2020 US Election

[luke viia]

"eat the rich" is a paraphrazing of a Rousseau quote iirc

[ignatius]

14 minutes ago, auxien said:

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

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

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

 

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. 

i think some have proposed a tax of 72% on income over $10 million. but there is some tax on the $10 million also. pre-ronald reagan that's sort of what the tax rate was like but i forget exactly. it worked in that way but i forget the actual $$ amount and percentages. it only started to change w/reagan. he paid for a tax cut by taxing social security 

3 minutes ago, luke viia said:

"eat the rich" is a paraphrazing of a Rousseau quote iirc

i'm surprised there isn't a new meme like expression specific to him that mentions his height or stop and frisk. "stop and frisk my dick you munchkin" or some shit like that. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by ignatius

[prdctvsm]

26 minutes ago, luke viia said:

"eat the rich" is a paraphrazing of a Rousseau quote iirc

"Quand les pauvres n'auront plus rien à manger, ils mangeront les riches!" -  Rousseau

[TubularCorporation]

1 hour ago, luke viia said:

"eat the rich" is a paraphrazing of a Lemmy quote iirc

FTFY

[Nebraska]

lol @ bloomberg. i loved when he said "i used to run new york city which is practically like... i mean, it's as big as some countries so that shows i can ran a country. and that's why i'm best qualified to be president."

then immediately sanders brings up his past and he's like "are we going to keep litigating this? i said i was sorry"

then buttigieg goes "if you're president we'll keep doing it"

also: biden and tom steyer need to be locked in a room with a live cam broadcasting 

interestingly, tickets to attend this debate cost $1750- which kinda gives you an idea why bernie and warren got a few boos when they attacked bloomberg

 

[zlemflolia]

this is the world bloomberg wants

 

 

[ignatius]

9 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

lol @ bloomberg. i loved when he said "i used to run new york city which is practically like... i mean, it's as big as some countries so that shows i can ran a country. and that's why i'm best qualified to be president."

then immediately sanders brings up his past and he's like "are we going to keep litigating this? i said i was sorry"

then buttigieg goes "if you're president we'll keep doing it"

also: biden and tom steyer need to be locked in a room with a live cam broadcasting 

interestingly, tickets to attend this debate cost $1750- which kinda gives you an idea why bernie and warren got a few boos when they attacked bloomberg

 

there's already a dozen pieces like this coming out 

Democratic debate: CBS, Bloomberg draw jeers for ad buy, ‘stacked’ audience

https://nypost.com/2020/02/25/democratic-debate-cbs-bloomberg-draw-jeers-for-ad-buy-stacked-audience/?utm_source=reddit.com

 

[dr lopez]

debate was a W for Sanders. He's probably gonna win SC, but it might be closer than Nevada. 

[TubularCorporation]

27 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

lol @ bloomberg. i loved when he said "i used to run new york city which is practically like... i mean, it's as big as some countries so that shows i can ran a country. and that's why i'm best qualified to be president."

then immediately sanders brings up his past and he's like "are we going to keep litigating this? i said i was sorry"

then buttigieg goes "if you're president we'll keep doing it"

also: biden and tom steyer need to be locked in a room with a live cam broadcasting 

interestingly, tickets to attend this debate cost $1750- which kinda gives you an idea why bernie and warren got a few boos when they attacked bloomberg

 

I like when he said he was HIRED to be mayor. More than once.

[goDel]

So, what do you expect will happen when Sanders wins the dem ticket?

Heard a number of people bring up arguments how dems will lose seats in the house. Arguments about gop oppo will burn his ass, as he's the easiest target of all. (You'll hear he's a communist on repeat at infinitum. And at least half the country will eat that. It's going to be the new "Hillaries emails") And that he's probably Trumps favorite candidate to run against. He can finally show he's not a communist himself.

(Please note that I'm using different versions of the term "communist". One version is the literal. And another is the proverbial version thats more common in the US. In the proverbial version, it becomes a vague term where socialist, communist, russian, authoritarian and some other stuff are mixed into something which basically means "un-american". In other words, the biggest insult an amercian can receive from another american. Or, that's what it looks like to me...)

(read: he's not a communist in the literal sense. But that wont be relevant in the general election)

So, will he be the death of the dem party? (Because losing seats in house) And the candidate that will help Trump win 4 more years? Or do you trust your fellow countrymen to cut through the BS and support him enough to get him in the White House? (While possibly still losing seats in the house?..)

[ignatius]

51 minutes ago, dr lopez said:

debate was a W for Sanders. He's probably gonna win SC, but it might be closer than Nevada. 

biden is leading in the polls. who knows though. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by ignatius

[zlemflolia]

25 minutes ago, goDel said:

So, what do you expect will happen when Sanders wins the dem ticket?

Heard a number of people bring up arguments how dems will lose seats in the house. Arguments about gop oppo will burn his ass, as he's the easiest target of all. (You'll hear he's a communist on repeat at infinitum. And at least half the country will eat that. It's going to be the new "Hillaries emails") And that he's probably Trumps favorite candidate to run against. He can finally show he's not a communist himself.

