You must log in or register to comment.
That’s what I’m doing for a long time now, but I just learned about the Overton Window haha.
Top tier username btw
I like the method of pushing the left further left through extreme demands.
Legalize abortions until age 5!
Mandatory puberty suppressors for all teens!
Reparations for anyone except white straight abled males!
Make Israel a world culture site whose government is run by the UN!
Behead all billionaires!
100% inheritance tax!
No religious education for those under 18!
Socialized medicine for all people and their pets!
the government will finally give me a state mandated fursona (p.s. i am a tea party republican)
Arm the homeless
Legalize meth
I’m for 2 through
68. Though I would have liked #1 to use as incentive to get my kids to listen.“Just remember we can still abort you, so this room better be cleaned up.”
Edit oops miscounted
“I brought you into this world, I can take you out”
But 7 and 8 are the most reasonable
Doh, miscounted
I think you’re too extreme. We need to be reasonable if we’re to be taken seriously. 17 for religious educated is better suited.
The last three are just plain sensible, though! Okay, maybe not socialize veterinary medicine, although we could probably afford it if we beheaded the billionaires…
Make Israel a world culture site whose government is run by the UN!
Are you Tom Clancy?
The right does this and it seems to work for them.
“I’m not a Republican, I’m a centralist.” (Proceeds to list pro-republican things, bash Democrats, then talk about how weed is okay.)
Thinking gay people have human rights cancels out thinking black people don’t!
I’m not just a centrist, I’m a conservative! I agree with Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism.
For instance, I agree with him that monopolies must be regulated or they will corrupt the government:
It is to sell the one as dear, and to buy the other as cheap as possible, and consequently to exclude, as much as possible, all rivals from the particular market where they keep their shop. The genius of the administration, therefore, so far as concerns the trade of the company, is the same as that of the direc- tion. It tends to make government subservient to the interest of monopoly, and consequently to stunt the natural growth of some parts, at least, of the surplus produce of the country, to what is barely sufficient for answering the demand of the company
…
They will employ the whole authority of government, and pervert the administration of Justice, in order to harass and ruin those who interfere with them in any branch of commerce, which by means of agents, either concealed, or at least not pub- licly avowed, they may choose to carry on.
–
I also agree with him that landlords are parasites and need to be heavily taxed:
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.
If you call yourself a captalist but don’t even believe in what Adam Smith said, are you really even a capitalist?
If you call yourself a captalist but don’t even believe in what Adam Smith said, are you really even a capitalist?
i’m a capitalist, but only to the extent that capitalism is the most effective mechanism of meeting the needs of a market. I think it’s fundamentally impossible to run an economic system in any way that is more optimized to the needs of it’s consumers than you can under capitalism, and that’s what i like about it.
It’s also true that there are some self regulating effects on the market. But that’s more complicated.
Though, just because i believe the market handles itself in most cases, doesn’t mean i believe it requires no regulation. That would be preposterous. I don’t want pure unregulated capitalism, but i don’t want socialism/communism either, i want both. Both is good.
So a mixed economy?
yeah, that would be the implication.
LMAO.
Nooooo, you’re supposed to quote something about “the invisible hand of the market” without context!
That didn’t stop the Christians
Sure, but people are a lot more fervent in their support of capitalism than christianity.
This is literally what I’ve done my whole life. I have never identified as a leftist, always as a centrist, it’s not my fault other people don’t understand where the center is.
A lot of „leftist“ beliefs are really just basic human decency and that’s already too much for some people
deleted by creator
It’s less a sneaky trick and more a condition imposed on us by political circumstance. “I can’t really tell you my ideological affiliation because I’m afraid you’re allergic to it” isn’t a good sign for your chances at persuasion.
Even then, words are wind.
I’m much less concerned with the professed views of this or that terminally online trillionaire gooner internet celebrity than I am with what said gooner is currently ordering his gooner gang to do to the US Treasury system. If he was running around in a Che Guevera T-shirt while he ripped the copper wiring out of the federal government, it wouldn’t make me feel any different.
