Both Parties Suck ??
With all the obsession and cortisol rushes about Trump's new term and the all trolling we do to each other across political tribes. I'm wondering if there is a tribe out there who despise both Republicans and Democrats like me and want other options.
I think there's clearly some story to tell about social media, media fragmentation, and decline in elite control of media/discourse in the last few decades. I'm not sure that's the whole story but there's something to it. I'm definitely keen on "actually people kinda suck, and are stupid" as a good general-purpose explanation for everything as well, even if it feels like a bit of a dead end :P
I think it is an interesting question whether liberal democracies can even work in the age of social media, media fragmentation and populism.
So much of what seems to have made liberal democracy work is political elites promising to enact bad ideas to get elected and then not following through on them.
But because they controlled the whole process, and they generally provided good results, no one seemed to notice or mind.
Now it seems politicians are being held to the fire to deliver on all their bad ideas, no matter how poor the results.
How do you feel about dictatorships?
For better or worse, dictatorship has been the primary model for decision making in the animal kingdom, including for humans.
Even in a democracy, we tend to gravitate toward strong charismatic leaders who have the political clout with the public to be able to steamroll opposition.
Lincoln is considered our greatest president. He was effectively a dictator and was called so on many occasions by his Confederate opponents. FDR had such clout that he was elected 4x.
At this moment in US history, the Congress has something like a 10% approval rating among the public and is completely ineffectual as a result of polarization and feigned respect for the Senate filibuster which effectively stops any change to the status quo in its tracks.
Teddy Roosevelt coined the term "bully pulpit" to describe the president's platform.
Trump plays the role of bully quite well, but in substance he doesn't govern on behalf of the working / struggling class. FDR did that.
I'd like a bully like FDR to become POTUS again. But neither party establishment would allow such a person to ascend.
With all the obsession and cortisol rushes about Trump's new term and the all trolling we do to each other across political tribes. I'm wondering if there is a tribe out there who despise both Republicans and Democrats like me and want other options.
there isn't any which despises them both equally. the two parties aren't equal so depending on what you care about more you will despise one of the 2 parties more.
there are some tribes that despise them both, radical leftists do (despising republicans more), libertarians do (despising democrats more), and others.
I think it is an interesting question whether liberal democracies can even work in the age of social media, media fragmentation and populism.
So much of what seems to have made liberal democracy work is political elites promising to enact bad ideas to get elected and then not following through on them.
But because they controlled the whole process, and they generally provided good results, no one seemed to notice or mind.
Now it seems politicians are being held to the fire to deliver on all th
liberal democracies don't need social peace to work, they just need enough checks and balances to the state monopoly of violence.
in the USA judges provide them quite well, as do frequent elections.
trump birthright EO, which includes blatantly unconstitutional provisions (legal temporary permit has strong precedents to provide citizenship to your kids) has been stopped within 24 hours (just to give an example).
Biden attempt to violate the constitution massively by stealing the power of the purse from congress has been stopped by courts (student debt relief attempts).
there are still structural ongoing violations of the constitution but that's because there is bipartisan agreement in their favor so judges are going to agree as well (commerce clause obscene enlargement for example). Patriot act wasn't canceled by courts as well unfortunately.
at the end if 70-80% of the population (or more) and of elites do agree with something, that will happen necessarily in every system.
but liberal democracies work because they have proven ways to block the temporary small majority from wrecking society.
and that crucial element doesn't go away with polarization
liberal democracies work because they have proven ways to block the temporary small majority from wrecking society.
In the USA of the last half century, the wealthiest 10% have seen their wealth and income grow while the rest have fallen back.
10% is a small majority. They own Congress. They own the media. They own the courts. And they are wrecking society by destroying the foundational elements of a stable working class and the environment.
We are no longer an effective democracy. We are a plutocracy which goes through democratic rituals which have been dominated by the wealthy. Our elections are bread and circuses. Candidates with differing ideas are boxed out from exposure by the plutocratic media. If another media source shows promise as a vehicle for organizing opposition, a plutocrat like Musk buys it and ruins it (in the case of Twitter) or the government outright bans it (in the case of Tik Tok).
We are living in an Orwellian information controlled society. The questions in presidential debates have been delegated to anchors of private corporations who have an oath to shareholder value. not the well being of the working class.
Only chance of anything changing was if Robert F Kennedy got the Democrat nomination
With all the obsession and cortisol rushes about Trump's new term and the all trolling we do to each other across political tribes. I'm wondering if there is a tribe out there who despise both Republicans and Democrats like me and want other options.
Why weren’t you guys excited about Kamala who could have been the first Black woman to be President after being the first Black woman to be Vice President? And she was in the Senate before that so it’s not like she wasn’t qualified.
Greg Popovich is obviously a brilliant guy and in the clip below you can see how excited he was about her running.
Broken YouTube LinkSome of the best parts include:
Kamala Harris whipped his ass during the debate, obviously, and he was running from her and didn’t want any part of her.
