That's a stupid talking point which you repeat endlessly. — fishfry

Typical Trump cultist response: the guy repeating Fox News talking points accuses his opponent of— wait for it— repeating “talking points.”

Predictable. :yawn:

Oh boy, I can’t wait to hear more from bland blowhards about how Walz is “too far left” and how Harris should move more to the “middle” because it’s super wise. The analysis is complicated and original, and definitely not stupid and boring.

@Mikie @180 Proof What's Trump's stance actually on the state level book bans in Utah, Tennessee, Idaho, and South Carolina?

I love how the US simply skips fascism and goes right back to medieval fedualism including witch hunts and book burning.

EDIT: and Lolita from Nabokov is still on there. As well as the Pillars of the Earth which sex scene definitely gave me a boner when I was a teenager.

What's Trump's stance actually on the state level book bans in Utah, Tennessee, Idaho, and South Carolina? — Benkei

I’ve heard nothing from him so far, but as you know he has no principles, so — like with project 2025 — if it becomes a political liability he may just dump it. But he’s tried to ban books himself, so I don’t think he cares one way or another.

I love how the US simply skips fascism and goes right back to medieval fedualism including witch hunts and book burning. — Benkei

Red states do that. Blue states like California and New York are quite different.

She's certainly moving right on some issues but not others. One example is the border where she's clearly just attached herself to the bipartisan border bill Trump killed. Walz it seems is going along with that pivot. — Mr Bee

That bill is a total fake. It's designed to codify the ongoing disaster but get Republicans to sign on to it. They wisely declined. And then Biden turned around and issued the executive orders he'd had the power to issue all along, and the numbers of crossers are being reduced just in time for the election, and showing that he didn't need the bill after all.

Same with her pivot on fracking. — Mr Bee

She was never against fracking. It's a Republican lie that she was ever against fracking. Also she was never the border czar. LOL. Orwelling retconning.

But you are agreeing with my point. Yes she is trying to tack to the center and renounce or deny many of her former leftist positions. So why pick a leftist as veep? That undermines her centrism.

That being said, she's still in favor of alot of the things that Walz did and is clearly not choosing to moderate on every single issue. I guess she's betting on labels being less important than the actual policies themselves. — Mr Bee

Both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases, and nobody's making a play for the center. Whichever one of them figures out that elections are decided in the center will win.

I do think Harris and Walz are better on the issues if you go into detail about them, which is why I think it could backfire if the GOP start attacking Walz for legalizing weed or giving Minnesota paid family leave. — Mr Bee

I think it's the tampons in the boys' room that's triggering some on the right. I actually don't even know much about his actual policies in office.

Trump and Vance are able to win on the issues if it's more vibes based though. People feel like the economy sucks because of high prices. — Mr Bee

All those new jobs are going to immigrants. That's why the job numbers look good but the workers are grumpy. It comes down to immigration, Trump's strongest issue and Kamala's weakest.

He should be hitting her on immigration. Instead he's yammering about her race. And the other day at a rally he attacked the Republican governor of Georgia. He's so undisciplined. He just can not focus on what's important. I think he's lost a step too. In 2016 when he insulted people he was funny. Now he's just angry. This race could go either way. The guy is 78 and he's looking every day of it lately.

What does Trump actually plan to do about it? Apparently drill more and flood the global market in oil to crash gas prices but that isn't gonna bring grocery prices down obviously. — Mr Bee

It'll bring energy prices down. Biden's energy policy, which is also Harris's, has been terrible. Americans know that.

Drill more and crash gas prices? You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a very good thing.

One thing that may make it worse is his idea for a 10% tariff on all imported goods (and 60% on Chinese goods), which if you believe that higher taxes means higher prices for the consumer as it trickles down, would obviously be inflationary to the average voter. Trump assures us that it's not inflationary somehow but... — Mr Bee

I'm on record against Trump's tariffs. They hurt American consumers, and then when other countries put tariffs on our goods in response, it hurts American producers.

Yeah that answer specifically was why I compared him to Bernie. He doesn't adopt the label like he does but he certainly doesn't shy away from it either. — Mr Bee

Like I say ... Kam tacks to the center and she picks a proud socialist as her veep. Bad pick. Not to mention today's Stolen Valor brouhaha. Walz is technically in violation of a Federal felony, one that he himself voted into law. Which by the way is a bad look for Kam's campaign in that the issue caught them by surprise. They should have vetted him more closely and been prepared to deal with the military stuff.

I hear it's about 50-50 in the betting markets. Kam's had a bad week because of Walz, but Trump's not really capitalizing.

I'm actually quite concerned for the country no matter who wins.

Typical Trump cultist response: the guy repeating Fox News talking points accuses his opponent of— wait for it— repeating “talking points.” — Mikie

What's weird isn't that you think I watch FOX News. It's that you think ANYONE watches FOX News. That's not where alt-news comes from, hasn't been for quite some time. There's a huge media ecosystem out there.

I can hear this on CNN — Mikie

So YOU'RE the last one watching CNN!

That bill is a total fake. It's designed to codify the ongoing disaster but get Republicans to sign on to it. They wisely declined. — fishfry

So some say on the right, but the bill is pretty popular based on the polling I've seen and some swing voter focus groups seem to be upset at Trump for what he did. Harris was smart to use it. They'll be running ads of Lankford saying it's a good bill from now until November. They're not gonna win on the issue of course but they can always muddle it and weaken an attack line.

But you are agreeing with my point. Yes she is trying to tack to the center and renounce or deny many of her former leftist positions. So why pick a leftist as veep? That undermines her centrism. — fishfry

Because labels don't matter as much over policies. She's getting rid of the unpopular policies while keeping the popular ones. People care about border security more but they probably don't want kids to starve in school. That's the problem with using a single label to describe a large set of unrelated beliefs.

Both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases, and nobody's making a play for the center. Whichever one of them figures out that elections are decided in the center will win. — fishfry

That implies that centrists always win which is certainly not true. The centrist coalition of Macron collapsed in France just recently to both the far-right and the far-left.

I think it's the tampons in the boys' room that's triggering some on the right. I actually don't even know much about his actual policies in office. — fishfry

It's a pretty extensive record (just coped and pasted a list I found online):

- universal free school meals
- legal weed
- carbon free electricity by 2040
- tax rebates for the working class up to $1,300 (making under $150k per year)
- 12 weeks paid family leave
- 12 weeks paid sick leave
- banned conversion therapy
- red flag laws for guns
- universal background checks for guns
- automatic voter registration
- free public college (under $80k)
- ban on PFAS (forever chemicals)
- $2.2 billion increase in k-12 school funding
- sectoral bargaining for nursing home workers
- opposed Wall St bailouts in 2008
- voted against outsourcing deals
- supports lifting a moratorium on nuclear energy in Minnesota
- 100% rating from Planned Parenthood
- banned non-compete clauses
- raised minimum wage for small businesses
- raised taxes on multinational corporations
- protected gender affirming care
- banned medical providers from withholding care over debt
- protected construction workers from wage theft
- massive Minnesota infrastructure bill
- backed the Iran deal

I don't think you'll like all of them but there's a reason why progressives wanted him.

He should be hitting her on immigration. Instead he's yammering about her race. And the other day at a rally he attacked the Republican governor of Georgia. He's so undisciplined. He just can not focus on what's important. I think he's lost a step too. In 2016 when he insulted people he was funny. Now he's just angry. This race could go either way. The guy is 78 and he's looking every day of it lately. — fishfry

In 2016 he was a new face and people at the very least loved that he shook up politics. Nowadays he's old news which is why I think he's likely to lose. The fundamental contrast in this race where it's old vs. new just doesn't work out to his benefit where it did with Biden when it was strength vs weakness or with Clinton when it was the outsider vs the corrupt insider. Kamala may not be the best candidate but she's a new face in a race where people wanted anything but Biden or Trump again, and that will probably be what will convince those undecided swing voters at the end of the day. People hated the status quo in 2016 and thought they had nothing to lose if they elected Donald, even if they had serious reservations about him.

It'll bring energy prices down. Biden's energy policy, which is also Harris's, has been terrible. Americans know that. — fishfry

People aren't complaining about that as much now. They're complaining about the price of groceries which haven't really gone down with gas and likely won't if it goes down any further.

Like I say ... Kam tacks to the center and she picks a proud socialist as her veep. Bad pick. Not to mention today's Stolen Valor brouhaha. Walz is technically in violation of a Federal felony, one that he himself voted into law. Which by the way is a bad look for Kam's campaign in that the issue caught them by surprise. They should have vetted him more closely and been prepared to deal with the military stuff. — fishfry

Certainly seems like they moved on from tampons and the BLM riots, though we'll see how effective this line of attack is. As a layperson who understands nothing about the military, this whole tactic just comes across as a little gross. If this were a case of Walz just outright lying about being in the military entirely then I can understand but it seems like they're splitting hairs about whether he was in combat or not and seemingly undermining the decades of service he's done otherwise. That and the fact that their guy actively avoided the Vietnam draft due to bonespurs yet feels like he can attack war heroes for what they've done.

The realization that Harris is running a virtual campaign is setting in. No policy, no interviews, flip-flopping on past views like the banning of fracking…no one knows what she thinks or believes except Kamala. The only principles one can glean from her stump speeches is the same hopey-changey piffle we’ve all heard before. It’s a shame some people love that stuff as much as they fall for it.

But forget grass-roots. The Harris campaign and the media have worked together to form a movement of pure astroturf. Her free concerts dressed up to look like rallies proves she has a lot of money to toss around, and she can garner what appear to be supporters so long as the payoff is worth it, but the sponsor of the infamous Green New Deal is not much different than the once-failed presidential candidate of 2020 except that this time she’s the anti-Trump movement’s last hope. Like how quickly Harris believed Jussie Smollete, that movement will swallow anyone and anything to keep their folk devil out of office.

So far no leaks, no policy, no hard-hitting interviews—for all we know she’s the great communo-fascist Trojan horse we’ve all been waiting for. But they can only keep a lid on it for so long.

I actually don't even know much about his actual policies in office. — fishfry

Shocking.

So far no leaks, no policy, no hard-hitting interviews—for all we know she’s the great communo-fascist Trojan horse we’ve all been waiting for. But they can only keep a lid on it for so long. — NOS4A2

We can only hope she's a communist.

Development in polling numbers look positive.

We can only hope she's a communist.

Why?

Read Marx' Capital, Piketty's Capitalism in the 21st century and his Capitalism and Ideology and get back to me when you've got some good arguments against what they write. Until then communism is the obvious answer to almost every global problem we currently face.

History is the greatest argument against communism. Get back to me when you have learned some.

The dumb answer for idiots who can't read or think for themselves and just parrot what everybody around them repeats.

You’re telling me to go read Marx while accusing me for being unable to think for myself. I’ve read Marx I’ve read his critics, and his critics won. But I also know history and everyone except you has watched your communism fail spectacularly in every instance. So can you give me any reason besides reading Marx that one might want a communist to rule?

The fact that you equate communism with what Marx wrote is proof you haven't read his books. Thank you for playing. Goodbye liar.

Looks like she has a good chance of winning. Whodda thunk it?

.

Piketty's Capitalism in the 21st century — Benkei

Concise summary: wealth inequality (wealth or capital versus income) is high and rising,

What is to be done: global agreement to tax the rich.

Obviously, this is the exact opposite of what the Party formerly known as "Republican" advocates and practices.





.

What is to be done: global agreement to tax the rich. — Fooloso4

I used to think in those terms too: property tax on the wealthy. Now I'd say there's just no way to do that. I'm presently reading a book about the early Iron Age. Time goes by, revolutions happen pretty regularly, either from external or internal events. Our world will be the same

I asked why you hoped Kamala would be communist, and you told me to go read Das Kapital to come back with some arguments. Now you’re chastising me for equating Marx with communism.

Yes, we haven't seen communism yet. Except for before industrialisation.

I think that incremental change is possible. We already have a global economy. We may not be able to get to the point of global agreement but we can impose tariffs and wealth taxes on those who move capital from place to place in order to avoid paying taxes.

Tariffs?

If there cannot be global agreement to tax the rich, individual countries can impose taxes through tariffs. It might be argued that this puts the burden on those who are not wealthy, but if a company is going to pass on costs to the consumer it will do so whether that tax is in the form of a tariff or not.

If there cannot be global agreement to tax the rich, individual countries can impose taxes through tariffs. It might be argued that this puts the burden on those who are not wealthy, but if a company is going to pass on costs to the consumer it will do so whether that tax is in the form of a tariff or not. — Fooloso4

Placing tariffs causes tariff wars. That's partly how the Great Depression started. That did redistribute wealth, but not for long.

My point was not to defend tariffs. It was an example of a way to gain compliance without the unreasonable expectation that people will change.

Yes, we haven't seen communism yet. Except for before industrialisation.

There are plenty of examples of people trying to bring it about, though. They turned out to be all shit-holes.

Yes, I'm sure in your warped world this is the case. Never mind labour associations, EH&S regulations and labour laws that labour associations fought for, their support of women's suffrage, Mondragon and other cooperations, international movements like Via Campesina, etc. All you think communism entails is what they tried in Russia and China but I ask you where was the common control of the means of production there? It never existed. As I said, you have no fucking clue because you haven't read his work.