#the right wing fucks around with healthcare as policy

[rtgrl]

much like the ikea chair, part of the problem is that people still need to use the chair while you're fixing it (or building a new one)

I also don't have a solution, this is just part of the problem that sneaks up on a lot of people and fits nicely into the metaphor

"how would YOU fix the medical system then 😡" im 17 years old

[taylorwright27]

I fucking hate this

I keep seeing people blaming third party voters, which even if all those votes went to Harris (which there is no guarantee they were going to) She still wouldn't have won, and I just saw someone on tik tok talk about how people on the left who were critical of Harris and the party were taking the excitement out of voting. And that is complete bullshit, it is not the lefts job to make you feel good about the democratic party they should be doing that themselves. The Harris admin ran a dogshit campaign plain and simple.

People wanted Biden out, it took months but the party finally listened and replaced him with Harris, this made people excited. It seemed like maybe the democratic party was actually listening to its voters, then they picked Walz as VP and we got more excited. No more Biden and a VP who believes in free lunches for students, healthcare, abortion and education! It seemed like the party was moving a different direction. They started calling the Republican party weird, pointing out how crazy their ideas were and how actually invasive theri policies were.

Then the fucking DNC happened, they rejected Palestinian voices and gave the most bullshit fluff speeches imaginable. They made it clear that they had no intention of trying to get undecided and independent voters on their side, they just wanted republicans. They decided that the road to victory was to shift to the right. They now supported a border wall and deportations, things that would be unimaginable 8 years ago. They touted around ex-republicans that switched over, like Liz Cheney (whose father drove the country into useless wars and left the VP office with 13% approval). They decided that it was more important to adopt right wing framing on issues, then to actually listen to what their voters wanted. They sent fucking Bill Clinton to yell at Michiganders that Palestinians were going to die either way so vote for the other things on the ballot. They agreed with the narrative that illegal migrants are ruining the country with drugs and crime, when they should have been pointing out that the Haitians were here on legal status (and clearly not eating pets that was disgusting that they even allowed for that to be a talking point) that the Venezuelan "gangs" Trump was complaining about were also here legally (by Trump), not gangs, and not terrorizing the city. They did not point out the vast majority of fentanyl and other drugs are brought into the US by US citizens, that illegal immigrants commit way way less crime that natural borne US citizens, and that they pay into taxes much more than they use.

But no, the democratic party decided that they need the republican vote, and could do that by effectively saying "Trump was right". They did the same thing with fracking in Pennsylvania. Fracking in was not Pennsylvanians number 1 issue, not even close and the few people who would vote on that would not all the sudden see Harris as the "Fracking candidate" that would still be Trump.

They ignored popular issues like healthcare and student loan forgiveness, raising the minimum wage and instead championed a tax break for small business owners and a credit for first time home buyers. These things do not help the average american, so many more people are struggling to live off of minimum wage jobs than are small business owners, and the anyone I know who the house credit would have made it possible for them to buy a house could only do so because their parents were also able to chip in.

They also did nothing to earn the young vote. I think they though abortion was enough to carry the youth, but newsflash men don't fucking care about women. they show it time and time again, Trump went on Adin Ross and Joe Rogan (2 of the biggest pieces of shit to exist) and that won him a lot of votes. There were people at the voting booth who said that they voted for Trump because of the Rogan interview. Men were not left behind by the campaign, but Trump and Vance were able to convince them that they were.

Harris and the democratic party gave nothing for people to vote for, so don't fucking blame Dearborne Michigan for not voting for someone who said she wouldn't change anything done in the last 4 years and instead blame the Democratic party for a shitty campaign, shitty messaging and choosing republicans votes over yours.

[jellogram]

There's a post going around and I just. If you see someone saying "Fuck California!" you should know there is a very good chance they are saying that because they're violently right-wing and hate our liberal policies. Like I know you guys hate LA culture and cars and whatever but if you see aggressive non-specifc hatred for California as an institution, that goes beyond memes and shit, you might want to think twice before you pile on. because this country is full of libertarian fuckos who think we're devil spawn for offering state-funded healthcare and making them smog their trucks. Please do not side with those losers, they are the ones who spent millions trying (and failing) to recall our governor because he insisted on mask mandates and lockdowns. They say things like "commiefornia" and talk about moving to Texas. Please be diligent and do not engage with them they suck so fucking bad man

[uncle-fruity]

Is there anything more exhausting than someone trying to explain the political benefits of ignoring or outright rejecting the trans community?

what if we all killed ourselves

[kyrodo]

Half the people in the world believe anyone different from them or outside of social conventions is a problem. The other half thinks people that actually cause trouble for other people are a problem, and they happen to be the other half. They try to stop us from making any choices for ourselves even though it has nothing to do with them. We try to stop them from screwing over other people or getting everyone killed. What the fuck am I missing here?

It's like what I was hearing from Aliyoshi earlier when he was trying to stir up conversation.

Why can't you transition? Because fuck you that's why. Why can't you abort that baby because fuck you that's why. Rape? I don't fucking care.

People need to stop making decisions for people that aren't their's to make. And what's our exception? When you can get other people killed just because you don't like them. There's such a huge gap in integrity and mindfulness and freedom. And the only time they ever have a moral compass is for humans that haven't been born yet, that is so ass backwards. The entire Republican platform is based around hate and making sure the rich pay less taxes while making it seem like everyone will benefit from it. Who needs education, who needs healthcare, who needs the very planet we live on, who needs equality, who needs individuality. We clearly aren't ready to remove all these protections for people. You wanna save another penny or two there are so many other places to do it from.

I'm always gray on the specifics I don't doom scroll news articles every morning or listen to the happy funtime channel like Red. But certain things about the right haven't changed for the past decade or so. It is such a toxic shit hole. You know what little I have heard? Some racist idiot got kicked off CNN for joking somebody's pager was a bomb. Who votes for that? There's a reason all the wrong people are right winged. Politics would be so simple if people's lives weren't literally at stake but it hasn't been that way for a long time. If it really was just about policies and where the money is going or how much we'll be taxed life would be so much simpler, but it's not. That's just not the reality. People have differing opinions on who "we" are, and for the right it's socially conformative white males and every little vote they can squeeze out of the people they're about to fuck over.

[whitehotharlots]

The triumph of lunacy

There’s a trend in the social justice sphere that encapsulates the self-defeating idiocy of our present moment. During official meetings meant to address or raise awareness of issues of racial justice, all the white people present are expected to call themselves racist, provide examples of their racism, and explain what they’re doing to avoid being racist in the future. 

I am not exaggerating, and this is as cult-like as it sounds: to enter into the discussion, you must start by saying “My name is Mark, and I’m a racist.” 

This is not a fringe activity. It’s a completely mainstream part of racial justice programming. A student in Nevada is suing his school after administrators threatened to deny him graduation because he refused to call himself racist. A quick twitter search reveals dozens of examples (which I am omitting to avoid accusations of “generating death threats” or whatever), and this has been covered extensively in right wing media. This is mainstream, even if we want to pretend that it’s not.

Now, looking at this just in the abstract, a few seconds of scrutiny shows us how idiotic and self-defeating this practice is. I accept the notion that everyone is prejudiced to some degree and that most white Americans receive some structural advantages in some spaces. In this very obscure sense, you can argue that all white people are racist. Fine. But if a term is applied to literally everyone and everything, it loses its utility. If everyone is racist, then “racist” is a meaningless designation. 

In practice, however, this is even more insane than it sounds. Because of course the purveyors and participants in these ritualistic humiliation sessions don’t really think that everyone is racist. If they did, they wouldn’t go through the ritual. Obviously, the people calling themselves racist are being coerced into doing so. Every person who says “My name is Mary, and I’m a racist” is thinking in the back of their head that they’re not really racist, that this confession serves as an act of ablution. And, in a truly lunatic twist of irony, the people who are regarded as racist after these sessions are the ones who did not call themselves racist. 

Madness. Absolute madness. 

This is precipitated, of course, by guilt. White liberals realize, correctly, the the world is fucked. The politicians and organizations that putatively represent their views have done the opposite and accelerated widespread brutality. The man who invented mass incarceration was sold as the only way to avoid “fascism.” There’s no hope of a more decent future. They feel like shit and will do anything, even self-flagellation, to glimpse the feeling that maybe they’re kind of sort of partway making the world less horrible. They’re not--objectively, this type of gross bullshit is alienating, makes non-insane people disengage with the movement, and has been empirically proven to reduce empathy and make people more hateful. But they feel a little better for doing it. 

