Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Considering what they have been saying about the democrats fictional connections to Soros, this is just funny.
edited 2nd May '17 11:33:10 AM by megaeliz
Re: school lunches.
The whole reason those lunches are "unpalatable" to schoolchildren is because their palates are so oversalted, anything less will not do. If we want to provide meals to schoolkids, we have a moral obligation not to shovel junk down their throats.
edited 2nd May '17 11:38:01 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."I personally describe myself as a 'Bleeding Heart' Libertarian. On those Political Axis Tests, I'm barely to the left of center on the Progressive/Reactionary Line, but I'm half way to Libertarianism on the Libertarian/Authoritarian Line.
I don't know how I'd measure that, but I'd say I'm an Isolationist (at least, Militarily).
Precedent for Trump blaming Democrats when he fails at something, not precedent for Democrats being successfully blamed when Trump hurts people by succeeding.
What you're talking about isn't the equivalent of Trump blaming Dems for his healthcare bill failing, it's the equivalent of Trump blaming Democrats for his Muslim ban (when it was briefly in effect) hurting people.
Hell Trump's ego works to our advantage there, Trump failing is something he will blame Dems for, but I doubt he'd ever admit (even to himself) that his succeeding can hurt people, so he will own all his successes even if they screw people over.
edited 2nd May '17 11:46:30 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIdle thought: what even is an economic progressive?
I keep hearing this defense from the Bernie Bro side of the fence, when trying to claim ownership of the word: "I'm talking about economic progressives, not social progressives." "Social progressive" is basically the new way of saying "Race politics" since that phrase has become unsavory.
But the thing is, I understand what social progressives are. They're people who seek to make progress towards a point of fair and equal social treatment for all. It's a pretty simple concept to understand. Social progress means reducing the impact of racism, sexism, etc. The endpoint towards which we strive to progress is the elimination of prejudice. The concept of social progressives has been around for many, many years under a wide variety of labels.
But what the hell is an economic progressive? As near as I can tell, it just means, "I don't like banks." What are they actually progressing towards? What is the clear, mutually agreeable endpoint towards which progress is being made?
edited 2nd May '17 11:50:41 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'm statist/social liberal whenever I take political affiliation tests.
![]()
"Economic progressives", in my understanding, want to redress the unequal distribution of wealth in society and its consequent unequal distribution of political power. Concentrations of wealth are anathema because they have an inherent, inescapable distorting effect on political representation.
While large financial institutions, representing concentrations of wealth, are certainly badwrong in this worldview, it's not necessarily just a reactionary "tear down the banks/Wall Street" approach but a recognition that they tend to hold economic and political power that is disproportionate to the tangible benefits they provide to society, and that they represent a dangerous point of failure for economies.
Most people who claim the "economic progressive" mantle in the vein of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are paying at least lip service to the ideas of Karl Marx — the degree that I take them seriously is directly proportional to how much Keynes they've absorbed to temper those ideas.
edited 2nd May '17 11:56:21 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On those Political Alignment charts, I usually end up in the Left Libertarian category, probably deeper within "libertarian" than I actually am. Keep in mind that the most commonly circulated chart was made by a British leftist who characterizes pretty much all of America as being neoconservative.
If I were to characterize my political beliefs, the closest description would be Big Government Progressivism. We're never going to get equitable social and economic opportunity without a robust public sector actor in the economy. Whether that happens gradually or quickly is immaterial to the imperative that it must happen.
edited 2nd May '17 11:59:29 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Non-interventionist but depends on the context. I don't trust my country to fix other countries. Half the time it means dropping bombs on people.
I have a bit of socialist sympathies and Marxist views without actually being a socialist. But I'm on the cusp of being one.
edited 2nd May '17 12:08:39 PM by MadSkillz
I grew up Republican in a family of Republicans and then started turning blue as I became more socially aware. For many years, I self-identified as a Republican voting Democrat as the lesser evil until we can get the crazies out of my party.
2016 was the first time I self-identified as a straight Democrat after finally realizing the crazy had always been there; I was just too ill-informed to see it.
edited 2nd May '17 12:03:20 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Had I not been laid low with the flu, I would have spent yesterday singing The Internationale and marching down the streets of my home town with a red rose
banner.
I think that should explain my political affiliations.
note
edited 2nd May '17 12:04:29 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Basically I don't think Capitalism is compatible with Democracy unless you can keep it on a leash because you'll eventually have the private sector trying to usurp the government and then you're in a corporatacracy.
And we're kinda already there. We did just elect a corporation as president.
Also I believe in "to each according to his needs".
Well, "keep it on a leash" accurately summarizes the Keynesian world-view. "Nationalize it all and give it to the People" is Marxian. Keynes did not believe Marx's ideas could work in a real society because a command economy cannot accurately set prices.
The function of a market economy is to efficiently set prices and match buyers with sellers. The function of corporations is to amass wealth that can be directed towards projects that are larger than any individual business could fund itself. The function of government is to control markets and corporations so they don't run away with power and greed.
edited 2nd May '17 12:12:17 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"To me at least being an economic progressive means wanting to address the imbalance in wealth within society, wanting to ensure equal opatunities are given to all regardless of the income bracket or postcode they were born into, etc...
So it means addressing the drop in wages, addressing out of control businesses such a monopolies by telecom companies, addressing out fo control rent prices in urban areas, address the lack of proper support for the unemployed, address the erosion or workers right and union powers, it means at times realising certain parts of the country are better off under government control than the control of the private sector.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThis is going to be a close one.
My views lean socially conservative (Comes with the territory of being Christian), but economically progressive. Having both an economic floor (in the form of comprehensive welfare and healthcare) and an economic ceiling (in the form of increasing tax brackets) is my personal ideal. Also somewhat globalist and interventionist. In the modern world a country can't afford to be isolationist, and as long as it's done right (i.e., not just going in and dropping bombs and overthrowing governments whenever we feel like), we absolutely should get involved with other countries, especially if human rights violations are involved.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I do also think there are certain industries that should be nationalized in order to best benefit the population. Healthcare, infrastructure programs like roads, bridges and public transportation.
There are things that are anathema to the purpose of private corporations (making a profit for shareholders) that have to be nationalized in order to be of any actual benefit.
That said, the state cannot do everything.
edited 2nd May '17 12:15:26 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Yes, central to Keynesian thought is the idea that there are certain products that have what is called "inelastic demand" — that is, people always need them regardless of price. Government should apply its regulatory and/or nationalization powers to make these products available to everyone, because markets cannot efficiently do so. Among these products are utilities such as water and electricity, basic communications (mail, phone, television, internet), healthcare, education, public safety (fire, rescue, police), and many others.
The idea itself predates Keynes, of course — one of the earliest government enterprises is the U.S. Postal Service, since it was recognized by the Founders that universal mail delivery is a critical public good.
edited 2nd May '17 12:25:22 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
The pharmaceuticals industry being one of these, so the likes of Martin Shkreli can't essentially hold people's lives ransom.
edited 2nd May '17 12:18:33 PM by danime91

I suppose this might work had Trump already blamed Democrats for the failure of the healthcare bill
. That's precedent right there from the man himself. How do you tell those who still have Trump signs in their yards that that failure prevented their lives from becoming much more miserable?
Speaking of people with Trump signs in their yards
. No policy here, just observations of how they live. And how what they fear is each other.
edited 2nd May '17 11:24:46 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot