By Phoenix RISING Go To PostAh, the Gramsci organic intellectual approach where our native talent is being suppressed by the burden of sustaining a basic existence. The hegemony is aware of this, which is why relief will never come. They want a subjugated population.
I work in a hybrid of manufacture. I'm going to ask people on the floor over the next week where they would work instead if they could pick, regardless of social economic boundaries. For the record, average pay for non-leadership personnel is $19.32/hr, and some folks here don't even have HS diplomas or GEDs (but that is a requirement now).
I will hypothesize that most of them dream about not working at all and have not even considered working elsewhere, doing something else.
Some people are still going to want to pursue things that have are not helpful to society at all or generally not have a preference to begin with--and that's fine. The point though, is that any significant percentage of these people working low skill jobs pursuing areas of better need can do nothing but improve our rate of development both as a nation and species.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostThe thing is, people that are afraid of the message aren't doing so just because of misappropriation by conservatives. The message is almost always completely emphasized in the wrong way by progressives themselves. When is the last time these things were discussed with emphasis on upward momentum of Americans and society as a whole in relation to making money and achieving great things? It never is. It's always about morality and helping the lower class.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Bernie's entire campaign was based on economic upward momentum (free college / healthcare / taxing the rich) and his largest criticism was that he didn't pay attention to civil rights issues as a platform. He didn't make it through the primaries because of this.
The dems have a hard time because their coalition of voters has broad interests and dems need to fall in love. It's hard for a candidate to appeal to minorities, white working class people, gay people, young people and middle class folks all at the same time . The GOP voter base is more than willing to vote for the party for single issues though.
By Fenderputty Go To PostI'm not sure I agree with this. Bernie's entire campaign was based on economic upward momentum (free college / healthcare / taxing the rich) and his largest criticism was that he didn't pay attention to civil rights issues as a platform. He didn't make it through the primaries because of this.
The dems have a hard time because their coalition of voters has broad interests and dems need to fall in love. It's hard for a candidate to appeal to minorities, white working class people, gay people, young people and middle class folks all at the same time . The GOP voter base is more than willing to vote for the party for single issues though.
If people actually think this is the reason he lost, then they are just flat out wrong. He didn't get nearly enough media attention for his inadequacies in this domain to even have a large effect to begin with.
Economic upward momentum was not really the focus. The focus was on limiting big money from our politics and fixing the economic balance--the idea that the majority of the wealth goes to the top 1%. He never actually emphasized a basic income or the long term thinking of preparing for the large disruption of automation. Yes, he championed progressive policy, but without having emphasis on this being done for a very specific economic buff for all, as well as rapid advancement in solutions to issues such as disease, climate change, space travel, etc, nobody is motivated.
His message was completely about morality and not about ambition.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostIf people actually think this is the reason he lost, then they are just flat out wrong. He didn't get nearly enough media attention for his inadequacies in this domain to even have a large effect to begin with.
Economic upward momentum was not really the focus. The focus was on limiting big money from our politics and fixing the economic balance–the idea that the majority of the wealth goes to the top 1%. He never actually emphasized a basic income or the long term thinking of preparing for the large disruption of automation. Yes, he championed progressive policy, but without having emphasis on this being done for a very specific economic buff for all, as well as rapid advancement in solutions to issues such as disease, climate change, space travel, etc, nobody is motivated.
His message was completely about morality and not about ambition.
People do think he ignored minorities during his primary. He got slaughtered in the south and couldn't recover. BLM movement protested his rallies for a reason. This is one of his biggest criticisms and he tried to address it but it came too late. He's even admitted his strategy was to appeal to the white working class voter again during the primary. Black people have been hearing the rising tide shit for ever, and even if it is true, we never really raise the tides. In the meantime, lots of black people placed higher priority on social issues this election because they're being shot by our state sanctioned gang called the police. Economic upward momentum was a focus as well. He did focus a ton on limiting corruption and money in politics, but what do you think fixing the economic balance means? What do you think free college and healthcare does?
We know people voted against their own interests this election because they feel minorities and poor people get a free ride too. That woman who needs Obamacare but was upset that she had to pay money for healthcare while she worked but then saw poor people not working getting subsidies or the medicaid expansion. There's no way a basic income can survive or be seen as a positive until this mindset changes. Period.
There's a reason all the busters were for accelerationism too. The idea that a super right wing fascist that may ruin the economy being in office will act as the catalyst for some great liberal movement where everyone who isn't rich realizes we've all been played by those in power. We have a mental issue here. Fuck ... I remember some time ago on that other forum there was a thread were people talked about Americans getting SHIT vacation time and there were plenty of posters saying they wouldn't even know what to do with themselves if they had 4 weeks off. We as a nation define ourselves by our labor more so than our European semi socialist counterparts. 95% of the people I talk to about automation look at me like I'm crazy too.
And yet these southern states that Hillary won, in combination with campaigning actively against the worst possible candidate minorities could imagine in many years, still resulted in shit turn out / motivation.
More to come on the other points since I'm on the job, but just food for thought
More to come on the other points since I'm on the job, but just food for thought
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostAnd yet these southern states that Hillary won, in combination with campaigning actively against the worst possible candidate minorities could imagine in many years, still resulted in shit turn out / motivation.
The primaries are a different animal than the general though. Just because a candidate made it thought the primaries off the back of minority votes doesn't mean they will win the general off that same back. It's quite the quandary. It's a reason a lot of progressives were worried democrats would drop minority issues altogether in favor for appealing to those "economically anxious" white people after the election. "Hey lets appeal to this group because this other group has no choice but to pick us!!!"
I'm not sure if Bernie's past would have hurt him in the general, but I do believe he would have done better in the Rustbelt than Hillary did though.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe dems have a hard time because their coalition of voters has broad interests and dems need to fall in love. It's hard for a candidate to appeal to minorities, white working class people, gay people, young people and middle class folks all at the same time . The GOP voter base is more than willing to vote for the party for single issues though.
I will die on this hill, fall on my sword, death by 1000 cuts on this point.
Inclusiveness is simultaneously progressivism's most important goal, yet also its most crippling obstacle.
Except its not hard when the other side doesn't have any policies at all or any effort in getting anything beyond the white vote. Their means of dealing with minorities is voter suppression.
The morality aspect of this thing is just not providing enough turnout. People can be motivated in other ways, but sticking to the same politics is not one of them. Hell even the right proved this--their extremity in this circumstance has won them everything. A mentality and strategy that every poll said should not have worked. And yet we abandon extreme progressive policies because we think these same polls indicate a losing strategy not worth chasing.
The morality aspect of this thing is just not providing enough turnout. People can be motivated in other ways, but sticking to the same politics is not one of them. Hell even the right proved this--their extremity in this circumstance has won them everything. A mentality and strategy that every poll said should not have worked. And yet we abandon extreme progressive policies because we think these same polls indicate a losing strategy not worth chasing.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostExcept its not hard when the other side doesn't have any policies at all or any effort in getting anything beyond the white vote. Their means of dealing with minorities is voter suppression.
.
Like I said "Hey lets ignore this group because that other group has no choice but to vote for us"
Dems thought this election was the turning point for them. That they could focus on minority issues more than in the past. That the white vote wasn't going to be able to carry the GOP nationally anymore. That demographics had changed enough. They were wrong. This election proved that appealing to the white vote WAS enough.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostThe morality aspect of this thing is just not providing enough turnout. People can be motivated in other ways, but sticking to the same politics is not one of them. Hell even the right proved this–their extremity in this circumstance has won them everything. A mentality and strategy that every poll said should not have worked. And yet we abandon extreme progressive policies because we think these same polls indicate a losing strategy not worth chasing.
The rights extremism played on racial fear and immigration fear. This worked with white people because a lot of people of my race are assholes. What's the left's extremism going to play on? I agree we need more progressive policies, but we need to work on getting people to understand why these policies are good. Why giving money to the rich doesn't work. That middle class and poor people have more in common than the rich. We have to work on changing the perception that labor is how we define ourselves. Fuck my parents are straight dem voters and even they think it isn't fair that someone not working gets benefits that they're not welcome to because they do work.
that's the problem with safety net just for a safety nets sake--it's too controversial
when you combine automation with an improved safety net specifically to enrich our country and workforce in this specific way...
it's a completely different message--one is just about the net and the argument of the population going to shit if there's no support for people that are jobless. The other is a very specific goal and reaction to an issue that cannot be avoided.
Unless an automation tax comes, nothing Trump is doing now will serve as anything beyond a temporary "fix"
Taxes for automation btw--the entire market just crashes once you go down that road. Don't even bother calling it a free market at that point. Heavy taxation for jobs out of the country, heavy taxation for technology improvements? Added all together its not going to work in a democracy.
when you combine automation with an improved safety net specifically to enrich our country and workforce in this specific way...
it's a completely different message--one is just about the net and the argument of the population going to shit if there's no support for people that are jobless. The other is a very specific goal and reaction to an issue that cannot be avoided.