Maybe hes a different kind of socialist, the not very socialist but very national kind.
if only there was a simple way he could clarify, say, while making a speech, and do it twice just to be very very clear.
Or maybe he’s just a carny, who’ll say anything to separate a fool from their money.
That comparison is insulting to carnies.
“There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”
When Pierre Trudeau said that in the 1960s, it was a thing that many conservatives believed. Who’d think it was possible that in 2025 we’d be wanting the conservatives to be like the conservatives from the 1960s.
Or abandon the political labeling system entirely and make it socially outdated by learning to confront someone labeling themselves by responding to them with something along the lines of: “Why would you allow someone else to tell you what it is you believe in? You don’t get to decide what being a conservative/liberal means. Someone else decides that. You aren’t part of it. So why would you let whoever that is tell you what you should think?”
Change the meaning of what it means to even use the labels and the weapon of using the labels to divide us no longer functions.
It has been dismantled, and they will have to come up with something else.
And just because they will eventually invent a new weapon, does not make it pointless. This is just the never ending metaphorical arms race we are all living in, but it gets easier once you see it for what it is.
Sorry but this is dumb. I am the one who decides if a label applies to me or not. I won’t call myself an anarchist because my beliefs are not described by this word. I will call myself a communist because it describes what I think is true, even if I need to specify (“I’m a communist but…”).
There’s no one telling me what I believe in, and if a label changes meaning over time or my views change and it no longer applies to my thinking I will just stop using it.
It’s the same when you use any other word to describe yourself. “I’m a musician” until I stop playing. “I’m not a painter” until I pick up a brush. “I’m long haired” until I cut my hair.
“Why would you allow someone else to tell you what it is you believe in? You don’t get to decide what being a conservative/liberal means. Someone else decides that. You aren’t part of it. So why would you let whoever that is tell you what you should think?”
the short answer is because the agree with it.
The better question is asking them whether they want to agree with something someone else said once, or whether or not they want to have their own belief foundation, their own principle system, and their own way to derive an answer to a problem.
The problem with modern day politics is that nobody, almost nobody is willing to engage critically with the problems at hand, to determine a real, functional solution to the problem, or at least, the best possible solution they can come up with. Everybody is perfectly fine and content with saying whatever the funny man on the screen tells them, and that’s the end of the story.
It is gonna be very hard unbrainwash everyone. I was even taught that shit in school, so one dimensional
Because the labels are used for a shortcut to understanding. I really don’t want to spend ten minutes laying the ground work to have a discussion only to find out i am talking to a neocon.
Seems like a waste of time.
You are not that person. You are you and this would be a decision you make, not some other person. The question is, do you feel like a simple label, controlled by someone else, able to shift from under your feet without your input, is capable of succinctly summing you up to another person? Is your life, your thoughts, your experiences, so capable of being put into such a box, to your satisfaction?
Or are you more dynamic, storied, multi-faceted, vibrant, and in charge of your own thoughts, than a single word defined by a perfect stranger, could possibly describe? And I don’t mean your external self (visual appearance), I mean the person you are inside your own head.
I don’t know you, but I’d prefer to think you’re probably the latter…
But that’s for you to decide.
The label may be formulated by someone else with what ever agenda. But it’s up to you to accept the label as is. If you want to use the label, but explain exceptions, then you are expected to provide that context. I don’t see why that should be a problem
If someone else attaches a label to you, then you’re going to have to explain why you differ.
The use of the label is too short cut to understanding, so if after you lay out your beliefs if someone calls you a nazi, and you counter that you don’t argue for the supremacy of germany, understanding using the label is still acheived, and may still be warranted
In essence, all language is labels on understanding. You start with the simple and dig into the minutia only when needed.
Why big word when small word do?
Nothing you ever do will allow you to escape labels. Your gender is a box you’re put in by society. Your skin color is, too. It’s all made up bs. You’ll never escape it.
I’ve been doing that for years. I’ve been claiming to be a conservative and supporting things like universal healthcare. I even give it capitalist flair by saying that ensuring everyone has more money means I can then take that money by selling them shit they don’t need. How the hell am I supposed to sell my useless crap if everyone’s spending their money on rent?!