She has eaten MANY of his type for lunch
He’s the small fry compared to some of the people she has gone after and he knows it
The people around him (like Cruz, Graham and McConnell) are older white men
But nah let’s vote for Trump because he’s STRONG.
What is false about it Luciom ? What are the facts about wealth and income inequality in the USA ?
inequality doesn't mean absolute losses for 90%.
anyway this is income inequality post taxes (the actual one, after your money gets taken and redistributed, or you receive redistribution)
nothing happened
everyone who told you income inequality is getting a lot worse lied to you, explicitly. violently. with bad intentions.
also keep in mind that lower marriage rates/higher divorce rates mean higher inequality ceteris paribus. with the same identical incomes and jobs, some people (mostly women but not exclusively) are poorer now because they aren't married which they would have been in the 70s or before. remember that before 1975 almost all normal people got married, and divorce was rare.
so the facts are the USA has always (since the 60s at least) been a bit unequal in income, after taxes, because it's not a socialist country, it has never been, and it's a country that rewards success without treating it like it was treason
inequality doesn't mean absolute losses for 90%.
anyway this is income inequality post taxes (the actual one, after your money gets taken and redistributed, or you receive redistribution)
nothing happened
everyone who told you income inequality is getting a lot worse lied to you, explicitly. violently. with bad intentions.
also keep in mind that lower marriage rates/higher divorce rates mean higher inequality ceteris paribus. with the same identical incomes and jobs, some people (mostly women but
Does that "income" graph include unrealized gains on asset appreciation ? If Elon Musk's net worth increases by 300 billion due to share price appreciation, is it included in income according to that graph ?
Does that graph comes with definitions of the terms ?
If you exclude the increase in wealth of the wealthy, then you are dealing with a highly skewed definiton of income.
op i'm with you, but half the forum calls me a libtard whereas the other half call me an evil fascist so you may as well just pick a team for your own mental health
op i'm with you, but half the forum calls me a libtard whereas the other half call me an evil fascist so you may as well just pick a team for your own mental health
I'm not running for office so I'm not overly concerned with the opinions of others. My mental health orbits around my conscience and aligning myself with the preferences embedded in my DNA. I am a little on autistic side so I try to keep things earnest and literal. I don't think I'm better than anyone or that I'm a "good" person. I enjoy the competition and intellectual vigor which is important for a group to have access to a variety of perspectives. May the best ideas win.
Competition keeps us sharp. If people start calling you names, that's a sign that they don't have compelling substantive arguments. It's the most primitive form of defensive flexing. Don't sweat the name calling.
inequality doesn't mean absolute losses for 90%.
anyway this is income inequality post taxes (the actual one, after your money gets taken and redistributed, or you receive redistribution)
nothing happened
everyone who told you income inequality is getting a lot worse lied to you, explicitly. violently. with bad intentions.
also keep in mind that lower marriage rates/higher divorce rates mean higher inequality ceteris paribus. with the same identical incomes and jobs, some people (mostly women but
This is utter nonsense .
Just one example and that is only from 1990 …
Or this
the rich have in fact gotten richer, with the top 1 percent expanding their wealth share from 24 percent to 32 percent. The next 9 percent has remained more steady at around 37 percent of wealth held, while the 50-90 percentile has been holding less wealth - 28 percent in 2019, down from 35 percent in 1989.
Ps: yup I post link for reference …
Some chart says from like 2020’not 2024 but hearing nonstop economy so bad under Biden why bother to be so precise to try to find the exact 2024 ….2020 seem good enough .
The trend is very clear .
The bottom median do not hold ground from the 1980-90s …
This is utter nonsense .
Just one example and that is only from 1990 …
Or this
Ps: yup I post link for reference …
Some chart says from like 2020’not 2024 but hearing nonstop economy so bad under Biden why bother to be so precise to try to find the exact 2024 ….2020 seem good enough .
The trend is very clear .
The bottom median do not hold ground from
1) Income and wealth aren't the same thing. I put income inequality data you answer with wealth inequality data. Is that a language issue or you are really that terrible at basic economics? Income is exceptionally more important, income is what you spend for your family quality of life. Wealth as long as it is paper wealth has close to 0 effects in real life. And when it's not paper wealth, it becomes income (capital gain, rents, dividends and so on).
2) 28% of a bigger pie is more than 35% of a lower pie anyway. While Wealth inequality (which, again, is infinitely less important to begin with) increased, the total real wealth owned by all quintiles didn't.
If you have 5k and i have 10k, and 30 years later you have 10k and i have 30k, you are better off than before anyway. Objectively.
3) Inequality isn't negative per se at all, in any way, i am only answering the inequality claim because it's objectively false. And btw the original claim wasn't about inequality even, it was about the "bottom 90%" having LOST in absolute terms, which is utterly , insanely false.
