No: I'm not saying to embrace their talking points, in saying they shouldn't play into them....I'm not saying Republican proposals should be embraced, but I definitely reject "no compromise" attitudes, whether it's from the "tea party" Republicans or a progressive mirror image — Relativist

When differences between parties are so far removed from one another ideologically, compromise as such becomes a major liability. What is there to compromise over when one party is firmly anti-abortion, anti-public healthcare, anti-climate change policy, and are morally content with concentration camps at the border fueled by racist ethno-nationalism? Obama believed in compromising with the GOP despite the outright rejection they received at the polls in 2008, which should have solidified outright dominance for the Democratic party.

Members of the GOP understand this precisely, McConnell most of all. McConnell understands that American politics is split in an ideological way that, maybe outside the 60s, has no historical precedent, and that the GOP is in the far more precarious position given that older generations that vote for the GOP are dying and younger generations are far more liberal, which means that their voter base is shrinking over time. This is also true of shifting ethnic demographics - America is becoming less and less white, and more and more diverse, and ethnic minorities are more likely to vote Dem. It goes without saying that this is very bad in the long term for the GOP, and when they can't win by democratic means, they will resort to fascist control. For major policies, McConnell and his party have no agreements with the Democrats. They don't agree on providing universal healthcare, they want to over turn Roe v. Wade, they don't want a progressive taxation, the GOP senate in Oregon literally fled the state rather than appear for a vote regarding climate change, they are perpetual war hawks, etc. Given this, McConnell understands that any compromise with the Democrats will only damage his own party - what does he have to gain - and so he's jumped head first into Machiavellian politics. He blocked Obama's judicial nominees, the most prominent being a seat for the Supreme Court, which will have huge repercussions for generations, even after the GOP theoretically becomes a defunct political party who citizens don't elect to the legislative or executive branch. McConnell then went on to fill those vacant seats with conservative judges - unelected Government officials who have the power to strike down progressive legislation drafted by members of Congress elected to represent the will of a more progressive American polity.

All this circle-jerking over "compromise" displays a vast ignorance over what modern American politics has become.

Do the Democrats and other anti-Trumpers here feel worried about the national polls regarding matchups between Trump and leading Democrats? I mean, Trump is polling right now exactly where he landed at in November 2016. Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million, but Trump won the states he needed to. He is very popular here in Wisconsin (he is also just as unpopular I suppose). The Russians and Saudis continue to troll for him, and there is so much disinformation on the social media platforms. Not to mention that Mitch McConnell refuses to bring legislation to protect our voting systems to the floor of the Senate.

I really would not be surprised if Trump gets re-elected. And if he does, I’m afraid our country will never be the same again. — Noah Te Stroete

There was an article in the NYT a day or so ago that said it was completely possible for Trump to lose the popular vote by 5M and still win the EC and be re-elected.

More rhetoric...

Meh. — creativesoul

um ok

The "socialist" bugaboo may very well turn off swing voters- and that is exactly the strategy the Republicans are already using. — Relativist

Right, the Republicans have been using this strategy since Obama was first elected. They called Hilary a socialist. They've been calling progressive "socialists" regardless of actual policy proposals since FDR. They call everyone a socialist to spur their own base. You can only cry wolf for so long until people wise up to it, and there is no justification to suggest that swing voters will automatically be persuaded by such a flagrantly dishonest tactic.

It will never get the needed 60 votes in the Senate. — Relativist

Sure, McConnell is a huge barrier to progressive legislation, but that's a completely different subject.

If they do NOT, their position will be defined by Republicans as being for open borders — Relativist

Ok so the Dems can just charge the GOP with creating racist concentration camps, which they are. Problem solved.

Your argument seems to be that democratic candidates should embrace Republican talking points and accept elements of their policy proposals. This is simply suicidal. Polling clearly shows that the Democratic base is open to progressive policies, and that some of these policies are also popular with independents. And even if they aren't, the GOP managed to get widely unpopular legislation passed and so there is no reason to assume the Dems can't either. ACA only had 40% approval and 50% disapproval in 2010. But guess what happened anyway.

What have I missed that matters? — creativesoul

Lots of things, but I'm not your private recapper

I've been out of the political news loop - intentionally - for quite a while. — creativesoul

Right, I said it shows

A lot of you don't read and it shows.

I have actually heard many well educated, normally well spoken, minority women and men say exactly that — creativesoul

Weird because he's viewed favorably by the Black, Hispanic, and Asian communities. More so than Whites, in fact.

Clinton was also....Clinton. who suffered from years of demonization. Lots of people voted against her, or didn't vote. Consider how low Trump's margin of victory was in key states - remove the anti-Hillary factor and you get a win — Relativist

Clinton was and continues to be demonized,sure, but you can't exclude her lackluster campaign and banal centrist policy proposals as a factor for her underwhelming performance.

And seriously, do you really think those issues I mentioned could pass? Is it worth taking a chance on them? — Relativist

When Trump ran on building a wall and demonizing immigrants did anyone ask this? Maybe, but yet he won despite a large majority opposing the wall and a majority of Americans believing that immigrants strengthen the nation. The GOP also passed major tax cuts despite more Americans disapproving than approving.

Most polls show that Medicare For All enjoys majority approval. No Democratic candidate is supporting an open border policy so I have no idea why you mention that. Reparations is more of a tertiary proposal rather than a focal one, but it's nevertheless has a split approval rating among Democrats, and notably has increased in popularity since 2014, even among Republicans.

McConnell called statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. "socialism" for fucks sake!!!

If you don't want Trump reelected, push for a centrist Democrat that will appeal to the working class — Relativist

This is so fucking funny because the Democrats nominated Clinton who was a centrist and she nevertheless lost, but sure let's just try again for a banal centrist Democrat with no actual ideas other than being anti-Trump. Two of the top polling Democratic candidates are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and many of the other candidates have had to mimic their Leftist politics to gain traction because that's exactly where the conversation within the Democratic party has been going towards, and needs to lean into.

The GOP will call literally anyone in the Democratic party a socialist. They will say that the Democratic nominee is calling for open borders regardless of the person's actually border proposals. They will say whatever the fuck they want about the Democratic candidate's policies around healthcare and taxation regardless of the actual content of their proposals. Where have you been in the last ten year? The GOP will lie and lie and lie in order to appeal and rally a segment of voters. Literally a decade ago they said that Obama's ACA would lead to "death panels". So are you kidding me? Who the fuck cares about GOP/Trump supporters and what they think? This sort of hand-wringing is what has helped lead to GOP political power despite being an essentially defeated party back in 2008.

The way to win is to animate the Democratic base is with actual progressive policy proposals on issues people actually care about, such as Climate Change, Income Inequality, Healthcare, and Gun Control (and what's interesting is how different the 2018 voter issues are compared with the 2014 issues here....Climate Change and Healthcare have become top concerns now).

Further, Independents need to be inspired. They weren't inspired by Clinton. Only 42% of Independent voters voted for Clinton vs. 46% who voted Trump. Compare this with Obama's inspirational and progressive campaign in 2008 when he won 52% of the Independent vote vs. McCain's 44%.

What's also funny (read: absurd, tragic, rip my eyeballs out) is that NO ONE is telling the GOP be more moderate in order to appeal to more voters. Trump's strategy in the past two years has been to double down in appealing to the voting bloc that elected him to office, at the expense of alienating his more skeptic voters. Attendants at his rally yesterday yelled "Send Her Back" towards an elected congresswoman who is an American citizen for fuck's sake. This is the only president since national polling came about, who has never achieved over 50% approval. We also just had a HUGE rebuke of Trumpism in the form of the Midterms where Democrats won the biggest seat turnover in Congress since the early 70s.

There is no point getting into a debate with someone who can't provide a single bit of justification from the onset.

not at all

Everyone is entitled to their own belief. — creativesoul

In this case, only if it can be substantiated.

I don't dispute the point that social mobility is nearly non-existent, or that worker wages have stagnated, that economic inequality has erupted, or that certain material gains such as buying a house is out of reach for many Americans. All that is undeniably true; most Americans feel economic anxiety. The question is whether or not these conditions have, in your words, "led up to Trump" or explain Trump. There is nothing to suggest that this is the case and this frequent talking point masks a pressing concern confronting the country: white racial antipathy and ethno-nationalism.

Sure, but economically marginalized people also voted for Clinton or supported Sanders so you're not making a meaningful point.

The problem with this analysis and explanation for Trump is that it is predominantly a materialist one, i.e. that people who voted for him did so because they wanted economic results. Myriad research shows, however, that there's no correlation between so called "economic anxiety" and voting for Trump. However, racial antipathy was correlated, and to a lesser extent, white racial solidarity. As I've said elsewhere, Trump's election was the result of the white identity, along with socio-cultural, economic, and political status slowly being questioned and balanced, and we are experiencing that backlash to this.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon by Marx
Theses on Feuerbach by Marx
The Limits of Capital by David Harvey

Yes, I love MARX

M - Marx
A - Always
R - Right
X - xoxo

I was being sarcastic.

Well, the professions you mention are in the business of trying to make people happy. — Wallows

At best, they are in the business of making or saving their customers money. Not "happy".

It's extremely terrifying how normalized white ethno-nationalism is becoming.

What's very frustrating about these types of polls on socialism is that the term is never defined for the people being polled, so there's only so much to take away from it.

When I think of people who have good, moral intentions and beliefs, I think economists, financiers, and accountants

If someone didn't know that Trump inherented a long growing economy with decreasing unemployment probably didn't know because their head was so far up their ass.

Ilhan Omar was born in Somalia

Trump Tells Four Democratic Congressmen of Color to 'Go Back' to the Countries They Came From. Three of four of them were born and raised in America.

Uh the Koch Brothers aren't Jewish

Goes to show how barren theology has become, when modern arguments for God are nothing more than restated millennium-old syllogisms

Nike has seen a 2% stock increase and added nearly $3 billion in market value since cancelling the kicks

Hey some of you should probably call the marketing department over at Nike and tell them how this doesn't make sense

This was also corroborated by a friend of the 13 year old girl who she told, and also by an associate of Epstein. Will have to look up the details again, but there is evidence that Trump did rape a 13 year old girl.

lmao

I'm simply explaining why Nike decided to pull the shoe from market, which is categorically different from being in favor of the decision or complaining about it, the latter of which is what most people here are doing.

What I would say is that Cioran doesn't really provide any arguments for or against suicide, but that, like existential absurdity itself, life as a problem isn't something to be solved, but simply to be endured. In that sense, Cioran would view a suicide as an optimist who has attempted to "solve" the problem of life.

So, a new way of doing business. Stir the country up with issues of racism, then watch the stock market.

If true it’s a dangerous precedent. Well, interesting, anyway, especially if you look at target audiences and their political views based on identity politics — Brett

Like I said, hilarious over-analyzing over what's in actuality a straightforward answer. One of Nike's biggest brand ambassadors criticized the design of a product and Nike pulled it. That's it. This isn't even about "identity politics". Nike's core audience is simply younger and more liberal than the general population.

And this actually just shows the absurdity of the whole issue. — ssu

A shoe was pulled from the market. It's not an actual "issue".

Yes, it suggests, for a moment, they were a bit casual about their core market and then pulled themselves into line again. A costly mistake.

Though we’ll never know what might or might not have happened to sales. — Brett

Nike's stock prices fell 0.03% on June 26th when the shoe was pulled from their online site, and exceeded the value prior to the drop less than a week later, so no probably wasn't a costly mistake.

Hilarious over-analyzing and indignation over what is a straightforward non-issue. Nike's core target audience is a younger demographic, around 16-34 years old, which is an overlap of two of the largest and heaviest consumer spending generations, Millennials and Gen Z, who are more likely to buy shoes, care about what shoes they wear, want to be hip and fashionable. According to a recent PEW survey, these generations are more - sometimes far more - liberal/progressive on social and political issues than older generations. Notably, a majority of Millennials and Gen Z (62% and 61%, respectively) approve of "players choosing to kneel during the national anthem as a form of protest", compared to the minority approval ratings of older generations (e.g., only 37% of Boomers approve). When Nike signed on Colin Kaepernick and prominently featured him on a controversial ad campaign, a poll found that "those 18 to 34 approving of Nike’s decision by a 67-21 margin, while voters 65 and older disapproved of the decision, 46 to 39 percent".

I won't say whether or not Colin Kaepernick is correct his view of the Betty Ross flag, or if Nike is correct in yielding to him, and pulling the product out of market, mostly because I don't care, but also because it is irrelevant to Nike's overarching brand strategy.

None of you are Nike's target audience so it's really funny that you think they should give a shit what you think

Grundrisse by Marx
Prison Notebooks by Antonio Gramsci

I always considered “[Atlas Shrugged]” to be a criticism of the users, the con men and bureaucrats that soak up taxpayers hard earned money. The way governments waste money and the way those who don’t earn it spend it. The waste that comes about from spending money you didn’t earn, and the waste that comes about from government behaving as if they know anything about business, behaving as if they’re a successful business because they have their hands on so much money, none of it earned by themselves. Obviously hostile to socialism: it’s easy to spend other people’s money until you run out of it. — Brett

The irony here is that a year after Atlas Shrugged was published (1957), DARPA was created by the US Government as a reaction to the Soviets launching Sputnik. DARPA was a key early funder of various military technology departments, and computer science departments including the early stages of the internet and human-computer interaction research, and was pivotal in providing preliminary research for tech and personal computer startups, such as Apple.

Cioran is one of my favorite philosophers, but if you want to understand his aphorisms it is more appropriate to understand them within 1) the context of the work in which it appears, since they are often thematic, and 2) within his overall anti-systemic philosophy, which only really goes through a major change from his very early work (viz. his Romanian works) and later works (French works). Quite of few of the aphorisms presented here, while seemingly incoherent or contradictory on their own are easily understandable within the context of his overall thought, which remained consistent from A Short History of Decay and beyond.

You list Emma Goldman and Antonio Gramsci as two of your favorite philosophers so if you can't figure out why Ayn Rand is garbage from that, I dunno what to tell you.