their economic situation.
Or put another way: there is a vast and complex array of issues facing black Americans (and women, and the poor, and the LGBT community, and so on). These are all social issues. Some of them are policing issues - we have an institutionally racist police and judiciary. Some of them are civic issues - the way the American electoral system is designed has the effect of disenfranchising black Americans or reducing the number of representatives they would expect to have. Some of them are economic issues - black Americans are poor, and kept poor through racism.
In terms of magnitude... poverty, and lack of economic opportunity, is easily the biggest of these elements. This isn't to suggest the others don't exist - or that we don't need to do anything. We do. We desperately do. But I draw attention to the economic situation for two reasons. Firstly, again, because of the magnitude of the issue. Secondly, because the Democratic Party is... quite good, on the other issues. Not perfect. But certainly very good. That doesn't mean focus on them less - at all. But if you're looking for an area to make the most positive change, if you're looking for what you need to do differently moving forward, well, put it like this: Both Clinton and Sanders ran on platforms looking to reform the justice and policing system. Both Clinton and Sanders ran on platforms of increasing black opportunities for civic engagement.
But only one candidate ran on seriously challenging the economic situation. And that's genuinely something to despair about. Or, put another way: Ossoff's lukewarm position on economic issues means that he is failing to respond to the most impactful problem that black Americans face. Not the only problem. He might be very good on the justice system - if so, I congratulate him. He might be very good on civic issues. But that shouldn't be enough. It shouldn't be enough to be with black Americans on the minor issues, and then totally absent on those things which are genuinely important. You can't say you fight against racism by being there to reform the policing system, then being totally absent on the fact that that black Americans can expect to receive worse education, have less opportunities for promotion, find it more difficult to receive good housing, get disproportionately affected by lack of good public transport, and so on. You just can't.
I want the Democratic Party to take a stronger stance on economic issues, first and foremost, because it protects those who are most vulnerable. I'm not suggesting that the Democrats abandon non-economic issues - they're still there, and important. I'm not suggesting that economics 'cures' racism - only ameliorates it. I'm just saying that: you are not fighting for black Americans until you are also fighting for their economic situation as well, and this is the part that the Democratic Party is silent on, again, and again, and again.
This is why when you actually ask black voters what they care about most, and polls bear this out again and again, they say the economy. Not policing. Not civic engagement. The economy. Again, not that those other issues are unimportant, or that they have no effect, or that focusing on economic matters will solve those other issues at the same time: but the socioeconomic situation of the average black American includes their economic situation, and the Democrats have forgotten that.
I would suggest that many posters in this thread do not understand this, despite the fact that the history of the black civil rights movement is so thoroughly intertwined with socialism, because those posting in this thread are, by virtue of posting in this thread, quite middle class. Video gaming is an expensive hobby. This is an international forum, and cultivates an international outlook. Our mutual interest in politics is strongly predicted by a high educational attainment, which equally would predict better earnings. You are the 1 in 20 that dislikes Sanders despite liking Obama, because Sanders' drumbeat doesn't mean much to you. For you, policing is a bigger issue because you are much less affected by the economic component of your social position. But try moving beyond your lived experience and empathise with the situation of others. Economic issues (as part of social issues) are enormously important, and the Democratic Party does very badly on them.
Electric Eye
Banned
I bet they thought all they needed was a few weeks so they could do so much winning that everyone would forget about Russia. el o el
And yet that person is less likely to be shot when living in an area not as aggressively policed. I didn't say everything was a 50/50 split, only that you can find some degree of economic and social influence on every issue. Sometimes the it's 50/50, sometimes it might be more like 90/10, but nothing in this world is simple enough to only have one factor. I think we're pretty much in agreement here, and it really seems to be semantics, which I hate arguing over.
And yes, civil rights laws are absolutely necessary! And while I would agree (and have already agreed!) that Sanders doesn't have good messaging or a good understanding on the class/race connectivity, I have yet to see anyone actually show me a piece of civil rights legislation that Sanders is hostile to or opposes. Or really any predominately social issue that they support that he is opposed to. Meanwhile, I can list a number of democrats opposed to expanding public healthcare or other anti-poverty policies. It seems like it's mostly a messaging/optics issue, which is fine to criticize. But some of the hate in here regarding Sanders frequently goes so over the top that I can only assume it's largely sour grapes from the primary.
Edit: Crab's post a few above actually states much more eloquently a lot of what I've been trying to say in my last few posts.
BlastProcessing
Member
Poodlestrike
Banned
Welfare reform is the biggie. The crime bill too, but that's sort of a weird one since afaik people didn't really call the effects at the time.
whyamihere
Banned
Sanders: *says something stupid*
Sanders haters: *says stupid things*
Crab:
This post is perfect.
The reason many people aren't on board with socialism is that socialism is trash.
Bernie Sanders did run focusing on that. And he lost. An "economic-based" coalition resulting in a majority isn't out there waiting to come into existence. It's a unicorn.
Bernie Sanders did run focusing on that. And he lost. An "economic-based" coalition resulting in a majority isn't out there waiting to come into existence. It's a unicorn.