(Please note that I'm using different versions of the term "communist". One version is the literal. And another is the proverbial version thats more common in the US. In the proverbial version, it becomes a vague term where socialist, communist, russian, authoritarian and some other stuff are mixed into something which basically means "un-american". In other words, the biggest insult an amercian can receive from another american. Or, that's what it looks like to me...)

(read: he's not a communist in the literal sense. But that wont be relevant in the general election)

So, will he be the death of the dem party? (Because losing seats in house) And the candidate that will help Trump win 4 more years? Or do you trust your fellow countrymen to cut through the BS and support him enough to get him in the White House? (While possibly still losing seats in the house?..)

hes the self-described "organizer in chief" he's going to work hard to get more seats i assume, among other causes like pushing for unionization.  hopefully fox news has worn out the word communist and people are desensitized to it since they've cried wolf so many times

[dingformung]

3 hours 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.

The problem with these amounts of wealth is that it undermines democracy. It's non-elected power, often obtained through Machiavellian means. At a certain point money doesn't lead to much increase of life standard but is mere power. But we want to distribute power in different, democratic ways. I think nobody wants to abolish richness, only the kind of richness that makes you a political (f)actor.

[zlemflolia]

12 minutes ago, darreichungsform said:

The problem with these amounts of wealth is that it undermines democracy. It's non-elected power, often obtained through Machiavellian means. At a certain point money doesn't lead to much increase of life standard but is mere power. But we want to distribute power in different, democratic ways. I think nobody wants to abolish richness, only the kind of richness that makes you a political (f)actor.

you are wrong, i want to abolish richness, every mansion and luxury residence should be a public space for people to rest and socialize or have a vacation occasionally.  there are so few that this would negligibly affect the housing supply.  every lake and beachfront should be public or wild.  all energy put into luxury items should be put into public common items like buses and trains.  there is no reason for anyone to have these luxury items made for them by others, and the only reason it happens right now is because of the threat of state violence protecting the private property rights of the rich.  these private property rights should be abolished in favor of communal property rights.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Zeffolia

[dingformung]

2 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

you are wrong, i want to abolish richness, every mansion should be a public space for people to rest and socialize.  there are so few that this would negligibly affect the housing supply.  every lake and beachfront should be public or wild.  all energy put into luxury items should be put into public common items like buses and trains.  there is no reason for anyone to have these luxury items made for them by others, and the only reason it happens right now is because of the threat of state violence protecting the private property rights of the rich.  these private property rights should be abolished in favor of communal property rights.

Fair point. I'm for creating more public spaces and communal property, as well. Maybe we have a slightly different idea of what richness means. I don't mind if someone has more than me. I just find it obscene to have people vegetating in the streets with bad health condition on one hand and some pricks flying around in private jets on the other. When I visited NYC it was shocking for me to see this kind of poverty and inequality on the streets revealed so plainly, wasn't really used to that

[dingformung]

Another thing to add: Having private property creates a lot redundancy. I guess it would be easily possible to halve the number of cars if they were public property.

[zlemflolia]

4 minutes ago, darreichungsform said:

Fair point. I'm for creating more public spaces and communal property, as well. Maybe we have a slightly different idea of what richness means. I don't mind if someone has more than me. I just find it obscene to have people vegetating in the streets with bad health condition on one hand and some pricks flying around in private jets on the other. When I visited NYC it was shocking for me to see this kind of poverty and inequality on the streets revealed so plainly, wasn't really used to that

i think conceptions on what richness means are heavily mediated by a combination of bourgeois gatekeeping culture, advertising, and ownership of the means of production as various forms of elite richness.  i have no problem if people want to live in fancy houses with gold painted vases in their hallways or whatever, but they can either build them themselves or convince others to build them of their own accord, through some shared love of that aesthetic or something.

but if someone wants to hog the communal yacht all the time the way a rich person has their own yacht made for them by underpaid workers at varying levels of the industrial pipeline, i just view them as sort of a toddler who doesn't want to share toys and is hogging the yacht from everyone else, completely oblivious to the hard work that went into making it and their lack of a legitimate claim to ownership of the yacht, unless they actually made it themselves

[zlemflolia]

1 minute ago, darreichungsform said:

Another thing to add: Having private property creates a lot redundancy. I guess it would be easily possible to halve the number of cars if they were public property.

or better yet eliminate cars as much as possible since cars themselves are inefficient.  they should be used in rural locations only and it should mostly be buses and trains everywhere else.  and cities should be built around walking.  too late for suburban america though.  the vast majority of all car travel is to get to jobs anyway, many of which should be eliminated themselves, like restaurant jobs in favor of communal cantines [http://libcom.org/library/abolish-restaurants]

[zlemflolia]

great vid on bourgeois rich aesthetics, with music made by a watmmer (zoe blade)

 

[Candiru]

2 hours ago, goDel said:

So, what do you expect will happen when Sanders wins the dem ticket?

