What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Even Koch-funded operations not so stupid as to think Medicare For All wouldn't ultimately save money

...Meritocracy is defined by giving power and wealth based on merit. It doesn't necessitate any control on an individual's capacity for merit beyond maybe giving a level playing field in educational infrastructure. A meritocratic system can function perfectly fine with a bloody eusocial species, let alone the relatively-narrow-in-potential modern human species, because the only thing that is required to be a meritocracy is that progression be defined by performance.

Equality of opportunity, bizarrely enough, doesn't enter the picture of required traits. At all. Which is why meritocratic systems tend to have a static upper class, because that upper class is consistently high-performing individuals investing their wealth into getting an advantage over the general population. They're still progressing mostly, if not entirely, by the merit of their actual performance. Seriously, one of the definitions Google offers for meritocracy is "a ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people".


No, it doesn't, at least by the definition of oppression I work with. It's discrimination, but oppression, to me, means that general rights are being specifically withheld. As such, the situation of specific privileges that are generally withheld would not qualify under the definition of oppression. The latter is still a bad state, but the exact term "oppression" doesn't apply, because the term, to me, means that there is active detriment, rather than unequal privilege. I'm a bit of an ass with definitions. It's a large chunk of the reason I viscerally despise the progressive left, because they constantly redefine or ignore definitions of words to suit their purposes.
It's impossible to judge merit without removing the massive advantages that rich people are born with. If you want to see how talented/skilled people actually are, you need to prevent their families from helping or harming them, including through influence. A rich person can be 60% less skilled than a poor person, but in the US version of "meritocracy" will recieve significantly better outcomes in life.
 
It's impossible to judge merit without removing the massive advantages that rich people are born with. If you want to see how talented/skilled people actually are, you need to prevent their families from helping or harming them, including through influence. A rich person can be 60% less skilled than a poor person, but in the US version of "meritocracy" will recieve significantly better outcomes in life.
You can, in fact, judge merit of the rich. The "advantages" they have are genuine performance enhancers, and thus they are of higher merit. You just judge them by the work they do, simple as that. If their parent's wealth gave them an immense advantage in education? Well, that's why one of the definitions Google gives is a class of educated or skilled persons in power. Meritocracy is not equality of opportunity, and fundamentally isn't equality of outcome. You're conflating things that aren't actually required to be implemented together.

I literally said that a eusocial species, like ants (as in a species with a biological caste system) can be a meritocracy. Because, even though the capabilities of individuals are fundamentally and utterly different, you can still judge them based on real performance. All a meritocracy requires is judging a person on performance, also known as merit. It's not their talent that's being rewarded, it's their real achievement. And if they have ludicrously wealthy parents who spend vast sums of money on their education, then that's entirely acceptable, because it's still their personal performance, even though they didn't attain the skills to do so on their own. Nobody does in a functional meritocracy, because you have an education system that some people perform better in than others. So even if those people have a lower baseline ability, their superior educational experience leads them to a higher status.
 
You can, in fact, judge merit of the rich. The "advantages" they have are genuine performance enhancers, and thus they are of higher merit. You just judge them by the work they do, simple as that. If their parent's wealth gave them an immense advantage in education? Well, that's why one of the definitions Google gives is a class of educated or skilled persons in power. Meritocracy is not equality of opportunity, and fundamentally isn't equality of outcome. You're conflating things that aren't actually required to be implemented together.

I literally said that a eusocial species, like ants (as in a species with a biological caste system) can be a meritocracy. Because, even though the capabilities of individuals are fundamentally and utterly different, you can still judge them based on real performance. All a meritocracy requires is judging a person on performance, also known as merit. It's not their talent that's being rewarded, it's their real achievement. And if they have ludicrously wealthy parents who spend vast sums of money on their education, then that's entirely acceptable, because it's still their personal performance, even though they didn't attain the skills to do so on their own. Nobody does in a functional meritocracy, because you have an education system that some people perform better in than others. So even if those people have a lower baseline ability, their superior educational experience leads them to a higher status.
So you don't want a meritocracy, what you want is a hereditary aristocracy as those advantages keep compounding on themselves, all the way until the whole thing falls apart because you have inbred manchildren running the nation.
 
So you don't want a meritocracy, what you want is a hereditary aristocracy as those advantages keep compounding on themselves, all the way until the whole thing falls apart because you have inbred manchildren running the nation.
You do realize that this collapse has happened to literally every system of government in the history of humanity, save for a handful that have never lasted long enough for that to have a chance of happening because they're fucked from the start (like socialism), right? That's no unique failure state of meritocracy, that's a failure state of literally every system with any form of ruling class. And the systems that don't have a ruling class... Well, they tend to implode within the first 50 years, long before any chance of that failure state can happen.

And besides that, there's actually limits to how far those advantages go. Not everyone can become ultimately competent, as is needed to be at the top of a meritocratic system. Besides that, the middle class is close enough that prodigies would shoot up into the realm of the upper class, thus bringing new blood into the arisocracy or undermining any de-facto hereditary rule. You don't see families of famous scientists very often, after all, and in modern times it's supremely rare for a wealthy family to stay wealthy after three generations, because the children and grandchildren routinely piss away all the wealth.

And, even if you get a stagnant aristocracy, the moment they start falling down, the meritocracy has to already be broken as a system for it to become a failure state. Otherwise they get replaced by whoever's most competent outside of them. Meritocratic systems are relentlessly self-correcting, because the entire point is to be "rule by the competent". If an incompetent comes in, and the meritocracy is functioning, then they get kicked out of any form of rule, regardless of the wealth or status of their family.
 
You do realize that this collapse has happened to literally every system of government in the history of humanity, save for a handful that have never lasted long enough for that to have a chance of happening because they're fucked from the start (like socialism), right? That's no unique failure state of meritocracy, that's a failure state of literally every system with any form of ruling class. And the systems that don't have a ruling class... Well, they tend to implode within the first 50 years, long before any chance of that failure state can happen.

And besides that, there's actually limits to how far those advantages go. Not everyone can become ultimately competent, as is needed to be at the top of a meritocratic system. Besides that, the middle class is close enough that prodigies would shoot up into the realm of the upper class, thus bringing new blood into the arisocracy or undermining any de-facto hereditary rule. You don't see families of famous scientists very often, after all, and in modern times it's supremely rare for a wealthy family to stay wealthy after three generations, because the children and grandchildren routinely piss away all the wealth.

And, even if you get a stagnant aristocracy, the moment they start falling down, the meritocracy has to already be broken as a system for it to become a failure state. Otherwise they get replaced by whoever's most competent outside of them. Meritocratic systems are relentlessly self-correcting, because the entire point is to be "rule by the competent". If an incompetent comes in, and the meritocracy is functioning, then they get kicked out of any form of rule, regardless of the wealth or status of their family.
In america, opinions like yours get us Trump, because people buy into the idea of "he's rich, that must mean he's good at what he does", even though it's only his father's money that's kept him out of the poorhouse, and every time he's tried to run a business on his own it's failed miserably.
 
On a similar topic, Donald Trump effectively just admitted that Socialised Medicare works to lower drug prices. In the span of two paragraphs he complains that drug prices are high, then blames foreign government run health care are able to bargain the price down:

The Whitehouse.Gov said:
Second, government programs and private payers do not always have all the tools they need to negotiate more reasonable prices.

Third, many Americans, especially our seniors, face high out-of-pocket costs for the drugs they need, because out-of-pocket costs are typically calculated based on drugs' sky-high list prices. (Gives an example)

Finally, foreign countries and their government-run health-care systems bully our drug manufacturers into unrealistically low prices, allowing other countries to freeload off of American innovation.

Link
 
In america, opinions like yours get us Trump, because people buy into the idea of "he's rich, that must mean he's good at what he does", even though it's only his father's money that's kept him out of the poorhouse, and every time he's tried to run a business on his own it's failed miserably.
While it's true that opinions like mine get us Trump, that's because of a visceral hatred of the progressive left. Given what happened with them when Obama became president and the track records at play, I'll take the less-than-totally-incompetent populist interested in demolishing some major corporate monopolies and unfucking things broken by globalism over a corporate shill of a woman with an established track record of corruption and incompetence in politics that represents only the corporate Democrats.

Also, Trump's money is largely his own, at this point. He's dropped off the Forbes list for five years and come back to billionaire status, having his wealth halve during the recession, then coming back and keep going upwards right up until he became President. Pretty much immediately after becoming President, he started losing wealth again.
 
While it's true that opinions like mine get us Trump, that's because of a visceral hatred of the progressive left. Given what happened with them when Obama became president and the track records at play, I'll take the less-than-totally-incompetent populist interested in demolishing some major corporate monopolies and unfucking things broken by globalism over a corporate shill of a woman with an established track record of corruption and incompetence in politics that represents only the corporate Democrats.

Also, Trump's money is largely his own, at this point. He's dropped off the Forbes list for five years and come back to billionaire status, having his wealth halve during the recession, then coming back and keep going upwards right up until he became President. Pretty much immediately after becoming President, he started losing wealth again.
1. Citation on Trump having any interest in dismantling a corporate monopoly.

2. Citation on proven corruption by Hillary

3. Citation on Obama having done anything to provoke that hatred of progressives other than being black. (Or conversely citation on hateful progressive Obama supporters if that's what you meant, I couldn't quite parse that bit)

4. Citation on Hillary being politically incompetent in any way where Trump isn't significantly worse

5. Citation on "Globalism" being a bad thing and "wrecking" things in the US.
 
1. Citation on Trump having any interest in dismantling a corporate monopoly.
The whole Fake News thing. Fox is practically the only Republican-side voice in mainstream media, with every other major cabal news source hurling endless shit at Trump the entire election cycle and through his current term. Similarly, with some recent shitshows in social media, he might take aim at another major pillar of the public dialogue that appears to be extremely politically biased and using their power to undermine democracy. When you dig into it, nearly all corporately-owned media is owned by two or three companies at the top, with many of the exceptions being alternative media that incorporated to streamline actual journalism like Philip DeFranco.

2. Citation on proven corruption by Hillary
While it seems to never get proven, she, and her husband Bill, have a lengthy history of scandals, which causes a very heavy amount of suspicion about them actually being corrupt scum themselves, because you get certain innate biases of the human mind pinging it as damn near everyone who works closely with them is caught up in some shady deal or another. Even I genuinely suspect outright corruption, because there's just way too much surrounding them for it to be pure coincidence. And, of course, you have Hillary herself openly saying she wants Wall Street to be writing financial regulation... In spite of the clusterfuck of 2008 being precisely the result of that. At the least, she's a corporate shill surrounded in corrupt scum, and this is a pre-existing track record in politics.

3. Citation on Obama having done anything to provoke that hatred of progressives other than being black.
It's actually not hatred towards progressives that's the issue caused by the Obama presidency, it's that a minority president inflamed them in such a way that the sort currently fucking things up actually started getting mainstream for the first time. If you actually pay attention to the age range of a lot of the activists, they pretty much grew up with a black president being the norm for them, as far as their political understanding, leading to a group with far fewer reservations about IdPol, leading to all this hate speech nonsense

4. Citation on Hillary being politically incompetent in any way where Trump isn't significantly worse
The thing is that Hillary has a track record of it. We knew she was subject to incompetence, such as storing government work emails in her private, insecure, servers and not noticing that about a hundred of them were classified documents (admittedly lacking the header, but she failed to realize they were classified information in the absence of it). Her incompetence is known and proven to lead to the leaking of classified information, while Trump had no track record of anything close to that before becoming President. The choice was an unknown in Trump and an established votemongering liar who's been mired in scandals over the course of decades (probably atypical mostly in how many times she's been caught, all things considered).

5. Citation on "Globalism" being a bad thing and "wrecking" things in the US.
...The Rustbelt. Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, name a major manufacturing city and you've got a place fucked, at least in part, by globalism and Democrats. Because globalism means outsourcing, which has fucked manufacturing in the US, leading to a sizable number of people stuck with worse jobs or student loan debts from needing college degrees to get a job. The Democrats responded to the increasingly-fucked job market in these cities by offering welfare, instead of doing anything to try and bring new jobs to the place, like reducing red tape or cutting down on certain tax rates, because welfare gets them the same votes actually fixing the situation would, while being trivial to implement. This welfare then leads to a not-insignificant section of the population refusing to get a job because they don't really need one, making the economy worse. And the Democrats won't take the PR hit of going anti-union to unfuck what overpowered unions have broken, like the education system in Chicago.
 
The whole Fake News thing. Fox is practically the only Republican-side voice in mainstream media, with every other major cabal news source hurling endless shit at Trump the entire election cycle and through his current term. Similarly, with some recent shitshows in social media, he might take aim at another major pillar of the public dialogue that appears to be extremely politically biased and using their power to undermine democracy. When you dig into it, nearly all corporately-owned media is owned by two or three companies at the top, with many of the exceptions being alternative media that incorporated to streamline actual journalism like Philip DeFranco.


While it seems to never get proven, she, and her husband Bill, have a lengthy history of scandals, which causes a very heavy amount of suspicion about them actually being corrupt scum themselves, because you get certain innate biases of the human mind pinging it as damn near everyone who works closely with them is caught up in some shady deal or another. Even I genuinely suspect outright corruption, because there's just way too much surrounding them for it to be pure coincidence. And, of course, you have Hillary herself openly saying she wants Wall Street to be writing financial regulation... In spite of the clusterfuck of 2008 being precisely the result of that. At the least, she's a corporate shill surrounded in corrupt scum, and this is a pre-existing track record in politics.


It's actually not hatred towards progressives that's the issue caused by the Obama presidency, it's that a minority president inflamed them in such a way that the sort currently fucking things up actually started getting mainstream for the first time. If you actually pay attention to the age range of a lot of the activists, they pretty much grew up with a black president being the norm for them, as far as their political understanding, leading to a group with far fewer reservations about IdPol, leading to all this hate speech nonsense


The thing is that Hillary has a track record of it. We knew she was subject to incompetence, such as storing government work emails in her private, insecure, servers and not noticing that about a hundred of them were classified documents (admittedly lacking the header, but she failed to realize they were classified information in the absence of it). Her incompetence is known and proven to lead to the leaking of classified information, while Trump had no track record of anything close to that before becoming President. The choice was an unknown in Trump and an established votemongering liar who's been mired in scandals over the course of decades (probably atypical mostly in how many times she's been caught, all things considered).


...The Rustbelt. Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, name a major manufacturing city and you've got a place fucked, at least in part, by globalism and Democrats. Because globalism means outsourcing, which has fucked manufacturing in the US, leading to a sizable number of people stuck with worse jobs or student loan debts from needing college degrees to get a job. The Democrats responded to the increasingly-fucked job market in these cities by offering welfare, instead of doing anything to try and bring new jobs to the place, like reducing red tape or cutting down on certain tax rates, because welfare gets them the same votes actually fixing the situation would, while being trivial to implement. This welfare then leads to a not-insignificant section of the population refusing to get a job because they don't really need one, making the economy worse. And the Democrats won't take the PR hit of going anti-union to unfuck what overpowered unions have broken, like the education system in Chicago.
1. No citation. All republican side news sources are widely known liars. The truth, the facts, do not support their positions.

2. Your own article shows rhat there has been no wrondoing ever shown on her part, and only an affair on his. So again, you are full of bullshit

3. I don't even know what you're trying to say

4. You privided no citations. Just continued talking piints from the far right. You are full of shit

5. No citations. Continued accusations against democrats with no citations. You are full of shit.

Conclusion: you and your side are full of shit.
 
1. No citation. All republican side news sources are widely known liars. The truth, the facts, do not support their positions.

-Not a conservative, mind-

MSNBC has been ignoring possibly the most catastrophic current human rights crisis to focus on trivial, eye catching, bullshit

MSNBC-Yemen-Daniels-529x1024.png
 
-Not a conservative, mind-

MSNBC has been ignoring possibly the most catastrophic current human rights crisis to focus on trivial, eye catching, bullshit

MSNBC-Yemen-Daniels-529x1024.png
That's hardly new, compare Yemen reports to shit about like Taylor Swift next and see what you get
 
1. No citation. All republican side news sources are widely known liars. The truth, the facts, do not support their positions.
You asked for a monopoly that Trump was working against. What matters is not how justified the related narrative is, but that Trump is wanting to tear down a problematic monopoly. Unless you can prove that the non-Republican MSM aren't a monolith of both finances and opinion, then I've answered your question of where a corporate monopoly Trump wants gone is. Cut the crap with moving the goalpost. If this was SB, I'd be in the middle of digging through the rules to report your ass. And then set it down if I couldn't make a reasoned argument in favor of it, though I'm quite certain I could catch you for bad-faith debating because you're holding me to a vastly higher standard than yourself.

2. Your own article shows rhat there has been no wrondoing ever shown on her part, and only an affair on his. So again, you are full of bullshit
I started with "while it seems to never get proven", then went into how that history of scandals, in combination with certain statements by Hillary, leave her with an atrocious reputation. She has a track record of apparent corruption and known incompetence, so some people took a gamble with the politically-recordless Trump over the widely-believed-corrupt-and/or-incompetent Hillary Clinton. Cut. The crap. With the goalpost moving. And actually read my goddamn posts.

3. I don't even know what you're trying to say
Basically, eight years of a black man in the White House led to a round of college and high school graduates who's formative political years left them with far less suspicion of identity politics than normal, leaving them much more vulnerable to the blight that is the current progressive left. Which is currently busy exploding because of a number of prominent transphobic Feminists (or just ones who draw the line at normalizing literal mental illnesses categorized as anxiety disorders and delusions, rather than actively being against support structures for trans people) and a decent chunk of the non-TERFs actually not caring a lot about racial issues.

