I'm not opposed to protecting the working class through an adequate social safety net and universal healthcare. I AM opposed to giving them more cash than they are worth though. Many jobs are being replaced with AI, robotics, international work, etc. I view that as progress and I find policies that retard that progress to be abhorrent. I don't CARE about people losing their jobs due to those factors because society as a whole benefits from it. We should of course help these people transition, but we shouldn't save their jobs. Today, I saw Biden support disgusting "Buy American" policies. No, DON'T buy American. It's expensive and complete shit compared to what you can get over seas. The only legitimate reason to keep things in America is for national security purposes.

I'm glad that we agree that doctors are worth more than burger flippers. It has NOTHING to do with effort though. People shouldn't be paid based on the amount of time/effort they put in. They should be paid based on economic output.



Introduce a VAT. I support that! Tell me, how does Mark Zuckerberg owning shares in Facebook hurt you? Why is it so offensive for someone to own a substantial portion of their company?

This post was edited by thundercock on Sep 9 2020 05:58pm

being able to make ends meet with ONE job, even if low-skilled, is not 'more than someone deserves'. you're the one supporting a 'radical / extreme' position here. you're the one supporting a system of unprecedented and unrivaled inequality and suffering. you're the one shilling for people who make policies exclusively for their donors, while telling their voters that basic civilizational achievements are simply not affordable - even though much poorer and less developed countries prove that to be wrong.

that's not being 'a bit of an edgy elitist', it's supporting a textbook oligarchy. to be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with that technically, i just think it's just pathetic to pretend it's what the founding fathers wanted, or a remotely fair system that offers everyone a realistic chance to 'make it', or whatever you have to tell yourself to rationalise your selfishness and lack of empathy...

What does it mean to make "ends meet?" People have VERY different definitions of that. I don't think I agree with the idea that working only one job should be able to make "ends meet." That seems like a luxury to me. I don't think my position is radical/extreme either because it's well within the Overton window of American discourse. Also, how do I support unprecedented suffering when people were way worse off 100-200 years ago? Do you understand that unprecedented means that it hasn't happened before? Perhaps you should take a course in American history where you can learn about slavery and the industrial revolution.

My posts have NEVER advocated what you're saying. The very first thing I said is that I support an adequate social safety net AND universal healthcare. The hilarious thing is that we agree on this and yet you're still finding reasons to attack me. Sometimes, I think you just want to attack people for the hell of it...

This post was edited by thundercock on Sep 9 2020 06:28pm

its almost like they forget “normal” people also own shares in companies too! i do forsee the govt buying up shares being a thing under a lefty platform like that. what better way to justify an increase to budget lmfao!

Maher is pretty astute, he’s crass but much more classically liberal and thus he’s more inclined to problem-solve rather than complain all the time. And that model of capitalism+ is something I’d generally agree with as well, especially the education facet (and other skill training initiatives etc.). Ubi is probably an eventuality so i dunno if we bite the bullet now and let the “its socialism reee” get out the way or wait

https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1303797541323116549



Solid point.

Cultists will dismiss any story critical of Trump. But there's a set of issues that will come up at the debates, and any new material that helps Biden make an argument will help him win over persuadable voters.

unprecedented and unrivaled inequality since the widespread implementation of aforementioned civilisational achievements into western societies. happy? probably not, because unsurprisingly you're more interested in semantics, so you won't have to face inconvenient truths and arguments.
just like pretending that 'making ends meet' is not a broadly understood term (as in being able to afford the necessary things needed for an decent human life), and needs a specific value attributed (obviously to open it to irrelevant 'well, ackshually' attacks to deflect from the core issue). you really think i haven't encountered the same transparent and lazy tactics hundreds of times in my skirmishes with camboy and trench-kid? it's all you people ever do to avoid a good faith argument with someone holding opposing views.

and yes, you have repeatedly (and allegedly proudly) advocated a system that exclusively cares about the select few that can afford to pay the politicial establishments to do their bidding, while outright blocking any real progress on behalf of the working class, even claimed it was intended like that by the founding fathers, even though there is overwhelming historical evidence that is not true. and again, it's not even the selfishness and lack of empathy that bothers me, it's the cowardice, the dishonest attempts to sugarcoat and rationalise it.

i mean, you sure CLAIM that you want "adequate social safety nets" and "universal healthcare", but at the same time you uncritically shill for the people who made it their whole (very lucrative) careers to prevent those things from being implemented, on behalf of the corporations that directly profit from it - and will continue to do so (as you indirectly admitted yourself previously).
it's funny how you don't even seem to realise how empty absurd that sounds to someone looking at that system from the outside - and no, just claiming "we simply have different definitions of what adequate means" is not a valid argument here, as the unjustifiable poverty rate, the extreme inequality, and significantly lower standards of worker rights and protections compared to your peer nations clearly illustrate...

This post was edited by fender on Sep 9 2020 07:44pm

No, it's not an understood term. Some people would say that having a smart phone with data plan is a NECESSITY for making ends meet. Some people would say that being able to live with ONLY your family (no roommates) is a requirement. I, along with many others, would disagree with that. If there are viable alternatives that are reasonable (i.e. having a regular cell phone that handles calls and email only, sharing a multi-bedroom apartment with another family, etc.), then I wouldn't consider it a necessity. Politicians like to use imprecise terms because it allows them to be flexible. We should use precise terms to avoid confusion and because we have different values. But anyway, my position is that working only one job. If you can't afford to achieve your personal goals, worker more efficiently or get another job.

I understand that there is a discrepancy between my personal voting patterns and what I advocate. The reality is that my political beliefs are an extreme minority in this country (~2%) and so I have to vote for a party that best represents my views. It should be clear that I'm a strong proponent of free markets, globalism, technology, and meritocracy. How much do you think that resonates with the American people? Currently, center left Democrats are my best bet since I hate all forms of populism, socialism, etc. Republicans are anti-intellectual and enablers of corruption. Now, I wish it weren't that way. I WISH we had something similar to Germany's MMPR but we don't. It is what it is.

ayup. the clever politicians know which buzzwords to use because in a broad context you’d be hard pressed to argue against it due to the emotional responses they spawn like we see with fender. “common sense” whatever (insert regulatory policy here) is the big one. or federally mandated ‘living wage’ is another one. as if you can mandate a standard in a country with such vast differences in average cost of living and costs of operation for businesses big and small depending on location.


lol

i will say he managed to spend our taxpayer dollars on a good set of plugs up top since then

This post was edited by excellence on Sep 9 2020 08:37pm

Common sense
Fair share
Reform
Change
Outsider/Insider

The funny thing is, fenderp will point to his stupid video and say that "Americans support common sense gun control." Yet Americans can't agree on what "common sense" actually means which yields to no consensus which means no legislation is passed.