Heard a number of people bring up arguments how dems will lose seats in the house. Arguments about gop oppo will burn his ass, as he's the easiest target of all. (You'll hear he's a communist on repeat at infinitum. And at least half the country will eat that. It's going to be the new "Hillaries emails") And that he's probably Trumps favorite candidate to run against. He can finally show he's not a communist himself.

(Please note that I'm using different versions of the term "communist". One version is the literal. And another is the proverbial version thats more common in the US. In the proverbial version, it becomes a vague term where socialist, communist, russian, authoritarian and some other stuff are mixed into something which basically means "un-american". In other words, the biggest insult an amercian can receive from another american. Or, that's what it looks like to me...)

(read: he's not a communist in the literal sense. But that wont be relevant in the general election)

So, will he be the death of the dem party? (Because losing seats in house) And the candidate that will help Trump win 4 more years? Or do you trust your fellow countrymen to cut through the BS and support him enough to get him in the White House? (While possibly still losing seats in the house?..)

This is exactly why people are so hesitant about Sanders being the nominee. It will more than likely result in serious consequences for the party, but since his voters are taught to dislike the Democratic Party as well(even though he’s running as one, lol) it’s a great way to get people to follow the herd of lemmings to 4 more years of Trump and irreparable damage to the US that would be unlikely if a more moderate candidate could just get us to the fucking finish line. 

People need to realize it’s better to just win, and then remain politically engaged with a normal president. Imagine if people gave half the fucks they gave now when Obama was president. 

Running a divisive candidate now will very likely fuck us. If mobsters were threatening to break your legs, is that when you’d decide to place another high stakes bet?

[zlemflolia]

17 minutes ago, Candiru said:

This is exactly why people are so hesitant about Sanders being the nominee. It will more than likely result in serious consequences for the party, but since his voters are taught to dislike the Democratic Party as well(even though he’s running as one, lol) it’s a great way to get people to follow the herd of lemmings to 4 more years of Trump and irreparable damage to the US that would be unlikely if a more moderate candidate could just get us to the fucking finish line. 

People need to realize it’s better to just win, and then remain politically engaged with a normal president. Imagine if people gave half the fucks they gave now when Obama was president. 

Running a divisive candidate now will very likely fuck us. If mobsters were threatening to break your legs, is that when you’d decide to place another high stakes bet?

why didn't the last "moderate" (conservative) candidate (hillary) win? what are the alternatives?

bloomberg? no

biden? even obama doesnt want him

buttigieg? no

warren? trump will destroy her

klobuchar? lol

Edited February 26, 2020 by Zeffolia

[Candiru]

Just now, Zeffolia said:

why didn't the last "moderate" (conservative) candidate (hillary) win?

Because she was very specifically the wrong candidate to run. What was unique about Hillary was the 20+ years of smear against her. It really took hold to the point where hating her had its own cult following. There aren’t a whole lot of other political figures with that much going against them. 

Automatically translating that to “all moderates bad” is just not an accurate read of the situation. Moderates won us the fucking midterms, you may have noticed. Not a single candidate Bernie backed won. Our political climate is currently so polarized, that only a right wing or left wing populist will provoke an emotional response, like it has for you. What many are missing is that Trump won by less than 80,000 votes spread across three swing states that aren’t exactly the most Bernie friendly. People like this will vote for a moderate Dem because while they don’t like Trump now, they’d vote for him again because they like Bernie less. Campaign strategists are kinda important but hey whatevs

[dingformung]

6 hours ago, Zeffolia said:

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

lol

[zlemflolia]

7 minutes ago, Candiru said:

Because she was very specifically the wrong candidate to run. What was unique about Hillary was the 20+ years of smear against her. It really took hold to the point where hating her had its own cult following. There aren’t a whole lot of other political figures with that much going against them. 

Automatically translating that to “all moderates bad” is just not an accurate read of the situation. Moderates won us the fucking midterms, you may have noticed. Not a single candidate Bernie backed won. Our political climate is currently so polarized, that only a right wing or left wing populist will provoke an emotional response, like it has for you. What many are missing is that Trump won by less than 80,000 votes spread across three swing states that aren’t exactly the most Bernie friendly. People like this will vote for a moderate Dem because while they don’t like Trump now, they’d vote for him again because they like Bernie less. Campaign strategists are kinda important but hey whatevs

ok but which one, biden? warren?

[Candiru]

2 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

ok but which one, biden? warren?

Biden is the only one that has this magic formula of former Trump voters feeling ok enough to vote Dem. Warren has that Ivy League woke condescension that they hate. If he picks Kamala Harris as a running mate, we good. If Bernie wins the nomination, all confidence vanishes and we are left with nothing but blind luck. 

I’m not trying to be contrarian here, there are some things I agree with you on. I defer to people with stone cold insider DC knowledge who sugar coat absolutely nothing, and they’ve been right about everything. What I’ve heard from them has ruined ideology for me. We just need to win. For what it’s worth.