• 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 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.

PBY

Banned
That's a dumb, tautological graph for the purposes of your argument anyways. What is it supposed to prove: rich people are rich and poor people are poor?

You really don't get it? Look at how this trends. Now add in automation issues and four (or 8) more years of a deregulated financial sector and further corporate consolidation.

This is going to spiral FAST.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
If you believe that, sure.

I am very skeptical of that, however.

So you think that Trump will improve the quality of life for a given non-insignificant proportion of the American population more than what Clinton would have done over the same period?

Damn, you're even more down on her than I am.
 
Yeah we need to stop treating populism as an inherently good thing, it's a fairly nebulous concept. Trump ran a populist campaign, Sanders ran a populist campaign. The difference is the former appealed to peoples' darkest nature while the latter used that to push economic progressivism.

I have to imagine Trump came out with the trans order today to get the media talking about something else for once, but I never want to hear someone claim that Trump is ambivalent towards LGBT issues and I myself have been guilty of that. I just never thought he'd actually go there. This does take the wind out of the sails of the "but if we impeach Trump then we have Pence and he'd be MUCH worse!" argument.

Trump ran on a right-wing populist platform that so happens many Americans supported , including many of the WWC.

Bernie was far more left-wing and was more about government intervention. Donald Trump's platform focused more on identity politics of Evangelicals, WWC, and conservative White Americans and that is why he won.

They both ran on a populist message, however, they were very different on many scales, but similar to who they wanted to target. Only one of them successfully won the group they was targeting . I doubt that the Democrats form of populism will win out, because it doesn't have the racial element that drew many people to Trump. I can see it drew in some of them though.
 

PBY

Banned
Trump ran on a right-wing populist platform that so happens many Americans supported , including many of the WWC.

Bernie was far more left-wing and was more about government intervention. Donald Trump's platform focused more on identity politics of Evangelicals, WWC, and conservative White Americans and that is why he won.

They both ran on a populist message, however, they were very different on many scales, but similar to who they wanted to target. Only one of them successfully won the group they was targeting . I doubt that the Democrats form of populism will win out, because it doesn't have the racial element that drew many people to Trump.

Exactly. The right's version of populism is a reaction to increasing income inequality and fears of white genocide. Thus, its turns to a (lie) about isolationism, demonizing brown people and immigrants, expelling immigrants, crushing the most marginalized, etc.
 

kirblar

Member
Okay, but that is not "telling people what they want to hear."

Based on that definition, populism is good.
Not when your vision of the world is an unironic Hunger Games and all the problems are due to those terrible decadent urbanites having gay orgies and abortion parties and letting trans people serve in the military while stealing all your jobs away.
Exactly. The right's version of populism is a reaction to increasing income inequality and fears of white genocide. Thus, its turns to a (lie) about isolationism, demonizing brown people and immigrants, expelling immigrants, crushing the most marginalized, etc.
That stuff about economic isolationism is very much there in left-wing populism as well.
 
Minimum wage hikes, increasing taxation, attention to corporate consolidation, regulating our financial system, providing college and healthcare for all, fixing our justice system so that it works for all people, not just white people, etc.

Minimum wage hikes is like putting a bandage on a problem. Sure it will help temporarily, but it won't fix anything. You have to be more specific with regulations. I guess I'm for them, but I don't see how that fixes anything. College is a good step, but there are shitton of people who are in crappy high schools so college is like a pipe dream for them.

I don't think that any of Bernie's suggestions would actually fix anything. They would help a bit, but at the core poor people will still live in shitty neighborhoods with shitty school systems and will have much smaller chance for success...
 

PBY

Banned
Not when your vision of the world is an unironic Hunger Games and all the problems are due to those terrible decadent urbanites having gay orgies and abortion parties and letting trans people serve in the military while stealing all your jobs away.

Agreed. But those views are only going to become harsher and more exaggerated if the underlying problems are not solved.
 

jtb

Banned
So you think that Trump will improve the quality of life for a given non-insignificant proportion of the American population more than what Clinton would have done over the same period?

Damn, you're even more down on her than I am.

White supremacy is in the interests of white voters. That's what they voted for. That's what they'll get.

You really don't get it? Look at how this trends. Now add in automation issues and four (or 8) more years of a deregulated financial sector and further corporate consolidation.

This is going to spiral FAST.