Beyond guilt, however, lies coercion. I’ll bet the vast, vast majority of people who have subjected themselves to these struggle sessions didn’t believe a word they were saying but were just going along to avoid getting in trouble. Personally, I’m not going to lose my job and my healthcare just to avoid a few moments of cynical embarrassment. Very few people would.

It was just today that I realized how commonplace this type of dishonesty has become. If you live or work in a liberal space, ask yourself this question: how many times in the last few years have you professed a belief in something you knew was crazy? How many times have you been made to signal approval for ideas that you knew to be harmful, impossible, or reactionary in order to avoid being branded an Enemy of Social Justice? How many times have you stayed silent and let yourself be bullied into feigning support for policies and procedures that contradict your beliefs?

More than a few, I’ll bet. Now ask yourself: what has been gained from this? Is the world more just or safe or equal than it was before this type of shit was made commonplace? Do you have more hope for the future, or less? 

The only political effect of this normalization of dishonesty has been the ascendance of the most reactionary faction of the Democrat party. A left that had not been trained to hate itself would not have voted for Joe Biden. 

This is what happens when a movement places zero value upon honesty and decency. When all conflict becomes understood as abuse, when all criticism is regarded as violence, the most sociopathic and violent members of a community are the ones who get to set the agenda. No one can push back. No one can dissent. The demand for absolute uniformity cripples the movement’s ability to accomplish anything beyond enriching a handful of the very worst people on earth. 

We did this to ourselves, and I worry we might be past the point of no return. Just a few months ago I still held some hope that we might see a turn around, that saner and more decent voices might take control and actualize our widespread disgust and discontent toward policies that would actually help people. That’s not going to happen. The sociopaths have won. Their candidate is president, their ideology is mandatory, and their ability to hurt anyone who crosses them is stronger than ever.

Joe Biden will be the most austerity-minded president since Herbert Hoover. His reign is going to be disastrous for everyone, especially those who are already vulnerable. His supporters, secure in their positions within media and NGOs and academe, will need to fabricate more scapegoats to explain away the failures and brutalities of their leader--to convince everyone that they deserve the punishment they are receiving. They’re going to demand and receive more intrusive means of ensuring ideological uniformity. And there’s nothing we can do to stop them.

[bisluthq]

I mean the thing is, yeah you can look at taylors family and backround and think hm she's probably bot that radical, which would be a fair assumption like i dont think she is, but i think if you look at like her friends and stuff, she has surrounded herself by quite chill "woke" people. And not like woke in a typical hollywood way à la karlie or jb and haley voting for biden id say, but ppl who seem genuinely chill and closer to like real world values (as much as you can be in that id world id say). Im thinking joe, jack, st Vincent who she's at least friends with enough to co write cruel summer, ppl like that. And yeah these ppl are still rich and she's still like pbnoxiously rich and doesnt hide it, so thats gotta be its own bubble of cognitive dissonance, but she's obviously comfortable with that kind of person, and i think gp acting like she's a right wing celeb are definitely judging based off stereotypes bc tbh she's probably just as or more woke than their millionaire fave (cuz i think most of the hollywood left is super fake). And i think based off her personality and what she chooses to surround herself with now in a parallel universe she'd be like a very left wing probably still well off labour party expat in london or something

Oh 1000%

She’s very genuinely a Kamala Dem like I have absolutely no doubts about this. She’s not a Biden or Bloomberg Dem and tbh I think it’s better to be a Kamala Dem genuinely than performatively simp for Warren or Bernie on main while like... not really wanting most of those policies (tax wise, police wise, not really giving a shit about healthcare). As you say so much of the HW left is like... acting it up. And I like that she isn’t and to me her politics are clear and they may not be exactly mine but I have a ton of respect for them. I just wish she’d share that more often so we wouldn’t have people acting like they’re unclear.

But at the same time she would also get dragged by the left a lot too so it’s hard.

I think the most fucked up shit she believes is around taxes tbh like I think she’s mad hypocritical on that but again I think she even knows that lmao.

[tomfooleryprime]

Everyone talks about how Trump’s supporters will never abandon him, no matter how often he demonstrates his terrible leadership skills, or regardless of whether most people who work for him end up humiliated, fired, indicted, or quitting because he has the temperament of a spoiled brat whose life has amounted to little more than a string of lawsuits, failed businesses, questionable associates, and mediocre children suckling on the teat of nepotism.

It doesn’t matter that he hasn’t actually fulfilled most of his major campaign promises—he never built the wall, deported all undocumented immigrants, repealed Obamacare, put Hillary in prison, brought back manufacturing jobs on a large scale, or eliminated the federal debt. What matters to his supporters is that they feel like he’s accomplished things, and what you make people feel is often more important than what you actually do for them.

So much of the momentum of Trumpism has nothing to do with achieving discrete conservative goals—it revolves around a culture of shock value, trolling, antagonizing, and “othering” anyone who criticizes them or their president. As far as I can tell, they suppose the real problems in our country stem from people who hate Trump and constantly try to undermine his policies or invent lies about him. I would assert they have the cause and effect relationship backwards—protests, violence, and unrest aren’t the problem eating away at our social contract—they’re a symptom that the social contract is being eroded. But never mind.

Picture a thought experiment where his supporters get exactly what they claim they want. Imagine every Democrat in Congress, every member of the Hollywood elite, and every Jewish billionaire dropped dead tomorrow, or perhaps the majority of Americans who dislike Trump suddenly abandon their entire worldview and understanding of the Constitution and give into the demands of the minority of America who adores him. However it happens, the opposition disappears.

And then they build a “great big beautiful” wall to keep all the immigrants out. They put prayer in schools and outlaw homosexuality and ban abortion and abolish gun laws and cut social programs and save the white suburbs and measure their economic success solely by the stock market, as if they could eat the Dow or live in the NASDAQ. Will they be happy? Will America be great?

I doubt it. Trumpism isn’t a traditional political theory that proposes ideas on how to best preserve the social contract and promote national unity, instead it peddles the concept that liberal elites long ago shattered the social contract by asking us to respect people’s pronouns and implying that maybe not all cops are fair to minorities, and unity can only be restored when all of Trump’s enemies are vanquished. Trumpism requires comic book-esque villains to shape a narrative, a deliberate “us versus them” mentality.

It’s rudimentary, but it’s the backbone of storytelling. What’s more, there will always be enemies. Even if all the BLM protesters or socialists or secularists or feminists evaporated into thin air, they would invent a new enemy to malign. They would have to.

Ever wonder why Batman never defeats the Joker or why a supposedly all-powerful God never settles the score with Satan? Because that would be the end of the plot and you can’t sell comic books or church if you don’t keep the storyline open or at least leave room for a new antagonist.

Similarly, you can’t sell Trumpism without Antifa, migrant caravans, and wildly out-of-context AOC or Greta Thunberg quotes. And so give them an imaginary country completely devoid of never-Trumpers, and the whole movement would disintegrate, either because they would get bored and finally notice the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, or they would turn on each other for lack of an appropriate subject to burn in effigy.

For all the talk of what Trump supporters claim they stand for, the cornerstone of their movement is really best summed up by what they stand against, as evidenced by the “fuck your feelings” t-shirts and the “liberal tears” coffee mugs. Without any obvious enemies to scapegoat, outrage, and oppose, I imagine a good many MAGA believers would find a theoretical Trumpland a pretty far cry from the utopia they yearn for.

Some might argue the Democrats are "just as bad" and all they’ve done these past four years is disparage and try to tear down a president that God himself ordained. Side note—ever notice how Republicans get elected through God’s guiding hand, but any time a Democrat sits in the Oval, it has Satan’s fingerprints all over it?

Anyway, trust me, I’ve spent a lot of time agonizing over the reality that we won’t be a country at peace for a long time. Maybe not ever again. And it’s almost entirely because Trump thrives on sowing discord. Even if Joe Biden wins in November, the MAGA cult won’t just graciously accept defeat and take the advice they gave never-Trumpers in 2016, which was to “suck it up and deal with it, crybabies” because after all "he's the president whether or not you voted for him."

But the thing is, without Trump, Democrats actually DO have a platform, contrary to what right-wing cable news pundits would imply. Most of its objectives have nothing to do with sticking it to Donald Trump, but focus on reducing poverty, improving access to healthcare, and advocating for civil rights.https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-07-31-Democratic-Party-Platform-For-Distribution.pdf

Meanwhile, perhaps nothing supports my argument that all Trump supporters care about is "owning the libs" and generally just doing the opposite of whatever Democrats want than the fact that their 2020 platform is a single page long and literally says “The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today.” https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_2020.pdf

[not-a-space-alien]

Here's something I don't think a lot of people on the left understand about the American right's resistance to universal public healthcare. Everyone agrees that our healthcare system is bad. With the exception of a few clueless dingleberries sticking their foot in their mouth on Twitter, it's hard to find a Republican or conservative voter who actually thinks insulin should cost thousands of dollars per month and the healthcare system should stay the way it is. Showing these people facts about how medical debt and our inability to go to the doctor and take sick days does nothing, because they already agree it's a problem. Calling them callous/not caring about poor people dying only makes them defensive, because oftentimes they are poor people dying. Impoverished rural white populations have a long track record of voting against social programs and policies they directly benefit from, without a hint of self-awareness.

The resistance comes from how and why our healthcare system sucks. To Republicans and right-wingers, our healthcare system is failing because of bureaucracy and the heavy hand of the government. They're also upset about inequality, but they have very strange ideas about what's causing it and how to fix it. To many people, the simple concept of a bureaucracy running something, whether that's the government or a health insurance company, means it's a problem. Nevermind that an insurance company exists to make profit and will necessarily not serve the public good in the same way that public non-profits can. They think letting the government take it over and have more of a hand in the situation will fuck it up even worse. Genuinely they despair about the idea that things are going to get even worse if the American left gets its way. The impoverished conservatives of our country are desperate and angry because things suck for them and they've swallowed right-wing propaganda about who to blame for it.

This is harder to get around, and it's not snappy and easy to pass around in Twitter screenshots as framing the issue as "heartless monsters who don't care if you die" vs "compassionate people who want everyone to be healthy."

[aegon]

the democrats embody almost the entire uk political spectrum and it's WILD to me. like when you look at policy etc, obama and biden are probably more aligned with the tories in the uk - soft/centre tories, but i'd for sure put them as having more in common with them than people like lisa nandy in labour (where bernie deffo is). and i'm not saying that as bad or good thing, it's just a THING. two of my housemates were talking about this today (i'm british in case that wasn't obvious lol) (1)

and one of them is a fairly far left labour supporter, the other voted tory in december but says they felt forced to and identifies more as centrist than tory - but what's CRAZY is in the uk those two housemates are in completely different political parties. yet when they're talking about the US because the US spectrum is so far right, my left wing and centre-right wing housemates are both firm supporters of the Dems in the US. like?!?! it BAFFLES me it really does. the idea that biden and (2)

bernie are in the same party is something i can't get my head around because on the british spectrum they'd be in completely different parties?! it's legit like asking a corbyn supporter to vote for a centrist tory and visa versa. that's why there's all this tension. BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE. this rant was incredibly irrelevant but i hope you sort of grasp what i'm saying. it's an unhelpful rant bc all i'm saying is the american political spectrum IS A MESS (fin)

omg no it’s totally relevant because YES.

the two-party system makes no sense for exactly this reason, like in what world does someone like biden who doesn’t even believe in free healthcare belong to the same party as bernie who does?? and then they expect people to vote for either of them because “they’re both blue” like what, they’re so ideologically different!

I can’t help but think of this clip where ben shapiro calls one of the most conservative british journalists ever a “leftist” and the guy literally laughs, like damn, they must think labour are all communists or something lol

[taylorscottbarnett]

Hey, pssst.

Go fuck yourself.

Imagine thinking Democrats could play a long-con a hundred years in the making to create some boogeyman Marxist.

Fuck imagine the mental gymnastics and delusion to actually think Obama was anything close to a marxist fighting for a socialist agenda in the US!

Like are these lunatics allowed to drive? Because that's really terrifying.

HILLARY CLINTON A MARXIST. HA hahaha.

"Democrats don't have a deep bench" LOL. Name me one potential in the Republican party that could follow Trump and actually win an election.

Let's see the potential 2028 Presidential Bench for Democrats:

The obvious would be Kamala Harris. Sitting VP, can withstand attacks from Republicans, has been set up to helm important projects to Biden. Fierce debater, and my first pick for the 2020 democratic presidential candidate. She's proven herself an ample thorn in Republican's side and seems to releish a fight. Notably her time as VP has done nothing to dull her skills or image. If Harris decides to run again, she'll easily be the leader of the pack.

Next up Gretchen Whitmer. In just her first term as Michigan’s Governor she's completely turned around the state, shredding Right to Work, and signing progressive legislation on abortion rights, worker rights, voter rights, gun safety, health care and the environment faster than any other former red to blue state democrat.

Andy Beshear. Andy won re-election easily in ruby-red Kentucky after an absolute disaster of a four years that was Matt Bevin. In large part thanks to a massive funding backing by the DGA, who's loss of the Governorship in 2015 was a massive black-eye and cemented years of an absolute rout of southern democratic power over the previous 7 years.

He rolled back his predecessors attempts at destroying it's ACA expanded Medicaid and worked at re-establishing Kentucky's wildly successful state-run Healthcare exchange. One that originally had been a shining example of government working right amidst the ridiculously troubled and broken roll out of the Affordable Care Act.

And he did it running on a pro-abortion, pro-worker message. He did it by showcasing competent and effective leadership through Covid and a series of natural disasters in my home state.

Gavin Newsom has been a fierce attack-dog for the Biden-Harris campaign and built up an apparatus for finding and boosting democrats and their party and election infrastructure in red states.

Nevermind leading one of the largest economies in the United States -- or the world for that matter. He's fought off criticism in handling covid lockdowns, steered a massive ecconomy through reopening.

His staunch support of environmental policies helped muscle past Trump's environmental deregulations by leveraging the sheer size and strength of California's ecconomy.

He's again leveraged that powerful GDP in fighting the GOP nationally on abortion. Including signing a bill requiring private health insurance plans in the state to fully cover abortion procedures by eliminating associated co-pays and deductibles.

Newsom organized the Reproductive Freedom Alliance of state governors supportive of abortion and reproductive rights, as well as pushing to withdraw California commitments to Walgreens for refusing to sell abortion pills in the states that it is illegal.

In 2022 he made California a sanctuary for LGBT+ youth rights.

Oh right, there's that whole, surviving and thriving after a right-wing orchestrated recall attempt on his office.

"…Obama 2.0 now gets to select a replacement for Biden on the national ballot without any input from the voters. All they have to do is force a brokered convention, and they can install their neo-Bolshevik, Marxist candidate…."

ORIGINAL PODCAST CONTENT: https://www.undergroundusa.com/p/this-is-certainly-not-a-time-to-celebrate

PLEASE LIKE ON THE WEBSITE, SHARE & EDUCATE

This Is Certainly Not A Time To Celebrate

[beesandwasps]

Since I’m getting at least one reply-via-comment which actually kind of needs a longer reply, here’s a post for it:

The only bad thing Trump has done which is actually new is to announce policies on Twitter. (And even that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, although it is the way he does it, without talking to anybody first.) There is nothing in his record, otherwise, which was not at least strongly foreshadowed in the the previous two administrations.

I’m a lot older than the average Tumblr user — I can remember the Reagan years — and I can tell you that all of this bullshit we are facing from Trump has its roots not just in Republican pushing to the right but in Democratic refusal to push back. And Biden didn’t just refuse to push back, he was worse than many Republicans and is directly responsible for a lot of our current problems, in a demonstrable way. (The crime bill he let the police write in 1994, the bankruptcy bill of 2005, the scuttling of Anita Hill to get another right-wing Supreme Court justice, etc.) He isn’t “the lesser of two evils”, he is genuinely as bad as Trump, but less personally obnoxious.

You know the voter suppression the Democrats are now complaining about? That was a major topic in the news back around 2004. The Democrats knew it was happening, they took Congress in 2006 and did nothing about it. They added the Presidency to their control in 2008 and still did nothing. (And the reason they did nothing, it has been more than hinted, is because the right-of-center crooks in the party like Joe Manchin, who reliably votes for Republican causes — remember the Kavanaugh confirmation? — and is deeply involved in the unreasonably high price of things like insulin, can only stay in office by using the same tactics.)

Police brutality? Nearly all those riots are against police in cities with Democratic mayors, usually in states with Democratic governors as well. Minneapolis? Democratic mayor, Democratic governor. Chicago? Democratic mayor, Democratic governor. Portland? Democratic mayor, Democratic governor. New York?… you get the idea. The Democrats not only are not interested in addressing the problem, they are actively giving the orders to carry out police brutality.

DHS and ICE? The Democrats not only went for those, but the 2016 and prospective 2020 nominees supported it. (Hell, Biden helped Obama oversee an expansion of ICE, and the renewal of all the contracts for the people running detention centers who had already caused lawsuits because they were already treating immigrants as badly as Trump does.)

