General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 75

And there you go. You believe this, so you argue accordingly. I disagree, so I argue otherwise. Your discourse just privileges one thing over another. It is an epistemological disagreement.

 

I called Clinton's foreign policy "morally bankrupt," not you, unless... Hillary? No one called you a "sheep," I would never ever say that without wanting to punch myself in the face, I merely said you were delusional in respect to one aspect of your beliefs, which I think is true given that both parties are pro-military intervention and you are arguing that non-interventionist beliefs are "politically convenient." We could have had an argument, within the "current framework," about Hillary's hawkishness but you chose to disengage. I'd be happy to continue, and my question posed to you on whether you can name one US-headed intervention that didn't bring more instability to the region in which they intervened remains open.

 

Please point to where this is said or comment on how the sentiment permeates to discussions other than this one.

There's a difference between political nihilism and choosing not to pigeonhole all of one's political capital into silly partisanship. What you're doing is pouting because not all of the discussion's participants fit into your very narrow, albeit frustratingly commonplace, disposition on this topic. There are plenty of discussions other than "are you voting for Hillary or Donald?"

Also, there only seem to be three or at most four persons in this community who rigidly identify as socialists. If they frustrate you, don't engage them. Frankly, I do think that in the past the political discussions have been intolerant of and hostile towards centrist or rightist American positions. But this isn't one of those times. This is a case of people getting mad because other people don't think like them and are content continuing to do so.

 

Do you think that having the democratic party in power (over the republicans) at the state and federal level makes it easier for people like Sawant to accomplish their goals?

We've seen recently with HB2 in the Charlotte how even if a city accomplishes something meaningful, the state can interfere and overrule and wind up making things worse. One of Sawant's big achievements so far in Seattle has been helping get $15 min wage passed, and I have to feel like if the republicans controlled the governors seat and the courts, that its much more likely it would've been struck down.

Radical change may not happen "within the apparatus of the democratic party", but I feel like at the very least the democratic party is less likely to stand in the way of radical change when it does happen, and may even help push it along in some cases.

 

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP
"Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday"

This is the guy who constantly says politicians are "all talk, no action". Meanwhile he keeps talking about how he wants to debate Bernie and would easily beat him, but when a debate finally starts to get arranged, he backs out.

 

I am amused how when someone tells Donald that its inappropriate to call Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" he doubles down and calls her it again, but then when he wants to get out of the debate his reasoning is it would be "inappropriate"

 

What does Donald trump stand to gain by debating the democrats' runner up? Nothing. I wouldn't do it either.

 

Press and maybe snatching some independents that are on the fence

 

He already has all the press he needs. And I'm sure even he knows he'd lose the debate. If he were to win, big deal, he beat a guy that doesn't matter. If he loses, he takes a hit and gives Hillary a pattern to follow. I'd say not debating is a no-brainer.

 

And Hillary can't use him backing down against him, she backed down too. The debate made no sense and he shouldn't have agreed to it in the first place, but he's changed positions so many times on literally everything there's no way this hurts him.

 

He loves every second of press he gets, though. I don't believe he could ever get enough.

 

Seriously?

Lots of press, millions to charity, and, most importantly, making Clinton look terrible and picking up independent voters and anti-establishment Democrats in the process. Frankly, it's a better opportunity for Trump than Sanders. Also, debate-wise, Sanders is probably an easier matchup for him than Clinton.

 

Donald Trump Says There's No California Drought

 

Don't worry! Trump will just do a rain dance and bring back beautiful rain. It'll be YUGE!

 

He has the most beautiful rain

 

China invented it like global warming

 

I reject most of the first half of your first paragraph of your post as given fact, but understand why you choose to view things that way.

As for what I view as "immoral"--it aint the 'decent' or 'good' middle class white d00dz I feel bad about in your hypothetical world will millions will die to bring about the socialist utopia. I'm not worried about those people. In such a war, many of them would die, but many more would have enough resources and skills to be just fine throughout the war. It's all the people you think you're going to help by starting this war--the poor and the marginalized. We have tens of thousands of years of human history of war and revolution that show us who suffers the most--in number of causalities, in quality of life, in access to resources, etc--when those wars happen. You insist it is the "slave owners" that will lose out the most--it isn't. That has very rarely, if ever, been the case in world history. It's society's most vulnerable that suffer the most when society crumbles. That being said, I do think it's important people here who read your posts understand that every time you talk about bringing socialism to America, you're talking about literally killing millions of people to do so, and not just the rich whities. And that's not even getting into what would have to happen "post war" if the side of socialism were to win--you'd literally have to engage in mass execution and/or extreme re-education to get people to submit to the will of the new socialist power, as has been admitted in this thread, since people have been conditioned to think a certain way. And if all that killing sounds familiar, this is the exact thing you (correctly) accuse capitalism of doing, especially in the past, yet you hold up socialism as the morally better cause. I might be able to agree with that stance if you could actually guarantee it's a complete reversal of history and the people benefiting would be the previously exploited and marginalized, and the people suffering were the ones on the other side of the gun that whole time in history. The problem with that assumption is it has yet to be implemented because, every step of the way, someone perverted it for their own benefit. There's seriously no reason to believe that the leaders of the socialist movement will definitely actually care about the impoverished or the marginalized, and implement a system of government and society that will ensure that the "space" for black peoples exists at all to take control of their own lives. Zero. It may be the type of socialism you want to happen, and what the theory says it could be (and I agree), but it's not something you could ever come close to promising as probable, let alone be able to guarantee it. And that becomes and issue when you're talking about literally killing millions of those people that you want to help. Convincing people to sacrifice lives for your movement is going to require either 1. Things getting so much worse than they are now, and yes that is definitely possible, or 2. more of a guarentee at success for those peoples. No one wants to send their brothers and sisters off to die only to trade one form of tyranny for another.

I also reject your assertion that one can't try to operate within the system by changing it as it has been changed many times before, and also not feel moral outrage at certain aspects of the system itself, both past and present transgressions. The assumption that not shutting down the entire system right now full stop means condoning the system as is. That is not correct, at all, just as it isn't correct for me to assume that you wouldn't feel any moral outrage for all those POC that would die in your attempted revolution. I assume you would feel pretty outraged by that, even though you continue to push that as a the solution. The two aren't mutually exclusive, you can both understand and dislike the wrongs that are done in a certain idea AND not completely abandon the idea all together.

Edit-Just want to say thank you again for your posts. Though it's obvious we don't agree, I think this post in particular clarified a lot of your stances in ways that weren't previously as clear. And I like when you keep the language a little simpler too because I know a lot of times in confuses me so I'm sure there are some lurkers that don't read into political theory or anything like that as much that I'm sure have a hard time understanding the jargon and all that. Hope you know I have no ill-will towards you, just another hard head who enjoys debate and/or reading other's perspectives.

 

David, there is no reason to believe that things will get better in a system predicated on Black Death. We can, however, watch the news every day and see more and more black life snuffed out. It is a slow motion genocide. I can guarantee this will keep happening, so long we we keep this structure in existence. So, the choice from my perspective is concentrated barbarism right now or socialism. The concern expressed is strangely reminiscent of the type of discourse that surrounded slaves in the sense that many argued that they'd be worse off of not remaining on the plantation what with the world being a cruel and all. It is, in other words, ideologically committed to our well-being within the relation of capital and thus, in relationship to slaveness. As I said before, it is a worldview that wants to make the world better, but we are trying to destroy this world. They're irreconcilable.

I appreciate your words. To me, this is all we can do to be free.

 

I think we've been mishearing Trump this whole time. Maybe it's not a wall he wants to build, but a WELL to collect all the water!

 

Donald Trump: Hispanic judge in Trump University lawsuit is 'a hater'

So because Trump isn't getting his way this guy is a "hater".

 

What baffles me is how Trump says our country is too "politically correct" and yet he feels entitled to think that people should treat him nice and then throws a fit whenever something doesn't go his way or someone hurts his feelings.

 

Is there a term for someone overly sensitive to criticism? Because that's Trump.

 

You should ask him, he has the best words after all.

 

Because political correctness is bullshit, the people who want things to be less PC can't stand anyone calling them out on their bullshit so they made up a term as a diversion. Those people are sensitive as fuck on anything about themselves, complete hypocrites.

 

Yet to some voters, rather vote for him over Hillary.