POG Politics Thread Version 3
Come on in! Since Dustin is taking his ball and going home, it's time to start a new politics thread.
I need birdman in here to explain all my points because I can't
oh and btw, i'm wondering how much credit I should give the Russian revolution if they were hella racist against Jews, and probably every other race too, at least in terms of living with them in Russia. but idk what i'm talking about, i'm just guessing. maybe they had some crazy policy of inclusion that I don't know about.
i point out wealthy elite progressives also engage in structural racism and your response is to attack me and call me a nazithis is the problem with zealots like you - you don't care about fixing the issues, you just like to fellate yourself and pat yourself on the back telling yourself how good a person you are - hence why in progressive cities like san francisco and seattle i
this is the best post I have ever seen you make, and I look forward to digging into it later
thank you for putting it down. totally serious, no cap.
but for now - you said you only like dead German philosophers, so I thought some casual German would be fun
I don't think all conservatives are Nazis, any more than I think all progressives are Stalinists (I won't call them communists but that's for another spat, ttyl ��😉
you gotta love how progressives say "hey black people, look at me, i'm stupid and illiterate, i'm just like you" and then call trump a racistyou see this stuff all the time in seattle, people live in neighborhoods with 1 million dollar price premiums tacked on specifically to live in areas where there are no homeless or black people but then figure it all balances out by donati
In light of subsquent posts where you clarified your position, I am going to rewrite your original post to reflect what you actually meant to say rather than what you typed out:
you gotta love how there are lots of people that call themselves "progressives" when they clearly are not progressive. You can tell they are not progressive because they say things like "hey black people, look at me, i'm stupid and illiterate, i'm just like you" like Gavin Newsom did here.
Trump is a racist and it is correct for anyone to call him that.
you see a similar situation of people who are not progressives calling themselves progressive all the time in seattle, people live in neighborhoods with 1 million dollar price premiums tacked on specifically to live in areas where there are no homeless or black people, and then further demonstrate they are no progressives by donating $100 to the kamala campaign given she was not even close to representing progressive values
Now, if one were inclined toward critical thinking, they might ask "what would motivate someone like Gavin Newsom to only pretend to be progressive? And why is that such a common observation in American politics?"
Then we might actually be getting somewhere
yeah that's what I was trying to point out Rick. they aren't progressives at all! and if you're calling them racists, then you know they're not progressive. so why are you calling them that?
but 25k residents gave 4 million dollars in 2020 - if you scan the list the uncategorized ones are almost exclusively democratic super PACS
really interesting how they structure it wonder if there's some loophole or tax incentive
but this still jives with my central thesis - democrats aren't progressive at all despite the rhetoric - if it they were then we'd have nice things like universal healthcare
has anyone in this thread suggested democrats are progressive? Admittedly I was gone a long time, but back before my hiatus you could get your **** blown clean off for even suggesting that
hence why in progressive cities like san francisco and seattle it's just as bad or even worse for homeless and blacks as it is in conservative areas
hopefully you see that you are starting to answer your own questions in your posts.
The reason for this apparent contradiction is that San Francisco and Seattle are not, in point of fact, progressive cities
has anyone in this thread suggested democrats are progressive? Admittedly I was gone a long time, but back before my hiatus you could get your **** blown clean off for even suggesting that
There are sure a large group of liberals that call themselves progressive. Ever watch Ms-NOW or the hosts of The View? It's their favorite word! (2nd and 3rd being Nazi and Hitler 😀 )
There are sure a large group of liberals that call themselves progressive. Ever watch Ms-NOW or the hosts of The View? It's their favorite word! (2nd and 3rd being Nazi and Hitler 😀 )
I definitely do not watch those shows. And yeah I know many people think Dems are progressive, but I was saying does anyone in this thread actually think Dems are progressive
Rick: bananas aren't blue
Us: no one said...
Rick: if you check columns 47-71...
Us: we never even...
Rick: and thus I am proven correct
Biden ran a relatively smooth policy with very little domestic or international disturbance, which was very good for business (check the stats, we crushed compared to our global peers), but the Democratic party's tepid placations of the masses were entirely inadequate, resulting in the reelection of an openly corrupt, well-known rapist.
Trump's principal backers represent an existential threat to the progress of human freedom in this country. If you peel back the current GOP ideology, you see naked fascism, again hoping to leverage the new technological paradigm to reach for godhood on earth. But that's not the problem for the Democratic party.
The Democratic party establishment, from the back-room financiers to the front-stage charlatans, have no future in a world governed by open cruelty and self sacrifice for the sake of pharaoh's grace. They have figured out how to milk tolerant pluralism for both political and financial gain, but in doing so their horse is tied.
When this bastard throws up his "tariffs", he is taking their money yes, but that's just the skim. He is cornering the press for the sake of his vainglory, at the cost of using it to keep people turning the wheels. He is evacuating their labor; he is ruining their fun abroad by damaging their brand; and he is turning what should otherwise be a cohesive working unit against itself based upon bullshit mythologies that propel him to super-humanity.
What I mean by 'Dems don't need to pick someone "safe". They need to pick someone exciting.' is not that you and I need to push the fun button; I mean they need to let somebody who actually gives a **** gain some real power, or the people will let their goose be carved and devoured by their enemy.
Rick: bananas aren't blue
Us: no one said...
Rick: if you check columns 47-71...
Us: we never even...
Rick: and thus I am proven correct
i swear bro they aren't blue
but just for a second... are we really forgetting that i was called a nazi for pointing out democratic supporting seattleites are deeply exclusionary to poor minorities and homeless?
Biden ran a relatively smooth policy with very little domestic or international disturbance, which was very good for business (check the stats, we crushed compared to our global peers), but the Democratic party's tepid placations of the masses were entirely inadequate, resulting in the reelection of an openly corrupt, well-known rapist.Trump's principal backers represent an exi
The Democrats and the Republicans want the same thing. They just dress it up in different ways. People think the Democrats lose because they don't know how to win or made a tactical error. They party knows exactly that to do to win, it chooses not to because it wants what the GOP wants.
Kamala KNEW that coming out against the genocide in Palestine would win her the election. She chose not to do that because the party would rather Trump be President than speak out against that genocide.
People really need to start understanding that we live under a one party system.
The Democrats and the Republicans want the same thing. They just dress it up in different ways. People think the Democrats lose because they don't know how to win or made a tactical error. They party knows exactly that to do to win, it chooses not to because it wants what the GOP wants. Kamala KNEW that coming out against the genocide in Palestine would win her the election
I'm sorry, but this is really hard to believe.
The GOP itself is not a single entity, forget about the Democrats alongside them.
Are there massive alignments of interest the majority of the time? Of course there are. Do major financial institutions generally fund both sides? Yes, they know how to hedge. But this is not the same as a literal uniparty.
"They're all capitalists", sure, but pretending there are no meaningful differences is a big part of why we are currently building concentration camps in the country.
Do you think it's just a show that Trump is having his opposing-party detractors investigated by the FBI?
Kamala KNEW that coming out against the genocide in Palestine would win her the election
I just looked (admittedly not for very long), and I see this to the contrary:
Harris has expressed slight remorse over not differentiating her campaign from the Biden administration’s actions relating to support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. During a recent tour stop promoting her new book, she said the administration “should have spoken publicly about our criticism” of Israel, and said she had privately “pleaded” with former President Joe Biden to become more empathetic to Palestinians.
However, during her own campaign — which she had complete control and management of, without administration interference — Harris also refused to express those disagreements out loud
hence why in progressive cities like san francisco and seattle it's just as bad or even worse for homeless and blacks as it is in conservative areasblack home ownership is noticeably higher in the heavily racist deep south than it is in progressive cities - it's twice as high (about 50% in cities like Charleston and Jackson as it in places like Minneapolis, Seattle and San Fran
Yeah, again I don't see that as accurate.
The homeownership rate gap between white households and households of color exceeded 30 percentage points in 13 states, for example, with the widest gaps in Connecticut (35.8 percentage points), South Dakota (35.7 percentage points points), North Dakota (35.7 percentage points), and Wisconsin (35.4 percentage points). Gaps exceeded 30 percentage points in both relatively low-cost states like Iowa and Michigan, as well as higher-cost states like New York and Massachusetts.
South Dakota (#2 in disparity), and North Dakota (#3) are deeply conservative, as is Iowa.
the smallest gaps in New Mexico (8.4 percentage points), Wyoming (14.8 percentage points), Washington, DC (15.2 percentage points), and California (16.5 percentage points [id.]
But that's people "of color" generally, so what about "blacks"?
Under a quarter of Black households were homeowners in four states with small Black populations: North Dakota (9.0 percent), South Dakota (22.2 percent), Hawaii (24.2 percent), and Minnesota (24.2 percent). Meanwhile, homeownership rates were highest in a handful of Southern states with large Black populations. Indeed, between 50.1 and 52.8 percent of Black households were homeowners in Alabama, Delaware, Maryland, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
Not sure I'm ready to acknowledge political ideology as a cause here...
but sure, call me a nazi because i point out basic inequality is also perpetrated by wealthy white elites who like to applaud DEI on twiiter
it's called the progressive paradox - it's a widely studied issue, go to scholar.google.com and educate yourself by searching that term
I googled "progressive paradox", and it's not this.
The progressive paradox refers to the phenomenon where popular, liberal economic policies often fail to win elections for the candidates advocating them. While polls show strong public support for progressive ideas, opponents frequently win by using "symbolic politics," leveraging conservative values like patriotism and tradition that resonate more broadly.
Key Aspects of the Progressive Paradox
- Policy vs. Candidate Support: Progressive economic policies are popular in isolation, yet the candidates representing them often struggle to win, creating a "gap" between policy support and candidate success.
- Symbolic Politics and Framing: Opponents often succeed by framing issues through traditional values rather than policy specifics.
- Resolving the Paradox (Moral Reframing): Research suggests that if progressive candidates frame their platforms using "binding" moral foundations (loyalty, authority, purity) rather than just "individualizing" ones (care, fairness), they gain significant support from moderates and conservatives.
- Root Cause in Communication: The issue is often not the popularity of the ideas themselves, but the language used to describe them, which can fail to connect with a broad range of voters.
The term has more to do with face-eating leopards than hypocritical progressives.
Birdman, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the two US parties are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Before the recent hard-right shift of the GOP, they were adjacent neighbors on what globally I think is a center-right axial position.
Yeah, again I don't see that as accurate.
South Dakota (#2 in disparity), and North Dakota (#3) are deeply conservative, as is Iowa.
But that's people "of color" generally, so what about "blacks"?
Not sure I'm ready to acknowledge political ideology as a cause here...
you're looking at states for a very specific reason right now despite that we were discussing cities mein fuhrer - is this why you won't reveal your original account because that one got laughed at as well?