Ditto with stuff like housing the unhoused. I don’t want filthy drug addicts strewn about the streets taking up my park benches and constantly asking me for ‘bus money’! Get them houses so I don’t have to see them anymore! Also god I hate kids, especially when they’re just hanging around on the street being annoying and intimidating. Build some youth centres so they have somewhere to go and get them away from me!
Altruism through selfishness etc etc etc.
All that lowers crime, too. And a better educated population is a more proficient workforce, who can build more impressive stuff, do better science, and better cure and treat the diseases you or your family might eventually suffer from.
Yup, some people can only think in selfish terms so making your argument from that perspective will make it more attractive
You are on to something there, my friend.
Conservatives should be the biggest supporters of the LGBTQIA+ community due to their record low use of abortion services.
If only they had coherent thoughts.
It was never about being “pro life” with them, it was always about control over women’s bodies. The pro life thing is just an excuse. If you need proof then look at how they treat people after they’re no longer in utero.
i’d argue “control” is not a good in itself; who would seek that?
i’ve assumed these “pro-lifers” are actually trying to increase the birth-rate in a perverse desire to feed more wage-slaves to the capitalist machine.
Universal healthcare is good, naturally, because it would reduce payroll expenses for businesses, letting them create more jobs, and be more competitive in the global market with lower prices. Universal healthcare is how we bring manufacturing back to the United States.
The Window keeps moving for one simple reason.
The GOPs vote in every election. They may hate the candidate but if they’ve gotten the Party’s endorsement they’ll vote.
The Left keeps waiting for the perfect candidate to come along…
more like acting like its not an issue, or someone else will come and fix, checks and balances, basically fall in the same trap as republicans,
nope
Kamala Harris won 74,999,166 votes or 48.3 percent of the votes cast. That was 6,285,500 fewer popular votes than Biden won in 2020, but 774,847 more than Trump won in 2020.
The failure is on the campaign. Neoliberalism leading to Fascism is no coincidence.
Key Takeaways
● Before Biden exited the race, voters were highly concerned about his age, and swing voters overwhelmingly cited it as the main reason they wouldn’t vote for Biden.
● Voters were also deeply unsatisfied with Biden’s economy. A strong majority perceived the economy as getting worse for people like them, with more than 3 in 4 consistently reporting they were paying more for groceries. Voters blamed Biden more than any other person or group for U.S. economic conditions.
● While voters across party lines strongly supported Biden’s populist economic policies, many were not aware that his administration had enacted them.
● When Harris entered the race, her favorability surged, along with Democrats’ and Independents’ enthusiasm for voting in the election.
● On the economy — voters’ top issue — Harris struggled to escape Biden’s legacy. Half of voters said that Harris would mostly continue the same policies as Biden, leading swing state voters to prefer Trump on handling inflation.
● Harris was effective at communicating to voters that she supported increasing taxes on billionaires, but struggled to break through with other aspects of her popular economic agenda. Most voters heard only “a little” or “nothing at all” about her plans to crack down on corporate price gouging, protect Social Security and Medicare, and lower the price of groceries, prescription drugs, and child care.
● Voters were unsure whether Harris or Trump had a clearer vision, and were split on which candidate could better manage the government.
● Beyond the economy, voters trusted Trump more than Biden and Harris on immigration, foreign policy, and changing the status quo.
● The Harris campaign effectively increased the percentage of voters who believed that Trump would attempt to pass a national abortion ban. However, voters consistently ranked the economy as a higher concern.
● Voters also reported high levels of concern about the Project 2025 agenda. However, many did not believe that Trump was associated with Project 2025.
● While Harris held an advantage with voters who regularly consume political news, those who consume little or no political news — a group that disproportionately consumes content on social media — supported Harris at much lower rates.
Some people were making these points before and during them happening:
“Perfect”
The left is waiting for an actual left candidate and the Democrats keep running moderate right-wingers who wouldn’t have been out of place on the Republican ticket 25 years ago.
