• Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski launch ‘Justice Democrats’ to counter party’s ‘corporate’ legislators
    103 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51723135]It's not a strawman. He said Democrats wanted to demographically displace whites by bringing in latinos and waiting for whites to die. That's the basic groundwork of the white genocide conspiracy theory. You're overly verbose word salad has nothing to do with it. You spent altogether too many words to say "Democrats don't bother pandering to working class whites" which might be true and is an argument you can make but I think it's going quite a bit further to imply the Democrats specifically are looking to displace whites. [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] How are you enjoying Trump's and the Republican's center-left lean so far?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty happy he just trashed TPP, invited union leaders to the white house, and is restricting immigration. Meanwhile some dem is virtue signalling about the need for whites to listen to minorities. They're so laughably ignorant of why they lost it's hilarious. I hope these pro-worker dems win, however it's going to expose a contradiction in the party and cause a split. They will eventually have to pull a corbyn and low key suggest immigration and an open society is a form of class warfare, or at least mostly benefits the rich (although bernie already said that once before his campaign). They will have to break with people who put identities ahead of class, jobs, and economic justice for all. It will be part of breaking with the establishment in the party and the money behind it. And sorry, it's not that simple. It's not just 'dems don't pander to white workers', it's everything about the changing role of the nation-state with globalization, where the west fits in with the global economy, what becomes of a middle class partially built on a gap in world development, and how this affects different parts of society that make up different bases for political parties. It's not my problem you have a short attention span and can't read something longer than a tweet, and everything I wrote is relevant. It's not just white workers, they just epitomize the issue. The nation state is apparently going into the dustbin of history, and in the meantime economic elites are enriching themselves and left wing intellectuals elites see new opportunity for their ideology. The decline of white demographics is indeed part of this, since it's whites who have the misfortune of being often economically non-competitive while also being politically reactionary. There is actively a convergence between the left and economic elites on the question of an open society in the west, and this has led to a transformation of the dichotomy from being left vs right to globalism vs nationalism. This has led to the white and working class part of the Obama coalition flocking to trump and shattering the blue wall. This has led to brexit, itself something that can be described as a working and lower middle class rebellion, delivering a major blow to the post-national, undemocratic, neoliberal EU. This has led to a convergence between populism in the west, and Russia becoming the bastion of reaction it always was before the ussr. This has led to the right adopting an unusual working class character, and the left consisting of upper class snobs, hipsters, and urban cosmopolitans who are all utterly detached from their countrymen.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51723211]I'm pretty happy he just trashed TPP, invited union leaders to the white house, and is restricting immigration.[/QUOTE] Don't forget targeting the agency involved with keeping our water and air clean. I'm sure the blue collar white working class that you just care so much about will be able to sympathize with the people of Flint. I do agree with you though, restricting immigration from Iran and Somalia will surely bring back jobs. [QUOTE=Conscript;51723211]It's not my problem you have a short attention span and can't read something longer than a tweet, and everything I wrote is relevant.[/QUOTE] I'll have to disagree unless you want to outright reassert what Pantz Master said instead of waving it away as "hyperbole". I read your post and I don't even disagree with a lot of the criticisms about the democrats (your cheerleading Trump as the champion of the working man is laughable tho) but it's not what he said so maybe re-read the thread before throwing aside posts as garbage. I'm sure someone as highly educated as you clearly are can take the time to do that.
Do you not think the left looks down to whites as too reactionary and uncompetitive? That they're holding on to homogenous communities slow to change and old middle class dreams, while living in 'flyover country' that's become dependent on aid after changes in our economy? Why do you think they rebuffed sanders and anyone else who wants to win back the white working class? Why do you think hillary was so quick to out the alt right? They genuinely see a nativist working class as their greatest enemy, and damn well they should. An angry white male blue collar worker will be the end of them, and lo and behold a few months later it was for Hillary. This is relevant to what pantz said, because hillary won the popular vote in part from changing demographics, while trump won in part from the rust belt going red with economic nationalism
It's easy to forget that if you take New York and LA out of the picture, the entirety of Hillary's popular vote advantage disappears. That's not to take away from the fact that she did get more votes, but it does reinforce the idea that we really do have two Americas: the big city and everywhere else.
Secular Talk is by far my favorite channel on YouTube, and while I like tyt as well, they can be a bit obnoxious.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51723315]It's easy to forget that if you take New York and LA out of the picture, the entirety of Hillary's popular vote advantage disappears. That's not to take away from the fact that she did get more votes, but it does reinforce the idea that we really do have two Americas: the big city and everywhere else.[/QUOTE] this is a trend that is noted everywhere in the world. cities are almost always more liberal and progressive compared to rural areas
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51722535]They don't care about them. The strategy is to demographically displace middle class whites. Bring in latinos and wait for the whites to die.[/QUOTE] Laugh all you like but some people legitimately believe stuff like this [editline]25th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;51723315]It's easy to forget that if you take New York and LA out of the picture, the entirety of Hillary's popular vote advantage disappears. That's not to take away from the fact that she did get more votes, but it does reinforce the idea that we really do have two Americas: the big city and everywhere else.[/QUOTE] Urban vs rural culture has been difference since the dawn of civilisation. You have it in every country and it tends to be a similar theme no matter where you are.
[QUOTE=download;51722529]Pulling further left is just going to isolate more centrists. The problem with the Democrats is they're so completely out of touch with non minority middle class America.[/QUOTE] Is that not the purpose of moving further left into the Bernie direction lmao Hillary was centrist and moderate as fuck, that was her problem. She offered nothing new aside from the neoliberal status quo to these people. [QUOTE=sgman91;51723315]It's easy to forget that if you take New York and LA out of the picture, the entirety of Hillary's popular vote advantage disappears. That's not to take away from the fact that she did get more votes, but it does reinforce the idea that we really do have two Americas: the big city and everywhere else.[/QUOTE] What is sprawl. Because that dichotomy is literally not true, most Americans are not living in big cities and the way we count rural vs urban is pretty generous. Many "city" dwellers actually reside in suburbs in large metropolitan areas, a great example being where I am, dallas & fort worth. When we count down the largest cities in america we can't even get to #12 without falling below a million population. There's a lot more shades of gray than you let on [QUOTE=Pantz Master;51722535]They don't care about them. The strategy is to demographically displace middle class whites. Bring in latinos and wait for the whites to die.[/QUOTE] Oh gosh a literal claim of "white genocide."
[QUOTE=sgman91;51723315]It's easy to forget that if you take New York and LA out of the picture, the entirety of Hillary's popular vote advantage disappears. That's not to take away from the fact that she did get more votes, but it does reinforce the idea that we really do have two Americas: the big city and everywhere else.[/QUOTE] Breaking news, if you ignore millions of voters a candidate will have less votes.
If we ignore all the people who voted for Trump, Hillary would have won.
If we ignore all the voters, then Bernie can still win.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51723292]Do you not think the left looks down to whites as too reactionary and uncompetitive? That they're holding on to homogenous communities slow to change and old middle class dreams, while living in 'flyover country' that's become dependent on aid after changes in our economy? [/quote] Who is the left? Economic left rely on the working class and many of their thinkers come from working class backgrounds. If you mean "liberal" as in socially liberal then perhaps they look down on reactionary people but not on basis of race as you suggested. And for the noncompetitive thing, I've only heard that from 1 place - Liam fox in my own country - a right wing social and fiscal conservative and then it was about british businesses and not race. Come to think of it I've heard it elsewhere. American right wing conservatives calling black people lazy. Maybe this is a projection thing? [quote] Why do you think they rebuffed sanders and anyone else who wants to win back the white working class? [/quote] thats not why he was rebuffed. He was rebuffed because he opposed the DNCestablishment candidate and the rich people who DNC take money from disliked his talk of wealth distribution. [quote] Why do you think hillary was so quick to out the alt right?[/quote] Because they opposed her and were an easy target. Its like an ad hominem. Look how bad that candidate is because these shitty people are voting for him - you don't wanna be like them do you? [quote] They genuinely see a nativist working class as their greatest enemy, and damn well they should. An angry white male blue collar worker will be the end of them, and lo and behold a few months later it was for Hillary. [/quote] I assume you mean "left" again. They are the enemy of neo-liberals because they will oppose globalisation and deregulation (via union action). Neo liberal and left are entirely different imo. Neo liberal is pro big business, pro privatisation and pro deregulation. Hillary is all that and pro war and her only socially liberal stances are adopted as a token after the movement is already established. It may sound like no true scotsman but Hillary is not leftwing. Were she in my country she'd be considered highly conservative with a neo-con stance to war. All that shit and she still got more votes. What is your definition for left just so we're clear? [quote]This is relevant to what pantz said, because hillary won the popular vote in part from changing demographics, while trump won in part from the rust belt going red with economic nationalism[/QUOTE] I actually thought pantz was being ironic when he said that. lol. It's a mad theory. First off latinos are too few in number to have a major impact. 27m voted in the election, thats 7.4% of the voters being hispanic. 16.9% of the people in US are hispanic. Its a group that is unlikely to vote so a poor choice to pander to. Furthermore 33% of hispanic men and 26% of hispanic women voted for trump. So why would you pick a minority who are less likely to vote and when they do vote they still vote in worrying numbers for a guy who called them rapists and criminals. It's not a realistic strategy and its not what the democrats are doing. Enough of this race war nonsense. Or am I just saying that because "I'm one of them"
[QUOTE=Cliff2;51724679]If we ignore all the voters, then Bernie can still win.[/QUOTE] If we ignore Bernie, Jeb! can win.
I'd like those of you arguing in favor of going even more to the left to read this. [url]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7268[/url] It's a more eloquently put, albeit harder line, version of what I've been saying for years now. Calling people racists/sexists/whatever is backfiring harder than ever before. The next republican will not have Trump's insanely badly managed social media presence, but will learn from his practices, and unless things on the left change radically, the Democratic party faces extinction in the not so distant future.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51727332]I'd like those of you arguing in favor of going even more to the left to read this. [url]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7268[/url] It's a more eloquently put, albeit harder line, version of what I've been saying for years now. Calling people racists/sexists/whatever is backfiring harder than ever before. The next republican will not have Trump's insanely badly managed social media presence, but will learn from his practices, and unless things on the left change radically, the Democratic party faces extinction in the not so distant future.[/QUOTE] I've noticed one thing of extremists of any ideological bend. They are narcissistic people who need an out side group to paint as evil and shit up while being in an in group painted as "good" despite their shortcomings as moral human beings. With racists, it black people are stupid and evil. With social justice its any one who doesn't agree with me is evil and stupid. With this in mind both can be categorized as bigoted and scum. Watch them double down on their stupidity and make everyone miserable. Because matters not if Islamic, Christian, social justice, anti VAX, flat earth, or Nazi all see themselves as THE ANNOINTED ONES and to call into question their actions or views is to call into question their delusions of nobility.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51724575]Is that not the purpose of moving further left into the Bernie direction lmao Hillary was centrist and moderate as fuck, that was her problem. She offered nothing new aside from the neoliberal status quo to these people.[/QUOTE] Except that Cenk is an SJW nutjob who thinks Hillary lost because of racists and misogyny. He's not going to move in the direction of Bernie Sanders.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51727332]I'd like those of you arguing in favor of going even more to the left to read this. [url]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7268[/url] It's a more eloquently put, albeit harder line, version of what I've been saying for years now. Calling people racists/sexists/whatever is backfiring harder than ever before. The next republican will not have Trump's insanely badly managed social media presence, but will learn from his practices, and unless things on the left change radically, the Democratic party faces extinction in the not so distant future.[/QUOTE] going further left economically doesn't mean further left socially
[QUOTE=download;51727376]Except that Cenk is an SJW nutjob who thinks Hillary lost because of racists and misogyny. He's not going to move in the direction of Bernie Sanders.[/QUOTE] I seen his meltdown when trump got elected He blamed the corporation s and sell outs
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51727385]I seen his meltdown when trump got elected He blamed the corporation s and sell outs[/QUOTE] While I didn't watch his full meltdown I did see snippets where he talked about racists and misogynists willing the election. He may have some economic agreement but his view of America is very different from Sanders.
[QUOTE=download;51727376]Except that Cenk is an SJW nutjob who thinks Hillary lost because of racists and misogyny. He's not going to move in the direction of Bernie Sanders.[/QUOTE] He was pro-Sanders during the primary then switched to anti-Trump during the general. [QUOTE=Judas;51727378]going further left economically doesn't mean further left socially[/QUOTE] It's disappointing but unsurprising that so many people on FP think this way though.
[QUOTE=download;51727376]Except that Cenk is an SJW nutjob who thinks Hillary lost because of racists and misogyny. He's not going to move in the direction of Bernie Sanders.[/QUOTE] also a genocide denier
[QUOTE=Judas;51727378]going further left economically doesn't mean further left socially[/QUOTE] yeah ironically having less left-wing economic policies just means you've gotta appeal to something else left-wing to make up for it, which in HRC's case was mostly sexism. Bernie and Keith Ellison are prime examples of the opposite line of thinking
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51727332]I'd like those of you arguing in favor of going even more to the left to read this. [url]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7268[/url] It's a more eloquently put, albeit harder line, version of what I've been saying for years now. Calling people racists/sexists/whatever is backfiring harder than ever before. The next republican will not have Trump's insanely badly managed social media presence, but will learn from his practices, and unless things on the left change radically, the Democratic party faces extinction in the not so distant future.[/QUOTE] This fails to account for the populist appeal of Sanders. A big reason the dems lost is because they spit on the faces of Sanders supporters and put all their horses behind one cart and it backfired. You can be a leftist and still care about practical issues. The fact that all this guy equates the current left with is bathroom laws and gun control just shows how out of touch he is. Again, your issue is that all you equate the left to is SJWs. If the Democrat party dies it will not be because they didn't pull right enough.The last thing liberals want is more centrist appeasement.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51727371]I've noticed one thing of extremists of any ideological bend. They are narcissistic people who need an out side group to paint as evil and shit up while being in an in group painted as "good" despite their shortcomings as moral human beings. With racists, it black people are stupid and evil. With social justice its any one who doesn't agree with me is evil and stupid. With this in mind both can be categorized as bigoted and scum. Watch them double down on their stupidity and make everyone miserable. Because matters not if Islamic, Christian, social justice, anti VAX, flat earth, or Nazi all see themselves as THE ANNOINTED ONES and to call into question their actions or views is to call into question their delusions of nobility.[/QUOTE] For the most part, I agree. As I've said before, the right has been subjected to intense intellectual/academic scrutiny over the last 30-50 years, and as a result they've compartmentalized things. A right leaning person may share some views with libertarians, but they won't go out of their way to zealously defend them outside of issues they align on. On the left we have groups actively trying to band together under banners of common causes, but the causes are frequently not perfectly aligned. That is a breeding ground for extremists to corrupt movements, which we have seen again and again with everything from #Occupy, to BLM and LGBT rights. [QUOTE=Judas;51727378]going further left economically doesn't mean further left socially[/QUOTE] Not intrinsically, no. In practice? They go hand in hand. Even if they didn't, good luck convincing right leaning people otherwise. That's the problem. The left and the right are talking at odds. Neither one understands the other. Reinforcing the divide by refusing to even attempt to reconcile with ideas that are not comfortable (gun control stands as the signature example in this case), and engaging in open hostility only serves to throw things in favor of the majority. In this case it's the straights, the whites, and the rural community. They are the majority. It could just as easily be any other majority group, but here and now, those are the majority groups. Failing to perfectly appease them results in apathy. Apathy that on a collective level allows things like LGBT rights to exist. Most of them don't really care all that much. Attacking and ridiculing them to the point where they actually feel threatened will result in subjugation. They still don't care about things like LGBT rights. It's just that those things will get crushed under the backlash over the things that they [i]do[/i] care about.