The Democrats spent the Obama years desperately trying to avoid taking action. Have you noticed that the Republicans don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but they’re still passing bills? Under Obama, the lack of a 60-vote supermajority was used as an excuse to avoid even introducing any bills to address issues. No matter how critical the issue was or how much support the public showed for it — and if you’ve forgotten, when Obama took office, over ninety percent of the public was in favor of breaking up the Too Big To Fail banks and smacking down Wall Street for the 2008 meltdown; even 90% of Republicans wanted him to do it — the Democrats deliberately avoided even trying to fix anything.

And now, when Trump has demonstrated that everything the Republican Party stands for is just outright wrong, to such a degree that anybody with an IQ above single digits can’t deny it without also ludicrously insisting that nearly the entire world is involved in a conspiracy, the party has insisted on nominating the furthest-right member it has, a man who has deliberately sabotaged the public through his entire career, and refuses to even make a symbolic stand in their platform.

Why bother voting for them? If the Democrats win we will still get Republican policy — we just won’t get it with Trump’s rudeness; it will happen “naturally”, without any opposition except a token show from the Republicans because they automatically fight anything the Democrats do, even when it’s their own ideas being put into action. (NAFTA and the ACA, for example, were both originally Republican plans, which right-of-center Democrats took up and sold to the idiots in the Democratic base as great ideas. NAFTA was a Republican idea under Reagan, specifically to bust unions, and the ACA was originally a plan from a right-wing think tank as an example of how you could avoid universal healthcare.) We won’t even save the Supreme Court — Biden is the guy who gave us Clarence Thomas, the furthest-right current member, by sabotaging the resistance to him. A vote for a Democrat is a wasted vote. Moreso than voting third-party knowing you will lose. At least with a third party, you stand some tiny, remote chance of getting somebody into office who will try to solve problems; the Democrats have now made it official that they will not even try, because they are so afraid of offending the rich.

Fuck ’em all. And fuck absolutely anybody who says “Blue No Matter Who” unironically — you are the toxin which has rotted the party and made it worthless. The US is a hellscape because you were willing to support godawful candidates on the basis of partisanship.

[fantastic-nonsense]

@sanctusapparatus: I've seen people say Kamala was a more progressive candidate than Bernie or Warren, on the virtue that she's black. I've seen people say that voting for a member of [INSERT GROUP HERE] is the right thing to do, regardless of what positions they actual hold. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but this wouldn't have been the first time I've seen someone say identity>policy when picking your candidate. 

Also, I mean, Warren seems to basically be Obama 2.0: Make a lot of vaguely progressive promises that you back away from at varying speeds approaching and after the election while working really hard to keep the neoliberal exploitation train on track. She basically dropped m4a the moment it posed any kind of difficulty, and I can't imagine anything else she's promised will fare better. She's basically the definition of a make-no-waves establishment appeasing centrist

1) I never said identity>policy. I said I was upset that we had the most diverse slate of Dem primary candidates ever and it looks like we’re going to end up with two 80-year-old white men yelling at each other. That says nothing about their policies or who I actually agreed with. It was a statement based on the fact that I’m tired of pretending like EITHER Biden OR Bernie is the best person to carry the flag of the Democratic Party forward when they’re fucking 80 years old and could die at any time (looking at you Bernie) or end up with a serious mental health decline (Biden). Like...both of you retire. Go home. There are better people suited on both the moderate and the liberal side of the Dems to take on Trump than either of you. That was the point of the post.

2) You’re dead wrong about Warren, which you would realize if you actually researched what she’s achieved and done for Americans. Like, this characterization of Warren as a centrist is laughable. Warren had the national platform for talking about progressive issues before Bernie was a genuine player in the general public consciousness.

I really wish people would stop erasing history here. People forget that Warren was the Darling of the Left in the pre-Trump era (and frankly, in many respects she still is). Bernie was just another senator making good speeches at the time. The Run Warren Run campaign wasn't a thing for nothing, you know, and there were literally op-eds written to console Warren fans when that effort failed. People have wanted Warren to run for a lot longer than they have wanted Bernie to run. In many ways, Bernie is following in the footsteps of Liz, not the other way around. I know a lot of people are too young or didn’t read the news before Trump, but like....do your research before saying nonsense like this.

Don’t believe me? Fine...maybe believe some pre-2015 news articles?

Roosevelt Institute, September 2011: "How Elizabeth Warren Put Bankruptcy on the Progressive Map"

New York Magazine, November 2011: "A Saint With Sharp Elbows: Elizabeth Warren"

The New York Times, November 2011: "Heaven is a Place Called Elizabeth Warren"

The Washington Post, September 2012: "Elizabeth Warren, Populist Leader"

The Daily Beast, December 2013: "What Obama Can Learn from Elizabeth Warren"

Mother Jones, April 2014: "Elizabeth Warren: Democratic Kingmaker?"

NYBooks, May 2014: "Elizabeth Warren's Movement"

The Nation, September 2014: "Meet the 'Elizabeth Warren wing' of the Democratic Party"

The New Yorker, November 2014: "Elizabeth Warren Wins the Midterms"

Politico, November 2014: "Reid Taps Warren as Envoy to Liberals"

The Progressive, December 2014: "Young Women Love Elizabeth Warren"

The Guardian, March 2015: "Progressives ponder 2016 fallback plan: Elizabeth Warren for vice-president"

Vox, May 2015: "Why Hillary Clinton Needs Elizabeth Warren"

Time, July 2015: "How Elizabeth Warren's Populist Fury is Remaking Democratic Politics"

On M4A, she didn’t backtrack on Medicare for All “the second it got tough.” Instead, she literally sat down and worked out a plan for how to get there and how to pay for it. She provided a workable and viable solution to get us there within four years, the exact same timeframe as Bernie's bill. I'm so tired of people saying she backtracked on universal healthcare just because she came out with a plan to actually get it done and pay for it.

Just because she has a different path to getting to a universal healthcare system than Bernie does not mean that she 'shifted her stance' nor does it make her "not serious" about getting there. It's called a policy disagreement; it happens all the time. Just because someone has a different idea about how to get to the same end goal does not mean that they shifted their stance on the actual end goal. To put it in crude terms: taking a bus, taking the train, and driving your car are all valid means of transportation. It doesn't make any of them inherently worse options. They are simply different ways of achieving the same goal: getting you from Point A to Point B. Wanting to get to "Point B" has not changed, nor the timeframe you wish to arrive there; only how you get there.

Ultimately, healthcare legislation is passed by Congress, not the President. Bernie has to get a majority of House Reps and Senators on board with his plan for it to pass, which they have shown no real desire to do (multiple Dem senators have already stated they will not vote for Bernie’s M4A bill and are not campaigning on universal healthcare; if we can’t get Dems on board, we’re sure as hell not going to be able to get Republicans on board). Warren's transition plan is infinitely easier to pass, is actually popular in the court of public opinion, deals with many of the major pitfalls of an immediate transition, and helps ease the fears of moderates (whose votes you will need to enact anything of significance) that we can do this, we can create a universal healthcare system, without significant economic damage. She has not been wishy-washy nor has she backtracked; she has come out with her own policy proposal that is workable, fully fundable, and able to be passed while sticking to her guns that she wants to achieve universal healthcare. And that's far more than I can say for Bernie.

So no: I'm not going to let people forget that Elizabeth Warren was the face of the Populist Left nearly a decade before Bernie Sanders gained national attention. I'm not going to pretend that the modern progressive revival started with Bernie Sanders. Please acknowledge her contributions to the revival of the Progressive Movement in American politics, because without her and her popularity Bernie would never have been a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2016. She is not a centrist and never has been; she just knows how to play nice with centrists to get the progressive agenda passed (which...again, is something Bernie does not seem to understand how to do).

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Your post on Bernie has me a little confused. Do you consider yourself a strict democrat, leftist, socialist or anything else? To me at least, it seems odd that you dislike Bernie for not being an “actual democrate” when Clinton is pretty right wing.

So I dislike boxes. They’re restrictive. I vote for who I like in terms of policy and who I think will perform best once in office. I’m a democrat, sure. I have leftist ideals but a realistic/pragmatic approach to things. I understand that we all wish to burn things down but that’s not how things work sadly. So let’s be realistic about getting shit done. Guillotine memes don’t feed the starving and they don’t end white supremacy. I’m a uh, let’s call it a north american socialist (no one running is an actual, by the books, definition of socialist, but that’s neither here nor there). 

Since people on this site apparently need to dissect my political beliefs, here you go: 

I believe we should have free healthcare; I believe that university education should be heavily subsidized (free would be great, but let’s start with at least making it subsidized and work from there); I think we should have universal basic income; I believe we should spend more on public infrastructure because our roads and bridges are falling apart; I believe we should have accessible, reliable public transit and an improved public transit network that works at municipal, state and national levels; I believe election days should be national holidays so everyone can vote; I believe gerrymandering is a curse upon our democratic system; I believe that we should spend more on public education at a K-12 level; I believe in subsidized and/or free after school care especially for the economically struggling; I believe we should have stronger anti-hate crime laws; I believe dental and mental health care should be covered anytime we talk about health care coverage; I believe in reparations; I believe we should start our own Truth and Reconciliation process for both slavery and the genocide against the Native Americans; I believe that we should try and address class and wealth disparity but that won’t solve racism, sexism, homophobia etc.; I believe we need electoral reform; I believe we need to do more for climate change but that the Green New Deal is empty in terms of actual things to implement in terms of policy - anyway those who wrote it admitted it was more of an economic plan than a climate one; I believe we need to tax the wealthy including all those pesky millionaires with three houses and wives who were investigated for tax fraud as well as the billionaires — 

I can go on. 

Of those running I currently like Castro, Harris, Warren. I really wish Stacy Abrams was running but she’s not. I think she’d be the best. I’m not a fan of Biden, Sanders, Gabbard (I mean, can we really call her a democrat?), Steyer, Yang. I’m neutral on Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, and Booker. I don’t know if that clarifies anything for you. Also, this is liable to change as we move forward through the primaries. 

And Clinton isn’t right wing. Calling her that continues the lie that she and the GOP are two sides/same coin which isn’t true. It’s a harmful position to perpetuate. There’s been a ton of stuff written on that so I’m not going to put it all in here. But I recommend starting with an analysis of her voting record - it’s on point with Sanders, if that’s your bar, on almost everything with some differences, the notable ones being Iraq (she was for, he was against) and gun control (she is for, he is generally against - his record is really dodgy on that).

I believe all politicians are up for grabs when it comes to legitimate critiques. But there’s a difference in saying “I disagree with her arguments for why she voted for Iraq” and calling her right wing. One is a legitimate critique, the other is hyperbolic and untrue. I also believe in understanding the context of the time in which many policy decisions were made. She, and Sanders, have been in politics for over 20 years. There are going to be decisions made in 1992 that we can look back on and go: Oh boy that was Yikes. But at the time, that wouldn’t have been so clear cut. No one has all the answers. No one is perfect. Purity politics isn’t the solution to our social ills. 

Anyway, some things HRC has supported, or accomplished, includes but is not limited to: 

The ACA - which was huge at the time. I cannot emphasize this enough. It was Ground Breaking. I think younger folk either don’t remember, or aren’t aware, of what a game changer this was. Indeed, it’s because of the ACA that the many Americans are even open to the conversation around medicare for all/any sort of more socialist health coverage. 

On a personal note, as a child of a single, poor working mom in the 90s this is the reason I had any sort of healthcare. Without it, we’d have been fucked. 

This is also one of the things that sent the GOP into a fucking TIZZY about HRC and why they started their 30 year long smear campaign against her which has influenced a lot of the more recent leftist rhetoric on her. 

Indeed, she was an early leader in expanding healthcare coverage in the early 90s and continued to be throughout her career. 

Leadership with SCHIP which which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children. 

I know we all wish we could have Instant Health Care For All but small steps is how you get these things. It’s incredibly complicated and difficult to set up health care systems and programs. They’re large, they become unwieldly, they’re expensive to fund, and they’re difficult to pass through congress. It’s useful to be able to point to precedents. 

She founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families

Supported and championed the Violence Against Women Act

Adoption and Safe Families Act (she was a supporter of it and helped champion it through) 

One of the leaders of the development of the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act 

Supported the Pediatric Research Equity Act - improving health and pharmaceutical access for children 

START treaty - an attempt to begin regulating the amount of nukes Russia and the US have which, even if one wishes we could snap fingers and get rid of them all, one must admit isn’t a bad thing. 

Negotiated ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in 2012 - again, regardless of views on Israel, Hamas and Palestine - having people stop fighting for a time isn’t a bad thing. The hope was it would lead to more productive, long term peace talks etc. but that sadly didn’t pan out. 

Copenhagen Climate Change Accord - one of the chief negotiators 

Etc. etc. she has 25 years of things to list but none of these things are right wing. One can disagree with her foreign policy approach, or think she didn’t push hard enough on health care, or that she came late to the table on LGBTQ issues, but that doesn’t make her right wing. I have right winger-s in the family and they’d all love to see Clinton dead. I know what the right wing looks like and it’s not her. 

Things she supports that make actual, real right wing people (like my great grandfather and my uncle’s sister) hate her: 

She supports and advocates for two weeks of paid family and medical leave at a minimum of 2/3s wage replacement rate 

She supports expanding social security 

You know, she believes in climate change and has worked to reduce carbon emissions, pushed for climate change accords, encouraged renewable energy, and ending tax subsidies for oil companies

clearly things a right wing person would do /sorry sarcasm I just can’t take it too seriously when people call her right wing

She supports immigration reform with full path to citizenship 

She supports the naturalization of around 9 million lawful permanent residents in the United States who are eligible to become U.S. citizens

She’s pro-choice and believes abortion is basic health care

Sorry how do people think she’s right wing again? 

She supports making it illegal for pharmacists to refuse to provide access to emergency contraception

When she was Sec. of State she wanted the US to join the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

She supports the Disability Integration Act, which requires states and insurance companies to provide people with disabilities who need long term care the choice to receive care at home instead of solely in institutions and nursing facilities

She’s obviously pro-gun control and was the first candidate in 2016 to produce an extensive position paper on guns and gun violence

She supports voting rights and advocates for changes in national voter access laws, including automatically registering American citizens to vote at age 18 and mandating 20 days of early voting in all states

She has criticized laws passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures that do not permit student IDs at polling places, place limits on early voting, and eliminate same-day voter registration

She had one of the most thorough mental health care plans that I have ever seen in a presidential nominee. 

It goes on. I again - I don’t get how people can look at this and think her right wing. I sure don’t agree with everything she’s done and every position she’s taken, but she’s not right wing. Good lord my people. 

There’s a lot many people have to thank her for and they’re unaware of it. Tumblr and twitter aren’t ideal places to form and consume political points. 

As a note, I work in the civil service in Canada (am a dual citizen), I’m very familiar with how large socialized programs work and how difficult it is to implement them. There are never any quick and clean solutions. 

And on that note - I’m done for the time being. I hope this answers your question. 

Required civic duty reminder: Everyone vote in the primaries and vote in 2020. Also - no politician is perfect, no politician is going to align 100% with your views and nor should they because you know, we live in a democracy. Do your homework, get off of tumblr and twitter, and make sure you vote! 

[cartoonessays]

“Both Sides”

Pocahontas is a controversial Disney film.  It’s not hard to see why.  In its attempt to tell a story of a historical Native American figure, especially one alive during the beginnings of European colonization of the Americas, it ended up reinforcing a lot of Native American stereotypes and myths about colonization.  For the sake of this post, I’m only going to address one of the sources of backlash towards Pocahontas.  Which brings me to the song above, “Savages”.

The way in which Pocahontas chose to portray English/Native American relations was to compare their tension to the Capulets and Montegues from Romeo & Juliet, with John Smith and Pocahontas standing in as the eponymous characters whose love can help both sides grow past their animus towards one another.  This framing is very kum-ba-yah “can’t we all just get along” in its intent, but it’s dishonest.  It wouldn’t have been dishonest if, let’s say if the conflict between the two warring families in the story began with the Capulets claiming the Montegues’ property and resources as their own and spent the next several centuries removing the Montegues from their property through pillage, rape, and genocide.

In telling any story about Native American history, especially if your story takes place during the first European settlements of the US, and especially if you’re a non-Native American telling the story, the reality of colonialism cannot be ignored or soft-pedaled.  Unfortunately, the song “Savages” and Pocahontas in general mostly frames the Native Americans and English settlers on equal footing.  This isn’t to say that systems of colonialism didn’t or couldn’t bring about comparable individualized prejudice both Pocahontas’ Powhatan tribe and John Smith’s fellow settlers showed towards one another, but those feelings are the manifestations of living under a system based on inequality.

However, if you take a look at comment section of that “Savages” video, most of the comments proudly say “yeah, both sides are evil”, “both sides are bad”, etc. (along with a bunch of other obnoxious right-wing buzzwords like “SJW”, “PC police” or “T R I G G E R E D”)

Which finally brings me to that damned “well, both sides are bad” political talking point.

