The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance
Attaching a poll ... Dems unfavorability rating increased from 45% to 57% during the Biden Administration.
We get to choose between two Extinction Parties ....
Look at that completely nonsensical Paris "Accord" that Obama signed us up for.
Zero authority, zero commitment, zero jurisdiction. Typical Obama .... all posturing .... no substance.
On one side, you have those who support (via their actions, not necessarily their words) perpetual concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. On the other side, you have the people who can't make ends meet.
Eventually the population of have-not's grows too large for the population of have's to govern.
On one side, you have those who support (via their actions, not necessarily their words) perpetual concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. On the other side, you have the people who can't make ends meet.
Eventually the population of have-not's grows too large for the population of have's to govern.
That doesn't make sense. The wealthy aren’t playing Monopoly. Their wealth mostly is ownership of businesses and real estate. That wealth only holds value if people keep working in those businesses and paying rent. In other words, their fortunes depend entirely on a functioning and motivated workforce, ie, maximum employment. If too many people can’t make ends meet, it would tank the very system their wealth depends on.
It’s no accident the Fed’s mission is “to foster a healthy and stable U.S. economy by promoting maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” Maximum employment is the first priority because the system depends on people working.
If anything, the only game they’re playing is the one you alluded to: divide et impera. Keep people blaming and fighting each other, not the system. It's actually the socialists that want to see the civil war and that system collapse, not the wealthy. And the socialist do that by promoting a needs based ideology that keeps taking more and more from people producing goods and services, and giving it to people who aren't producing anything in return.
It would help your claim immensely to post about anything other than "lefties have lost their mind because trans people exist"I dunno why you are so passionate about this subject, but we keep telling you that your issue is with like 35 trans people in a country with 350 million people but you legitimately seem unable to move past it.Most lefties will agree with you that they ar
i think you are biased by the fact that when i make lengthy posts about media, failing infrastructure, lack of public transportation or cell phone towers, unemployment, 1/3 of all americans on some form of government assistance etc etc that it gets crickets and glossed over but if i make a post saying "we shouldn't let a 10 year old go on puberty blockers" then it gets 20 posts responding to it and that's where the discussion is then focused and funneled into and obviously i'm going to carry on the conversation instead of posting "hey man we lead the world in bridge collapses let's talk about that too"
As the originator of this thread, I'd like to clarify my sense of how the Democratic Party is failing. First ... let me say that I've never voted for a Republican in my entire life. The Democrats lost my vote by becoming Republican's. In 2012, Obama acknowledged this. He told the world that his policies were effectively 80's moderate Republican policies. I was a Sanders support
i agree with all of this and have either not voted or voted 3rd party since they dumped sanders for hilldawg
That wealth only holds value if people keep working in those businesses and paying rent. In other words, their fortunes depend entirely on a functioning and motivated workforce, ie, maximum employment. If too many people can’t make ends meet, it would tank the very system their wealth depends on.
That's exactly what is happening and happens over and over again in human history.
The wealthy don't think of the aggregate impact of their hoarding. They are simultaneously smart as individuals and morons as a collective.
That's why we have periodic revolutions and wars .....
You want a solution ....1) ask for a single global government entity that has the authority to regulate toxic waste and have sovereign constitutions all agree on the supremacy of a toxic waste regulator with respect to that topic only. 2) Make FDR's proposed 2nd bill of rights from 1944 the law of the land.
Make survival needs
1) Sounds good. I think I said something very similar to this to prevent us essentially raping the recourses and destroying the planet.
2) I agree. And AI could potentially fills some of those gaps. ... maybe.
3) This is way too vague and basically meaningless, we don't need to abolish water skiing or travel. It needs to meet the standards similar to #1. If it can be done under the constraints of what you deem "healthy" for the planet and the folks living in it, it could still be a thing.
4) This is where your mask starts to slip - and i think the muscles started relaxing throughout your post. There is little compatibility between FDR's 2nd bill of rights and democratic communism. FDR's vision still builds upon liberty, while using a set of guidelines that need to be adhered to. Your strategy sucks because it promotes all of the things that you keep repeating in this thread - travel, speech, home ownership.
And while you have admitted several times that your ideas wouldn't gain public support, you still deem them worthy to implement onto others for your own personal beliefs. That is authoritarian, and that is communism. That isn't new.
You could certainly repeat for the 50th time that we don't have a choice anymore in regard to this and that, in the hopes to radicalize some fool. But we do have choices. And I think you know that.
That's exactly what is happening and happens over and over again in human history.
The wealthy don't think of the aggregate impact of their hoarding. They are simultaneously smart as individuals and morons as a collective.
That's why we have periodic revolutions and wars .....
That's an observation, not an argument; that something has happened in history doesn’t mean it 'must' happen again. The major Western democracies aren’t feudal empires or fragile coalitions. They’ve developed immune systems to prevent that kind of collapse. You’ve got zero evidence that any of them - U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Japan, etc. - have collapsed in the way you're suggesting.
I get why you believe that because Bernie et al keep repeating a falsehood in the hope that saying it enough makes it true. You even repeated it upthread:
perpetual concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
That’s false. Wealth isn’t concentrating in fewer hands. What’s happening is that more and more wealth is being accumulated by the same 0.1% of the population. That’s not the same thing.
And there’s no mystery or conspiracy behind it. It’s exactly what you’d expect if one person started with $10 and another with $1,000: compound returns widen the gap over time. The only twist is that those who start with more tend to get better returns, too.
Those graphs everyone loves to share showing the top share rising, don’t show exploitation. They just show math. And what they’re measuring is simply the aforementioned compounding in an ever-deepening capital pool. They're only alarming if you don’t understand what you're looking at.
Of course, the socialists keep using them because what else are they going to do? They have to distract from the fact that every major socialist regime in history collapsed into some form of totalitarianism, either of the person or the party.
1)
And while you have admitted several times that your ideas wouldn't gain public support, you still deem them worthy to implement onto others for your own personal beliefs. That is authoritarian, and that is communism. .
I'll make a statement and you tell me whether you think it's true.
Nature is authoritarian. True or false ??
I can't fly. If I jump off a 20 story building, nature dictates that I will die.
I can't breathe under water ..... nature dictates that if I get myself stuck under water, I will die.
Human civilization will not survive with atmospheric CO2 at 1,000 ppm. That's what authoritarian nature dictates to us.
The appropriate rulers of human societies will respect the forces that are larger than themselves. People who wish for our species to continue into the future will accept nature's authority.
That's an observation, not an argument; that something has happened in history doesn’t mean it 'must' happen again. The major Western democracies aren’t feudal empires or fragile coalitions. They’ve developed immune systems to prevent that kind of collapse. You’ve got zero evidence that any of them - U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Japan, etc. - have colla
Its some compounding and a lot of exploitation.
As individual production has increased the individual share has reduced. Thats textbook exploitation
Wealth isn’t concentrating in fewer hands. What’s happening is that more and more wealth is being accumulated by the same 0.1% of the population. That’s not the same thing.
You're not much for math, are you ?
If the same top 0.1% are accumulating wealth faster than the rest of the population, then it's being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
If that other 99.9% have less, they are transferring to the top 0.1%.
I'll make a statement and you tell me whether you think it's true. Nature is authoritarian. True or false ?? I can't fly. If I jump off a 20 story building, nature dictates that I will die. I can't breathe under water ..... nature dictates that if I get myself stuck under water, I will die. Human civilization will not survive with atmospheric CO2 at 1,000 ppm. That's what auth
Nut Nut, there is not a single soul who reads this thread (supporters and naysayers) who would assume that if the US was able to adhere and follow your environmental guidelines under the status quo, that you would seize to want to change the system - this isn't about the environment, other than it's a weapon for you.
If im wrong then you can correct me lol.
But ive said from the very beginning that this was going to be shitshow, mainly because it really isn't possible at all to talk about solving anything regarding the environment, or homelessness or really anything else, when you're fixated on your love for the iron fist.
Nut Nut, there is not a single soul who reads this thread (supporters and naysayers) who would assume that if the US was able to adhere and follow your environmental guidelines under the status quo, that you would seize to want to change the system - this isn't about the environment, other than it's a weapon for you.If im wrong then you can correct me lol.But ive said from the
LOL.... I am not the iron fist. Natural boundaries are the iron fist.
I don't make the truth .... I'm just a messenger.
As far as others who read this thread ..... I'm content to let them express their opinions directly.
So far, no is standing up and saying that we are not bounded by natural limits. Not even you are saying that.
Who was running the DNC during the 2016 campaign ? Clinton acolytes.
The Hillary Victory was an extraordinary abuse which allowed oligarchs like the Walton's to effectively donate unlimited wealth to Hillary's coffers in the primary.
Yes certainly, the Democratic establishment was running the Democratic National Committee. That’s generally what happens in party politics.
I’m all for reforming it, but to call that rigging is a bit strange. If the progressives had their way, progressives would want to run these institutions. So it goes. That says nothing of my preferences for who should run it.
The NYTimes reported on "stop Bernie" meetings in the leadup to the 2020 primary among key Democrats which included Nancy Pelosi and Pete Buttigieg.
Barack Obama intervened in the DNC chair selection, pushing aside Keith Ellison in favor of establishment lackey, Tom Perez.
I agree that they should not be doing that, but again, isn’t this exactly what partisan politics is? I don’t know if you’ve ever joined a political club, but these sorts of machinations happen at the lowest levels, and in fact progressives should absolutely be doing the same thing. But instead of learning the game, the progressives want to pretend like they don’t know what politics is about.
And frankly Bernie was able to leverage his campaigns into concessions from the Democrats on both occasions, so it’s not for nothing. Meanwhile, progressives could have continued to organize and maneuver to control even more levers in the party. That’s what Bernie and AOC are still trying to do.
Nancy Pelosi scheduled the bogus 2020 Trump impeachment hearings precisely in the runup to the 2020 Iowa caucuses to prevent Bernie from being able to do what he does best .... campaigning in the flesh. He was stuck in DC with Senate impeachment hearings.
lol they weren’t bogus impeachment hearings, and I mean personally the only source I can see for this talking point is Trump and Mccarthy. Maybe or maybe not was this done to hurt Sanders. If it did, it also hurt Klobuchar and Warren. Plus remember, Sanders was not leading Biden at the time anyway, and never actually had enough of the popular vote to secure the nomination.
Tom Perez hired the mother ****ers responsible for counting the ballots in the Iowa caucuses in 2020. The group was called Shadow Inc and comprised of former Clinton campaign operatives. Bernie won the popular vote in Iowa but we didn't know that on election night because the Clinton operatives mysteriously could only find the votes of the districts which favored Buttigieg.
First of all, Iowa is a caucus with weird rules so the popular vote won’t always align with the person who gets the most delegates. I also doubt a couple of delegates made the difference there in the long run. But sure, they colluded to steal like a couple delegates from Bernie. That makes a lot of sense.
Obama called Bernie "comrade" ..... an intentional slur in pre-prepared remarks at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.
Wait until you find out what Bernie calls himself. lol
You guys really want to have it both ways with the socialism stuff. When you openly declare class war, it’s going to be the number one thing people use against you, because the middle class votes and is (possibly rightfully) scared of marxism.
As far as I'm concerned ..... **** is gonna burn. I am not provided a democratic option which doesn't commit ourselves to the world going up in flames.
**** the Republicans who have taken over the Democratic Party. I'm not voting for them.
Look, Obama was just cozying up to people and making his progressive politics less soft.
Look at what Biden actually pushed through and accomplished during his first term. Now compare that to what Trump is doing to gut those environmental, social, and economic policies.
These things matter. Tens of millions just lost healthcare. Can you let yourself live with that without opposing it in the only way viable? Are you actually the one letting the world go up in flames because of your ideology and not the democrats?
Are you actually the one letting the world go up in flames because of your ideology and not the democrats?
I don't have an ideology. I just do my best to evaluate cause and effect and how they align with my preferences.
If we have two major political parties and they both have policies which add up to the end of human civilization, then I need to do my best to promote alternatives to those parties if my preference is the continuity of human civilization.
Supporting one party over the other on the grounds that they offer some fantasy that the road to collapse will somehow be less unpleasant is not an enticing value proposition.
The Democrats are so friggin' horrible that they lost to Donald Trump and his white supremacist horde twice. How bad do you have to be to lose to THAT abomination ??
Democrats are so weak that they no longer debate with each other. Name two people in the party who go toe to toe with each other over policy !!! Survival of the fittest means winning the competition for the voters favor. The Democrats aren't staging competitions to determine who the voters like best among themselves. They don't give a **** about the voters .... only the donors get their attention.
You're not much for math, are you ?
If the same top 0.1% are accumulating wealth faster than the rest of the population, then it's being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
If that other 99.9% have less, they are transferring to the top 0.1%.
The creation of wealth isn't a zero-sum game. It's not like a poker tournament were the total wealth concentrates to the final table.
Here's a real world example: were it not for slavery/racism, our nation's total wealth would be ~$180T instead of $160T. Guess who'd have the $20T.
I mean... yeah?
GDP is growing significantly faster than wage growth. We know that wage growth is largely being captured at the upper end as well.
You can also look at per capita share of GPD growth vs wage growth and tell its not keeping pace either
What do you think your chart is showing?
I'm not sure if people can relate to how insulting it is to be told to vote for a political party that doesn't even pretend to want to compete for their vote.
Like .... how does anyone who cares about the likeability of their candidate nominate Kamala Harris to lead their party.
She was an electoral laggard in her home state of California whose results were always beneath her party's at large performance. She entered the 2020 primary as a favorite with all manner of big money backing and her campaign was a complete dud, not even making it to the first votes in Iowa.
The irony of people in the Democratic Party yelling about Trump's threat to democracy when they don't practice competitive democracy themselves. It's all about the money that Chuck & Nancy bring in from the donors to protect the incumbents.
The current version of the Dems is irrelevant. There is zero shame in not voting for them.
The creation of wealth isn't a zero-sum game. It's not like a poker tournament were the total wealth concentrates to the final table.
Here's a real world example: were it not for slavery/racism, our nation's total wealth would be ~$180T instead of $160T. Guess who'd have the $20T.
Measuring wealth with currency such as a US dollar is a short-lived phenomena in Earth's history.
4 billion years of life on Earth...... currency has only been around for the last 1 millionth of that. That's about 00.0001%
Wealth for our species is a temporarily habitable version of a planet. A planet in which most of the previous configurations were incompatible with human life.
A great deal of that financial "wealth" you are so fixated upon, is obtained only by the destruction of the version of the planet best suited to our survival.
What you call wealth creation ...... I call wealth destruction. We have a profound terminology disconnect.
It's interesting that people consider regulation of toxic waste to be authoritarian. Toxic waste kills a lot of people. So, in my opinion, luxurious toxic waste is murder.
So .... yeah .... I'm an authoritarian who draws the line at murder. That doesn't seem to have been a problematic boundary in the past.
The law is inherently authoritarian. That's why it's called the law.
I mean... yeah?
GDP is growing significantly faster than wage growth. We know that wage growth is largely being captured at the upper end as well.
You can also look at per capita share of GPD growth vs wage growth and tell its not keeping pace either
What do you think your chart is showing?
The chart is showing that a growing portion of adults are retired . All pensions (and capital gains of pensioners) aren't wages and if those grow as a % of gdp...
You would expect an ever decreasing wage share of the gdp even with no other change in society if pensioners are increasing as a % of adults (obviously)
It's interesting that people consider regulation of toxic waste to be authoritarian. Toxic waste kills a lot of people. So, in my opinion, luxurious toxic waste is murder.
So .... yeah .... I'm an authoritarian who draws the line at murder. That doesn't seem to have been a problematic boundary in the past.
The law is inherently authoritarian. That's why it's called the law.
Federal regulation of toxic waste is authoritarian because it's not a power of the federal gvmnt, so ppl saying "i don't care, it's important so i do it anyway" are authoritarians.
State regulation of pollution isn't authoritarian if it doesn't violate other aspects of the constitution (federal and state).