The crime bill was because there was a real issue at the time. This is a "if you don't remember the '80s/'90s, you're not going to get it" thing because it turned out that just as we passed it, we were in the process of birthing a generation who wasn't suffering from chronic lead poisoning.
No. No it's not. I'm not saying we don't need to do more (we absolutely do) but the standard of living for people in the US is really high. The bottom 20% today has a standard of living closer to the bottom 20-40% in the '80s. This is why ignoring race is a problem, when talking about inequality because the biggest structural inequalities in our system are racial.
whyamihere
Banned
You can be a socialist (I am!) but also realize that things like abortion rights are economic issues as well.
This is the correct answer.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
I still don't think folks understand that black economics and white economics are different, and how that affects policy.
When a black person in the US says economy is their biggest issue, they are talking about their own. Just like a white person, but that comes with extra concerns.
Economic policy, if it is really meant to help the most vulnerable, even beyond race, MUST take these things into account, or it's only helping the default.
To me what's clear isn't that we all look at this from either a social or economic perspective.
No, it's that we look at "economics" very differently.
When a black person in the US says economy is their biggest issue, they are talking about their own. Just like a white person, but that comes with extra concerns.
Economic policy, if it is really meant to help the most vulnerable, even beyond race, MUST take these things into account, or it's only helping the default.
To me what's clear isn't that we all look at this from either a social or economic perspective.
No, it's that we look at "economics" very differently.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Like I said, weird.
Well the argument is that Bernie isn't strong on how he messages or understands issues like racial justice, not that he actively opposes legislation focused on racial justice. I don't know if anyone is (seriously) calling Bernie a racist or hostile toward racial justice, just that he doesn't give it enough specific attention because he groups it all under economic justice. Which may be an annoying quibble over semantics, but hey, Hillary Clinton had a number of policies that would have benefited the white working-class too, but she just didn't seem like she was addressing them specifically, hence 2016.
Ah, sexual harassment is an involuntary reaction to being aroused. I didn't realize that before.
Fenderputty
Banned
This is a crock of shit. Most people can't even define socialism.
Sure, you and Pigeon aren't off in crazy-world on that stuff.
When I say "socialism is trash" its because I don't believe it's an economic system that will ever work in any way shape or form, and that a capitalist system w/ a strong welfare state is vastly preferable.
Part of the problem is that Socialism is now a word that means whatever people want it to mean. Social Democracies in Europe are still heavily capitalist w/ strong welfare states, yet people call them "socialist" even though they're not.
Atomic Playboy
Member
The party of personal responsibility. You personally are responsible for my erection, so now you get to hear allllllll about it.
/s
Plenty of people did, this is the reason why the Burkha exists. Though that fellow would probably have a similarly intense reaction to something used in Islamic cultures.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Chaffetz may not resign today or next week, but who wants to bet he squeaks it in before this starts?
Nunes doesn't sit in on the closed door session does he?
adamsappel
Member
This is really how you wanted to word this, in the post you made to clarify your position?
Nothing they did was involuntary.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Oh this is rich. Is this Chaffetz attempting to further cover things up or has the monster spiraled out of control so badly that the GOP is finally thinking of cutting the cord?
This is pure theater, isn't it?
Chaffetz in 2019: "I did attempt to investigate the president."
This subthread is literally about Sanders endorsing a candidate who supported a transvaginal ultrasound requirement.
That is bad!
Sure, he said he doesn't support that policy, he just also made clear that he still thinks Mello is a "progressive."
There's no reason to assume that improving those economic issues absent a strong focus on social issues will actually help women and people of color, because the reason they're kept in institutional poverty is that economic support from the government is deliberately funneled away from them by racists and sexists. Your lack of recognition of that historical fact is why these conversations are so tedious.
For example, if Mello increases the minimum wage across Nebraska or something, but also makes abortions significantly harder to acquire, women will get very little of the benefit, because access to abortion is a major economic issue that faces women -- probably the most important one, because pregnancy and childrearing are extremely expensive and time-consuming.
Poor white people rise out of poverty at higher rates than poor people of color (or poor single women). If you eliminated racial discrimination, they'd rise out of poverty at the same rate. In two or three generations, you'd expect very close rates of poverty between the two groups and thus very similar outcomes.
I'd be happy to accept this argument at face value if it wasn't also coupled to an argument that we need to be pragmatic about Mello's lack of support for abortion access.
If that's really all the argument is than I actually agree. I don't think Bernie is particularly strong on messaging or understanding racial justice issues, but is still an ally.
The level of hate and vitriol directed at everything he says here just seems completely overblown based on that complaint.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I 100% believe this is exactly what is happening. I think he knows something big is coming, wants out before he is a major factor so he doesn't become the face of why Trump is impeached, yet wants to make it appear like he did something before he left.
At the risk of sounding naive, I actually don't think there's any major scandal bubbling under the surface re: Chaffetz. I think he's just a partisan hack whose only interest in the job is investigating Democrats over imagined scandals and lapping up the praise he gets from the Fox News/Breitbart crowd for doing so. He can't stand doing anything else and, because he's a coward, can't stand the pressure or calls of hypocrisy from the media or his own constituents for sitting on his ass in the Trump era, so he just wants out.
