***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[marikomorose]

But they're just gonna get cashed.

But she's a she's.

 

[whywesteppin]

A week ago I wondered why Trump and his stans were so big on hydroxychloroquine. Was there a financial interest?

I think now I have my answer. It reflects that they are simply dumb as rocks and can't process information properly or engage in complex decision-making processes.

At the end of the day, this is nothing political. It boils down to an inability to value facts, science, and experts. So now ask me why it is this place is an echo chamber when nobody but one guy is in here defending Trump.

 

[whywesteppin]

How is everybody spending their Trump bucks?

Personally, I'm not even going to cash it. Trump's signature is worth WAY too much to do that. No, this baby is going in a frame on my wall, next to my diploma from Trump University and my voucher for a free buffet with my next stay at the Taj Mahal. Some day I will pass these on to my children.

 

[aepps20]

Bold move THAT WAS NEEDED. Nancy tried to take credit for these checks. THESE ARE DONALD DOLLARS LIB SCUMS. YOU BETTA WRITE OUR PRESIDENT ELECT A HANDWRITTEN NOTE AND THANK HIM FOR THIS GIFT AND APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LIB SCUM.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[Belgium]

 

[frink85]

 

[-Red-]

Yeah, but I as a whole, the migration patterns of white people into cities don't signal to me that they are more ready for racially integrated living than their suburban counterparts.

It is not like a sprinkling of young suburban white people are uniformly moving into blackest neighborhoods, and happily accepting whatever living conditions currently in place, in exchange for being closer to the city center. If that were happening, I would be more inclined to believe that the desire to living in urban areas would crowd out any regressive racial views, but I don't see widespread evidence of that. If anything, it seems more like developers, after buying up land on the cheap, signal to white folk that a specific area of the city is "safe" for them to live. Then the game repeats itself over and over.

Urban cities are quite large. You can have tons of segregation within a city. So white city dwellers might want cheap affordable units in urban areas, that doesn't mean they are indifferent to the racial makeup of their neighborhood. Even if most were, which I think is a very optimistic view, it only takes a few bad actors to **** everything up.

I don't say this to condemn all white people. I say it as a warning that any housing program to increase supply must also be passed with the explicit goal of integration and shared prosperity. Leave no room for funny business; don't leave it up to white residents' willingness to accept diversity. Leave no room for it to be possible for white people to clump into one part of the city and enjoy better-maintained housing units and communities. At the same time, you put black and brown folk into another part of the city and ignore their neighborhoods. We are already a very segregated country, and the model is already there to unequally fund public institutions based on who utilizes them. The same game that is run for public school funding can be modified to run with the new form of public housing. With rents replacing property taxes.

I will always maintain that white supremacy is not completely incompatible with left-wing economics programs. Policymakers need to watch their flank and consider how bad actors can rig even the most progressive of programs, and how people who claim to welcome diversity, will stand back and let an unequal system be created because they still come out the winners.

And the fact that such a program won't work in certain areas, should be evidence that leaving it up to the wishes of white people is a dangerous game. Like what happens when those those suburban whites start moving into cities at a higher rate because there are building cheap housing units. They too will being game for diversity?

So I am all for the program you outlines, but **** letting people have the choice as to whether they will accept diversity, even if most would chose accept it. They shouldn't have a choice, make them accept true share prosperity or they get nothing.

I agree with you 100%. White folks, for the most part, aren’t moving into the stone ghetto for cheaper rents. It definitely tends to be areas on the edges of the hood that are being redeveloped. But social housing wouldn't replicate ghettoized conditions, either, which isn't just a strategy to make things palatable for white folks, but obviously is important as a matter of principle—indeed, particularly for people of color who have obviously been victimized by those dynamics.

And to clarify, I wasn’t trying to say white folks should have a choice of accepting diversity or not. I was just saying I think that many of them would accept it, if not actively desire it, and thus support this kind of policy. Not all, but many I think, depending on the city. But vigilance would certainly be needed in any case, you're absolutely right.

 

[nawghtyhare]

@dwalk31

so then how come they can tell people not to come outside

 

[IATT]

 

[dacomeup]

Repeal women’s suffrage to own the Libs

 

[IATT]

 

[Mark Antony]

Was the post that was deleted in this thread, or the COVID-19 thread?

What a disigenuous ****** thing to do. Also that topic was posted multiple times in this thread.

*edit, actually realize it's about his gaffe's not assault

 

[Nike Jordan]

Direct deposit tho.

 

[Mark Antony]

This dude is *****. Soft.

 

[mister friendly]

Yes it’s a deflection blaming China but they do need to take a large part of the blame for this.

 

[flyeed]

As much as I'm for unifying against Trump, I am starting to understand a bit more about the Bernie side of the party not being quick to endorse Joe. The easier you give your support to him, the less he has to concede. Being that it's still only April, I don't mind people like Briahna and others saying that if Joe doesn't move his platform further left they aren't going to rock with him. But I do hope that it's just "negotiating" and playing hardball, and that as election day approaches they'll realize the urgency of getting don out. Maybe the last bit is wishful thinking on my part though.

edit:

like this right here, dude has a point.

 

[Mark Antony]

Joe absorbed some of Bernie's policies before he dropped out, seemed like it was planned for an easier handoff. Still didn't matter to the extreme ones.

 

[flyeed]

actually come to think of it now, Bernie was also in a tough spot.

during the primary debates he basically had to say he'd support whoever won the nomination. because if he didn't it would have been a bad look for him on many fronts. so it was a gamble he took to try winning. and now that he didn't win, he can't really backtrack on what he said.

 

[flyeed]

this is ultimately what kind of shifted my stance though



"There’s this talk about unity as this kind of vague, kumbaya, kind of term. Unity and unifying isn’t a feeling, it’s a process. And what I hope does not happen in this process is that everyone just tries to shoo it along and brush real policies — that mean the difference of life and death"

AOC is right. And that's even why I said earlier after seeing in Obama's outreach to the Bernie faction, that it didn't feel authentic. And it won't until we see Joe's platform move even more left. Somewhere between himself and Bernie. And that's why I'm ok with some of the bigger voices of the left not being quick to offer their collective endorsement of Joe. Because if you do it too quickly, the little bit of leverage you have is gone.

As part of his coalition building, Biden is going to have to reach out to people like AOC. And if he doesn't, then the unity stuff really is just all talk.

 

[mronegative]

this is ultimately what kind of shifted my stance though



"There’s this talk about unity as this kind of vague, kumbaya, kind of term. Unity and unifying isn’t a feeling, it’s a process. And what I hope does not happen in this process is that everyone just tries to shoo it along and brush real policies — that mean the difference of life and death"

AOC is right. And that's even why I said earlier after seeing in Obama's outreach to the Bernie faction, that it didn't feel authentic. And it won't until we see Joe's platform move even more left. Somewhere between himself and Bernie. And that's why I'm ok with some of the bigger voices of the left not being quick to offer their collective endorsement of Joe. Because if you do it too quickly, the little bit of leverage you have is gone.

As part of his coalition building, Biden is going to have to reach out to people like AOC. And if he doesn't, then the unity stuff really is just all talk.

This is what happens when you're going up against a cartoon. It warps politics. The populist left movement that's happening has legit been coalescing since Occupy Wall Street.

It would've existed with or without Drumpf. But because Darth Cheeto is such a cartoon villain, he gives the establishment Dems more leverage.

They don't have to meet the progressives halfway. They just have to say....oh so you want HIM to win?!?!?!?

Which is ********, but not untrue.

 

[RustyShackleford]

this is ultimately what kind of shifted my stance though



"There’s this talk about unity as this kind of vague, kumbaya, kind of term. Unity and unifying isn’t a feeling, it’s a process. And what I hope does not happen in this process is that everyone just tries to shoo it along and brush real policies — that mean the difference of life and death"

AOC is right. And that's even why I said earlier after seeing in Obama's outreach to the Bernie faction, that it didn't feel authentic. And it won't until we see Joe's platform move even more left. Somewhere between himself and Bernie. And that's why I'm ok with some of the bigger voices of the left not being quick to offer their collective endorsement of Joe. Because if you do it too quickly, the little bit of leverage you have is gone.

As part of his coalition building, Biden is going to have to reach out to people like AOC. And if he doesn't, then the unity stuff really is just all talk.

First Obama was always a unify behind whoever wins person guy. His appeal to Sanders supporters seem genuine to me, he advocated for structural change, he said implicity rebuked the argument of going back to the way things were. Also Obama is not responsible for Biden's platform. So I don't understand how Biden moving left on policy has to do with Obama seeming more genuine.

Secondly, if Bernie won, would his supporters be saying that Bernie has to move towards Joe's platform, water down his policies to appease Biden supporters and Sanders skeptics? I highly doubt it. We got a small taste of what the rhetoric would be like after Nevada, I think if Sanders pulled it off they would championing a victory for leftist policies and calling for people to get over it and unify because beating Trump is the most important thing. I doubt someone like AOC would be taking the same tone if her guy won.

I would like Biden to move left on aggregate, and I don't have an issue with people pressuring a leftward move, my thing is that some people are mainly upset about the unity talk because their guy didn't win. Where things the other way around, they would be very comfortable with that rhetoric. Not saying you, but their objections seem more based in partisanship than principle.

At the end of the day dude won so people will need to temper their expectations of how much they can get out of dude, and his platform is pretty progressive already. So come November people gonna have to swallow it.