It's a trash graph. Get one that shows % growth YoY pegged to inflation, then we'll talk.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I'm also sort of curious as to what you want the Democrats to do if not populism. Like, there is very clearly an established political and economic elite screwing over the vast majority of Americans. They're called the Republican Party. If you're not populist, you're either denying that the Republicans currently constitute an elite (obviously untrue), denying that they have interests opposed to the majority of Americans (also untrue), or saying that you don't intend to do anything about it (I hope very dearly this is untrue).
 

kirblar

Member
Agreed. But those views are only going to become harsher and more exaggerated if the underlying problems are not solved.
You can't solve the problem they want fixed the way they want to fix it (a time machine back to 1950 when dropouts could get a job for life at the factory and black people knew their place)

The fix is moving to a place not going down the drain.
 

PBY

Banned
Not when your vision of the world is an unironic Hunger Games and all the problems are due to those terrible decadent urbanites having gay orgies and abortion parties and letting trans people serve in the military while stealing all your jobs away.

That stuff about economic isolationism is very much there in left-wing populism as well.

I've never denied that there is overlap - that and foreign policy are the areas that they merge.
You can't solve the problem they want fixed the way they want to fix it (a time machine back to 1950 when dropouts could get a job for life at the factory and black people knew their place)

The fix is moving to a place not going down the drain.

What the fuck is this????? This is quite possibly the worst post in the history of poligaf.
 

jtb

Banned
I'm also sort of curious as to what you want the Democrats to do if not populism. Like, there is very clearly an established political and economic elite screwing over the vast majority of Americans. They're called the Republican Party. If you're not populist, you're either denying that the Republicans currently constitute an elite (obviously untrue), denying that they have interests opposed to the majority of Americans (also untrue), or saying that you don't intend to do anything about it (I hope very dearly this is untrue).

How is any of this different from the rhetoric and messaging of every political campaign in the history of elections?

Why do we even need to define 'criticize the incumbent' as 'populism"??
 
We need to make genuine appeals to minority groups of this country or else we will lose them and the numbers they have turned out for the party will continue to drop off. Actually passing legislation that positively effects their lives isn't just telling them "what they want to hear", it's proving that they aren't just being used or extorted for their votes.

We also need to make a comprehensive plan for young people in general who are locked down in low paying, low prestige work positions with real opportunity of effectively moving up, or we will lose them.

Sorry, but I am absolutely not down for the "get better liars", plan. It's dumb as hell to even suggest that's really the problem. Maybe you can win an election on lying but it's hard to stay in for long periods of time if you don't deliver.

There are some unreasonable things the democratic base wants. Most of it is not. And would not have the astoundingly terrible repercussions that the majority of Trump's platform if they were passed. Yeah $15/h might be bad for some rural areas of the country but it isn't fucking "TRASH ALL INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DESTROY NATO", for gods sake.
 

wutwutwut

Member
Exactly. The right's version of populism is a reaction to increasing income inequality and fears of white genocide. Thus, its turns to a (lie) about isolationism, demonizing brown people and immigrants, expelling immigrants, crushing the most marginalized, etc.
Corbyn in the UK is left populist and very much isolationist.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
White supremacy is in the interests of white voters. That's what they voted for. That's what they'll get.

...it's really not, though. Everyone benefits from a society in which we have more friends, more neighbours, more compatriots, less poverty, less cruelty, less oppression, because we all have moral interests.

The Democrats just did a shit job of explaining that and defending those ideals.
 

PBY

Banned
Corbyn in the UK is left populist and very much isolationist.

Our left is isolationist too (Trump said he was, but that was clearly a lie).

I don't agree with economic isolationism, but there are elements that can be leveraged, e.g., anti-trust, wall street reform, corporate de-consolidation.
 
Ok i need to ask you guys something

One thing I am confused about, i notice that there are many young people that are self proclaimed marxists today, which is fine. As an analysis tool Marxism is great

but i don't understand why many white american teens rock soviet iconography, i see this all the time, carrying soviet flags at protests etc. etc.


But Soviet Union was not true marxism

it's confusing
 

jtb

Banned
...it's really not, though. Everyone benefits from a society in which we have more friends, more neighbours, more compatriots, less poverty, less cruelty, less oppression, because we all have moral interests.

The Democrats just did a shit job of explaining that.

And white people benefit more from white supremacy?
 
I'm also sort of curious as to what you want the Democrats to do if not populism. Like, there is very clearly an established political and economic elite screwing over the vast majority of Americans. They're called the Republican Party. If you're not populist, you're either denying that the Republicans currently constitute an elite (obviously untrue), denying that they have interests opposed to the majority of Americans (also untrue), or saying that you don't intend to do anything about it (I hope very dearly this is untrue).