Well, I can only speak for myself.
Well, I can only speak for myself.
That said, one thing to consider is that Bernie got crushed in the primary in GA-6 and probably did great in Mello's district, so having him endorse one candidate but not the other probably makes sense from a tactical level.
I just wish he executed it competently, which is like my most common critique of Bernie.
I just wish he executed it competently, which is like my most common critique of Bernie.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Si, si, es muy bueno
whyamihere
Banned
In other news, the picture accompanying this article is AMAZING
https://newrepublic.com/article/141674/handmaids-tale-hulu-warning-conservative-women
https://newrepublic.com/article/141674/handmaids-tale-hulu-warning-conservative-women
The Handmaids Tale Is a Warning to Conservative Women
Hulus adaptation of Margaret Atwoods novel lays bare the horrors of collusion with the patriarchy.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I mean, it's not just us. NARAL and Planned Parenthood aren't exactly thrilled about this either. It's a bad look.
Like I said, he's testing the limits of his popularity in the party.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
I am practically salivating at the idea that Trump goes down and the GOP goes down with him. Imagine, an entire party linked to a President who committed treason.
I agree that he either should have not endorsed that guy or kept his mouth shut about Ossof.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
House intel panel invites former acting AG Sally Yates to testify
The committee has also invited FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers to return before the committee to testify in a closed setting.
The Yates hearing would be scheduled after Comey and Rogers appear, slated for May 2. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have also been invited to testify with Yates.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...nel-invites-former-acting-ag-yates-to-testify
The committee has also invited FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers to return before the committee to testify in a closed setting.
The Yates hearing would be scheduled after Comey and Rogers appear, slated for May 2. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have also been invited to testify with Yates.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...nel-invites-former-acting-ag-yates-to-testify
The latter is where the problem arises. No one would be talking about the former w/o the latter happening and creating the juxtaposition.
whyamihere
Banned
Yeah, I think this is right. Doing both right after each other was bad.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
When I said that, I didn't mean you would stop once you rose the tides. I meant that the history of populism is fairly clear in that, if given the chance to enact a populist law but it finds a way to exclude some minority group, there is a nonzero chance that the populist will still back the bill. I don't believe you're some vehement racist, but there's a (valid in my opinion) skepticism of populists if you're in a minority group. They've been sold out before and without really really strong convincing appeals that they won't get sold out again, you get these conversations.
https://twitter.com/postpolitics/status/855478393881735168
I'm gonna bet no shut down. I'd hate to be proven wrong. As bad as the GOP are, it does us no favors as a country.
I'm gonna bet no shut down. I'd hate to be proven wrong. As bad as the GOP are, it does us no favors as a country.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
I'd say it's way higher chances of shutdown than 50/50 at this point.
I think you're right. This feels like he knows shit is about to go down, and the safest thing for his political ambitions is to get the fuck out so that he a) doesn't have to defend Trump, and b) doesn't have to hold him accountable either, which would piss off his own base.
This is just a token gesture before he lies low for a few years.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
I genuinely don't see how it's possible for them to have another stab at healthcare and get a budget passed in one week. +/- a halfhearted attempt at tax reform.
To get a budget agreed upon would require a pretty big change in dynamics. The Dems ain't gonna help them if the budget includes the wall or other bad ideas. The Freedom Caucus, now that they have been proven to have the power, will likely gladly hold the government hostage for an attempt at further defunding of social programs.
To get a budget agreed upon would require a pretty big change in dynamics. The Dems ain't gonna help them if the budget includes the wall or other bad ideas. The Freedom Caucus, now that they have been proven to have the power, will likely gladly hold the government hostage for an attempt at further defunding of social programs.
see: the New Deal.
Populism is majoritarian and rural, and that leads to serious issues w/ how it approaches minority issues. In modern America, there's a double problem in that most people don't live in rural areas anymore. If we go by the median resident, "Real America" is the suburbs.
You're getting too excited. Only Flynn and Stone will go down most likely.
aspiegamer
Member
It's likely me not counting correctly, but isn't the shutdown date precisely on day 100? Or is it 101? And if it's 101, doesn't that make it 100 in the eyes of the administration who counted inauguration day as day 0?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
from what I understand of history this is actually the kiss of death, congratulations Congresswoman Handel
The unity tour is so fucking stupid. The biggest problem with Bernie Sanders that he's Bernie Sanders - he's only capable of putting his foot in his mouth and he's never going to do anything to unite the Democratic Party. He's happily campaigning with a "progressive" anti-choice candidate and he can't bring himself to make a harmless statement wishing "moderate" Jon Ossoff the best of luck in his primary. I wish I could say I'm not surprised by Bernie's incompetence anymore, but like Trump, he somehow find a way. I will say that I'm starting to appreciate how Bernie helped kill Ellison's campaign given the latter's recent comments about Obama.
Has there ever been a bigger primary loser other than Bernie who got so many concessions out of the party?
Has there ever been a bigger primary loser other than Bernie who got so many concessions out of the party?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked