Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "We don't have a left party in the U.S."

Baylor said:
Okay but aside from voting patterns there are clear behavioral distinctions between blacks and whites.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Baylor said:
But to stay on topic, the courting of black and other minority votes by "leftist" politicians creates a stubborn, robust reactionary class of whites that doesn't exist European countries. Hence the "Bernie would be centre-right in my country!"
Click to expand...

You're arguing that this:

Baylor said:
the courting of black and other minority votes by "leftist" politicians
Click to expand...

leads to this:

Baylor said:
a stubborn, robust reactionary class of whites that doesn't exist European countries.
Click to expand...

I think you've got the order wrong.
 
Venom said:
We tend to assign particular traits to ethnic groups for one particular purpose, like electoral strategy, but often that concept gets muddied up and we subconsciously think of their actions as functions of their skin color or appearance. That's the shortcut people tend to take. It doesn't follow.
Click to expand...

I wonder what possible reason minority voters could have for voting for a party with progressive policies designed to bring about racial equality, instead of a party run by actual white supremacists? Must be because they have different values.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I wonder what possible reason minority voters could have for voting for a party with progressive policies designed to bring about racial equality, instead of a party run by actual white supremacists? Must be because they have different values.
Click to expand...

Those voters are the opportunistic types who in slavery days hoped to get promoted from the fields to the manor house if they sucked up to the Maasuh enough.
 
3point14 said:
I'm using the term coloquially. I admit, I'm only discovering that I was now.

Generally, I think people use it to mean a government taxing and spending, don't they?
Click to expand...

If by people, you mean right wing pundits trying to demonize social democracy and mainstream economics in order to support for their own pseudo-scientific version then sure.
3point14 said:
What term should I be using?
Click to expand...

It depends on the context, but some of if falls under social democracy while other parts fall under economics/market theory. Spending for reasons fairness, equability, justice or compassion generally fall under the social democracy heading. Economics is a little more complicated to explain

There is a tendency in the US to paint business and market economies as two sides of the same coin, but this isn’t really the case. (Economists typically support the Democrats by ~ 3:1 margin) The reality of modern economics is that you can often get better overall economic performance by addressing market failures either though regulation or by having government provide the service directly. The caveat is that you need to look at each policy on a case by case basis because there is always the risk of government failures that take an even bigger toll on economic efficiency than market failures.

Business, however, loves market failures because that’s where the greatest profits are. Perfectly completive markets actually converge on profits that are near zero because competitors undercut each other until there is no profit left or force them to spend on R&D to leapfrog each other to produce better and better products.

Socialism tends not to create efficient markets because its prone to government failures. By labeling ALL government actions to make markets more competitive and/or efficient as Socialism business related special interest can limit government actions to address real issues with market efficiency which in turn means they can exploit these inefficiencies for their own profit even though it’s harmful to the overall economy.

In terms of economics, therefor the political spectrum looks something like this:
Left: Characterized by heavy government intervention in the economy, Government failures tend to limit economic growth and prosperity. There is no such party in the US, but if there was a Socialist party this is where it would sit.

Center: Characterized by selective government intervention based on balancing the risk between government and market failure. In balancing the risk of government vs market failures Center Left would favor risking government failure, center right (Eg Mainstream Democrats) would favor risking market failures.

Right: Characterized by rejecting nearly all government actions to improve market efficiency even when it’s clear that market failures are an issue. Just as with government failures on the Left, market failures limit growth and prosperity.
 
Baylor said:
Wow. Such a hot take. It's a universal principle that diversity leads to conflict and the more racial, ethnic, religious, and linguistic fractionalization within a country, the more difficult it is to allocate resources and provide for a decent standard of living for its citizens.
Click to expand...
Fins, Sweeds and Russians are distinctly different ethnic groups, speak completely different languages, who have spent the better part of the last 1000 years killing each other. Apparently, this doesn’t count as diversity. However, people can grow up in the same country speaking the same language, watching the same TV channels, etc are “diverse” form no other reason than they can be separated by a meaningless physical trait.
Baylor said:
The failed states of Africa prove this, as do the violent racially diverse countries of south America and the stable lily white countries of Northern Europe. So does all of human history. Skeptics' take: "Racism is bad." Wow. So thought-provoking.
Click to expand...

Fun fact. Both mtDNA and Y-DNA show that the Bantu Peoples like the Zulu and Khoisan peoples who were both on the receiving end of “diversity” problems South Africa are not as closely related as the Bantu people are to the “Lily white Northern Europeans”. “Race” however, groups the Khoisan and Bantu people together solely due to skin color.


Clearly the "problem" with diversity comes down to otherwise meaningless visible markers than allow idiots and morons to target other groups for oppression. Take away the meaningless visible markers and suddenly diversity not only isn't a problem, it apparently doesn't exist at all.
 
Brainster said:
Let's stipulate for the moment that observers are correct in stating that American politics are skewed right compared to much of the rest of the world, and thus that there is not real left party in the US as AOC said.

Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

IMO three things happened in early 90’s that set the US on a divergent path to the rest of the world.

1) Clinton moved the previously left leaning Democratic party significantly to the right
2) House Republicans lead by Newt Gingrich rejected and undermined the more pragmatic Reagan/Bush version of conservatism and began labeling it as “RINO”
3) The rise of right wing radio and other far-right media. They conducted sensationalist attacks, not just on the Left but also right leaning Democrats and moderate Republicans who deviated from their hard line ultra-right wing dogma.
 
Minoosh said:
Back in the Tea Party heyday it occurred to me that these movements were made up of people who fundamentally had no interest in cooperation.
Click to expand...

Back in the Tea Party heyday, I supported the Tea Party movement. It was definitely not interested in cooperation with the GOP establishment (similar to AOC's relationship to the DNC establishment today). But that didn't mean no interest in cooperation at all. I would have happily cooperated with anyone else looking to disrupt the GOP establishment.

In the end, the GOP establishment only needed one election cycle to crush the Tea Party. But they didn't crush the desire of conservatives to disrupt the GOP. Hence Trump.

And there's a similar dynamic playing out on the left, too. AOC and the Bernie Bros should be telling you somenthing, not about their appetite for cooperation, but about their appetite for disruptive change. Look at what's happening in Iowa right now. People don't want to cooperate with the establishment wing of the party.

Ironically, it's the Tea Party voice in my head that says "vote Sanders." What I really need is a crystal ball that tells me whether the Senate is going to flip.
 
theprestige said:
Back in the Tea Party heyday, I supported the Tea Party movement. It was definitely not interested in cooperation with the GOP establishment (similar to AOC's relationship to the DNC establishment today). But that didn't mean no interest in cooperation at all. I would have happily cooperated with anyone else looking to disrupt the GOP establishment.

In the end, the GOP establishment only needed one election cycle to crush the Tea Party. But they didn't crush the desire of conservatives to disrupt the GOP. Hence Trump.

And there's a similar dynamic playing out on the left, too. AOC and the Bernie Bros should be telling you somenthing, not about their appetite for cooperation, but about their appetite for disruptive change. Look at what's happening in Iowa right now. People don't want to cooperate with the establishment wing of the party.

Ironically, it's the Tea Party voice in my head that says "vote Sanders." What I really need is a crystal ball that tells me whether the Senate is going to flip.
Click to expand...

I agree with this analysis.
 
theprestige said:
I would have happily cooperated with anyone else looking to disrupt the GOP establishment.
Click to expand...

I hit "Submit" in haste and enthusiasm. And optimism. In fact, I recognize that there will always be deplorables looking to disrupt the political establishment. Communists on the left, neo-Nazis on the right. Obviously I can't do much to stop them aligning their disruption with mine, if that's their strategy. But I do not and would not cooperate with certain disruptive strategies they bring to the table. Nor would I vote for one of their ilk in the name of political disruption.
 
theprestige said:
Ironically, it's the Tea Party voice in my head that says "vote Sanders." What I really need is a crystal ball that tells me whether the Senate is going to flip.
Click to expand...

And if the Senate does flip, that'll tell you things could actually get done, and you don't want that. Am I hearing that right?
 
Venom said:
And if the Senate does flip, that'll tell you things could actually get done, and you don't want that. Am I hearing that right?
Click to expand...

Correct. If I knew the Senate would flip, I'd prefer Trump.

The tricky thing for me right now, as my state's Democratic primary approaches is -

- figuring out which Dem candidate is likely to beat Trump in the general, and

- figuring out whether the Senate is likely to flip.
 
theprestige said:
Correct. If I knew the Senate would flip, I'd prefer Trump.

The tricky thing for me right now, as my state's Democratic primary approaches is -

- figuring out which Dem candidate is likely to beat Trump in the general, and

- figuring out whether the Senate is likely to flip.
Click to expand...

Curious what your rationale was for voting Trump over Clinton.
 
theprestige said:
There were a number of factors. This isn't really the thread for it. One of the main dealbreakers for me was the email server, and her attitude about the email server.
Click to expand...


Why settle for some old corruption when you have an opportunity for brand new corruption every single day, amirite?
 
theprestige said:
Correct. If I knew the Senate would flip, I'd prefer Trump.
Click to expand...
Trump and the Democrats could get some interesting things done if he'd let go of his faux "conservative" shtick. But it may be too late for that.

Disruption for its own sake seems like the antithesis of the conservatism I grew up with.
 
lomiller said:
Fins, Sweeds and Russians are distinctly different ethnic groups, speak completely different languages, who have spent the better part of the last 1000 years killing each other. Apparently, this doesn’t count as diversity. However, people can grow up in the same country speaking the same language, watching the same TV channels, etc are “diverse” form no other reason than they can be separated by a meaningless physical trait.
Click to expand...
Ask any black person and he will tell you their differences from white people are not "meaningless."


lomiller said:
Fun fact. Both mtDNA and Y-DNA show that the Bantu Peoples like the Zulu and Khoisan peoples who were both on the receiving end of “diversity” problems South Africa are not as closely related as the Bantu people are to the “Lily white Northern Europeans”. “Race” however, groups the Khoisan and Bantu people together solely due to skin color.


Clearly the "problem" with diversity comes down to otherwise meaningless visible markers than allow idiots and morons to target other groups for oppression. Take away the meaningless visible markers and suddenly diversity not only isn't a problem, it apparently doesn't exist at all.
Click to expand...

Hard to make sense out of this word salad but I'll give it a shot. Africa is a continent, not a country. An ethnically diverse continent, hence the failed states. I referenced both ethnic and racial diversity as problems for nation-states. You've appeared to have missed this and are having a bizarre argument with yourself.
 
Baylor said:
Ask any black person and he will tell you their differences from white people are not "meaningless."

Hard to make sense out of this word salad but I'll give it a shot. Africa is a continent, not a country. An ethnically diverse continent, hence the failed states. I referenced both ethnic and racial diversity as problems for nation-states. You've appeared to have missed this and are having a bizarre argument with yourself.
Click to expand...

The distinction you try to make between ethnicity and race is annoying because you seem to be categorizing race along color lines. There are arguably several races among "blacks" in Africa and Asia. But that's neither here nor there and I'll stop there.

I'll tentatively accept the idea that groups of different people with different values and lifestyles in a country make it more difficult as a country to unite behind large-scale social programs.

I think though it's largely because of the enduring legacy of slavery and racial segregation, including ongoing efforts that began in the second half of the 20th century to Keep America White as it were from conservative propaganda like Fox News. The subtext of their work is always something about black welfare queens and parasites from the inner city.
 
Venom said:
The distinction you try to make between ethnicity and race is annoying because you seem to be categorizing race along color lines. There are arguably several races among "blacks" in Africa and Asia. But that's neither here nor there and I'll stop there.

I'll tentatively accept the idea that groups of different people with different values and lifestyles in a country make it more difficult as a country to unite behind large-scale social programs.

I think though it's largely because of the enduring legacy of slavery and racial segregation, including ongoing efforts that began in the second half of the 20th century to Keep America White as it were from conservative propaganda like Fox News. The subtext of their work is always something about black welfare queens and parasites from the inner city.
Click to expand...
Thank you for being more mature this time. But I couldn't disagree more. People's poor understanding of decontextualized history and Fox News are not the cause of racial and ethnic antagonisms in the US. At best they are merely symptoms of a massive problem that is hundreds of millions of people of differing races sharing a country together. These problems would exist regardless of historical circumstance. These problems would exist with or without Fox News.
 
I’m not really sure what actual racial/ethnic differences there are when it comes to the values/goals/ideals of people who live in America. It would be ludicrous to say “Black people want X; White people want Y; Jews want Z.” Where X, Y and Z are almost completely opposed to each other.

I’d say, in our hearts, we really all want the same things but some people just can’t let go of old historical baggage long enough to just listen to each other. Politics really sucks.
 