I mean if the whole thing just becomes about populism I don't even see a reason to follow politics. Sure democrats could yell "Single Payer!" "Ban Wall street!" and could even win elections, but what's the point? Just so they can say they won? At least we know that it didn't make Trump happy...
 

PBY

Banned
I mean if the whole thing just becomes about populism I don't even see a reason to follow politics. Sure democrats could yell "Single Payer!" "Ban Wall street!" and could even win elections, but what's the point? Just so they can say they won? At least we know that it didn't make Trump happy...

I have no idea what you're arguing against. If you control the presidency and congress, you can enact these reforms.
 
Ok i need to ask you guys something

One thing I am confused about, i notice that there are many young people that are self proclaimed marxists today, which is fine. As an analysis tool Marxism is great

but i don't understand why many white american teens rock soviet iconography, i see this all the time, carrying soviet flags at protests etc. etc.


But Soviet Union was not true marxism

it's confusing

Your question is "white american teens", and your answer is "white american teens".
 

Ogodei

Member
So I guess nobody showed him North Carolina's governor race last year? Democrats have had pretty clear success making this an issue...

Yup, transphobia was a losing issue in a southern state that he carried. Transexuals in the military is so far away from being an issue for... anyone. Unless they're trying to gin it up as "government waste," which... good luck trying to sell DoD-appropriated healthcare as government waste.
 

wutwutwut

Member
Our left is isolationist too (Trump said he was, but that was clearly a lie).

I don't agree with economic isolationism, but there are elements that can be leveraged, e.g., anti-trust, wall street reform, corporate de-consolidation.
Corbyn isn't just economically isolationist, he demonizes immigrants too.

What does antitrust have to do with economic isolationism?
 

PBY

Banned
Corbyn isn't just economically isolationist, he demonizes immigrants too.

What does antitrust have to do with economic isolationism?

I've never said anything about Corbyn? And its the same general underlying principles of de-consolidation.
 
I have no idea what you're arguing against. If you control the presidency and congress, you can enact these reforms.

No you can't. If you enact single payer overnight you run a chance of destroying economy. If you ban wall street you WILL destroy economy. You might hate current healthcare system and Wall Street, but you need a plan not just slogans (i.e. look at Republicans right now)
 

PBY

Banned
No you can't. If you enact single payer overnight you run a chance of destroying economy. If you ban wall street you WILL destroy economy. You might hate current healthcare system and Wall Street, but you need a plan not just slogans (i.e. look at Republicans right now)

Who wants to "ban wall street"?
 

kirblar

Member
What the fuck is this????? This is quite possibly the worst post in the history of poligaf.
"This" is what is occurring in rural areas as a result of systemic changes in the nation's economy to a service-based one. Cities are now massively competitively advantaged relative to rural areas to a far greater degree than they have been, and that shift in relative status is playing out as we see population moving away from rural areas across the country.
image90740-fshoriz.jpg
 

PBY

Banned
"This" is what is occurring in rural areas as a result of systemic changes in the nation's economy to a service-based one. Cities are now massively competitively advantaged relative to rural areas to a far greater degree than they have been, and that shift in relative status is playing out as we see population moving away from rural areas across the country.

I get this. And your solution to "just move" is trash.
 
Populism does not mean "far left shit I like."

In my experience here, Kirblar, you take definitions and concepts extremely literally in a way that is counter-logical to the way an ordinary voter thinks and feels.

You gain nothing by telling people the things they're passionate about are called something different. "That's not socialism" and "that's not populism" is like correcting somebody's spelling. I get there's an urge to do it and there's value in specificity but you're not going to make any inroads with people who identify with certain tenets of ideologies and use the broader term in a way most people have a shared understanding of.

Being so willing to alienate people on how they express themselves versus what they believe in and constantly trying to invalidate them based on word choice is why people are enraged by the "establishment."

I think you would be more productive if you sought to understand people rather than react in your impulse to correct them.

I'm not trying to drag you for any single post or anything and I hope you don't take offense to this post. I'm trying to be constructive.
 

wutwutwut

Member
I've never said anything about Corbyn? And its the same general underlying principles of de-consolidation.
I'm sorry, as a socially left and economically center-left "globalist" I don't see antitrust as related to isolationism, and I would prefer to see isolationism be eradicated in all its forms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom