#47 economic policies

Lerxst1992 said:

and we see how much liberals on the far left care about people who aren’t in their tiny little clubs. Scream yell fight protest only people in their little tiny clubs get rights so why should we subsidize the worlds medical supply with 0% tariffs?

What does this mean? What are the tiny clubs you're referencing?

I'm not on the far left, but it seems to me as a moderate lifelong independent that liberals, both in the modern political sense and in the classical sense, are generally in favor of broad-based rights for everyone. Everyone has a right to safe food and drinking water, to due process, to vote without undue restriction and to have that vote counted fairly, to love whom you wish and to express that love, to have access to affordable, quality healthcare.

All you have to do to see the difference between the right and the left when it comes to rights is to look at voting. Every single attempt to make it harder for citizens to vote has come from the right, and many of those efforts have been rather transparently cynically targeted towards people who tend not to vote for candidates on the right. Meanwhile, Democrats don't advance bills anywhere to make it harder for people to vote, regardless of whether those people are demographically inclined to vote for Democrats or not. The great irony is that Republicans have been so committed to suppressing the vote for so long that the political ground has shifted to where greater turnout now favors Republicans more than Democrats, a reversal of the way things had been for decades. The less engaged people who are least likely to vote in every election now favor Republicans, and the most engaged voters now tend to vote for Democrats. The more engaged you are, the more you are able to navigate whatever hurdles are thrown up in front of you. If you're someone who votes only once every four years, if that, you're less savvy about how to navigate the system and that could lead to you being shut out at the polls. So the Republicans might end up making it harder for their own voters to vote than they will for the Democratic-inclined voters they've been trying to suppress.

BF25394 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

and we see how much liberals on the far left care about people who aren’t in their tiny little clubs. Scream yell fight protest only people in their little tiny clubs get rights so why should we subsidize the worlds medical supply with 0% tariffs?

What does this mean? What are the tiny clubs you're referencing?

I'm not on the far left, but it seems to me as a moderate lifelong independent that liberals, both in the modern political sense and in the classical sense, are generally in favor of broad-based rights for everyone. Everyone has a right to safe food and drinking water, to due process, to vote without undue restriction and to have that vote counted fairly, to love whom you wish and to express that love, to have access to affordable, quality healthcare.

All you have to do to see the difference between the right and the left when it comes to rights is to look at voting. Every single attempt to make it harder for citizens to vote has come from the right, and many of those efforts have been rather transparently cynically targeted towards people who tend not to vote for candidates on the right. Meanwhile, Democrats don't advance bills anywhere to make it harder for people to vote, regardless of whether those people are demographically inclined to vote for Democrats or not. The great irony is that Republicans have been so committed to suppressing the vote for so long that the political ground has shifted to where greater turnout now favors Republicans more than Democrats, a reversal of the way things had been for decades. The less engaged people who are least likely to vote in every election now favor Republicans, and the most engaged voters now tend to vote for Democrats. The more engaged you are, the more you are able to navigate whatever hurdles are thrown up in front of you. If you're someone who votes only once every four years, if that, you're less savvy about how to navigate the system and that could lead to you being shut out at the polls. So the Republicans might end up making it harder for their own voters to vote than they will for the Democratic-inclined voters they've been trying to suppress.

Excellent post!

I can't believe dems aren't lighting themselves on fire over trump's comments in the Oval about how much money those billionaires made when the market shot up Wednesday. They should be hammering that on every network. 

Gern Blansten said:

I can't believe dems aren't lighting themselves on fire over trump's comments in the Oval about how much money those billionaires made when the market shot up Wednesday. They should be hammering that on every network. 

Don't they (and repubs) trade on insider info that their constituents don't have?

Maybe that's why. 🤷‍♂️

Lerxst1992 said:

BF25394 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

and we see how much liberals on the far left care about people who aren’t in their tiny little clubs. Scream yell fight protest only people in their little tiny clubs get rights so why should we subsidize the worlds medical supply with 0% tariffs?