In the wake of the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, VA that left numerous people injured and one person killed, President Donald Trump has been roundly and rightfully criticized on all sides for equating one side of protesters marching in support of Nazism, racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, homophobia, etc. and the other side of protesters marching against Nazism, racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, homophobia, etc. in his statements about the tragedy over there.  This type of stance of not really having a stance is not a new angle and it certainly isn’t an angle that someone who usually revels in being polarizing like Donald Trump invented.

If there is a contentious issue being debated, it is always a good idea to get a firm grasp of the arguments on each side and understanding all the nuances of each side.  With all those nuances in mind, it’s perfectly fair to have disagreements or misgivings about aspects of each side.  However, the “both sides are bad” view never actually does any of that.  It’s a very lazy and extremely reductive way of viewing the issues that only serves to self-righteously provide a veneer for sitting on the fence that forgoes giving either side any further thought or analysis by reducing them to strawmen.  Another version of this is the reflexive “well, one side says this, one side says that, so the answer must be somewhere in the middle”.  The South Park episode “Chef Goes Nanners” mocked this type of thinking when various townspeople would only flaky, indecisive answers when asked by news reporters whether or not their town flag is racist.

The funniest thing about South Park criticizing that way of thinking is that this show has been the biggest purveyor of this exact type of lazy “well, both sides are bad” thinking.  Their episode “Goobacks” more literally does this than any other episode by hosting a debate between two characters literally named “pissed-off white trash redneck conservative” and “aging hippie liberal douche”.

The other thing about the “both sides are bad” point of view is that while it prides itself on being even-handed and taking the middle road, it very often doesn’t even do that.  More often than not, it simply takes a “softer” conservative point of view.  Another South Park episode “I’m a Little Bit Country”, which centered around the debate over whether or not the US should invade Iraq, settled the conflict between the pro-war side and anti-war side by arguing “only a truly great country can go to war and act like it doesn’t want to”.  What the fuck does that mean?  First of all, I have to outline the way this episode defined both sides.  The pro-war side was defined as “we have to go to war cuz terrorists and 9/11” and the anti-war side was defined as “we should not go to war cuz war is violent and icky”.  The “middle-ground” argument that united both sides amounted to arguing that the US should go to war in order to maintain its powerful geopolitical status in the world, but the image of a robust anti-war populace makes the US look a lot less barbarous to the rest of world.  This completely ignores all of the other arguments made against invading Iraq, such as the Bush Administration’s false claim of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and the Administration’s disingenuous connecting of Hussein to the attacks on the World Trade Center (and these are just two of the counter-arguments brought against invading Iraq).

I’ll stop beating up on South Park for a moment.

Jon Stewart’s 2010 Rally to Restore Sanity was one great big exercise of “both sides are bad, the answer’s gotta be somewhere in the middle”.  Besides taking a dig at Glenn Beck’s 9/12 rallies, Stewart mentioned in interviews that he organized this rally to fight against what he saw was a growing extremism on both sides.  This was during a time when the Tea Party movement was on the rise, Glenn Beck’s show on Fox News was a ratings giant, and at the heels of a massive Republican sweep on the upcoming midterm elections.  This was during a time when debates about Obama’s healthcare reform were characterized by one side arguing that a widely available public program would give private health insurance companies an incentive to reduce their costs and the other side arguing that Obama is a socialist attempting to implement a Nazi policy with “death panels” that will “pull the plug on grandma”.  The response to this growing movement on the right by the Obama Administration was to adopt a healthcare plan formulated by the right-wing think-tank the Heritage Foundation (implemented by his future presidential opponent Mitt Romney in Massachusetts when he was governor) as his healthcare reform, to greatly reduce the government branch that tracked the activity of white supremacist hate groups while membership of these groups were on the rise, and to assist in defunding ACORN and firing US Department of Agriculture director Shirley Sherrod after doctored videos of both falsely incriminating them of wrongdoing circulated around right-wing media.  This is all extremism that clearly skews on one side.  The only example Stewart could bring up of “liberal extremism” was CNN’s firing of news anchor Rick Sanchez after he made veiled antisemitic remarks about Stewart (and how is that liberal extremism?).  I think Jon Stewart did such a disservice to his audience by rallying thousands of them for something based on a false premise.  His snide, dismissive coverage of the Occupy movement the following year further reinforced his adherence to false “both sides” paradigms by framing the Occupy protesters in similar “ha ha look how stoopid and ridiculous these people are” as their coverage of Tea Party protesters.

Which brings me to one of the major tenants of “both sides are bad” ideology,  the horseshoe theory.  This theory equates the left with the right without a shred of nuance or any actual thought whatsoever.  In President Trump’s clusterfuck-of-a-press conference where he doubled down on equally blaming both sides for the violence in Charlottesville, he place a chunk of the blame of what happened there on what he called the “alt-left”.  “Alt-left” is a new-ish slur used to discredit the left-wingers, particularly activists inspired by Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run, by giving them a moniker similar to “alt-right”, which was just a way of rebranding all of the things like white supremacists like the ones who committed violence in Charlottesville stand for as something deceptively softer than calling it what it really is. This term “alt-left” has been used quite a bit over the past year by right-wing pundits like Sean Hannity and powerful Democratic party insiders and surrogates like MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid, Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden, and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas.  Many who throw terms like “alt-left” around, particularly those invested in the Democratic party, have in the past justified their use of such terms by expressing agreement with the horseshoe theory.  Both the alt-right and so-called “alt-left” are allegedly so extreme that they’ve become identical to one another, and Trump and Bernie Sanders are the respective poster boys for these extreme ideologies.  This is a comparison between a cult of personality who finds absolute kinship with neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members and a cult of personality whose politics is more comparable to Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, or even Dwight Eisenhower than to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, or Antonio Gramsci.

The near unanimous admonishing that Trump has gotten for equating both sides in his remarks about Charlottesville is encouraging.  This type of vapid equivocating has been ubiquitous in political discourse for a long time, so my hope is that this will signal a complete deconstruction of this point of view.

But if I may go back to Pocahontas for a second, another major mistake the film made was framing anti-Native American sentiment as starting and ending with the villain Radcliffe.  Trump himself is a very despotic and ridiculous type of character with a lot of parallels to Radcliffe, and I worry that this admonishment of “both sides are bad” type of arguments will not go further than simply denouncing him.  It has been too politically expedient for the opportunists that have trotted it out for all these years, so it likely won’t go the way of phrenology or other pseudo-sciences anytime soon.

[zucca101]

Response: The 2nd

I again ask of my viewers and followers NOT to attempt to seek this person out or cause them any inconvenience. This is my thing to tackle and had they not blocked me, I would be able to respond within the confines, but I felt it was neccesary to allow this debate to be in the public forum.

It's funny how you still try to worm your way out of having to accept that maybe, just maybe, you fucked up. Democrats aren't even fucking leftists, and never were; historically they were the more conservative party all around, over the course of the 1930s to the 1960s the parties' relative positions switched around, today they're liberals. Every other country in the world considers liberalism a right-wing ideology, at best a centrist one for a reason (hint: it has something to do with being vehemently pro-capitalist)

Incorrect. That is a pernicious and commonly held myth that does not hold up to scrutiny.

<div class="tumblr-post" data-href="https://embed.tumblr.com/embed/post/ZxD-qUmiewEE0H0tTone4Q/163463839262" data-did="da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709"><a href="http://zucca101.tumblr.com/post/163463839262/the-political-parties-in-the-1860s-are-not-the">http://zucca101.tumblr.com/post/163463839262/the-political-parties-in-the-1860s-are-not-the</a></div>  <script async src="https://assets.tumblr.com/post.js"></script>

Also, Sargon, left of center? Reads-the-headlines-and-nothing-else-of-the-articles-he-cites Sargon? Constantly complains about The Left™ like you do and constantly apes the same rhetoric coming from the far right Sargon? That Sargon? Yeah, no.

He is on the Left. He’s become disenfranchised with the Social Justice angle it’s adopted and the Islamophilia as well. And God only knows, there’s enough I disagree with him on to fill a book, but someone who actively challenged him and pored over his vids, found one thing Sargon got incorrect, and it was something he had already retracted.

I don’t agree with him on everything. But I trust him due to his intellectual integrity. Same with Teal Deer, same with the others I watch.

"And I CHALLENGE YOU to show me where I said that women should not have access to healthcare. Or even hinted at it." That's not even what I said, and you damn well know it. My implication was that you're in favor of restricting healthcare access to the poor, which guess what, if you're going to be in favor of repealing shit that makes healthcare more accessible to them, basic logic would dictate that's going to happen. You manage to go off on an entire tirade about abortion when what I was addressing was the supposed line of thought behind it.

Fair to say, but that’s not what I’m in favor of either. The Affordable Healthcare Act was like a shiny used car sold by a constantly smiling, charming salesman. It ran fine for the first stretch, but broke down after you got around the bend. Libertarian that I am, I believe such an act was foolish because it was nothing more than a scam by the insurance companies lining up to get all the business they could ever ask for because signing up for healthcare became COMPULSORY. Which is bullshit.

Also? I hate to be the one to give you the newsflash, but jobs aren't going to save society. We already work far more than we need to to keep things going, or even to afford a high living standard - most jobs that currently exist do because either it's marginally cheaper to severely underpay people for them rather than to automatize them, or otherwise only exist as an artifact of capitalism itself - many different corporations that require management, marketing that simply wouldn't exist under literally any other economic system.

I’d love to see citation for that which doesn’t reek of Socialist claptrap. Automation is progressing, to be sure, but progress is progress, right? That doesn’t mean there isn’t work to be had if you either look for it or try to find it outside of your comfort zones. I had to work at a Wal-Mart of all places, but I swallowed my pride and I did it. Didn’t enjoy it, but I did my job.

Between this and the ongoing trend towards atuomatization? Those jobs are going to disappear, and there aren't going to be new ones in sufficient numbers to avoid giant swathes of people in permanent unemployment. That's not me doomspeaking, that's a logical consequence of what's going on today.

It tickles me something fierce that you don’t actually address the automation. You think SOCIALISM would fix that? By making things so shitty that automation isn’t an option, perhaps. No, Socialism would cram everyone into a job and regardless of whether they want it or not, they MUST do that job.

By the way, speaking from years of first hand and second hand experience here: unemployed people don't actually sit on their asses all day, contrary to what you've been led to believe by people who have a vested interest in keeping everyone working for scraps.

Speaking from second hand experience myself, I’ve had friends and friends of friends who NEVER got real jobs and instead collected food stamps they bartered for room and board. I’ve known people who have chosen to panhandle and beg on the street rather than go to a job. (And to be fair, that’s non-taxable income…) So I’m afraid anecdotal evidence from either of us is not enough to conclusively prove this one.

Therefor…

http://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/07/employment-vs-unemployment-different-stories-from-the-jobs-numbers/

Jobs aren't the only way to contribute to society, most artists do work that can't support itself under capitalism (and that logically the artist themselves wouldn't be able to keep themselves fed on without at the very least some sort of social safety net), and if we only kept going with that art that proves to be profitable enough to support someone, thereby only appealing to the lowest common denominator?

And…. And you think COMMUNISM or SOCIALISM will let you art the way you want to? At least in Capitalism, an artist can make money for their work! Hell, the internet and Patreon has made it easier than ever for someone to make a living with their art or at least supplement their living. I know HUNDREDS of artists who balance art for its own sake, art for income and a normal job. And they’re not unique in that sense. Art enriches a culture, absolutely, but when it’s dependent on the government… then why would one go BACK to a normal job if they can make a period blood painting, throw it on the wall and demand money from the government? Art should be independent of governmental meddling.

And if you ask Joe Average if he would rather be COMPELLED by the government to pay forty bucks every month to contribute to art or fill his car’s gas tank, buy a few bags of groceries for his family or get used shoes at the Thrift Store, what do you think he’d do?

Art flourishes when free of meddling.

You’re an artist, yes? Suppose you got a check from the government for creating art… but suppose your art did not hold up to some arbitrary definition? It’s taxpayer money after all. So you would have to create art… but only as the government sees fit. Which is no different than making art by commission… except for the fact that under capitalism, you can create art as work, you can create art after working hours, you can create art just to make someone smile. You aren’t beholden.

I can tell you right away this world would be an immensely darker place for it, and all that precious inflation art would vanish overnight.

Heh, the one I had in mind at the top of my list when mentioning those hundreds of artists is a very prominent one. He works a daily job, he makes money with his art, and he makes art for its own sake.

Take a look at this picture…

https://zucca-xerfantes.deviantart.com/art/Berlin-Wall-piece-from-Reagan-Library-612126840

Riddle me this…

The side you see if colorful and full of art and vibrant colors and the other side is matte gray, untouched.

Take a WILD guess which side was the Commies’…

In addition to that, it's beyond unethical to force people who can't work to beg for scraps from charities that both A) impose their will on them (like the Salvation Army), and B) even if all perfectly good natured, wouldn't collectively have the resources to support everyone anyway, especially not when it's entirely within the state's means to give those people a decent standard of living.

Uh, I think I already said that I’m not against government assistance for those who are literally unable to work.

As for your examples, the Salvation Army’s policy is NOT to deny service to trans or homosexual people. A same sex couple can be permitted, but as separate individuals. I don’t hold to that part, but hey, their house, their rules, and they’re not turning them away outright. Now while it’s true that SOME SA people refuse service, that is not the organization’s policy. And considering they saved the life of an IRL trans friend of mine, I am STRONGLY disinclined to believe smear stories.

As for the second, See first paragraph in this section.

"Constantly pretend to…. universally bad…? WHAT….?" You know damn well what I was talking about. The constant "oh, Muslims throw gay people off of buildings all the time! You should be thankful!" takes? The kind of bullshit that you spout to propagate hate against them in the name of "protecting us" when you subsequently turn around and support people like Mike Pence who wishes we'd all vanish, one way or another? I see you, and your cutesy "but I have black friends" argument doesn't fucking work here.

If you can prove me wrong about how Islam as a whole feels about homosexual people and transsexual people, then I will apologize right now. Imams view the murder of homosexuals as A MERCY for fuck’s sake. That is some kind of bona fide evil. Yet for some reason, your fluffy Social Justice Totem Pole places a Death Cult’s feelings above YOUR RIGHT TO *LIVE* SO JUST EXCUSE THE SHIT OUT OF ME FOR CALLING IT OUT.

And supporting Mike Pence….??? I couldn’t give less of a crap about him if I tried. The dude is an advocate of conversion therapy, which does not work. Case closed. Frankly I think Trump picked him for the same reason Obama picked Biden. Assassination prevention! ‘You might kill me, but SERIOUSLY, look at THIS guy… you want HIM instead?’

Jokes aside, I don’t agree with Pence. If, God forbid, he became president, I’d support the office but if he started making life harder for the gay people for no reason, then I’d be fundamentally opposed.

Again, you know this, but damned if you’ll permit that to get in the way of a good strawman whoopin’, eh?

And I find it ASTONISHING that you lie to yourself that Pence is the one to be feared when there is nothing he can legally do to hurt you, but the Death Cult wants you to actually die and are SANCTIONED in such acts.

Pulse Nightclub ring a bell? Fifty innocent people murdered by a guy whose religion told him that his only salvation for his sins was to become a martyr.

By the way, you also don't get to decide who's actually trans and who isn't. Trans people detransition or don't bother transitioning for any number of reasons. Doesn't mean the person underneath isn't transgender, most of the time it's just because society is so fucking harsh against us that they decide living in the wrong body and being seen the wrong way by others is less painful than the outright hostility we can expect on a daily basis.

I’m speaking real here… I cannot possibly understand what it’s like to be Trans. I cannot appreciate the struggles that a trans person is forced to go through. A friend of mine lost her wife and her children because she transitioned. And she’s one of the most gentle and decent souls I’ve ever known.

But she is a real Transsexual. Not some idiot child enamored by the idea of being Transsexual. Not some teen who wants to piss off their parents, or some snowflake who wants to be that much more special. What they do is an INSULT to the Trans people who struggle with it. Who, as you have pointed out, have a ton of shit they have to put up with without their struggles being trivialized..

I’m not of the notion that Trans people have it easy because PC culture has elevated them above others (Except for the fanatical Death Cult that wants to kill them) or anything like that.

I disagree with that notion which is held by a large number of YouTube personalities I watch regularly.

However… in the same way I have nothing but contempt for idiotic children and childish adults who pretend to have Multiple Personality Disorder because they think it’s some kind of fun game where The Doctor and Loki play around in their head, I can’t stand the same kind of idiot children who think they can switch their gender like a toggle and to be SUPER SPECIAL AWESOME have a fantasy word to describe their nonexistent gender.

But oh no, I’M the scientific illiterate. >_>

As for "you don't have the right not to fuck a trans person" (lol), literally nobody is actually saying that - those takes are about dismissing the idea of having sex with someone who's trans out of hand, not saying no if the opportunity were to actually come up.

…

Honest question, you haven’t heard of Riley Dennis, have you? Very prominent Trans YouTuber who has numerous videos now shaming straight people for not wanting to get into a sexual relationship with a trans person.

Riley is of the mind that straight people don’t have a right to refuse, lest they be bigots. >_>

And if you think that’s an absurd thing to say, then bless you. We’re in agreement.

And if it were just Riley, that’d be one thing, but here on Tumblr and on Twitter, there are posts saying much the same, but not in the weasely, round-about way Riley did.

Do I think that’s the majority opinion? No.

But it is not a case of ‘Literally no on believes that’.

And if Christians have to be lumped in with wretches like the KKK and Westboro, well then... what’s good for the goose ought to suffice for the gander, hm?

As for where you're anti-science? Ho boy, where do I begin. Those hot anti-climate change takes of yours are a good start, dismissing everything that happens in that regard as "just the weather" when sea level rise, melting ice in the polar areas as a result of it, and year after year of hottest yearly average temperatures have not only been happening for at least the past century, but have also been accelerating more recently. I'd know, I literally live in one of the places directly affected by this. Most of this country is below sea level, we keep having to build up our dams and dunes even higher to avoid flooding the damn place like what happened back in 1953. To dismiss all that as "the weather" is beyond foolish.

I never said Climate Change isn’t real.

Nor have those I’ve reblogged.

The notion of manmade Global Warming is what is contested.

See, there was a smart way to go about spreading the message and a stupid way to go about it.

The stupid way was to let hypocritical hacks like Al Gore dominate the stage.

The smart way would’ve been to appeal to everyone’s common need to save money and how many green tech save water, electricity and gas bills.

But nope…. Shaming was WAY more fun and satisfying. And now it’s become politicized.

I’m a wildlife conservationist of a sensible variety. Sharks, whales, rhinos and cheetahs are being driven over a cliff and it needs to stop.

And there are more than a few Conservatives on the same boat. Michael Savage, radio host, for instance.

But stereotyping and shaming is SO MUCH MORE SATISFYING TO THE BASE URGE OF APPEASING ONE’S INNER RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.

ISN’T IT?

"Capitalism gives everyone the same shot at living" is an even more ridiculous take if I ever saw one. Yes, I'm sure my disabled, mixed and poor ass has the exact same chances as Reginald who can simply ask daddy for money to start up any business he likes, or hell - just live off of that, put it all in stocks, hire some people to make sure his investments don't go to waste and be set for life! He doesn't even need to work! At all! No rich person does!

Step away from the Marxist teacher, amigo. They are NOT your friend…

You’re full of shit.

I’ll out and say it right here.

You are so full of shit on this one that your eyes are turning brown.

You’re just barfing up the same politics of envy nonsense that every single frakking Socialist hack barfs up.

“I can’t work because there’s some rich guy out there who has more stuff than I do!!!! HARUMPH!!!!!!!!” Do you hear yourself...?

Does the nature of your disability preclude you from doing ANY work? If so, then that is a case wherein you should be lent aid.

But if you have your hands… you can work. If you have your legs, you can work. If you have your eyes, you can work. If you have your wits, you can work. If you can’t find work, look harder. Or make your own. That’s what I did. I was destitute only seven years ago. And I’ve built myself up. And that was all done with clinical depression weighing me down like lead.

Self-determination? Ah yes, being forced to slave away at a minimum wage job because you simply can't get hired elsewhere for the rest of your life, or starving. That's self-determination in the same sense that having the choice between following orders and maybe be allowed to live, or don't and be killed when someone holds a gun to your head is. Venezuela, or any other socialist country in the world is/has been hardly perfect, but you know what's not helping?

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WORK AT A MINIMUM WAGE JOB FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

Sorry, sorry… you’re like the fiftieth person whose thrown that at me and it gets cringier every time I hear it… I apologize.

But seriously, if you think that min wage is for life, you’ve not made very good decisions.

You start at the bottom and work your way up. Just because you spend a few years flipping burgers doesn’t mean you’re stuck there!

Fuck… you can apprentice with a plumber and be making SIX FIGURES in FIVE YEARS!

I kid thee not!

Fascist protestors literally burning supplies that are already hard to get by. Action taken by the US to undermine pretty much any socialist country that has ever existed. As for more internal problems? Guess what, those can be improved upon. It's an economic system, not a religion.

Can be? Doubt it, but maybe.

Will be? No.

And as for being an economic system and not a religion…

That’s a mighty tall claim, considering the fact that Socialism tends to butt out religion and replace it with itself. Take China for example. All their rich culture, their ancient heritage, their majestic architecture, their thousands of years of history and artifacts…. FUCKING RUINED BY A LITTLE SHIT WITH HIS LITTLE RED BOOK.

The very basic premise you utterly fail to process here is that this shit is subject to constant rethinking and revision, something made impossible when some strongman figure decides to take power, no matter what side of the political spectrum they're on - that said, the right loves those far, far more than anyone left of center will, as a matter of basic principles that define either side.

Which is one of the fundamental flaws in Socialism and Communism. You can’t build off of that when the foundation is garbage. And how many MOUNTAINS OF CORPSES do you wish to produce before we ‘Get Socialism right’?

Thanks, but Capitalism has existed LONG before Socialism.

Otem from the Mountain People went to Trajk of the Plains People because the Plains People make masterful spears. He traded a basket, which the Mountain People make better than anyone, including the Plains People, for a spear. Both people are wealthier as a result.

And that also leads us to why I consider right-wingers universally shitty people: plainly speaking, they simply are.

And you call ME the bigot…?

It's at best ignorant, at worst astonishingly hypocritical as can be to act like you care about the poor, only to deliberately make their lives harder using the political apparatus in place.

You know that is not the motivation of capitalists. And if that’s what you think, then you are simply incorrect.

You can't say you care about groups of people, then vote for those who are all too happy to take their rights away.

I DO care and I disagree with the ban. While I find it iffy to put people who deal with what Trans people do into severely high-stress situations, if they believe they can hack it, I believe they have a right to stand proudly beside the other defenders of the country.

Actions speak louder than words, and actions that affect an entire country weigh far more heavily than those taken on an individual basis - giving money to individual homeless people simply doesn't counterbalance supporting the people who make sure they can't sleep anywhere by putting spikes out in public places.

Spikes out? It’s the LABOR PARTY in the UK who want to fine homeless people a thousand pounds for sleeping in public.

See my above points for further rebuttal. I’m not repeating myself.

Don't bother acting like I'm saying all this out of ignorance either - I've been there myself. I've had a right-wing phase, I only need to look back at my own past actions to see the hypocrisy that lies underneath.

I’m not going to say that everyone one the Right are Saints. You know that’s not my position. I also don’t think everyone on the Left are foolish. Fuck, I don’t even think the majority of them are bad people at all! I think they’re people whose hearts are generally in the right place, but feel rather than think. But you are, inversely, able to forgive EVERY sin of the Left while, and I quote, labeling every right-winger as universally bad people.

That is some FRIGHTENING SHIT right there, amigo. That you can de-humanize EVERYONE on the opposite political spectrum because you’re so high on your own moral superiority that you’ve willfully blinded yourself.

And while ignorance itself is forgivable, you've repeatedly shown not to care in the slightest for anything that would lead you to reconsider your ideas, nor do you have any interest in actually putting your money where your mouth is on the grander scale with just about anything you mentioned in your post.

HAH… if you only knew…

So yeah. Come back to me when you've learned to genuinely care about other people beyond those in your direct personal sphere.

So you’re moving the goalposts, huh?

I contested that I’m not the evil strawman you have created and now you’re saying ‘Well, you may care about the people around you, BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE?!’

Friendo… I can’t care about everybody else. Everybody else are adults, or will be someday. Then everybody else can care about everybody else. They’re my neighbors and I genuinely wish them well. I’ll help a stranger’s reasonable request just for the asking. But I am not Atlas. I cannot take on all the problems of the world. I can voice my opinion on how they should be dealt with, to be sure. Because I have that freedom.

I care for my country and fellow citizens, and I will vote according to how I believe they can best be helped. But it is *not* my responsibility to solve all of their problems for them.

Even if I could, I would not. Because it’s our problems and our struggles that make us grow.

The butterfly cannot fly if it doesn’t struggle its way out of the cocoon. A well meaning person may peel the cocoon away, but that dooms the butterfly to a flightless life.

Buddha said that life is a struggle. And he wasn’t wrong there.

But while we can help our friends, our neighbors and even strangers, that does not mean that it’s relative across the board.

Poverty in the West is a child asking his father why he’s crying as he weeps over a stack of bills on the table. Poverty in the third world is emaciated children with rice-bloated bellies.

Both are heartbreaking, but both are unique to their places of origin and therefore are not comparable.

You can lie to yourself all day about who I am, what my motivations are and what my heart is like.

But if you found out who I am, what I’m like, how I behave, then you may be willing to face down your other prejudice against an entire group of people you have frighteningly labeled as universally evil.