Venom said:
I'll tentatively accept the idea that groups of different people with different values and lifestyles in a country make it more difficult as a country to unite behind large-scale social programs.
Click to expand...

Again, though, Nordic countries have people from at least 3 completely different Ethnic/Language groups with longstanding grudges against each other but have no such issues.

Culture doesn’t really explain anything here. In successful nations, culture should change and adapt generation to generation. My grandchildren’s culture will be very different than that of my grandparents, and if it isn’t there is likely something wrong. What causes problems are people who use otherwise meaningless things like skin color to create artificial divisions and do silly things like trying to enforce cultural and ethnic purity.
 
Another observation I've made is that voters have policy decisions and other factors that influence their votes on overall balance. I dont think it unrealistic that people might vote for a candidate that they believe is flawed, if policy and results... or even their perceived lesser of evils pushes their decision-making. This isnt a Trump exclusive decision making issue, people vote in this matter all the time.
 
Cabbage said:
I can back up anything I've claimed to be fact. I'm just waiting for you to specify what you take issue with; I'm not gonna break my back trying to support Every. Single. Thing. I've said. Go ahead, I'm listening: What is it that I have claimed to be a fact that you take issue with?



Any day now.....



(Just admit it: It was an empty boast on your part and now you can't back it up, can you?)
Click to expand...


I take issue with your style of gloomy generalizations that you claim as fact: “Trump supporters are denying reality. I’m just reporting facts.” Now, you are entitled to interpret your observations of people’s actions (the facts of what they said and did) any way you see fit. Your interpretation of those observations is quite obviously opinion, not fact.

It’s my opinion that AOC and Bernie supporters are naive and deny the reality of the political and sociocultural situation of the US. But I would never claim my opinion is a fact.
 
grunion said:
Primarily because the nation was founded on the sins of slavery and genocide with a heaping spoonful of insularity from the rest of the industrialized world and the warped view of Christianity, fear of brown-skinned people and false sense of entitlement spawned from that poisonous recipe.
Click to expand...

If the United States had always been more conservative than the rest of the world, you might have a case. But note that we had FDR in 1933, while England did not have a Labour Prime Minister until after WWII ended. I suspect if you look at the rest of Western Euroope, you'll find the same thing; left-wing governments only became in vogue after 1945.
 
Brainster said:
If the United States had always been more conservative than the rest of the world, you might have a case. But note that we had FDR in 1933, while England did not have a Labour Prime Minister until after WWII ended.
Click to expand...

Well, the Labour party was only founded in 1900. And you're wrong. Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister in 1924, and from 1931-35. It's also worth noting that the wartime government was a coalition which included Labour.

Before Labour there was the Liberal party, which founded the British welfare state.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
More like everybody has crawled into their corners and refuse to move from them... preferring to bury their peers even deeper into their corners. Going to be honest, I have the same issues with AOC that I have with Trump. She isnt likeable in personality, and she doesnt strike me as someone that would sit down with anyone for serious policy discussions in the public eye. Her race card comments against conservatives not withstanding, she's leveraged it on pelosi... and while I'm no fan of pelosi either that sort of conduct devalues legitimate calls against social issues that deserve better attention and cripple civil debate.

The only reason I give Trump remotely any leeway over my views of his trolling is because of the economic performance and achievements being stabilized. But that's about it with me, and I had to see it happen before I had the optimism. Aoc's designation as a 'socialist' or none... she presents herself as a populist along with her policy inclinations. Forget about leftist or right wing views... I'd rather have someone who is willing to be more straight about their policy goals and be capable of advising the realistic necessities of implementing them.
Click to expand...

a good analogy. well put.
 
Lots of rule 11, 12 and zero breaches. Thread closed until a Mod has time to go through and do the cleanup and suspensions and warnings. As ever don't try to continue the topic in another thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
The thread is being reopened. I had to move quite a few posts off to AAH and pass out enough yellows to make Post-It jealous to get this back to a state that could be fit for the public area.
Keep it on topic.
The topic is not the other posters. No matter how badly you want it to be. It's just not.
The topic is not the president. Unless AOC somehow becomes president, that is. Even then, she's only the messenger for the topic, not the topic itself.

Keep it civil.
Honestly, haven't you ever heard "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"? Granted, considering how this thread went, if that was followed, there'd be total silence in here. Still, give it a try. At least try to keep to the spirit of it.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom