Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[beanman12345]

No the constant bad faith middle school style attacks from someone who wants nothing more than to win a stupid argument on the internet hit a nerve.

Well maybe when you stop doing that, you won't get so upset.

[unfilteredJW]

No the constant bad faith middle school style attacks from someone who wants nothing more than to win a stupid argument on the internet hit a nerve.

That projection.

[Theodarzna]

oh, the horrors of Warren preferring a well regulated market instead of being a actual socialist.

It was more irritating at the time when people were claiming she was basically just Bernie Sanders, or more Left than him. Which one can do I guess if one is completely ignorant of her history or what she is about. But I agree, she is not a Socialist.

having to choose between the Dems’ “performative wokeness” and the GOP’s corporate/market worship.

Actually its like being presented with Performative Wokeness+Market Worship, and Performative Redneckery+Market Worship. The market worship comes either way.

[downnola]

Do you not know Elizabeth Warrens history? She was a heritage foundation girl until the mid-90's, switching over only during Clinton's transformation of the Democratic Party into a Neo-Liberal party. And if you look at her entire platform and policy goals, its all entirely market oriented technocracy. She literally fought for the Reagan Revolution and switched parties once the Dems had essentially adopted Reaganomics. More over most of her policies, while better than anything the dems typically conjure are still pitiful. She caved on Health care in five seconds flat, adopting the access and affordability schtick which means jack all nothing.

Hell, don't take Theo the Devil's word for it, I know that's no good here, let's listen to Warren's own words on why her political party allegiance changed,

"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore. I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role."

(source)

She later tried to claim she was apolitical at the time, but she was part of the heritage foundation and penned papers for it during the Reagan years, hard to be an apolitical heritage foundation lady. So claiming she was a Reagan Revolution Warrior is as a matter of historical fact. Once more her COP didn't do anything, it was at best a symbolic gesture.

And while I'll give her credit her work managed to get “$12 billion for 29 million consumers in refunds and canceled debts.” which compared to Biden, makes her look like Fidel Castro, its basically wholly dwarfed by the fact that due to interest ect Americans paid nearly $113 billion in credit interest in 2018 just by itself. Even her sales pitch for the COB is entirely in keeping with the Reaganite love of markets, its about making markets work good, not bad. Warren's politics are in essence a Neo-Liberal and entirely technocratic view of the world, that its just about managing the market forces that will rule our lives. And in the end even Wall Street came around and found her acceptable.

Describing Warren as a Reagan Revolution Warrior, is a matter of historical fact. Describing her politics as Neo-Liberal is not even a controversial slight, she is a Market Lady, who trusts in the Market as a guiding force in society. She fundamentally believes in the Market in ideological terms. She might be less craven, evil and corrupt than Biden, but that doesn't make my description of her incorrect. Neo-Liberal doesn't mean evil, well to me the two things are the same but I have zero faith in "The Market", but in purely objective terms it describes a Pro-Market person in basic simple terms.

Again, if she's a neolib free marketer then words have no meaning. She's a strong advocate for regulating corporations and banks and has been since she's been a Senator and in a position to change laws. That's literally the exact opposite of neoliberalism. Wanting a fair and regulated market over a market that supports open looting of workers and citizens is not neoliberalism.

I'm not even going to touch the idea that people can't evolve on their views and go from the right to the left on economic policy. That's a virtue signal to the puritan faction on the left which are more interested in gatekeeping than actually changing anything for the better. Besides, I've also moved towards the left from the right over the years, so I know people are capable of seeing how ideology doesn't always line up with reality and how it changes your political outlook. To shit on someone for being willing to be wrong is just gross.

[downnola]

Pretty sad they are using such a "none issue" to lobe personal attacks at people instead of calling out what it is on it's face. I guess they have nothing else, and it makes themselves feel better.

Sounds like you're accurately describing the focus on Warren's Native American claims than on her actual policies.

It's cute when people make friends on forums. It's always good to have a buddy to parrot what you have to say.

[Theodarzna]

Again, if she's a neolib free marketer then words have no meaning. She's a strong advocate for regulating corporations and banks and has been since she's been a Senator and in a position to change laws. That's literally the exact opposite of neoliberalism. Wanting a fair and regulated market over a market that supports open looting of workers and citizens is not neoliberalism.

I'm not even going to touch the idea that people can't evolve on their views and go from the right to the left on economic policy. That's a virtue signal to the puritan faction on the left which are more interested in gatekeeping than actually changing anything for the better. Besides, I've also moved towards the left from the right over the years, so I know people are capable of seeing how ideology doesn't always line up with reality and how it changes your political outlook. To shit on someone for being willing to be wrong is just gross.

No, its an accurate description. I literally cited sources, her own words even and her own history. Regulating or managing the market in a different way doesn't change her fundamental ideological orientation. I brought actual sources and quotes and you're response is essentially nothing but rhetoric on this.

You can't be a the "... those were the people who best supported markets.", and not be a Neo-Liberal, which is an entire ideology of Marketization. Her own words mark her out as well as my description of her as LITERALLY A warrior in the Reagan Revolution and writing for the Heritage Foundation.

The bare minimum would be that you, you know, aren't a person looking out for whose best for the Markets. Which is her own words.

[Gestopft]

Actually its like being presented with Performative Wokeness+Market Worship, and Performative Redneckery+Market Worship. The market worship comes either way.

A significant contingent of Democrats are against the market worship part, and the parts that still do are at least trying to alleviate in some small way the problems caused by markets (a point which you continually undersell).

The Republicans have a gaping intellectual hole filled with donor money.

I will give you some sort of credit- I don't think the liberals/progressives on this forum appreciate the fact that there are people who are socially conservative and economically left, and that in some ways said combination better represents the 'middle voter' that 'vague centrism.' Unfortunately, most of the intellectual 'leaders' of this anti-free market conservatism are fucking theocrats, so there's that...

[downnola]

No, its an accurate description. I literally cited sources, her own words even and her own history. Regulating or managing the market in a different way doesn't change her fundamental ideological orientation. I brought actual sources and quotes and you're response is essentially nothing but rhetoric on this.

You can't be a the "... those were the people who best supported markets.", and not be a Neo-Liberal, which is an entire ideology of Marketization. Her own words mark her out as well as my description of her as LITERALLY A warrior in the Reagan Revolution and writing for the Heritage Foundation.

The bare minimum would be that you, you know, aren't a person looking out for whose best for the Markets. Which is her own words.

Ok, here's a citation: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp

What Is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism is a policy model that encompasses both politics and economics and seeks to transfer the control of economic factors from the public sector to the private sector. Many neoliberalism policies enhance the workings of free market capitalism and attempt to place limits on government spending, government regulation, and public ownership.

Neoliberalism is often associated with the leadership of Margaret Thatcher–the prime minister of the U.K. from 1979 to 1990 and leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990–and Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the U.S. (from 1981 to 1989). More recently, neoliberalism has been associated with policies of austerity and attempts to cut government spending on social programs.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
The policies of neoliberalism typically supports fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, privatization, and a reduction in government spending.

It's not mere rhetoric, it's a widely accepted definition of a word that you're wildly misusing.

Milton Friedman was a neoliberal. Elizabeth Warren is directly opposed to the sorts of policies that Friedman wanted. The fact that Warren doesn't want to dismantle markets as we know them and nationalize all of the farms doesn't mean she's a Reaganite.

I also don't care about what she said decades ago, I care about her current policies and what she says now, especially when she admits she was wrong in the past.

[Felya]

Someone sent me a friend request, and it wasn't someone I hated.. You making a thing over something so a trivial is fucking sad.

You don’t get a request to accept a friend...

The two people I have as friends, I have no clue who they are and never accepted it.

[Gestopft]

No, its an accurate description. I literally cited sources, her own words even and her own history. Regulating or managing the market in a different way doesn't change her fundamental ideological orientation. I brought actual sources and quotes and you're response is essentially nothing but rhetoric on this.

You can't be a the "... those were the people who best supported markets.", and not be a Neo-Liberal, which is an entire ideology of Marketization. Her own words mark her out as well as my description of her as LITERALLY A warrior in the Reagan Revolution and writing for the Heritage Foundation.

The bare minimum would be that you, you know, aren't a person looking out for whose best for the Markets. Which is her own words.

Sorry, a general "believes in markets" isn't an accurate description of Neoliberalism. The Keynesian consensus that dominated before the 'Neoliberal' era was still a market-based philosophy. The major difference being that the New Deal era Democrats used and regulated markets for specific goals- like the prosperity of the middle class- whereas the Neoliberals' philosophy is more of a 'the market knows best, therefore deregulate.' I agree with @downnola. To lump (today's) Warren in with Neolibs like Reagan or Friedman is to fundamentally make the work 'Neoliberal' meaningless.

[Blur4stuff]

So, if we accept this logic, as a question, does this mean NOT voting or just simply not voting for Biden or Trump is not automatically a vote for Trump?

I ask because you can't both argue "Trump didn't win in 2016, most didn't vote for him!" Whilst also arguing anyone not voting Biden is voting for Trump.

I'm pointing out that the majority of the American people did not back Trump and even less do now. The American people did not choose Trump.

[downnola]

Sorry, a general "believes in markets" isn't an accurate description of Neoliberalism. The Keynesian consensus that dominated before the 'Neoliberal' era was still a market-based philosophy. The major difference being that the New Deal era Democrats used and regulated markets for specific goals- like the prosperity of the middle class- whereas the Neoliberals' philosophy is more of a 'the market knows best, therefore deregulate.' I agree with @downnola. To lump (today's) Warren in with Neolibs like Reagan or Friedman is to fundamentally make the work 'Neoliberal' meaningless.

If "wanting the market to work for the people" is neoliberalism then ho boy don't tell them about Sanders policies.

[Felya]

I ask because you can't both argue "Trump didn't win in 2016, most didn't vote for him!" Whilst also arguing anyone not voting Biden is voting for Trump.

Do you know the difference between the popular vote and state votes? Because Trump lost by 3 million, but won some states by a few thousand. Your “can’t” is a basic function of US elections... lol

- - - Updated - - -

If "wanting the market to work for the people" is neoliberalism then ho boy don't tell them about Sanders policies.

They don’t give a shit about Sanders... On day one and two of DNC, they kept talking about hearing Bloomberg and Kasinich, who are speaking on day 3 and 4... as some form of irony... not a peep of OAC and Bernie, who actually spoke on day 1 and 2... it’s ludicrous...

[Elegiac]

I love how yours and by extension Milcshake's jab at me I guess is to claim "Psstt, people who criticize us are poor and not important movers and shakers". But hey, that's what the Democratic Party is now, it serves the class of people for whom wealth and social status are important measures of a humans worth. In short, there could be no dunk more Neo-Liberal in political nature than that one. But thank you for confirming my take on the DNC for me.

Your self-ownage is delicious.

Yeah, no.

It's not criticism of people for "being poor and not influential", it's criticism of Rent types; people who are socioeconomically well off but choose to espouse extremist positions in the class struggle for the purposes of making a self-interested aesthetic statement. In this case it's an instance of people trying to reconcile their desire to lead highly traditionalist lives but still appear to be progressive on the surface.

Moo with me...

[Gestopft]

If "wanting the market to work for the people" is neoliberalism then ho boy don't tell them about Sanders policies.

Exactly. Sanders is basically the modern iteration of a New Deal Democrat. He's not even trying to socialize the means of production.

[Elegiac]

Yikes not the people bitching about "cancel culture crucifying people for positions they held decades ago" being absolute hypocrites by insisting people can't evolve in their political viewpoints as they grow and learn in my Christian Gen-OT thread.

[Theodarzna]

Exactly. Sanders is basically the modern iteration of a New Deal Democrat. He's not even trying to socialize the means of production.

Yes, Sanders is a moderate. Finally you are seeing things more clearly.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pointing out that the majority of the American people did not back Trump and even less do now. The American people did not choose Trump.

Exactly, the majority didn't vote or voted for someone else. Conversely the majority either didn't vote or didn't vote for Hillary.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, a general "believes in markets" isn't an accurate description of Neoliberalism. The Keynesian consensus that dominated before the 'Neoliberal' era was still a market-based philosophy. The major difference being that the New Deal era Democrats used and regulated markets for specific goals- like the prosperity of the middle class- whereas the Neoliberals' philosophy is more of a 'the market knows best, therefore deregulate.' I agree with @downnola. To lump (today's) Warren in with Neolibs like Reagan or Friedman is to fundamentally make the work 'Neoliberal' meaningless.

That's her own words, her own self description.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, here's a citation: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp



It's not mere rhetoric, it's a widely accepted definition of a word that you're wildly misusing.

Milton Friedman was a neoliberal. Elizabeth Warren is directly opposed to the sorts of policies that Friedman wanted. The fact that Warren doesn't want to dismantle markets as we know them and nationalize all of the farms doesn't mean she's a Reaganite.

I also don't care about what she said decades ago, I care about her current policies and what she says now, especially when she admits she was wrong in the past.

Again, Warren's own words:

"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore. I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role."

(source)

Her own description, "What is best for Markets", that isn't Theo Conjecture or anything, thats a quote by Warren. Her reason for being a Democrat? She believes it serves the Market better.

- - - Updated - - -

A significant contingent of Democrats are against the market worship part, and the parts that still do are at least trying to alleviate in some small way the problems caused by markets (a point which you continually undersell).

The Republicans have a gaping intellectual hole filled with donor money.

I will give you some sort of credit- I don't think the liberals/progressives on this forum appreciate the fact that there are people who are socially conservative and economically left, and that in some ways said combination better represents the 'middle voter' that 'vague centrism.' Unfortunately, most of the intellectual 'leaders' of this anti-free market conservatism are fucking theocrats, so there's that...

That contingent of Democrats just got crushed and told to go F' themselves. Sanders lost remember?

[Elegiac]

That contingent of Democrats just got crushed and told to go F' themselves. Sanders lost remember?

I mean, Sanders and AOC are still highly prominent figures and are still participating in the party at large.

The contingent of "Democrats" that 'got crushed' are the political arsonists who were never going to vote for anyone besides their hype candidate be it Bernie, Yang, or Gabbard and are trying to console themselves over the fact that their internet stanning didn't translate to actual votes by spreading agitprop, as arsonists are wont to do.

[Felya]

Again, Warren's own words:

"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore. I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role."

(source)

Her own description, "What is best for Markets", that isn't Theo Conjecture or anything, thats a quote by Warren. Her reason for being a Democrat? She believes it serves the Market better.

Do you really think using her talking about how she used to believe this, to show why her no longer believing it, is well thought out... as confirmation that she still believes it? Are you fucking kidding me?

The italic is literally not what she said...

[Elegiac]

Do you really think using her talking about how she used to believe this, to show why her no longer believing it, is well thought out... as confirmation that she still believes it? Are you fucking kidding me?

Again:

> Cancel culture is bad because it holds people to an unreasonable standard by threatening to crucify them for views they haven't expressed in decades because "righthink".

> Elizabeth Warren is bad because she said she was a Republican (past tense) despite the fact she has been a long time member of the Democratic Party up until the present.

We're talking to someone who holds both to be true simultaneously. The dishonesty is so obvious it's painful - all we're missing is complaining Warren sets a bad standard for women because she's too combative and shrill, lol.