How the Poor and Working Class Can Finally Break the Democratic Party.

[Valjean]

1. The Libertarian Party suffers most from one problem, relevance. 2. fear-mongering? All statism is parasitic, its the natural tendency of governments that establish liberty to then enact more and more laws, regulations to take away those Libertys.

To take away liberty, or to protect citizens from fraud, theft, and the dangers of pollution, hazardous conditions, &c?

the right fears government, the left fears corporations.

The Right fears disorder and dissent, and would suppress them with draconian social controls.
Corporations want profits and an inexpensive, compliant workforce. They would stifle freedom just as effectively as an autocrat by making compliance necessary for survival.

Larger and larger 'government ' to protect people from various enemies, real and unreal. Real liberal was about a 'safety net' for the working class. Todays Democrats are woke leftists keeping alive the Marxist paradigm forever of victim-oppressor.

The "government," in a democracy, is supposed to be us. It's supposed to be a social service collective.
I don't see where you're coming up with all this Marxist stuff.

Cant afford a roof over their head/ yes, due to mass uncontrolled spending by the democrats.

The Republicans spend more than the Democrats, if you check the actual records. They just blame it on the Democrats.

Existing housing is being bought up by corporate investment firms. New, low-cost housing is not being built -- there's little profit in it. There's high demand and low supply. The investment firms can charge exorbitant rents, and they set the regional rental prices.
This is all fine with Republicans. It's private. It's free trade. It's Reaganomic Neoliberalism.

Republican Neoliberals don't like to spend money on things that don't turn a profit -- like housing, education, social programs or infrastructure.
Democrats believe these expenses are necessary

It is the free enterprise system that has uplifted millions out of poverty, not endless parasitic government programs. You cannot spend your way out of recession. look at the mass exodus from California and other blue states, i am one of them.

The privatized free enterprise system has driven millions into poverty, and is decimating the middle class, while enriching only a few.
There were no homeless encampments or beggars on the streets when I was growing up, housing and education were affordable. I got two college degrees with a part time job as a short order cook, and no loans.

You can spend your way out of poverty. Remember Roosevelt's New Deal?

 

[Brickjectivity]

How? Voter's Unions. Threaten to vote in blocs.

1. Affordable Housing: We're drowning in high rents and ****ty living conditions.
2. Healthcare Access: We’re buried under medical bills and lack decent insurance.
3, Wages and Job Security: We’re working our asses off for peanuts and can’t even rely on our jobs.
4. Education: Our kids are stuck in crappy schools while we’re buried in student debt.
5. Transportation: Public transit is a joke and getting to work costs a fortune.
6. Food Security: We’re struggling to put healthy food on the table.
7. Utilities: The costs of keeping the lights on and staying warm are sky-high.
8. Childcare: Finding affordable, quality childcare feels like a goddamn miracle.
9. Social Services: Unemployment benefits and disability support are a cruel joke.
10. Debt Relief: We’re suffocating under personal debt and being preyed upon by lenders.
11. Workplace Rights: Our jobs are unsafe, we get no paid leave, and unions are a distant dream.
12. Crime and Safety: We’re exposed to crime with nothing but empty promises of protection.
13. Mental Health Services: Affordable mental health care is practically nonexistent.
15. Environmental Issues: Pollution and unsafe living conditions are a daily reality.
16. Legal Aid: We can’t afford legal help when we need it most.
17. Economic Inequality: The wealth gap is growing while we get left further behind.
18. Public Safety: We deal with police violence and inadequate emergency services.

Its an interesting idea, but how would you make it work and undermine the current 2 party system?

Sometimes workers unions vote in blocks, but they have to make their voting decision based upon support for their own jobs and not other issues. You have listed 18 issues, many of them welfare. Both of the big 2 parties have a position on most of these issues. They care about *everything* meaning nothing. How will your voting block be different if it cares about so many issues at one time?

The reason why we have 2 parties is that there is no power-sharing built in. If you vote for a small party like the Greens, your chosen candidate will most likely have no say in government. They won't get 20% of voice in government. They'll get no voice. A voting block is discouraged and weak, unless it can get over half of the votes in a race. That means the voting system compells us towards 2 parties, a loser and a winner, every time. There cannot be 2, 3, 4 winners.

 

[Kathryn]

It could what? You're talking about the U.S. taking measures to save money on their bases and troops in Europe. Not removing those things. The bases and troops would stay, so Europe spending more on their militaries has nothing to do with this. I'm not concerned right now with the U.S. finding ways to save money. I'm concerned with your claim about Europe's spending.

The US/Europe military spending gig has never been tried. Do you know what costs are involved in moving entire families to Europe by the way? Second time I've asked that question.

 

[Kathryn]

LOL The military is not getting more "woke." What a load.

Oh yes it is. It's gotten a LOT more shall we say "progressive" over the past few years than it used to be, as have colleges. Ask me how I know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

it is commen in third world countries to go after and imprison opposing candidates, and that is just what the weaponized judiciary system did. Yess Trump having sex with a 14 year old and getting her pregnant was disgusting, of wait that was Thomas Jefferson

This was in response to, "If you want to be ignorant about what's going on the rest of the world, so be it.
I choose not to do so.
I was just pointing out that what some Americans consider "left" is no where near it, in comparison to much of the rest of the world.

Trump is most definitely not the lessor of two evils, imo. I could never bring myself to support a civilly liable sexual abuser, a convicted felon (34 counts) and lifelong fraud as the leader of my country."

 

[Valjean]

It was a Republican, Eisenhower who warned of the industrial military complex, such influence has led to superfluous military conflicts.

Yes, the Republicans were radical leftists back then, by today's standards. See post #19.
Unfortunately, we have not heeded his warning. There's just too much profit to be made by this complex, plus it's useful in enforcing US hegemony and reaping more profit for corporations.
Since WWII we've been involved in perpetual conflicts all over the globe, mostly for corporate profit.

 

[Valjean]

• 65 million in the People's Republic of China
• 20 million in the Soviet Union
• 2 million in Cambodia
• 2 million in North Korea
• 1.7 million in Ethiopia
• 1.5 million in Afghanistan
• 1 million in the Eastern Bloc
• 1 million in Vietnam
• 150,000 in Latin America
• 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power

• The execution of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners
• The murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922
• The Russian famine of 1921 which caused the death of 5 million people
• The decossackization, a policy of systematic repression against the Don Cossacks between 1917 and 1933
• The murder of tens of thousands in the Gulag during the period between 1918 and 1930
• The Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
• The dekulakization, resulting in the deportation of 2 million so-called kulaks from 1930 to 1932
• The death of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
• The deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldovans, and people from the Baltic states from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
• The deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
• The deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1944
• Operation Lentil and deportation of the Ingush in 1944

What does all this have to do with "The Left?"

 

[Magic Man]

The US/Europe military spending gig has never been tried.

You'll have to be a lot more specific.

Do you know what costs are involved in moving entire families to Europe by the way? Second time I've asked that question.

Did you not see the part where this has nothing to do with anything? If the U.S. is going to keep the military presence in Europe regardless of how much Europe spends on its military, then the costs of doing so are irrelevant to your point about wanting Europe to spend more, so America can spend less.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh yes it is. It's gotten a LOT more shall we say "progressive" over the past few years than it used to be, as have colleges. Ask me how I know.

"Progressive" is not "woke", and neither institution has gotten progressive or woke. The military has begrudgingly moved with the times to some degree, but that's just the nature of time and progress. Is it "progressive" or "woke" that the military is desegregated?

And colleges have gotten neither more progressive or "woke" in the past few years. Colleges have always been more progressive than society at large. That's the nature of education. When you learn things and are exposed to new ideas and cultures, you tend to be more open-minded.

And frankly, I don't care why you think what you do.

 

[Kathryn]

"Progressive" is not "woke", and neither institution has gotten progressive or woke. The military has begrudgingly moved with the times to some degree, but that's just the nature of time and progress. Is it "progressive" or "woke" that the military is desegregated?

And colleges have gotten neither more progressive or "woke" in the past few years. Colleges have always been more progressive than society at large. That's the nature of education. When you learn things and are exposed to new ideas and cultures, you tend to be more open-minded.

And frankly, I don't care why you think what you do.

Likewise, I'm sure.

Otherwise I won't bother answering either of these comments since you have made things really clear.

 

[Kathryn]

You'll have to be a lot more specific.

Did you not see the part where this has nothing to do with anything? If the U.S. is going to keep the military presence in Europe regardless of how much Europe spends on its military, then the costs of doing so are irrelevant to your point about wanting Europe to spend more, so America can spend less.

Oh good grief, it only makes sense that if they spend more, we should spend less. But of course making sense isn't everyone's strong suit.

 

[Magic Man]

Likewise, I'm sure.

Otherwise I won't bother answering either of these comments since you have made things really clear.

Thank you. I thought I did a good job of clarifying the issue for you.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh good grief, it only makes sense that if they spend more, we should spend less.

No, it doesn't. That's based on the assumption that our spending depends on theirs. You have yet to give an example of why that's true. You attempted to with the idea of not having so many bases and troops stationed over there, but then that was shot down (pardon the pun).

Our military spending isn't based on Europe's.

But of course making sense isn't everyone's strong suit.

That's true. You're doing a great job of showing that here. "Duh, because it just makes sense!" isn't an argument. If it made that much sense, you'd be able to support it easily.

 

[We Never Know]

Thank you. I thought I did a good job of clarifying the issue for you.

You didn't actually. For it to be irrelevant as you claim you first have to show that if Europe increased their military spending that the US wouldn't decrease theirs even if just a little.
They may or may not.

 

[Magic Man]

You didn't actually. For it to be irrelevant as you claim you first have to show that if Europe increased their military spending that the US wouldn't decrease theirs even if just a little.
They may or may not.

You seem to be confused. Kathryn was claiming that if Europe increased their military spending, the U.S. would decrease theirs. It's up to her to show that her claim is accurate. It's not up to me to prove her wrong.

Besides, the post you quoted was about a completely different topic: whether the military and colleges have gone "woke" or "progressive" in the last few years. I cleared that up, as I said.

 

[Willamena]

Today identity politics, woke leftists have replaced liberals with neo-Marxists (aka cultural Marxists, it cannot get more left than that. loons like AOC and far left Bernie Saunders have nothing in common with the Democrat party of a generation ago. *) (sic)

Okay, but Bernie and AOC don't define the Democrats, nor the left.

 

[LeftyLen]

Okay, but Bernie and AOC don't define the Democrats, nor the left.

They are about as left as one can be without openly stating they are Marxists. The democrat party is now center left

 

[Magic Man]

They are about as left as one can be without openly stating they are Marxists.

Only by American standards. By normal standards (as in the standards of most of the west), they're either centrists or barely to the left.

 

[LeftyLen]

Only by American standards. By normal standards (as in the standards of most of the west), they're either centrists or barely to the left.

"normal"? America was founded to be separate from Europe, along with Europe's monarchies and now neo-Marxist dogmas.

 

[anna.]

6. Food Security: We’re struggling to put healthy food on the table.

What party did this senator arguing against free school lunches belong to again? Which party made free school lunches possible?

I used to work in a public elementary school office in an economically struggling neighborhood. I knew personally kids who came to school hungry, who would not have had any food to eat if the school didn't provide it for them. Any lawmaker like this one here, literally making fun of the idea of child hunger, doesn't deserve his public office. Shame on him.