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

[Valjean]

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

America was founded as an experiment in enlightenment values.

 

[Magic Man]

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

America was founded to be independent from Britain. It was not founded to be separate from Europe, and there was no such thing as "neo-Marxist", no matter what you're trying to use the term to mean. And why America was founded is irrelevant. It's 250 years later.

 

[LeftyLen]

America was founded to be independent from Britain. It was not founded to be separate from Europe, and there was no such thing as "neo-Marxist", no matter what you're trying to use the term to mean. And why America was founded is irrelevant. It's 250 years later.

neo-marxist refers to the mutation of Marxist from economic to cultural, The 'Frankfort School of Marxism' from formed the templet of woke dogma. In Europe was the philosophy of the 'enlightenment' was realized, and enacted in America which was in the writings of the Founders soundly a departure from European monarchy's etc. history 101

 

[Magic Man]

neo-marxist refers to the mutation of Marxist from economic to cultural,

OK, so you mean "cultural marxist", the buzzword of the right that is basically just another way of saying "woke", but you think it sounds better because it sounds more educated.

The 'Frankfort School of Marxism' from formed the templet of woke dogma.

Ah, there it is, thank you.

In Europe was the philosophy of the 'enlightenment' was realized, and enacted in America which was in the writings of the Founders soundly a departure from European monarchy's etc. history 101

None of that made any sense. America's founding fathers followed the Enlightenment. They specifically set things up based on Enlightenment principles. They did not set things up to be a departure from Europe or "neo-Marxism" that didn't even exist.

 

[LeftyLen]

OK, so you mean "cultural marxist", the buzzword of the right that is basically just another way of saying "woke", but you think it sounds better because it sounds more educated.

Ah, there it is, thank you.

None of that made any sense. America's founding fathers followed the Enlightenment. They specifically set things up based on Enlightenment principles. They did not set things up to be a departure from Europe or "neo-Marxism" that didn't even exist.

The point is Europe and America were separated, America seen as a 'city on a hill' or the 'new Jerusalem' Yes the enlightenment was formulated in Europe, then realized in America. Back then America was divorced from Europe, then the monarchy. 100 years later the 'European ideas of Freud, Darwin Marx were seen as an invasion as well.

 

[Koldo]

The poor and working class don't owe the Democrats loyalty. The Democrats seem more interested in cultural issues than in the poor and working class. The only reason they vote Democratic is because under the Republicans things would be worse for them. It's like voting for the parent who neglects you over the parent who will abuse you in a custody battle. It's sad and unjust.

Liberal Democrats really don't like the poor or working class. They look down on the working class who they believe are uneducated because most of the poor and working class do not have a higher education. They think the poor and the working class are a distasteful nuisance that they would rather not be bothered with because the poor and working are low class scum to the liberal elites. The would rather focus on cultural and identity issues and just give lip service and false promises to the poor and working class to get their votes while doing nothing for them and instead choose to focus on cultural and identity issues.

Over and over again in every election cycle it is a choice between being neglected by the Democrats or being abused and neglected by the Republicans. We traditionally vote for the lesser of two evils like it is someting normal - like something we deserve. But things can change.

How? Voter's Unions. Threaten to vote in blocs. The creation of nonpartisan community based and lead voter's unions focus solely on economic issues would crush the Democrats and their hypocrisy. People engaged in identity politics already understand the power of collective action and voting as a bloc to achieve specific goals. The principle behind a Voter's Union isn't new; it's about applying the same strategy more broadly to include the economic and social issues that affect the poor and working class. This way we turn the tables against them and take the spotlight for the worker! No longer will we be ignored, no longer will we accept their crumbs, no longer will we sacrifice our economic well being for the sake of others who look down upon us. It's time that our issues get addressed. Issues that have been long been neglected. Issues such as:

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.

We keep them focus on our needs and don't let them get distracted on issues that csn't feed us. Will keep a political scorecard like the NRA does to show how politicians align with our concerns. It might even make republicans align more closely to us in order to win our votes. We will be a nonpartisan voter's Union. It constitutes a threat to the Democratic status quo. We need to stop their neglect and lip service and force them to work for us - the worker.


View attachment 95197

Here is a better plan: Start by breaking the republican party. You need to make the entire political spectrum shift towards the left before the democrats feel the need to do what you want.

 

[Magic Man]

The point is Europe and America were separated, America seen as a 'city on a hill' or the 'new Jerusalem' Yes the enlightenment was formulated in Europe, then realized in America. Back then America was divorced from Europe, then the monarchy. 100 years later the 'European ideas of Freud, Darwin Marx were seen as an invasion as well.

The point is Europe and America were and are only separated geographically. They've always been close as far as culture and society goes. America was not divorced from Europe or the ideas of Freud, Darwin or Marx.

 

[LeftyLen]

The point is Europe and America were and are only separated geographically. They've always been close as far as culture and society goes. America was not divorced from Europe or the ideas of Freud, Darwin or Marx.

Then your issue is with the Founders, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin and the others. As to far later Freud is in slow decline(but not Jung) Darwin, or natural selection as a scientific methodology is robust as ever, however the caustic aberrancy of 'social Darwinism' influenced leftism, as did Marx, the most vile ideology in history.

 

[Valjean]

Then your issue is with the Founders, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin and the others. As to far later Freud is in slow decline(but not Jung) Darwin, or natural selection as a scientific methodology is robust as ever, however the caustic aberrancy of 'social Darwinism' influenced leftism, as did Marx, the most vile ideology in history.

Marx is a vile ideology? How? Why?
I hope your not connecting Marxism with the Bolshevism practiced in the USSR....

 

[LeftyLen]

Marx is a vile ideology? How? Why?
I hope your not connecting Marxism with the Bolshevism practiced in the USSR....

attempting to separate Marxism from any and all countries that attempted to enact it is futile. This is the notion that Marxism would work if 'the right people' tried it, or it has not ben enacted in the 'right way' yet.

 

[Magic Man]

Then your issue is with the Founders, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin and the others.

I have issues with them, but not regarding "separating from Europe", and this has nothing to do with your claim that they isolated us from Europe.

As to far later Freud is in slow decline(but not Jung) Darwin, or natural selection as a scientific methodology is robust as ever, however the caustic aberrancy of 'social Darwinism' influenced leftism, as did Marx, the most vile ideology in history.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything. It certainly isn't relevant to what we were talking about.

Also, there's nothing at all vile about Marx's theories. That's just your programming talking. You've been conditioned to hate him and anything "Marx", "communist", or "socialist".

 

[Magic Man]

attempting to separate Marxism from any and all countries that attempted to enact it is futile.

No, it's actually super easy, barely an inconvenience.

This is the notion that Marxism would work if 'the right people' tried it, or it has not ben enacted in the 'right way' yet.

No, it's the notion that you should engage Marx's writings as themselves, not as how people who agreed with them tried to implement systems based on them.

You'll have to do a lot better than this to explain why you think Marx's views are vile. Your response should at the very least show that you have some knowledge of what he actually said. Guilt by association won't work.

 

[Valjean]

attempting to separate Marxism from any and all countries that attempted to enact it is futile. This is the notion that Marxism would work if 'the right people' tried it, or it has not ben enacted in the 'right way' yet.

Anyone can call himself anything. Both Nazis and Bolshevics called them selves socialist. Scandanavia is called socialist. Judge them by their fruits, not the titles they confer on themselves. Marx and Engles never anticipated or would have advocated the government of Lenin or Stalin.

 

[LeftyLen]

Anyone can call himself anything. Both Nazis and Bolshevics called them selves socialist. Scandanavia is called socialist. Judge them by their fruits, not the titles they confer on themselves. Marx and Engles never anticipated or would have advocated the government of Lenin or Stalin.

scandanavia is not socialist, heavy government yes. The 'fruits' of marxism being anything but rotten have yet to be seen.. Cuba Venezuela

 

[LeftyLen]

No, it's actually super easy, barely an inconvenience.

No, it's the notion that you should engage Marx's writings as themselves, not as how people who agreed with them tried to implement systems based on them.

You'll have to do a lot better than this to explain why you think Marx's views are vile. Your response should at the very least show that you have some knowledge of what he actually said. Guilt by association won't work.

sounds good on paper. The ONLY viable test is in its implementation.

 

[Magic Man]

sounds good on paper. The ONLY viable test is in its implementation.

In other words, Marx's ideas are perfectly fine and not vile. I'm glad you agree. If you want to get into a discussion of societies that have made attempts at implementing some of his ideas, that's a separate discussion.

 

[Kathryn]

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.

Drawdown: Improving U.S. and Global Security Through Military Base Closures Abroad

The Biden administration should heed growing demands across the political spectrum to close overseas bases and pursue a strategy of drawing down the U.S. military posture abroad, bringing troops home, and building up the country’s diplomatic posture and alliances.

quincyinst.org

It costs somewhere between $10,000 and $40,000 per PERSON to move someone to an overseas base.

 

[Magic Man]

Drawdown: Improving U.S. and Global Security Through Military Base Closures Abroad

The Biden administration should heed growing demands across the political spectrum to close overseas bases and pursue a strategy of drawing down the U.S. military posture abroad, bringing troops home, and building up the country’s diplomatic posture and alliances.

quincyinst.org

It costs somewhere between $10,000 and $40,000 per PERSON to move someone to an overseas base.

Yes, you've claimed this before. It doesn't matter how much it costs. The question is whether Europe spending more on their militaries would mean the U.S. spending less on stuff like this. It was established earlier that it wouldn't because America would still want to maintain our presence in Europe.

So, we're back to you still having to defend the idea that Europe should spend more on their militaries so the U.S. doesn't have to spend so much on ours.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, you've claimed this before. It doesn't matter how much it costs. The question is whether Europe spending more on their militaries would mean the U.S. spending less on stuff like this. It was established earlier that it wouldn't because America would still want to maintain our presence in Europe.

So, we're back to you still having to defend the idea that Europe should spend more on their militaries so the U.S. doesn't have to spend so much on ours.

No, I don't have to defend it. It just makes sense, unless you don't believe that government spending makes any sense.

 

[Magic Man]

No, I don't have to defend it.

I mean, sure, you don't have to. Only if you want your claim to be taken seriously.

It just makes sense,

No, it doesn't "just make sense". You tried this before, and I explained that this doesn't work. If all you can say is "it just makes sense", you have no argument. If it made that much sense, you'd be able to back it up with more than "it just makes sense".

If the U.S. is going to keep military bases and personnel in Europe regardless of how much Europe spends on its militaries, then Europe's military spending doesn't affect America's.

unless you don't believe that government spending makes any sense.

I don't believe this makes sense. It's incoherent as writing. Government spending makes sense in a general sense. You'd have to specify certain government spending you don't think makes sense and why.

Also, whether or not the amount government spends on sending military personnel to Europe to live makes sense is irrelevant. You can make a case that they should spend less on that, but that has nothing to do with Europe's military spending, which is the topic of discussion right here.