Unless an automation tax comes, nothing Trump is doing now will serve as anything beyond a temporary "fix"
Taxes for automation btw--the entire market just crashes once you go down that road. Don't even bother calling it a free market at that point. Heavy taxation for jobs out of the country, heavy taxation for technology improvements? Added all together its not going to work in a democracy.
There are benefits to our safety nets that extend beyond morality though. Reduction of crime as an example. Economic benefits as well. Food stamps are the best direct economic stimulus we have. Who gives a shit if a poor person spends their money of food or alcohol. It's still turning the economical wheels. This was part of my argument with my straight dem family when they erroneously complained about welfare and food stamp fraud.
Another part of the problem is that in order for people to buy into these policies they need to believe that helping society from the bottom up helps everyone including the rich. Reaganism still tugs at the strings for far too many people in this nation. The idea that if we tax job creators we will all end up jobless and broke still exists and in too high of numbers. Clinton's economic plan was backed by almost every economists but that didn't matter because economists are just high falutin pompus know it all liberals.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/01/prominent-economists-including-eight-nobel-laureates-do-not-vote-for-donald-trump/
Another part of the problem is that in order for people to buy into these policies they need to believe that helping society from the bottom up helps everyone including the rich. Reaganism still tugs at the strings for far too many people in this nation. The idea that if we tax job creators we will all end up jobless and broke still exists and in too high of numbers. Clinton's economic plan was backed by almost every economists but that didn't matter because economists are just high falutin pompus know it all liberals.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/01/prominent-economists-including-eight-nobel-laureates-do-not-vote-for-donald-trump/
Because Trump needs the Republican majority in Congress, his attacks on the institution will be more subtle than his attacks on other democratic institutions have been. But he intends to undermine Congress early and often, then bring it to heel.
…
Trump has signaled clearly that he will deal with powerful democratic institutions as he dealt with his Republican rivals. First he will denigrate them. Then he will demand their public submission to him. Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted and Low-Energy Jeb will find this game familiar.
Look at Trump’s approach to U.S. intelligence agencies. They are far from perfect. But that is not what troubles Trump. What troubles him is that they are, as yet, too far from submissive. They are a threat to him. They are powerful. They are independent. They know things (including things about Trump).
Phase I: The intelligence agencies are incompetent. They don’t know what they’re talking about. Trump, who has repeatedly failed to display even rudimentary knowledge of national security or international affairs, knows far more than they do.
Phase II: “Trump Plans Spy Agency Overhaul.” That’s the front-page headline on the Jan. 5 Wall Street Journal. The president-elect, the Journal continued, “sees departments as over-staffed, politicized.”
See how this works? The CIA refused to provide Trump with the bogus, politicized analysis that he hoped would exonerate Russian espionage. So the CIA is stupid, incompetent, wrong – and about to be downsized, restructured and marginalized.
Liberals and activists have focused on policy when decrying Trump’s cabinet nominations, which heavily feature individuals opposed to the very missions of the agencies they have been selected to lead. Several of Trump’s agency appointments appear determined not to redirect their agencies – the prerogative of an incoming administration – but to destroy them.
Former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is on the less extreme end of Trump appointees, was even explicit about it, once saying he would eliminate the Department of Energy altogether. By nominating Perry to lead that department, Trump is sending the energy bureaucracy the same message he is sending the CIA: Submit or wither.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-05/trump-s-systematic-attack-on-u-s-institutions
Until someone steps forward with some real evidence for the Russian espionage thing, I'm gonna look at everyone who leads off with it funny.
Also - and I do not like Trump - is it really that bad of a thing that our intelligence community gets hit over the head for the past decade? Like, I didn't know Bloomberg and WaPo were so enthused to write articles like this.
Also - and I do not like Trump - is it really that bad of a thing that our intelligence community gets hit over the head for the past decade? Like, I didn't know Bloomberg and WaPo were so enthused to write articles like this.
By DY_nasty Go To PostUntil someone steps forward with some real evidence for the Russian espionage thing, I'm gonna look at everyone who leads off with it funny.
Also - and I do not like Trump - is it really that bad of a thing that our intelligence community gets hit over the head for the past decade? Like, I didn't know Bloomberg and WaPo were so enthused to write articles like this.
Shitting on the IC for the rare mishap is like cursing out your mom because she brought back the wrong toppings on the pizza that SHE drove out for and bought with her own money and delivered to you
Independent of evidence for Russian espionage or at the very least, clear preference for Trump in the White House (which is indisputable), the most damning thing has been Trump's inexplicable submission to Russia and repeated unsolicited blowjobs for Putin.
As I said earlier in this thread: what Trump is doing right now is not negotiation, or dealmaking, or diplomacy: it's a love letter. And it doesn't make any sense unless Putin somehow has leverage over Trump.
As I said earlier in this thread: what Trump is doing right now is not negotiation, or dealmaking, or diplomacy: it's a love letter. And it doesn't make any sense unless Putin somehow has leverage over Trump.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostShitting on the IC for the rare mishap is like cursing out your mom because she brought back the wrong toppings on the pizza that SHE drove out for and bought with her own money and delivered to youI don't think its a rare mishap sort of thing. I think its the conclusions drawn from the tangible information brought in. That is a bigger issue imo. and if that's the hangup - that after 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Obama, the IC is a bit stuck in its ways for whatever reason, a reevaluation isn't all that unreasonable.
We all know Trump isn't going at the IC for logical reasons but purely because he's attempting to pressure them into saying it wasn't Russia, because if it is indeed Russia, it makes Trump look bad. This is him just doing PR.
Don't confuse his motives with the real story. Broken clock and all that. IF Trump is right on this it's by pure coincidence, not because of some sort of savviness.
Don't confuse his motives with the real story. Broken clock and all that. IF Trump is right on this it's by pure coincidence, not because of some sort of savviness.
By reilo Go To PostWe all know Trump isn't going at the IC for logical reasons but purely because he's attempting to pressure them into saying it wasn't Russia, because if it is indeed Russia, it makes Trump look bad. This is him just doing PR.It doesn't need to be saviness to look at the last two decades and see we're not shitting rainbows where we claim to be.
Don't confuse his motives with the real story. Broken clock and all that. IF Trump is right on this it's by pure coincidence, not because of some sort of savviness.
Russia was very interested in Trump getting elected and they were behind the Podesta hacks at the very least.
Read this thread:
Combine that with Trump's inexplicable friendliness toward Putin and Moscow and it's pretty clear something was/is going on.
Read this thread:
Combine that with Trump's inexplicable friendliness toward Putin and Moscow and it's pretty clear something was/is going on.
For what it's worth I don't think Trump is actively working with Russia. He's just so smug that he's dealing with any country as if none of their history matters except for what they do while he's in office.
His stupidity comes from the need to challenge nearly everything that doesn't shine him in the best possible light. Its too predictable and he's going to fall into a trap eventually.
His stupidity comes from the need to challenge nearly everything that doesn't shine him in the best possible light. Its too predictable and he's going to fall into a trap eventually.
I was just about to post that.
In other news:
China blasted Trump again and signaled they're up for a trade war
Paul Ryan said Planned Parenthood defunding will be tied to a budget forcing Dems to sign or shit down the government.
In other news:
China blasted Trump again and signaled they're up for a trade war
Paul Ryan said Planned Parenthood defunding will be tied to a budget forcing Dems to sign or shit down the government.
By reilo Go To PostWaiting on it. Hoping its more than their bump stating "Intercepts Catch Russian Officials Celebrating Trump Win"
By DY_nasty Go To PostWaiting on it. Hoping its more than their bump stating "Intercepts Catch Russian Officials Celebrating Trump Win"Yea I saw that article, rolled my eyes, and thought it was not worth posting. But if they know who the players are that handed the emails over to WikiLeaks? That's huge.
By reilo Go To PostYea I saw that article, rolled my eyes, and thought it was not worth posting. But if they know who the players are that handed the emails over to WikiLeaks? That's huge.Its not in the sense of what's trendy imo
People are rarely consistent with anything regarding Asange/Wikileaks...
It's not a coincidence that this breaks before the meeting Friday. And it's also not a coincidence that Trump started walking back his criticism of the IC along the same amount of time.
James Woolsey resigning today is also a contributing factor to this story. I'm gonna guess Woolsey (given his background) trusts the intel they've seen thus far and was on the outs with Trump and Flynn that obviously do not.