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51727457]For the most part, I agree. As I've said before, the right has been subjected to intense intellectual/academic scrutiny over the last 30-50 years, and as a result they've compartmentalized things. A right leaning person may share some views with libertarians, but they won't go out of their way to zealously defend them outside of issues they align on. On the left we have groups actively trying to band together under banners of common causes, but the causes are frequently not perfectly aligned. That is a breeding ground for extremists to corrupt movements, which we have seen again and again with everything from #Occupy, to BLM and LGBT rights. Not intrinsically, no. In practice? They go hand in hand. Even if they didn't, good luck convincing right leaning people otherwise. That's the problem. The left and the right are talking at odds. Neither one understands the other. Reinforcing the divide by refusing to even attempt to reconcile with ideas that are not comfortable (gun control stands as the signature example in this case), and engaging in open hostility only serves to throw things in favor of the majority. In this case it's the straights, the whites, and the rural community. They are the majority. It could just as easily be any other majority group, but here and now, those are the majority groups. Failing to perfectly appease them results in apathy. Apathy that on a collective level allows things like LGBT rights to exist. Most of them don't really care all that much. Attacking and ridiculing them to the point where they actually feel threatened will result in subjugation. They still don't care about things like LGBT rights. It's just that those things will get crushed under the backlash over the things that they [i]do[/i] care about.[/QUOTE] I lump any one who shows narcissistic or tribalistic tendencies as racist. You may have seen me call them out in the forums. To me a flat earthe r, anti vaxxer, kkk , ISIS and a sjw are all the same based on their behavior and structure of heir ideas. What the ideas preach is irrelevant but the structure of said ideas and people it attracts matters.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51727457]For the most part, I agree. As I've said before, the right has been subjected to intense intellectual/academic scrutiny over the last 30-50 years, and as a result they've compartmentalized things. A right leaning person may share some views with libertarians, but they won't go out of their way to zealously defend them outside of issues they align on. On the left we have groups actively trying to band together under banners of common causes, but the causes are frequently not perfectly aligned. That is a breeding ground for extremists to corrupt movements, which we have seen again and again with everything from #Occupy, to BLM and LGBT rights. [quote]going further left economically doesn't mean further left socially[/quote] Not intrinsically, no. In practice? They go hand in hand. Even if they didn't, good luck convincing right leaning people otherwise. That's the problem. The left and the right are talking at odds. Neither one understands the other. Reinforcing the divide by refusing to even attempt to reconcile with ideas that are not comfortable (gun control stands as the signature example in this case), and engaging in open hostility only serves to throw things in favor of the majority. [/QUOTE] My dad is fairly left economically but also a racist and a homophobe, perhaps he's an exception. Good point about the right being compartmentalised, a shame the left isn't treated in a similar way. I sort of laugh when people class Hillary as left but I guess your post explains that. Good post tbh
Okay I;m going to be honest, Unless the left Go back to center-left (Including economically, yes I'm sorry but we can't have it keep going left without killing Midwestern Dems.) I know what I'm fucking talking about because I live in the midwest. In fact I would like a more Polished Trump without the authoritarian Tendencies and less lying.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51732729]Okay I;m going to be honest, Unless the left Go back to center-left (Including economically, yes I'm sorry but we can't have it keep going left without killing Midwestern Dems.) I know what I'm fucking talking about because I live in the midwest. In fact I would like a more Polished Trump without the authoritarian Tendencies and less lying.[/QUOTE] what the fuck is this post.
Only like about this idea is we need changed your voting system to Ranked Choice as one of issues they provided. [QUOTE]Pass a constitutional amendment to put an end to Washington corruption and bring about election reform. Super PACs should be banned, private donations to politicians and campaigns should be banned, and a clean public financing system should be implemented to end the takeover of our government by corporations and billionaires. Americans deserve free and fair elections – free from the corruption of big money donors. The Supreme Court has effectively legalized bribery. It’s time for an Article 5 convention to take our democracy back from the brink of oligarchy. Prior to passing this amendment, all members of the Justice Party should reject billionaire and corporate donations when running for office to show the American people we don’t just talk the talk, we walk the walk. [B]Ranked choice voting should also be implemented to make smaller parties a viable option.[/B] All provisions of the voting rights act should be reinstated, and gerrymandering for partisan gain should be banned.[/QUOTE] [editline]27th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=1239the;51733813]what the fuck is this post.[/QUOTE] She likely be purposedly trolling us?
[QUOTE=1239the;51733813]what the fuck is this post.[/QUOTE] Yeah I was somewhat sick when I made that post, but in order for dems to come back, they have to come back to the center left and do not touch guns or abortion, because a lot of people in the midwest like guns and are pro-life, Obama presidency killed a lot of dems in state legislators, in congress, and in governer positions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.