What does this mean? What are the tiny clubs you're referencing?

I'm not on the far left, but it seems to me as a moderate lifelong independent that liberals, both in the modern political sense and in the classical sense, are generally in favor of broad-based rights for everyone. Everyone has a right to safe food and drinking water, to due process, to vote without undue restriction and to have that vote counted fairly, to love whom you wish and to express that love, to have access to affordable, quality healthcare.

All you have to do to see the difference between the right and the left when it comes to rights is to look at voting. Every single attempt to make it harder for citizens to vote has come from the right, and many of those efforts have been rather transparently cynically targeted towards people who tend not to vote for candidates on the right. Meanwhile, Democrats don't advance bills anywhere to make it harder for people to vote, regardless of whether those people are demographically inclined to vote for Democrats or not. The great irony is that Republicans have been so committed to suppressing the vote for so long that the political ground has shifted to where greater turnout now favors Republicans more than Democrats, a reversal of the way things had been for decades. The less engaged people who are least likely to vote in every election now favor Republicans, and the most engaged voters now tend to vote for Democrats. The more engaged you are, the more you are able to navigate whatever hurdles are thrown up in front of you. If you're someone who votes only once every four years, if that, you're less savvy about how to navigate the system and that could lead to you being shut out at the polls. So the Republicans might end up making it harder for their own voters to vote than they will for the Democratic-inclined voters they've been trying to suppress.

I received significant attacks on here for being like Bill Maher, which was accurate. The attacks were, but the mocking and associated cursing was a little much. 5 years ago I stopped watching Maher, because I thought he went too far blaming democratic party for woke movement. Turns out he was right.


try saying you support dei on here, but say you don’t support older white workers getting fired to give jobs to diverse people. Commenters here will invent every excuse to support a policy they clearly dont understand in full. I’ve had friends with excellent employment records get destroyed financially and on here, every excuse to blame the victim, because no, there is no chance a far left policy can get out of control and hurt people. To me, this is representative of what’s happening on the far left

And then there is Hamas. Years ago, there’d never be a congress squad supporting a terrorist organization and a poor human rights culture that exists in Palestine. The bias crowd will invent every excuse, admit to not research their articles before posting, and refuse to watch videos that documents bias against Jewish students here. Refuse to want a peace negotiation between the countries at war. The far left judges by the color of skin. Similar to the extreme on the other side.

if your focus is on voting rights, republicans would argue dems are trying to flood in immigrants to get as many sympathetic voters as possible. Since I am not republican, I am not going to try to prove that either way. But extremism does exist on the far left. And on here.

I'm very sorry for your fired friends - hires and fires should be on merit. You seem to believe that either DEI initiatives exist and meritocracy is dead, or that meritocracy is reinforced with the death of DEI initiatives. I can't disagree with you more, and feel that they can coexist. I've explained to you what this looks like, and you simply responded to me with something akin to "fires should be based on merit", with no further details about why my image of DEI is invalid.

A flawed implementation of DEI initiatives does not mean that DEI initiatives are inherently unfair - it just swings the injustice all the way back to the other side. Reforming, not removing, DEI initiatives seems to be a prudent way forward, no?

The outcome of the end of apartheid has been brutal for South Africa. Does that mean the end of apartheid was not warranted? I know these aren't identical situations, but it feels like another 'overcorrection' where an 'under-correction' wasn't an acceptable option. 

Gern Blansten said:

DE4173 said:

Gern Blansten said:

I can't believe dems aren't lighting themselves on fire over trump's comments in the Oval about how much money those billionaires made when the market shot up Wednesday. They should be hammering that on every network. 

Don't they (and repubs) trade on insider info that their constituents don't have?

Maybe that's why. 🤷‍♂️

maybe...but they don't stand in the Oval and brag about how much their visitors made by manipulating the market

Agreed. They are much smarter than to bring attention to it.