By HasphatsAnts Go To Postlmao RIP Fenderputty
I'm on my phone and have no idea why i got banned lmao
By Fenderputty Go To PostI'm on my phone and have no idea why i got banned lmao
You posted a "No one currs"
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostYou posted a "No one currs"
That, that wasn't what I posted though lmfao
O well i hardly post there anymore
By Fenderputty Go To PostThat, that wasn't what I posted though lmfao
O well i hardly post there anymore
gaf mods. incredible.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe dems have a hard time because their coalition of voters has broad interests and dems need to fall in love. It's hard for a candidate to appeal to minorities, white working class people, gay people, young people and middle class folks all at the same time . The GOP voter base is more than willing to vote for the party for single issues though.
Promise everybody everything in vague "big idea" terms under a all ships rise with the waves "progressive tent" .........:. Except black people because we're a God damn give in for Dems .......It's real fucking simple.
The problem for Hilary was everybody thinks she's a liar but she didn't lie enough
By Elchele Go To PostIt was a metaphoric wall innit
Wall ... fence ...
Mexico pays ... congress pays
The art of the deal.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostExcept its not hard when the other side doesn't have any policies at all or any effort in getting anything beyond the white vote. Their means of dealing with minorities is voter suppression.
The morality aspect of this thing is just not providing enough turnout. People can be motivated in other ways, but sticking to the same politics is not one of them. Hell even the right proved this–their extremity in this circumstance has won them everything. A mentality and strategy that every poll said should not have worked. And yet we abandon extreme progressive policies because we think these same polls indicate a losing strategy not worth chasing.
By Fenderputty Go To PostLike I said "Hey lets ignore this group because that other group has no choice but to vote for us"
Dems thought this election was the turning point for them. That they could focus on minority issues more than in the past. That the white vote wasn't going to be able to carry the GOP nationally anymore. That demographics had changed enough. They were wrong. This election proved that appealing to the white vote WAS enough.
The rights extremism played on racial fear and immigration fear. This worked with white people because a lot of people of my race are assholes. What's the left's extremism going to play on? I agree we need more progressive policies, but we need to work on getting people to understand why these policies are good. Why giving money to the rich doesn't work. That middle class and poor people have more in common than the rich. We have to work on changing the perception that labor is how we define ourselves. Fuck my parents are straight dem voters and even they think it isn't fair that someone not working gets benefits that they're not welcome to because they do work.
Ok I might be reading yalls responses incorrectly, so I will ask more directly:
If the GOP proved that you can win my appealing exclusively to whites, why should DEMs even bother with minorities?. Consider this tactic in the context of some other users on this board wishing to eschew "when they go low we go high" if all that matters is winning.
I was sick of even thinking about Trump like two months ago.
Next four years might require a drug habit.
Next four years might require a drug habit.
By Phoenix RISING Go To PostOk I might be reading yalls responses incorrectly, so I will ask more directly:
If the GOP proved that you can win my appealing exclusively to whites, why should DEMs even bother with minorities?. Consider this tactic in the context of some other users on this board wishing to eschew "when they go low we go high" if all that matters is winning.
This is my concern.
By Phoenix RISING Go To PostIf the GOP proved that you can win my appealing exclusively to whites, why should DEMs even bother with minorities?. Consider this tactic in the context of some other users on this board wishing to eschew "when they go low we go high" if all that matters is winning.
Because in the end, Trump won through sheer dumb luck of electoral college vote placement. He got trounced in the popular vote and should have gone the way of Romney, who also got a ton of the white vote. That history will record him as having won is to obscure the fact that the most Americans didn't believe in him. Ongoing demographic and philosophical shifts mean going for a broader appeal is still the way to go; giving up that huge block of natural voters would be insane. Especially because Trump's disinformation act is going to wear thin instantaneously now that he actually has to produce results; I wouldn't expect him to get the same traction in 4 years, if he's not impeached by then.
And beyond that, it's easy to see electioneering as cynical politicking divorced from ethics or policy. And it's easy to look at the Obama administration's powerlessness to root out entrenched state-level problems with policing and the penal system as a broad lack of interest in doing so among democratic policy makers. But the fact is the rank & file of the party, the ones who donate, volunteer and show up to conventions, are the true believers. They're there because they really believe in messages of acceptance, diversity and responsibility for shared standards of living. The party would fracture if they actually tried to run the cynical white status-insecurity route - not least of which because there are still millions of white Americans who want nothing to do with it. Trump wound up with 58% of the white vote, not 100. It was far from unanimous.
The crazy thing about Trump's share of the white vote in the midwest (which won him the election) is that it trounced Romney's performance there from 2012 with the same electorate at a time when a) Obama wasn't very popular and b) the economy was still in the shitter. It's almost as if the voters in PA/WI/MI/etc were overcorrecting their Obama vote from 2012.
