USA Politics

LooseCannon said:
I'm certainly a democratic socialist on economics. The free market does not impress me.
Click to expand...

I'm a proponent of a flexible economic model between social democracy and social liberalism. Social democracy until the economy reaches a bottleneck and needs a shake up, social liberalism until the economy recovers and the state has the resources to invest again. In a sense you could say that social democracy is as far left as I'm willing to be, and social liberalism is as far right as I'm willing to be.

I agree with this sentiment when it comes to classic liberalism, libertarianism and conservatism:

LooseCannon said:
I agree with the social safety net. Especially for situations where the company has behaved immorally. Classical Liberalism assumes that companies always act in their own best interest, when in reality they are constructs of humanity; corruption exists, and without something to check corruption, things can get bad.

There's a series of economic papers on the classic liberalism of the Eve Online economic system, and how massive financial structures are occasionally destroyed or absconded with by corrupt actors. It's glorious, and a reminder that an unchecked free market economy doesn't create perfect businesses but would herald instead a return to a robber baron-run oligarchy.
Click to expand...

But at the same time, I also think that socialism will never be able to lead efficient economies and generate enough wealth so as to avoid making people equally poor in the long run. Necessity is the mother of invention and competition creates its own necessities, therefore promoting innovation and the generation of ideas. Also, the lack of incentives leads to the unwillingness to push limits. It is possible to sustain a state-controlled planned economy for some period if you have enough resources, but historically they have always run into sharp economic decline after some point. Some introduced market economy elements and recovered, some introduced market economy elements and still failed, some didn't budge and got overthrown. I'm also skeptical of an economically socialist country being simultaneously democratic politically. Giving all economic power to the state is bound to lead to authoritarian rule of drunk with power leaders.

LooseCannon said:
Specifically, the lie that money is the ultimate motivating factor for all people.
Click to expand...

It's simultaneously a lie, the truth, and somewhere in between. Depends on your interpretation.

It's a lie that all people are looking to maximize their wealth no matter how wealthy they are.
It's true that avoiding poverty is the ultimate motivating factor, as it's the one of worst things that can happen to an individual or a community as a whole.
It's somewhere in between in the sense that wealth provides more opportunities to have an enjoyable life. It's not the ultimate motivator, but it's the pathway to your ultimate motivations.

I do think an efficient economic model that provides equality of opportunity is the greater good in politics. So in that sense, putting economy in the center stage is something I agree with.
 
If you would put football teams throughout ex Yugoslavia to their past versions that were playing in the Yugoslav league side by side, it would be a disaster for current clubs. No player under age of 27 was able to play outside the league. It was a protection mechanism so some asshole with money that doesn't know jack shit about your football or your society doesn't get to snitch your brightest talents before they even had a chance to help the home team reach better scores. It was a worldwide mechanism, and a respected thing. I know of a local superstar in the early 1980s who broke the rule, and signed for some USA club who were willing to pay a hotshot salary (which was really suited for character of this guy). He didn't play a game, nor he got his salary, instead he got a permaban on playing association football in anywhere in the observable universe. He did make a career playing some version of ball on hockey like arena pitch.

In any case, now some yuppie do dos and worthless CEOs buy 500e tickets to see the global best football players in a single match. The market has nicely consolidated. The rest of us tho, we get to eat shit. Yes it's a hyperbole but so is the "free market"
 
The Flash said:
Nothing he said suggests this is the case. Economically conservative, sure, but socially?

He sounds libertarian to me, which isn't that far removed, in principle, from anarchism, which has always been a central theme in the punk movement. There are socialist punk movements as well, but they're not the entire punk movement.
Click to expand...
I'm for individual property and individual's rights, but I think the powers of large mega-corporations need to be restricted
 
Not gonna lie, it felt good to show him that just because his mom tells him he's special and his friends like his jokes, doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees even remotely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
And it does absolutely nothing. He's playing to a Fox-watching audience and nobody else. Who gives a damn about foreigners laughing at you?
 
Unfortunately, it really won't make any difference. For example, my parents love Trump (and our current president as well - just different shades of insanity, really) and I can assure you it will/would only help them see him as the "hero", who's against the world, against the liberals, against the fascists (which is more or less the same to them) and he stands proud even though they want to discredit him, even though they laugh at him etc.

It's kinda creepy, really.
 
I find it very scary, as a student of history, to watch how rapidly our society has polarized and started shifting towards fascism as the living memory of actual fascism dies.
 
Meanwhile I’m pretty glued to the Supreme Court drama. It has become a cliche to compare the current administration to a TV drama, but the Kavanaugh stuff is really the closest it has gotten to that sort of thing imo. The dramatic irony is really incredible. The confirmation timeline was intentionally set up to force vulnerable red state Dems to make a controversial vote ahead of the midterms. This was supposed to be an easy win for the GOP. Now the Kavanaugh vote is looking to be a liability for the GOP. I’m guessing they’re trying to rush a vote so that they can quickly get someone else confirmed if Kavanaugh fails. You really can’t make this stuff up.

The only thing that would make this more sweet is if Dems retook the senate, the GOP are unable to confirm anyone during the lame duck, and the newly Democrat controlled senate refuses a hearing to any justice not named Merrick Garland.
 
Mosh said:
The only thing that would make this more sweet is if Dems retook the senate, the GOP are unable to confirm anyone during the lame duck, and the newly Democrat controlled senate refuses a hearing to any justice not named Merrick Garland.
Click to expand...
If the Democrats retook the senate, I totally agree that they should refuse to consider any nominee other than Merrick Garland, with the promise of returning to regular order once that wrong had been righted. Of course Trump would never cave on that issue while he was in office.

Unfortunately, the Republicans would never shy away from using a lame duck session to drive their agenda, even if they got shellacked in the midterms and would be working against the will of the people. So if it isn't Kavanaugh, it'll just be some other hyper-partisan conservative later this year.
 
Not sure how Trump would handle this hypothetical. To him, the Supreme Court is nothing more than a vehicle for political wins. Gorsuch is probably the only thing he can tout as a major accomplishment in his presidency (tax cuts don't seem to be playing very well). There is no ideology involved here, Trump probably doesn't even know what the Supreme Court does. He just picks off a list provided by conservative activists. If Democrats put forth this condition as the only way he gets to confirm a judge and earn a much needed political win, he may go for it. On the other hand, conservative activists probably have a really firm grip on him in this area. Even he knows that the Supreme Court was a big factor in his election. In that case, Dems can use the "let the voters decide" tactic and leave the seat vacant.

I don't doubt that Republicans would attempt to use the lame duck to ram through a different judge, but that does not mean it would be successful. I assume if Kavanaugh is not confirmed by Tuesday, Trump will put forth another candidate by Friday. They have three weeks to confirm someone before the midterms (they are not scheduled to be in session the week before but McConnel could change that). This is a time where several senators would probably prefer to be back home campaigning. After that they have 4 weeks, assuming no additional sessions are called. That would be extremely more rushed than Kavanaugh's confirmation process. And there would be much less political will to do so.

Obviously, we are really thick in the hypothetical weeds here. But the past two years have been nothing if not unpredictable.
 
JudasMyGuide said:
Unfortunately, it really won't make any difference. For example, my parents love Trump (and our current president as well - just different shades of insanity, really) and I can assure you it will/would only help them see him as the "hero", who's against the world, against the liberals, against the fascists (which is more or less the same to them) and he stands proud even though they want to discredit him, even though they laugh at him etc.

It's kinda creepy, really.
Click to expand...

They just want him to stand for something regardless of what he actually is. I have similar examples around me. "Trump is saviour", but "I don't watch politics", "I don't follow news", etc.
 
The thing that boggles my mind about the Kavanaugh confirmation is that the GOP knew he had some sketchy news in his past, based on how they had already prepared a letter signed by 65 former classmates of Kavanaugh testifying as to his character - 65 former female classmates, it should be said. But they decided, during the apex of the #metoo movement, to move ahead anyway. If I were a political operative, even if I don't personally think what Kavanaugh may have done as a teenager and university student is potentially disqualifying from a seat on the SCOTUS, I should be sufficiently keyed in to read the mood of the nation. And the mood of the nation has condemned multiple Hollywood elite (Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Brett Ratner), media moguls (Roger Ailes at Fox, Les Moonves at CBS, John Katzenburger at Disney/Pixar), talking heads and media icons (Bill O'Reilly, Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose), and politicians of all stripes and parties (Al Franken (D), John Conyers (D), Trent Franks (R), Rob Porter (R), Blake Farenthold (R), Eric Schneiderman (D)). In what fucking world wouldn't a potential Supreme Court Justice get the same treatment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top