“””””moderate right-wingers”””””, only in this shithole could we call a fascist-lite candidate that. Gods I hate this dump
I didn’t think that needed to be added. We all understand where “moderate” right-wing behavior leads…
Personally I’ve seen a few apologists for them on here so felt it needed to add that
That bullshit is why we have Trump.
Abortion? LGBT rights? Legalized Marijuana?
Look at any issue and Harris was farther left than any 1995 Democrat. But she wasn’t perfect enough.
Remind me, which leftist leaders did she bring up on stage to promote her candidacy?
Cornell West, or literally 100 Republicans?
Harris’ own bullshit is why the Republicans won. She could have done nothing but sit on her hands 'til election day and gotten better results.
She was trying to win an election by appealing to Republicans who didn’t like Trump. Bringing in Republicans who don’t agree with Democrats but were against Trump seemed like a good idea. Her only problem was not running ads that attacked how bad the economy was under Trump and not outright lying like Trump did to win the election.
But that’s beside the point that the claim was that Democrats are farther right than 1995-2000 Republicans which is objectively false.
Democrats 24 years ago we’re trying to pass comprehensive medical coverage. Republicans said it should be up to the employer. Now the right say that no one is entitled to any compensation or benefits without struggle. Dems today argue that medical coverage must be tied to employment or else welfare will spike. The Dems are actively using the strategy of a pre-millenium American right wing. Fuck, go find anything Newt Gingrich has to say on the topic during the Clinton years and show me how it’s different from Josh Shapiro or pre-VP Harris in 2016.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Democrats 24 years ago we’re trying to pass comprehensive medical coverage.
No they weren’t.
Expanding Medicaid to welfare and age 55+ is not universal healthcare.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2000-democratic-party-platform
The 2010 ACA is far more comprehensive than the Democrat platform from 2000.
You are imagining a past Democratic party that never existed. Back in 2007, Obama was against gay marriage. Before him Clinton was, “Don’t ask, don’t tell- or you’ll be removed from service.” It’s another example of how Democrats have moved left.
Democrats are farther left than they were 25 years ago. You hold Democrats to an ideal that never existed to rationalize your letting Trump win.
She was trying to win an election by appealing to Republicans who didn’t like Trump.
I.E., choosing to alienate the Democratic base by appealing to those they oppose.
Bringing in Republicans who don’t agree with Democrats but were against Trump seemed like a good idea.
Seemed. Past tense. I.E., an acknowledgement that Harris’ choice of stage partners didn’t actually help her in the election.
Her only problem was not running ads that attacked how bad the economy was under Trump and not outright lying like Trump did to win the election.
You must not be an American if you think that appeals to the distant past like that will work on our goldfish-brains.
But that’s beside the point that the claim was that Democrats are farther right than 1995-2000 Republicans which is objectively false.
You must not have lived through that era if you don’t recall all the Democrat warmongers after 2001 or capitalists like Clinton boosting the prison population in the 90’s.
choosing to alienate the Democratic base by appealing to those they oppose.
Uniting everyone who didn’t like Trump was a good idea.
distant past like that will work on our goldfish-brains.
That’s exactly why Trump’s economic failure needed to be the primary message. Everyone forgot.
You must not have lived through that era if you don’t recall all the Democrat warmongers after 2001 or capitalists like Clinton boosting the prison population in the 90’s.
??? That exactly proves my point. The OP claimed today’s Democrats are farther right than the Republicans from 25+ years ago. You just gave more examples of how past Democrats were not the far leftists that current American kids imagine.
Uniting everyone who didn’t like Trump was a good idea.
And instead of doing that, the Democrats once again divided their own base to chase the mythical moderate republican.
The people they were appealing to were not just Republicans, they were still republicans after Trump’s first term. If they had any issues with Trump’s “leadership”, they had plenty of time to come to terms with them and leave the party of their own accord.
That the Democrats thought appeals to this demographic would improve their position reveals that they fundamentally do not understand the electorate they hope to woo.
That’s exactly why Trump’s economic failure needed to be the primary message. Everyone forgot.
Yeah, everyone was distracted with how shitty the economic situation was under Biden. Harris had an opportunity to break from that and squandered it by sticking to Biden’s “no really, the economy is good” gaslighting message. The Dems could have made a bunch of false promises like the Republicans and maybe gotten a stalemate on this issue at the ballot box, but that would be a bit of a reach.
Yeah, Kamala is the worst. As a Marxist-Leninist, I’m happier with Trump, and that’s why I didn’t vote.
I mean Kamala is terrible but like being happier with Trump feels like an angry comment without much thought
Well Trump is helping the Soviet Union expand into Ukraine, which is nice.
But Putin isn’t Marxist-Leninist.
Sounds like CIA propaganda
Neither is OP.
I am also glad you don’t have anyone you think is worth voting for.
I mean, it’s not like Trump would ever do anything to hurt Gazans
Hence the happiness you have expressed.
The GOP base knows exactly how to move the Overton window: vote in every election and win.
The problem is the Democrats aren’t a real leftist party. I’m done waiting for the Democrats to finally disobey their oligarch masters and cater to their voters.
Sounds like your plan is to sit and wait while Trump runs amok. What am I missing?
That’s been the Democrats plan too
The fact that it isn’t safe to post about such activities online and any left wing parties that form are immediately targeted by alphabet agencies.
More than that they’re hodgepodge party. They’re combination of liberals and leftist. This was okay for the most part when the little liberals, the petite bourgeoisie, was in control of the party. Because their interest usually align mostly with the left, if not totally. But starting in the late seventies and the eighties the neoliberals took over, the big liberals, the the grand bourgeoisie. So now the party is run by people whose economic and social interests are directly and violently opposed to leftists. So the party’s inherently self-destructive.
Until we jettison those neoliberals, we have no chance. That’s why so many people say it’s time for a new party. Leave them to their old decrepit party and move in Mass to something new.
They are physically unable to jettison those people because they’re responsible for the majority of the funding.
“the Republicans vote in every election” said the foaming Democrat as the Gestapo took them away to the camps.
your country is literally going through a coup and all you can think about is this fetishistic image of saving your country through electoral reform. I’d be laughing if I wasn’t so disturbed.
I was at a local protest yesterday. There were probably a few thousand of us in total. As we were marched around, led by police officers who monitored and managed our progress the whole time, I just kept thinking “This many people working together could probably actually do something that gets national attention.” We have a Trump Tower in my city that the protest went by, and everyone just ineffectually flipped it off or yelled some dumb shit like “Fuck Donald Trump.” I bet if we’d all charged the lobby at once, it’d have broken through to national news, but instead we kept an orderly and maintained peace as we shouted “No Justice, No Peace.” It won’t surprise you to learn corporate news didn’t bother to report on it, since nothing really happened.
I’m getting out of this place, Americans have no goddamn chance. They don’t know how to protest, they don’t know how to scare their oligarchs anymore. It’s no wonder the oligarchs are laughing at us, I’m laughing too.
self-flagellation doesn’t help anyone either. to us looking from outside the west it makes you look silly.
nobody is born knowing how to protest. the countries that do it more commonly do it because they put time aside to organize in their local communities.
I’m not sure protesting is worth that much energy anyways. the partisans didn’t eliminate Nazis by protesting, they acknowledged that the time for that was long gone.
the impactful shit can’t be legally talked about in public. we need more of that.
I’m always open to learning.
Why don’t you explain in detail how you personally mustered a large swath of the population to follow you.
I’m not a democrat so I don’t have a making people follow me kink. i prefer allies that can think for themselves
The GOPs vote in every election.
Republican voters (especially the radicals) throw a fit and stay home or vote third party whenever they don’t get their way. Because they’ve done this, the Republican party has learned to fall in line behind what they want, and so they vote for it. Even so, the Libertarian party regularly gets triple the votes of the Greens and the last major third party candidate drew votes primarily from the right. The right is constantly whining about “RINOs,” and if you go into most right-wing circles and try the shit liberals do with the left, “Sure you might not agree with their stance on abortion, sure they’re going to regulate your guns, but if you don’t fall in line, you’re not a ‘real’ right-winger,” you would be bullied and laughed at.
Liberals think it’s the opposite because they’re obsessed with making sure every single person falls in line without a single condition. Absolutely no respect for anyone’s moral convictions (in contrast to the right). So anyone who ever tries to hold the democrats to a standard is the most important thing ever, whereas on the right it’s just normalized and accepted because it’s so common.
There is no data whatsoever that supports your narrative, and it also doesn’t make any sense. There are so many more “my way or the highway” types on the right, this is the culture that produces soverign citizens who are the ultimate expression of “refusing to compromise your beliefs even when it’s completely unreasonable and out of line with reality,” and libertarians and such are just a lighter version of that.
Democrat voters throw a fit and stay home or vote third party whenever they don’t get their way…
Are you sure you got that right? Republicans fall in line to vote no matter who. Dems want their personal issue addressed before they’ll vote.
Yes, I’m sure I have it right. Your “conventional wisdom” is complete nonsense with no basis in reality.
As I explained, the reason that “conventional wisdom” exists is because democrats make a much bigger deal of it on the rare occasions that the left makes any demands whatsoever, whereas on the right, making demands and standing on principle is accepted and normalized.
You can’t provide a single shred of evidence to support this “conventional wisdom” because it’s not true, it has no basis in reality, it’s just rhetoric that liberals like to throw around because they’re so obsessed with making sure everyone falls in line unconditionally.
I really don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
I really think that I’m the only one whose presented a shred of evidence to support their position.
Your opinion is not evidence.
Republicans fall in line:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/11/california-gop-trump-holdouts-00146233
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/republicans-fall-line-trump-nominees-politics-desk-rcna190704
https://www.sungazette.com/opinion/other-commentaries/2024/07/the-party-of-falling-in-line/
You have offered nothing.
Neither are a bunch of thinkpiecies blithely reciting the conventional wisdom in their headlines (which you didn’t read past). You literally just googled “republicans fall in line” and picked the three results at random.
Literally none of the articles you linked support your position. All three are talking about republican politicians falling in line behind Trump - a candidate who was selected by the base against the wishes of the establishment of the party. Yes, the establishment politicians do fall in line behind the voters, this is exactly what I’m arguing, thank you for providing support for my position. What you’re trying to argue is the exact opposite, that the voters fall in line behind whatever the party wants.
I really don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Wow, what a compelling argument.
I know about dozens of Democrats who voted third party or abstained this last election because they didn’t like the handling of Israel/Gaza or Kamala or something and that lines up with elections past.
Edit: not wanting it to be the case doesnt make it false.
Democrat voters throw a fit and stay home or vote third party whenever they don’t get their way…
If only. Green Party consistently gets votes in the low single digits. Jill Stein got one half of one percent in 2024. That’s beyond embarrassing, and I say that as a Green. Other leftist parties get even less.
I wish somebody had thrown a fit over Harris. It might’ve done some good. The few people who did try to hold her feet to the fire over Gaza were either mocked or ignored. As it was, none of that legitimate criticism got through, so the campaign just crashed and burned.
Ratchet theory: the GOP keeps pushing us to the right; the Democrats prevent movement to the left.
The left being so obedient to the Democratic Party is part of the problem. If more of them voted Green, some change could actually happen.
If more of them voted Green, some change could actually happen.
Jill Stein doesn’t think Putin is so bad.
https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-vladimir-putin-war-criminal-1954965
Oh, no! She didn’t denounce Putin fast enough! I guess I have to vote for genocide, then…
Let me guess: you’re one of those people who squawks about “purity tests”, too, huh? And the irony is completely lost on you.
The GOP has been using the Green Party to split the Left vote for years.
Putin has been linked to political assassinations going back years.
If you need more evidence, I’ll send you some more links.
Why do you keep bringing up Putin? I’m not voting for Putin. I don’t care what the GOP thinks about the Green Party, either. Why do you find these arguments compelling?
Oh, no! She didn’t denounce Putin fast enough!
Literally the first thing you mentioned was Putin. And then you get on me for explaining myself.
And if you don’t care what the GOP thinks of the Greens means that you have absolutely no idea how elections actually work in the US. I’ll give you a link on ‘splitting the vote’ so you can understand.
The GOP has been using the Green Party to split the Left vote for years.
how could that be effective, if the green party didn’t push leftist views?
I’ll relink the article on vote splitting.
It’s amazing to me to talk to people who claim to be political and yet seem to have never actually considered how elections actually work.
this is just spam.
the answer is the green party does push leftist views.
I was thinking of using a crowbar.
As a moderate conservative, I would like to see the end of private land ownership in a stateless, moneyless society.
As a moderate conservative I believe an economic system that benefits few at the expense of the many is inherently unstable and radical.
Lol these are the kinda conservatives we need.
Nice
As a moderate conservative, I believe in ownership and democracy. Therefore the people who work at a company should own it and have an equal vote in how it is run.
We may not agree on everything, but I support you. Let us seize the means of production together first. Afterward, we can sort out the details of our views on moderate conservatism.
As a moderate conservative, I believe in conserving natural, finite resources like oil and gas. I believe in making large investments into clean and renewable energy for all, so we can conserve the natural beauty of our land, just like God intended.
So I know a guy who has this as a core belief. He voted Republican until 2016 and bitched every day and pretty frequently wrote our Congress critters about how part of conservatism is being a good steward of the environment. He refused to vote for Trump. I’m not sure who he did vote for (my guess is no one) but he said he wouldn’t support that fucking moron who wants to allow toxic waste in our rivers.
He loves clean energy and is big on environmentalism (God gave us the earth to take care of and the science to do so). He’s also in a borderline cult church. I’m surprised there aren’t more church people who think they should take care of Earth. At least then we’d agree on one thing.
tell that guy that i, a staunch liberal, appreciate him, and wish more people were like him.
This one went past satire and is actually a good talking point
Wait… You don’t think the others are real good points?
What kind of terrible RINO are you?
So true
I’m a far right fringe militia extremist who was there on J6 (but I did not go inside) and I’d do it all again to shift the tax burden to those most able to pay it.
Why were you there on Jan 6th. Did you really believe the election had been stolen?
Yes, from the people’s candidate, Bernie Sanders.
You weren’t there supporting Trump? Did you have a Bernie sign or something? That must have been popular with the Trump supporters.
I’m either being wooshed, or you need to read the thread and look for context cues…
Same demographic here, strongly believe a free country means free healthcare.
“I dream of society where I will be guillotined for being a conservative.”
~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Oh goody. Someone who finally gets it.
“I don’t care what everyone else says, there’s no need to execute the wealthy en masse. Workers just need to seize the means of production.”
there is no means of production in services based economy, so unless you’re willing to go through total economic collapse, and rebuilding through all of that, to some extent globally, that’ll be quite the journey. And you’ll find it to be the answer to the question of “why hasn’t anything happened yet”
It’s because people like being able to buy things lmao. Maybe if this admin causes a depression of sorts, but i’m not confident on that being the case, it’s certainly a realistic possibility, but it doesn’t seem to be imminent right now.
I’m not into that hippie dippie bullshit, I’ve heard great arguments from both sides. But I suppose if forced to pick a flavor of Fully Automated Gay Space Communism, I’d probably pick the “Luxury” variety, like anyone.
Landlords don’t need to be drawn and quartered, that’s just going too far.
Drawn and thirded.
Drawn and halved.
Or maybe just dismembered without the drawing… They’ve been through enough…
Except, the wealthy will likely resist the recovery of what they stole from workers. SO executing at least the very worst of them should stay an option if necessary.
I mean that is literally how it shifted so hard to the right lol
I’m a centrist. I think we should have a maximum wealth cap set at 1000x the median household income. I am willing to do this via tax policy instead of the guillotine.
How would you go about enforcing it? What happens to the ceo whose wealth ticks about your 1000x threshold due to a good day on the stock market?
Those are policy details. A common fatal flaw among the left is obsessing over details and trying to pick apart any good idea. The wealth cap is philosophy statement. Obviously any policy needs rules to implement it. But that’s for legislators, not people discussing the idea itself. You shouldn’t attack a broad policy by getting lost in the minutia.