1) Income and wealth aren't the same thing. I put income inequality data you answer with wealth inequality data. Is that a language issue or you are really that terrible at basic economics? Income is exceptionally more important, income is what you spend for your family quality of life. Wealth as long as it is paper wealth has close to 0 effects in real life. And when it's not paper wealth, it becomes income (capital gain, rents, dividends and so on).
2) 28% of a bigger pie is more than 35% of a
U think when a ceo is paid in option it falls under income like regular person get paid ?
About musk borrowing against his stocks to get money to spend however he wants ?
Wealth doesnt matter and so wealth inequality doesn’t either ? Jfc ….
You know why most people are poor ?
Because all they have is their income and the rich are rich because they have financial assets (wealth) not just income .
If I win 50k a year and I pay a rent and another person wins 40k but buy a house , who the f will be far better then the other 20 years later , the renter or the homeowner ?
Does having a home goes into income ?
No but man does he have it better and have way more opportunity to uses is wealth (home) to increase his living standard even tho he wins 10k less in income yearly .
Now extrapolate to a freakn millionaire and billionaire ….
Your number 2 makes no sense at all .
No idea what you trying to say or imply .
Have fun reading some sense Luciom….
Some notable quote but there is so many that crushes your nonsense.
CEOs’ exorbitant payouts have far outpaced the pay of typical workers over decades.
Cumulatively, however, from 1978–2022, top CEO compensation shot up 1,209.2% compared with a 15.3% increase in a typical worker’s compensation.
In 2022, CEOs were paid 344 times as much as a typical worker in contrast to 1965 when they were paid 21 times as much as a typical worker.
To illustrate just how distorted CEO pay increases have gotten: In 2021, CEOs made nearly eight times as much as the top 0.1% of wage earners in the U.S.
Why this matters
Exorbitant CEO pay is not just a symbolic issue—it has contributed to rising inequality. CEOs are getting paid more because of their leverage over corporate boards, not because of contributions they make to their firms. Escalating CEO pay in recent decades has likely pulled up the pay of other top earners. This concentration of earnings at the top leaves fewer gains for ordinary workers.
Some observers argue that exorbitant CEO compensation is merely a symbolic issue, with no real consequences for the vast majority of workers. On the contrary, the escalation of CEO compensation, and of executive compensation more generally, has likely helped fuel the wider growth of top 1% and top 0.1% incomes, contributing to widespread inequality.
Another implication of rising pay for CEOs and other executives is that it reflects income that would otherwise have accrued to others instead of being concentrated at the highest level. What these executives earned was not available for broader-based wage growth for other workers (Bivens and Mishel 2013). It is useful, in this context, to note that wages for the bottom 90% would be 25% higher today had wage inequality not increased between 1979 and 2021.12
Most of the rise in inequality took the form of redistributing wages away from the bottom 90%. This group’s share of total wage income fell from 69.8% in 1979 to 58.5% in 2021. Most of the loss experienced by the bottom 90% went to the top 1%, whose wage share doubled from 7.3% to 14.6% in these same years. And even among this gain going to the top 1%, most of it went to the top 0.1%, who saw their share of overall wage income more than triple from 1.6% to 5.9% between 1979 and 2021. In other words, the bottom 90% had 11.3% of total wage income taken from them between 1979 and 2021, and that just under two-thirds of this loss (7.3 of 11.3 percentage points) went to the top 1%, and almost 40% (or 4.3 of 11.3 percentage points) went to just the top 0.1%.
Countless of other link/studies/charts or w.e the **** else I can provide you .
FWIW it isn’t because YOU decide -> ho I just use income to prove the world isn’t so great for the richest of the world and wealth inequality isn’t bad , that everything else means nothing when in actually it’s the total opposite .
Wealth is everything .
Have you seen gold lately …..is that income ?
U think when a ceo is paid in option it falls under income like regular person get paid ?
About musk borrowing against his stocks to get money to spend however he wants ?
Wealth doesnt matter and so wealth inequality doesn’t either ? Jfc ….
You know why most people are poor ?
Because all they have is their income and the rich are rich because they have financial assets (wealth) not just income .
If I win 50k a year and I pay a rent and another person wins 40k but buy a house , who the f will be f
Yes a CEO getting options is income (when they vest), what the hell did you think they were?
Most people aren't poor in the USA so i don't understand why you ask a question that includes a lie as the assumption
Yes having a home you live in goes into income as implicit rent.
You have no idea what you are talking about
With all the obsession and cortisol rushes about Trump's new term and the all trolling we do to each other across political tribes. I'm wondering if there is a tribe out there who despise both Republicans and Democrats like me and want other options.
I dislike the word "tribe" in this context... but hell yeah, buddy! Those of us on the actual left hate Democrats just about as much as we do Republicans! Welcome to socialism, comrade!
(despite the tireless efforts of conservatives to conflate the two, the significant majority of legit socialists and/or Marxists don't vote or organize for Democrats)
