I’m none of those. Just a person that thinks for themselves and doesn’t let others think for me. I never said not to vote. I just realize that it won’t stop the fascism that’s coming.
Just finished listening to August Nimtz on Upstream podcast. He explains why voting for the lesser evil will always push the economy further right.
I don’t let others think for me…here’s the link to a podcast I got my ideas from.
So, is your galaxy-brain take here that voting for fascism leads to fascism, voting against fascism leads to fascism and not voting leads to fascism and all 3 get us there at the same time? I mean, that sure sounds like you’re saying not to vote.
I don’t doubt the guys credentials…but John Maynard Keynes was an author and Kings College fellow, and he got a lot of shit wrong, too.
Either there’s a lot of nuance that you filtered out of his theories, or the guy is playing the same game as Jordan Peterson (another author and professor who likes to talk out his ass).
The only logical conclusion of the argument you made was that voting has no economic or policy outcomes, and all democratic systems will inexorably lead to fascism. There is not sufficient evidence to support that claim.
John Money was a professor and owned his own practice but was found much later to have lied about his data. So being a professor doesn’t really mean anything. Why do you as a person believe this other person?
Until Jesus comes back and tells us the truth, which isn’t happening anytime soon, experts appointed by the rigors of science is the closest socially we can get to an arbiter of truth. Individuals may fail us, but the framework still holds value.
Could you summarize his reasoning? A podcast isn’t accessible for a lot of people browsing Lemmy. I’m also not prepared to simply defer to an “expert” when it comes to political science.
I’m skeptical. It doesn’t make much sense to me that the US would be further right under HRC than Trump, who caused a generational shift to the right and literally tried to overthrow the government. Or that the US would be further left under Trump than Biden. Under Biden, we’ve seen some of the most muscular regulation of corporations in a generation.
The North Korean defector in this meme is also celebrated by the alt-right for her “anti-woke” ramblings, which has me questioning this angle.
I’m not even sure what this means. Bill Clinton was not exactly pals with Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich. I’m not sure why or how Clinton would have ushered them into power. What was the devil we knew?
His premise is that both Democrats and Republicans are corporatists that will resort to fascism to stave off any movement from the worker class in America. He teaches political science. This has nothing to do with the North Korean meme lady.
Nothing you said supports the claim that voting for the “lesser evil” always pushes the economy further right.
Voting for abolition ended slavery. Voting for pro civil rights party got us civil rights. Voting for pro-labor politicians got us labor protections and the new deal. And in recent years, Trump oversaw the greatest transfer of wealth to the elite rich in history, while Biden has installed the most aggressively progressive FTC in a century. Against this history of obvious progress, what actual evidence does this guy cite?
It was obviously both. The violence without actually implementing the political policies would have been pointless.
Show me an example where voting for the lesser evil leads to the adoption of more right wing policies. That is the specific claim you are supposedly defending.
It’s not my opinion, it’s August Nimtz’s. I do agree with it though. FDR did the New Deal. Lincoln did the Emancipation, LBJ did civil rights. Public opinion was a factor, but it was the threat of social unrest that enacted them. As for the example of right wing policies, each Democrat caters to corporations. Maybe not as much as the Republicans, but they still do. After Reagan, we voted for the lesser evil Clinton, who did Welfare Reform and repealed Glass-Steagall. After Bush, we voted for the lesser evil Obama, and change. There was no change, he kept Bush’s surveillance state, did more drone strikes and the War on Terror. Promised healthcare, but borrowed it from Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Then after Trump, we settled for the lesser evil and Biden. Who promised his corporate funders that “nothing would fundamentally change.” We still don’t have healthcare, no campaign finance reform, no student loan forgiveness, scuttled a railroad strike, and is currently complicit in a genocide. If you think we are headed in the right direction; by all means vote for Biden. I see the systemic problems with the electoral duopoly and have no misconceptions that if we continue on this path, social unrest will facilitate the state to quell strikes, protests and riots. Business as usual never necessitates change, only the threat of violence from a social movement can do that. But we need to do that now, before it’s too late. I’m not telling you who to vote for, I will vote for Biden myself. But I’m under no illusion about the situation we are in, and what it takes to get out of it. I’m just disseminating information I found helpful and encouraging. It is better to be an informed electorate than an uninformed one.
You haven’t shown how Democrats led to a further move to the right compared to Republicans. For example, Obama tried to pass universal healthcare with a public option. Zero Republicans voted for it, and the public option was defeated by independent Joe Lieberman. If there were one more Democrat in the senate, we would’ve had universal healthcare.
Meanwhile, Republicans under Trump literally tried to repeal Obamacare. The reason why progressive policies don’t pass is NOT because too many people vote for Democrats, but because too few do.
The FTC has been in the news for proposing an extremely progressive legal theory of anti-trust called the New Brandeis school. They’ve sued Meta, Google, Microsoft, and many others on anti-trust grounds. Biden appointed the main and most progressive legal theorist behind the movement, Lina Khan, surprising even progressives.
We probably also need new legislation if and when democrats retake congress, but the will is certainly there if voters will reward it.
Really you can’t find a single one? What do you think the policies of the FTC in relation to what it will sue over is? It’s a regulation. Because it’s a regulatory agency regulating an industry. I honestly don’t even know what you would want the FTC to do. There is a consensus that they have been surprisingly active.
I don’t know what you think a “regulation” is, or what you mean by “crafting new ones”. Your question doesn’t make much sense to me.
If you’re asking in good faith and wanting to learn, not just win an internet argument, let’s get into it. The pro-corporate anti-trust standard since the Reagan years is called the “Consumer Welfare standard”. According to that standard, to simplify, a merger is bad if it leads to market inefficiency or higher prices for consumers. It’s a hyper libertarian standard. It is notoriously hard to prove and has led to massive concentration of the market.
The New Brandeis School takes a broader look at the market harms, such as harms to the labor market or to market platform choice. That means, to simplify, that a greater range of corporate behavior is deemed unacceptable that we’re previously considered fine. When corporations are found violating the new standard, they are sued by the FTC, and the courts decide the penalty. So your question doesn’t make sense. Change in enforcement regimes is what a regulation is.
Removed by mod
I’m none of those. Just a person that thinks for themselves and doesn’t let others think for me. I never said not to vote. I just realize that it won’t stop the fascism that’s coming.
Just finished listening to August Nimtz on Upstream podcast. He explains why voting for the lesser evil will always push the economy further right.
I don’t let others think for me…here’s the link to a podcast I got my ideas from.
So, is your galaxy-brain take here that voting for fascism leads to fascism, voting against fascism leads to fascism and not voting leads to fascism and all 3 get us there at the same time? I mean, that sure sounds like you’re saying not to vote.
He’s an expert and a professor, and I am sure he knows eating sausage causes heart disease. Who are you?
I don’t doubt the guys credentials…but John Maynard Keynes was an author and Kings College fellow, and he got a lot of shit wrong, too.
Either there’s a lot of nuance that you filtered out of his theories, or the guy is playing the same game as Jordan Peterson (another author and professor who likes to talk out his ass).
The only logical conclusion of the argument you made was that voting has no economic or policy outcomes, and all democratic systems will inexorably lead to fascism. There is not sufficient evidence to support that claim.
We will see. I didn’t come to this conclusion from one podcast. It’s been years of reading that did that.
That person you’re replying to sounds like someone who thinks for themself.
Are you upset because their way of thinking isn’t your way of thinking?
No, that’s fine.
Who are you?
Just a guy that reads and enjoys learning about political theory.
Do you listen to Jordan Peterson too?
He’s a professor and some might call an expert, too.
John Money was a professor and owned his own practice but was found much later to have lied about his data. So being a professor doesn’t really mean anything. Why do you as a person believe this other person?
Until Jesus comes back and tells us the truth, which isn’t happening anytime soon, experts appointed by the rigors of science is the closest socially we can get to an arbiter of truth. Individuals may fail us, but the framework still holds value.
Could you summarize his reasoning? A podcast isn’t accessible for a lot of people browsing Lemmy. I’m also not prepared to simply defer to an “expert” when it comes to political science.
I’m skeptical. It doesn’t make much sense to me that the US would be further right under HRC than Trump, who caused a generational shift to the right and literally tried to overthrow the government. Or that the US would be further left under Trump than Biden. Under Biden, we’ve seen some of the most muscular regulation of corporations in a generation.
The North Korean defector in this meme is also celebrated by the alt-right for her “anti-woke” ramblings, which has me questioning this angle.
deleted by creator
You still going on about ol’ hilldawg?
deleted by creator
If I had Musk’s kind of money I would pay for Hilldawg to be the next republican nominee and sit back and watch the show on a private island.
I’m not even sure what this means. Bill Clinton was not exactly pals with Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich. I’m not sure why or how Clinton would have ushered them into power. What was the devil we knew?
deleted by creator
What happened to the other cow? It was aliens, wasn’t it?
deleted by creator
His premise is that both Democrats and Republicans are corporatists that will resort to fascism to stave off any movement from the worker class in America. He teaches political science. This has nothing to do with the North Korean meme lady.
Nothing you said supports the claim that voting for the “lesser evil” always pushes the economy further right.
Voting for abolition ended slavery. Voting for pro civil rights party got us civil rights. Voting for pro-labor politicians got us labor protections and the new deal. And in recent years, Trump oversaw the greatest transfer of wealth to the elite rich in history, while Biden has installed the most aggressively progressive FTC in a century. Against this history of obvious progress, what actual evidence does this guy cite?
During the civil war, not at the ballot box.
After years of protests and violence, not at the ballot box.
After years of social movements, strikes, violence and a the Great Depression. Not at the ballot box.
Most significant political changes in America happen in the streets, not at the ballot box.
It was obviously both. The violence without actually implementing the political policies would have been pointless.
Show me an example where voting for the lesser evil leads to the adoption of more right wing policies. That is the specific claim you are supposedly defending.
It’s not my opinion, it’s August Nimtz’s. I do agree with it though. FDR did the New Deal. Lincoln did the Emancipation, LBJ did civil rights. Public opinion was a factor, but it was the threat of social unrest that enacted them. As for the example of right wing policies, each Democrat caters to corporations. Maybe not as much as the Republicans, but they still do. After Reagan, we voted for the lesser evil Clinton, who did Welfare Reform and repealed Glass-Steagall. After Bush, we voted for the lesser evil Obama, and change. There was no change, he kept Bush’s surveillance state, did more drone strikes and the War on Terror. Promised healthcare, but borrowed it from Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Then after Trump, we settled for the lesser evil and Biden. Who promised his corporate funders that “nothing would fundamentally change.” We still don’t have healthcare, no campaign finance reform, no student loan forgiveness, scuttled a railroad strike, and is currently complicit in a genocide. If you think we are headed in the right direction; by all means vote for Biden. I see the systemic problems with the electoral duopoly and have no misconceptions that if we continue on this path, social unrest will facilitate the state to quell strikes, protests and riots. Business as usual never necessitates change, only the threat of violence from a social movement can do that. But we need to do that now, before it’s too late. I’m not telling you who to vote for, I will vote for Biden myself. But I’m under no illusion about the situation we are in, and what it takes to get out of it. I’m just disseminating information I found helpful and encouraging. It is better to be an informed electorate than an uninformed one.
You haven’t shown how Democrats led to a further move to the right compared to Republicans. For example, Obama tried to pass universal healthcare with a public option. Zero Republicans voted for it, and the public option was defeated by independent Joe Lieberman. If there were one more Democrat in the senate, we would’ve had universal healthcare.
Meanwhile, Republicans under Trump literally tried to repeal Obamacare. The reason why progressive policies don’t pass is NOT because too many people vote for Democrats, but because too few do.
You’re not wrong.
Thanks
deleted by creator
The FTC has been in the news for proposing an extremely progressive legal theory of anti-trust called the New Brandeis school. They’ve sued Meta, Google, Microsoft, and many others on anti-trust grounds. Biden appointed the main and most progressive legal theorist behind the movement, Lina Khan, surprising even progressives.
We probably also need new legislation if and when democrats retake congress, but the will is certainly there if voters will reward it.
deleted by creator
Really you can’t find a single one? What do you think the policies of the FTC in relation to what it will sue over is? It’s a regulation. Because it’s a regulatory agency regulating an industry. I honestly don’t even know what you would want the FTC to do. There is a consensus that they have been surprisingly active.
deleted by creator
I don’t know what you think a “regulation” is, or what you mean by “crafting new ones”. Your question doesn’t make much sense to me.
If you’re asking in good faith and wanting to learn, not just win an internet argument, let’s get into it. The pro-corporate anti-trust standard since the Reagan years is called the “Consumer Welfare standard”. According to that standard, to simplify, a merger is bad if it leads to market inefficiency or higher prices for consumers. It’s a hyper libertarian standard. It is notoriously hard to prove and has led to massive concentration of the market.
The New Brandeis School takes a broader look at the market harms, such as harms to the labor market or to market platform choice. That means, to simplify, that a greater range of corporate behavior is deemed unacceptable that we’re previously considered fine. When corporations are found violating the new standard, they are sued by the FTC, and the courts decide the penalty. So your question doesn’t make sense. Change in enforcement regimes is what a regulation is.
I don’t let other think for me. Here’s a podcast of a guy that i let think for me.
It’s not that easy. I don’t agree with everything I watch or hear.
This is something a paid operative would say. Nice try China.