This happened in the 2020 Democratic Primary. All the candidates had these pointlessly elaborate policy documents and white papers that were immediately forgotten after the election.
Politics is not about obsessing over minutia. It’s unproductive to engage in such nit picking of something that is simply a broad policy vision.
I’m sure if you wanted to, you could answer your own question. How would YOU implement this wealth cap while addressing asset swings?
Hah, my question isn’t because I’m a fatally flawed leftist, it’s because I’m a programmer and weekly I get requests from executives that simply aren’t possible or at least feasible to implement.
Your entire comment sounds exactly like one of these hand wavy requests from the heavens where details don’t matter. The cherry on top was you flipping it back at me so that I’d attempt to expand on your ill thought through plan and make it work. I’m sure you do well in the corporate landscape.
2 propositions. 1, making lawmakers job a minimum wage job so they have an incentive to raise it and feel the effect their policies have on the population. 2, capping a
PDGCEO salary to ~20x the lowest salary of his company.1 makes lawmakers more susceptible to corruption.
I see where you’re coming from, but it’s not as though refusing to implement #1 has done much for us so far. Trump and Elon are running around doing whatever they please already, and nobody who is actually capable of holding them accountable is willing to do it.
Sure, but you don’t want to make things even worse.
High salary (and as lawmaker you have a fairly high degree of responsibility so I think it’s fair) + very tight rules on accepting any kind of money, services, favours, etc… seems to work best.
Well if we’re talking about shit that will never pass… Then we should ban most instances of lawmakers who have business interests, ban working as a lobbyist, ban insider trading.
Then we could make their salary a multiple of the median wage of whatever district or state they represent.
and tie their retirement to social security instead of a separate fund.
congressional appointment should be handled like jury duty. “Dammit, I pulled congressional duty again.” the certainty of having to return to your old life would encourage you to make it better for non-politicians as well.
I disagree on that. Part of our problem is that those in government don’t really understand governance and the sustem is complex. That takes time and mentorship, a jury duty like system might make bribing harder, but it would make a functional government next to impossible. Age limits, I’m all for that - give em until they’re 70 (or something close) then no more government offices - congress, senate, pres, judgeships, etc. That and have fully publicly-funded elections with limited campaigning windows. No more 2-year presidential runs or congresspeople needing to fundraise and run for their entire term.
1 means only the wealthy can become politicians.
There really should be a wealth cap. If you have more then 1000x the median income to your personal net worth then you don’t need it. Sorry not sorry.
They would likely find loops holes like they already do though…… le sigh…
They would likely find loops holes like they already do though…… le sigh…
there’s two big problems, either you find loopholes, or you just leave the country.
Gonna build banks and, since corpos are people, they’ll have a net worth. When they reach the cap build another.
None the less, we need to do something about wealth hoarding if we want to have even a semblance of a democracy.
It might be too late for that. I hope not and if it is not, I don’t think we have long to turn it around before there is no way out.
I was curious what the number would be. That’s $80,000,000 (fixed) in wealth. Seems pretty reasonable tbh.
The median household income is about $80k in the US. 1000x is $80 million.
I like this ratio because it both indexes things to inflation but also ties the allowable wealth of the wealthiest to the well being of the average family. Also, it’s still a very high amount. $80 million is still a ton of money.
Consider the highest paid salary workers, not CEOs, but actual workers. Think the most well paid doctors, lawyers, and other professional classes. Even if the best paid doctor in the country kept living like a college student their whole career. They make $1 million a year but live like a monk, saving and investing everything they can. And they do this from the time they graduate until they die of old age.
They would still struggle to hit a $80 million net worth by the time they die.
It is impossible to make that level of wealth by your own work alone. The only way you accrue a fortune greater than this is if you’re in the business of labor arbitrage - you are hiring people and siphoning off a large portion of the wealth they generate for yourself. A “doctor” who works a practice with 30 doctors underneath them isn’t really a doctor, they’re a business owner just like any other.
A major problem, if not THE major problem, with vast accumulations of wealth in the hands of a few is the vast political power such wealth gives.
In my defense, I went to an American public school
So did I!
Sounds reasonable to me.