4. You privided no citations. Just continued talking piints from the far right. You are full of shit
Here's the Wikipedia article on the Email controversy, go ahead and check their citations if you are actually interested in reasoned debate and not just trying to shut out an opposing opinion. If you don't accept Wikipedia... Go do your own damn research, you willfully ignorant leftist fucktard. Because I'm not digging for citations if you're just going to keep moving goalposts and making unsupported claims, when I'm (somewhat) frequently making claims with unprompted citations.

5. No citations. Continued accusations against democrats with no citations. You are full of shit.
Go do your own goddamn research on the topic then. Because I'm done with your unsubstantiated claims being combined with calling for me to cite my information. It's not that hard, I've done it, and changed my opinion because the facts didn't support my claims. In this very thread, in fact. Look up "Chicago's education system" in Google, and you'll see fucked up financing, atrocious outcomes and calls for oversight. Look at the record of employment in Detroit and cross-reference it with various outsourcing information.
 
I haven't provided citation because I haven't made any positive claims that are not part of accepted fact. You have. Repeatedly. And once again you tell me to research the stuff to disprove YOUR positive claims that you make with know more evidence than "everybody knows" and "they all disagree with republican lies so they must be a conspiracy"
 
I haven't provided citation because I haven't made any positive claims that are not part of accepted fact. You have. Repeatedly. And once again you tell me to research the stuff to disprove YOUR positive claims that you make with know more evidence than "everybody knows" and "they all disagree with republican lies so they must be a conspiracy"
My own consistent disagreement with them proves they're not universally accepted fact. Because I disagree with them, you have a burden of proof to prove it to me, just like your disagreement with my statements leaves me with a burden to prove them to you. Rather than disprove my statement, you just keep disagreeing with me without supporting your claims. I've made claims that the history of Clinton's scandals give her a horrid reputation that Trump decidedly lacks, and you refuted the claim by directly ignoring the start of the statement itself.

This is what actual debate is like. Proper debating practices do, in fact, involve proving widely-accepted facts, because the fact something is widely accepted doesn't make it a fact. You see it all the time in science. The Russian collusion allegations are an excellent example because a vast number of organizations took them as objective truths with nothing having turned up to reasonably support it. Are they true? Not sure myself, I haven't dug into it, but I'm making a statement that the media took unproven allegations as facts and kept going with it. To disprove this statement, you need to show me that the media reliably treated the allegations as unconfirmed.

You fundamentally cannot get me to change my opinion the way you've been going. Your refusal to change your posting to even attempt to genuinely disprove me, offering substantiated counterclaims, means that you appear to not actually be interested in getting me to change my opinion, but rather just in shutting me up so that you can develop a further ideological bubble. If you are stating widely-accepted fact, then it should be trivial to prove it.
 
Actually it's nothing like actual debating because right wing catspaws don't take part in real debates.
 
Actually it's nothing like actual debating because right wing catspaws don't take part in real debates.
...You have literally stooped to the low of claiming that a goddamn left-wing liberal (according to political compass tests, so my beliefs are quite certainly in line, though the justifications for them may not be) who's stated a viceral hatred of the progressive left is an unwitting pawn of the right, and therefor I am automatically excluded from real debates. You're one step away from ad-homonyms now, and are making statements that make no logical sense, because being an unwitting pawn of the right does not at all logically lead to an inability to participate in proper debates. Even if I'm wrong on what proper debates are (though, to my knowledge, proper debates, of the formal logic sort, are actually a cesspit of tautology on a good day because the standards of proof are so extreme), I've stated that the fashion of debate Ravan has been using is incapable of swaying me from my opinion, and provided a format of debate that nobody on this site has yet engaged me in that I at least claim will be able to sway my opinion.

I've given you and Ravan a guideline to getting me to change my views. In this very thread, I've shown my views are subject to change when exposed to evidence. So, give me evidence. And get back on topic by starting with showing me... Let's go with showing me that it's a reasonable position to take that the US government can maintain the funding for single-payer healthcare without fucking the budget somewhere as Republicans jump to trying to either break the system or the taxes to pay for it, and that the needed taxes are actually sustainable (I wouldn't be surprised that it'd be trivial for the federal government to get anther half-trillion in revenue a year, but I'll throw in that request just to cover the bases), as I've previously given a citation showing that California, at least, can manage to pay for it (specifically with a 15% payroll tax as a start, according to the article. And yes, that's a hyperbolic title, but the article as a whole actually gives good backing for universal healthcare being payable).

While I'm busy trying to drag things back on rails, I'll throw in that the political issues with getting single-payer in the United States, combined with the fact that a large chunk of the budgeting plans California made rely on pre-existing federal payments, makes me think that a state-level "single"-payer (as it is per-state, so there is more than one direct payer) healthcare system could work well with the United States, as it gives a decent number of shots at getting it workable the first time for other states to follow the lead of, making it so that if the system implemented is fucked from the start, it's at least only one state at a time fucked by it. And if even one state gets it fully working, complete with the tax revenue to pay for it, then the other states serious about it can follow suit. And with those successes, the arguments against it fall apart and resolve the federal-level political issues I brought up to give backing to single-payer in the US being bad. It could conclude with a very barebones federal single-payer that covers only very basic things (trivial preventative and symptomatic care like anti-inflammatory and cheap antibiotic kind of basic, the stuff proven to be super-cheap but high-impact) and organizing federal funding for state-level "single"-payer systems (keeping the quote marks because it's per-state).
 
This is a derail and should at this point be it's own thread. On the other hand, someone is wrong on the internet.

The whole Fake News thing. Fox is practically the only Republican-side voice in mainstream media, with every other major cabal news source hurling endless shit at Trump the entire election cycle and through his current term. Similarly, with some recent shitshows in social media, he might take aim at another major pillar of the public dialogue that appears to be extremely politically biased and using their power to undermine democracy. When you dig into it, nearly all corporately-owned media is owned by two or three companies at the top, with many of the exceptions being alternative media that incorporated to streamline actual journalism like Philip DeFranco.

You asked for a monopoly that Trump was working against. What matters is not how justified the related narrative is, but that Trump is wanting to tear down a problematic monopoly. Unless you can prove that the non-Republican MSM aren't a monolith of both finances and opinion, then I've answered your question of where a corporate monopoly Trump wants gone is..

The problems your listing though is the mainstream media doing what they're supposed to do, reporting on scandals and telling their listeners what they want to hear. Trump constantly does stuff that deserves to be reported on and criticised. The monopoly on opinion is the result of market forces, and since you've acknowledge Fox News exists which is pro-Trump it makes this allegation difficult. What Donald Trump calls "Fake News" is usually completly accurate news that Trump personally doesn't like.

You are the one claiming that all mainstream media is part of a legal monopoly, which means it does falls on you to prove it.

And wanting the government to censor the media because it disagrees with Present is a very dangerous idea. Especially when said Present says he'll ignore an election if he loses and that he's jealous of Kim Jong Un's rule.


While it seems to never get proven, she, and her husband Bill, have a lengthy history of scandals, which causes a very heavy amount of suspicion about them actually being corrupt scum themselves, because you get certain innate biases of the human mind pinging it as damn near everyone who works closely with them is caught up in some shady deal or another. Even I genuinely suspect outright corruption, because there's just way too much surrounding them for it to be pure coincidence. And, of course, you have Hillary herself openly saying she wants Wall Street to be writing financial regulation... In spite of the clusterfuck of 2008 being precisely the result of that. At the least, she's a corporate shill surrounded in corrupt scum, and this is a pre-existing track record in politics.

I started with "while it seems to never get proven", then went into how that history of scandals, in combination with certain statements by Hillary, leave her with an atrocious reputation. She has a track record of apparent corruption and known incompetence, so some people took a gamble with the politically-recordless Trump over the widely-believed-corrupt-and/or-incompetent Hillary Clinton. Cut. The crap. With the goalpost moving. And actually read my goddamn posts.

And in contrast Donald Trump goes on a live television debate and asks for the Russian Government to hack into his opponents emails and release them. And when they do, he says in the next debate he wants to improve relations with Russia. The evidence of Donald Trump being even worse was out there before the actual election, it just wasn't reported by the corporate media since they couldn't confirm it. Serious, check the SB thread.

Donald Trump campaign on repealing the 2008 restrictions, and after winning he put Goldman Sach Executives in charge of writing financial regulations. He's since proven far more corrupt and incompetent than Hillary Clinton ever was, and strangely the people who voted for him haven't turned against him despite this. His campaign manager is facing charges and he's admitted on twitter to attempting to commit crimes.



It's actually not hatred towards progressives that's the issue caused by the Obama presidency, it's that a minority president inflamed them in such a way that the sort currently fucking things up actually started getting mainstream for the first time. If you actually pay attention to the age range of a lot of the activists, they pretty much grew up with a black president being the norm for them, as far as their political understanding, leading to a group with far fewer reservations about IdPol, leading to all this hate speech nonsense

Basically, eight years of a black man in the White House led to a round of college and high school graduates who's formative political years left them with far less suspicion of identity politics than normal, leaving them much more vulnerable to the blight that is the current progressive left. Which is currently busy exploding because of a number of prominent transphobic Feminists (or just ones who draw the line at normalizing literal mental illnesses categorized as anxiety disorders and delusions, rather than actively being against support structures for trans people) and a decent chunk of the non-TERFs actually not caring a lot about racial issues.

A younger generation is sociality progress. Gasped Shock. And they assume their politics are the norm. And they are more media savvy than their elders and try to make their politics mainstream. Say it isn't so.

And at the same time Fox News was stoking white identity politics and the burgeoning predecessors of the alt-right were on a mass recruitment spree. And as a reaction to Obama the white identity politics faction took over the republican party, crushed the pro-hispanic faction and massive escalated the culture war. Like the Bathroom Bills and the attempts to stop encroaching marriage equality. White Identity politics has always existed in the USA's political mainstream, it was just more covert.

I also doubt that TERFs are causing the progressive left to explode. And are you seriously accusing feminists of not being intersectionalist enough? Because this isn't a complaint people who dislike identity politics usually make.


...The Rustbelt. Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, name a major manufacturing city and you've got a place fucked, at least in part, by globalism and Democrats. Because globalism means outsourcing, which has fucked manufacturing in the US, leading to a sizable number of people stuck with worse jobs or student loan debts from needing college degrees to get a job. The Democrats responded to the increasingly-fucked job market in these cities by offering welfare, instead of doing anything to try and bring new jobs to the place, like reducing red tape or cutting down on certain tax rates, because welfare gets them the same votes actually fixing the situation would, while being trivial to implement. This welfare then leads to a not-insignificant section of the population refusing to get a job because they don't really need one, making the economy worse. And the Democrats won't take the PR hit of going anti-union to unfuck what overpowered unions have broken, like the education system in Chicago.

I technically agree with you that Globalism is bad for the workforce of the USA. I disagree with you however that Globalism something you can realistic stop, and that your targets of blame are heavily skewed. The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus are bigger advocates of Gglobalisation than say Obama or Hillary.

Globalism is inevitable unless you reject international trade and finance. You can't have US citizens compete in unskilled labour with the peoples of the third world and expect to remain those industries to remain competitive. Outsourcing jobs to more profitable areas is how capitalism has historically worked. You can't expected unskilled factory jobs to remain the USA without the government subsiding them, which has it's own problems. And even with tariffs and subsidies, capitalists are still going invest in developing countries since they have the best room for growth, and thus the best

Young People trying to get College Degrees with get jobs is the inevitable response to economic reality. Since for most the people going there and risking student debt, it's their only change to get a better life. The entire system is horrible, but the Democrats are the only party trying to fix it.

The manufacturing areas you've just mentioned are dead. And unless you get the Federal Government to subside the same way they do Farming, they're not coming back. There was never anything the states governments could do, but put a balm on wound. None of the actual solutions you've mention were things they could realistically implement, and they had the Republican Party opposing any solution because "The Government that governs best governs least". Don't get me wrong, the democrats are bad, but you name an actual solution to this problem? Because the Republicans want apply the same policy that's broken

And blaming people for being unemployed after their jobs are sent overseas is ridiculously unfair. Especially when you've admitted going to cvollege won't help and socio-economic forces beyond their control have left them no escape from poverty.

And while Chicago is bad, the Republican alternative is Kansas. Where teacher's need to work part time jobs just to avoid going broke because the government can't afford to pay them. Which is what happens when you put the republican parties policies into practice.

So how is Donald Trump supposed to solve any of this? He's used oversea's labour as much as he can. He's put Tariffs on raw materials that have counteracted the gains any of his other Tariffs might have had since raising the price on raw materials has put manufacturers out of business. Tariff's and protectionism can work for a few Industrials but they're going to tank the economy if done on a large enough scale to address unemployment.
 
It's actually not hatred towards progressives that's the issue caused by the Obama presidency, it's that a minority president inflamed them in such a way that the sort currently fucking things up actually started getting mainstream for the first time. If you actually pay attention to the age range of a lot of the activists, they pretty much grew up with a black president being the norm for them, as far as their political understanding, leading to a group with far fewer reservations about IdPol, leading to all this hate speech nonsense
"It's the progressive's fault racist's hate them, they gave them a black president!"
1534079107309.gif
This is some next level shit.
 
"It's the progressive's fault racist's hate them, they gave them a black president!"
View attachment 69
This is some next level shit.
You... Kinda have it backwards. The racists did, in part, cause this subset of the progressive left to happen, but it was because there was a black president beforehand. The racists had virtually nothing to do with Obama becoming president, save maybe set off some early tumblrites (...wait, was Tumblr even a thing at that point?) and other social media obsessives to bump up voter participation numbers, which is just more of them being counterproductive.

Having a black president is a major part of why they became progressive, the racism kept them progressive and drove them to extremism. The "Obama generation" of the progressive left make up the bulk of the ones being mocked pejoratively, because they had easy access to the vocal minority of racists to delude themselves into thinking oppression is everywhere. A mix of frequency bias to start and confirmation bias keeping it going, with a sprinkling of outright conspiracy theories to cover what the previous two biases don't.
 
You... Kinda have it backwards. The racists did, in part, cause this subset of the progressive left to happen, but it was because there was a black president beforehand. The racists had virtually nothing to do with Obama becoming president, save maybe set off some early tumblrites (...wait, was Tumblr even a thing at that point?) and other social media obsessives to bump up voter participation numbers, which is just more of them being counterproductive.

Having a black president is a major part of why they became progressive, the racism kept them progressive and drove them to extremism. The "Obama generation" of the progressive left make up the bulk of the ones being mocked pejoratively, because they had easy access to the vocal minority of racists to delude themselves into thinking oppression is everywhere. A mix of frequency bias to start and confirmation bias keeping it going, with a sprinkling of outright conspiracy theories to cover what the previous two biases don't.
This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read and it makes me wonder just where in the fuck you get this information that allowed you to construct this ridiculous fantasy of yours.

Also vocal minority kek:
2B2AD74D-AC1A-41EB-82E7-BB47DAAB3567.jpeg D7E4EB00-545E-481D-88D5-93BA26DF83B3.jpeg C1A00FBD-AEFF-4A12-9EF4-D7291CF2E820.jpeg E5650B10-4510-437B-B457-21ECB8540FB2.jpeg 960E299C-CB15-4121-B35D-6A51E345937B.jpeg 81C3A195-9268-4CBA-AEBA-18CF0FD403D2.jpeg D3BCB9F8-B53C-4666-955D-44C6E8F7E83C.jpeg 37040230-7795-4933-87BD-9BDC97507A4C.jpeg
My my look at all those Republican tea party members also do keep in count a good portion of the people that voted for Trump still believe Trump's lie that Obama was in Kenya even after Obama showed his fucking birth certificate to get them all to shut the fuck up.

But you'll probably ignore that so you can continue to flail around about how you hate progressives because they don't adhere to your ignorantly annoying pedantry when it comes to using words.
 
My my look at all those Republican tea party members
...You haven't actually given any disproof about it being a vocal minority. The large amount of anecdotal evidence is, in fact, support for them being exceptionally vocal, while giving no support as to how many of them there are. It could very much still be an obscenely vocal and miniscule group, that's what a vocal minority is. A small, loud group. To actually disprove that they're a vocal minority, you need to prove they're actually a large element of the group, not prove they're extremely vocal.

Also, being ignorant is the exact opposite of why I'm pedantic about words. It's because my vocabulary and trivia base are wildly disproportionate, being absolutely massive, to the depths of actual useful information I have (which is why I call out for statistics and scientific citations). If you want to get me to change my opinion, give me statistics, not pictures. Because for all I know, every one of those pictures could have been from a single rally.
 
...You haven't actually given any disproof about it being a vocal minority. The large amount of anecdotal evidence is, in fact, support for them being exceptionally vocal, while giving no support as to how many of them there are. It could very much still be an obscenely vocal and miniscule group, that's what a vocal minority is. A small, loud group. To actually disprove that they're a vocal minority, you need to prove they're actually a large element of the group, not prove they're extremely vocal.

Also, being ignorant is the exact opposite of why I'm pedantic about words. It's because my vocabulary and trivia base are wildly disproportionate, being absolutely massive, to the depths of actual useful information I have (which is why I call out for statistics and scientific citations). If you want to get me to change my opinion, give me statistics, not pictures. Because for all I know, every one of those pictures could have been from a single rally.
F79CD790-39E1-436C-8720-1D139D4651A1.png
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat...7/08/trump_s_bigoted_base_by_the_numbers.html

"Totally not racist bruh! :v" is probably what your answer is going to be seeing as how you admitted that it was perfectly alright for Donald Trump to be a racist as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom