2020 US Election

[markedone]

7 hours ago, Squee said:

Voting in the US seems ridiculously complicated.

the federal and midterm elections are fairly straightfoward (would be better if they made it a working holiday..) but primaries and anything more local get complicated and there is a lack of easy information, especially for young people who are likely to not have a fixed address.. when i moved to ny in 2016, moved my national voter registry, but because i had forgot to register with the democratic party in ny, i was excluded from voting in their closed primary.

& i havent even lived in states that seem to be actively trying to suppress voter turnout re the things joshua lists

Edited February 25, 2020 by markedone

[goDel]

5 hours ago, Zeffolia said:

it's a standard voter suppression tactic on the part of the democratic party.  they don't want independents to vote in the primary because they almost all support Bernie.  this happened in the last election too and helped hillary steal the nomination, among other things

It totally makes sense that only members of a political party can vote for whoever will represent that party in a general election. A primary is not a general election. Independents can vote in the general election. If you want to choose which Dem candidate should represent the Dem party, you should be a member of the Dem party. That's not suppression as far as I'm concerned.

The only thing which makes it a bit strange, is that in the US you have practically two parties. So people are basically forced to become a member of either party if they want to influence the ticket of a specific party. In a democratic system where you can decide about the number of members of a party in a parliament, you'd have a different discussion and membership of a party becomes secundary. THe choice for not having a parliament is a constitutional one, I believe. Or rather, also not one born out of a tendency to suppress voters.

You're blowing this way out of proportion, imo.

[zlemflolia]

6 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Marx didn’t foresee a lot of things, and to latch onto solely Marx’s ideas for a progressive movement is not enough to sustain that movement. As I’ve said elsewhere on WATMM Marx provides good value for his economic analysis, but lacks in a lot of other areas. 
Please respond to my other post. You made a lot of claims, please back them up. 
 

in no way am i suggesting marx had everything right and is enough to sustain a progressive movement, but the topic was communism and whether china was and is communist, so he's relevant considering they attempted to base their state ideology on top of marxism

which other post are you referring to

[zlemflolia]

40 minutes ago, goDel said:

It totally makes sense that only members of a political party can vote for whoever will represent that party in a general election. A primary is not a general election. Independents can vote in the general election. If you want to choose which Dem candidate should represent the Dem party, you should be a member of the Dem party. That's not suppression as far as I'm concerned.

The only thing which makes it a bit strange, is that in the US you have practically two parties. So people are basically forced to become a member of either party if they want to influence the ticket of a specific party. In a democratic system where you can decide about the number of members of a party in a parliament, you'd have a different discussion and membership of a party becomes secundary. THe choice for not having a parliament is a constitutional one, I believe. Or rather, also not one born out of a tendency to suppress voters.

You're blowing this way out of proportion, imo.

are you just unaware of US voter suppression or something? there's a lack of voting locations in poor and minority areas, there's long lines, there are arbitrarily early voter registration cutoff dates, and that's not getting into gerrymandering in local elections.  i'm not blowing anything out of proportion, you think it's all just an accident? this is the most powerful nation on earth, it's on purpose to maintain the capitalist conservative status quo

[may be rude]

20 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

are you just unaware of US voter suppression or something? there's a lack of voting locations in poor and minority areas, there's long lines, there are arbitrarily early voter registration cutoff dates, and that's not getting into gerrymandering in local elections.  i'm not blowing anything out of proportion, you think it's all just an accident? this is the most powerful nation on earth, it's on purpose to maintain the capitalist conservative status quo

 

what godel said is that primary votes needing party registration is not voter suppression, and that is correct. 

[goDel]

40 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

are you just unaware of US voter suppression or something? there's a lack of voting locations in poor and minority areas, there's long lines, there are arbitrarily early voter registration cutoff dates, and that's not getting into gerrymandering in local elections.  i'm not blowing anything out of proportion, you think it's all just an accident? this is the most powerful nation on earth, it's on purpose to maintain the capitalist conservative status quo

i was responding to your post. not about the general issue of voter suppression.

you made this comment:

Quote

they don't want independents to vote in the primary because they almost all support Bernie. 

which is - imo - a separate argument to the broader voter suppression thing.

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, Zeffolia said:

in no way am i suggesting marx had everything right and is enough to sustain a progressive movement, but the topic was communism and whether china was and is communist, so he's relevant considering they attempted to base their state ideology on top of marxism

which other post are you referring to

They were Marxist, now they’re not. What’s so hard to understand about that?

the other post was your claims about creating poverty. 

[chenGOD]

3 hours ago, darreichungsform said:

I don't really disagree for the most part (although I would add some nuance to the predictive powers of Marx' theory) but do you really think that the Sanders campaign is a Marxist movement? I'm sure a lot of Bernie supporters think that Marx is interesting but his campaign isn't Marxist. The whole progressive movement in the US, not necessarily only Sanders' campaign, is way less ideological than it sometimes is suggested, I suspect, but of course that's my external perspective and I'm often wrong. Is anyone here involved in campaigning for one of the two progressive candidates and can give some internal perspective? What role does Marx really play in the discussions?

Not saying that there is anything wrong with Marxists, though. I've met many at sociology seminars, usually rather intellectual people that for some reason are a bit obsessed with Marx. But can't imagine that some sociology nerds really lead the Democratic debates in the progressive camp or play too much of a role. Just what I assume.

Look at zeff’s blather in this thread. All he talks about is “seizing the means of production”. 

[dingformung]

2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Look at zeff’s blather in this thread. All he talks about is “seizing the means of production”. 

I actually have some respect for his persistence even though I think sometimes he taps a tad 2 much into this old school kind of rhetoric that would have appealed to industrial workers of the late 19th century. I agree that using Marx' terms is probably a bad idea for campaigning in the US because for a lot of people on that side of the Atlantic it causes inconvenient chains of associations. Scares off or even offends people for some irrational reasons.

Edited February 25, 2020 by darreichungsform
3 :O

[Candiru]

Zeffolia’s sudden radicalization is fun to watch, imo. 

[Ivan Ooze]

Belgium is more then 450 days without a government now since the last elections and nobody gives a flying fuck! chill the fuck out guys

[Brisbot]

2 minutes ago, Ivan Ooze said:

Belgium is more then 450 days without a government now since the last elections and nobody gives a flying fuck! chill the fuck out guys

What about the "hellgium" thing as your location then?

[Ivan Ooze]

What about the "hellgium" thing as your location then?

Wish it was holland

[zlemflolia]

7 hours ago, chenGOD said:

They were Marxist, now they’re not. What’s so hard to understand about that?

the other post was your claims about creating poverty. 

what are you replying to exactly? I said China is not currently communist, now you're saying that I'm finding it hard to understand that they're no longer communist?  I never said they never used to be

and I already responded regarding intentionally created poverty.  this is well known stuff, not controversial claims, that minorities are oppressed in the US to keep them poor through various methods, because there's a lot of money to be made from keeping people poor.

[zlemflolia]

7 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Look at zeff’s blather in this thread. All he talks about is “seizing the means of production”. 

I've made lots of posts that didn't involve the heaving masses of proletarian laborers seizing the immense inter-generational capital currently under elite control through private property's enforcement's threat of state violence's resultant class striation of the human and animal races of our tragic planet

as for whether the sanders campaign is marxist - no.  first off his policy issues are not radical at all and are just standard modern first world human rights like healthcare and education, with an addition of the beginnings of democratic socialism on the side by putting the means of production more under the control of the workers than at any point in recent US memory.  nothing about it is revolutionary in the marxist sense and there's no indication that his campaign and presidency would approach anything even remotely comparable to hinting at any of the qualities of a dictatorship of the proletariat

[ignatius]

[Brisbot]

33 minutes ago, ignatius said:

Is the "eat the rich" thing a joke? I don't agree with that at all. IT's about balancing America out like other countries who have done so, giving people a better life and making a stronger economy as people actually have money to spend, but people who have a lot of money should still have a lot of money. But maybe instead of a private jet though they will have to get a used one.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Brisbot

[Nebraska]

this guy's entire speech will be a meme

[ignatius]

4 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

Is the "eat the rich" thing a joke? I don't agree with that at all. IT's about balancing America out like other countries who have done so, giving people a better life and making a stronger economy as people actually have money to spend, but people who have a lot of money should still have a lot of money. But maybe instead of a private jet though they will have to get a used one.

i think it's more directed at oligarchs  or that's how i took it. there's rich and then there's RICH. I found it funny vandalism on his office in detroit. he's worth $60 billion and is trying to buy the presidency. i find it funny that someone basically said "fuck you and people like you" by sticking that on his office window. 

[Brisbot]

3 minutes ago, ignatius said:

i think it's more directed at oligarchs  or that's how i took it. there's rich and then there's RICH. I found it funny vandalism on his office in detroit. he's worth $60 billion and is trying to buy the presidency. i find it funny that someone basically said "fuck you and people like you" by sticking that on his office window. 

The issue is that to pretty much anyone it is basically advocating nobody getting rich (the definition of which is up to the person... millionaires are rich to most people) and everyone being equal monetarily no matter their job. It's a very simple slogan with no context. Maybe a better slogan would have "Billionaires" instead of the vague "The Rich". And something else besides "eat", lol.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Brisbot

[zlemflolia]

12 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

Is the "eat the rich" thing a joke? I don't agree with that at all. IT's about balancing America out like other countries who have done so, giving people a better life and making a stronger economy as people actually have money to spend, but people who have a lot of money should still have a lot of money. But maybe instead of a private jet though they will have to get a used one.

eat the rich class war now billionaires are lizards

[auxien]

didn't watch the debate, only seen a couple clips of it but i did just read this

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/why-bernie-sanders-might-not-lock-democratic-nomination-117339

Quote

“The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party,” Sanders said. “And if those superdelegates conclude that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate, the strongest candidate to defeat Trump and anybody else, yes, I would very much welcome their support.”

Sanders is a fan of superdelegates

basically tho the article is correct. things look good for Bernie now and there's a good chance they still will after Super Tuesday. but it's not on lock. gotta keep p e r s p e c t i v e

3 minutes ago, ignatius said:

I found it funny vandalism on his office in detroit. he's worth $60 billion and is trying to buy the presidency. i find it funny that someone basically said "fuck you and people like you" by sticking that on his office window. 

there's a Bloomberg campaign office very near where i live, been thinking about getting a can of spray paint tbh. 

 

2 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

The issue is that to pretty much anyone it is basically advocating nobody getting rich (the definition of which is up to the person... millionaires are rich to most people) and everyone being equal monetarily no matter their job. It's a very simple slogan with no context. Maybe a better slogan would have "Billionaires" instead of the vague "The Rich"

nobody should have the kind of money some of these fuckers have. need a real and valid progressive tax: wanna earn a 100 million a year? awesome, cool, but 90% of it goes straight to taxes, no loopholes. still get 10 mil in you're pocket, you'll be fine. 

[zlemflolia]

4 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

The issue is that to pretty much anyone it is basically advocating nobody getting rich (the definition of which is up to the person... millionaires are rich to most people) and everyone being equal monetarily no matter their job. It's a very simple slogan with no context. Maybe a better slogan would have "Billionaires" instead of the vague "The Rich". And something else besides "eat", lol.

its about the rich, yachts not only are bad for workers and the environment, but shouldn't exist except maybe as prototypes for nautical research purposes.  it's the resources of society being funneled to the benefit of the few.  to claim luxury goods like this stimulate the economy is just the broken window fallacy.  we'd be better off if all the effort building luxury homes, cars, and clothing goods, was put into the bottom layers first, and only allowed to rise up after everyone gets what they deserve

[zlemflolia]

2 minutes ago, auxien said:

there's a Bloomberg campaign office very near where i live, been thinking about getting a can of spray paint tbh

anarcho-graffito-propagandism master ideology do it

[ignatius]

13 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

The issue is that to pretty much anyone it is basically advocating nobody getting rich (the definition of which is up to the person... millionaires are rich to most people) and everyone being equal monetarily no matter their job. It's a very simple slogan with no context. Maybe a better slogan would have "Billionaires" instead of the vague "The Rich". And something else besides "eat", lol.

you should head directly to detroit and sort it out.