Whats up faggots.

[Jessup]

Anyone who is a Trump supporter needs serious help. Anyone who is a republican in this day in age who doesn't make at least $500,000 a year needs serious help. Anyone who makes over $500,000 and wants tax cuts is a selfish prick and needs serious help. I blame todays right wing in all its current forms for the fleecing of America. Long gone are the days of true conservatism. Sad times these days .. the progressive liberal backlash is gathering its strength. How it plays out is unknown but it will be a fight one way or another. Virginia's election gave me some hope. The south needs to rise up and very well may be on its way to doing just that.

[kthx]

No Jerome, I am just saying that on the communities online that I am a part of, most of us hold the same common core of beliefs in the way things should be but we almost to the point of satire make comments calling Trump "god emperor" and all the other stuff. The fact that people take it seriously speaks more on them than ourselves.

[Jerome Scuggs]

going to continue to jerk myself off here, because how many of you have ever had this happen

[Jerome Scuggs]

That doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a moderate. Or be apolitical. You can and should hold views, and those views should be constantly changing and evolving with new information and experience. Rational people are always willing to listen to others and consider what they have to say. They also bear analysis of what they believe, admit when they're wrong, and adapt. I don't see much of that on any side of any argument anymore. Makes me sad. Do these voices still exist in a world addicted to feeling smugly superior?

As I've mentioned several times in this thread, politics isnt something i just started diving into recently, and this forum bears proof of my constant re-evaluations of my own positions spanning a decade. i'm very familiar with conservatism and libertarian economics, and quite frankly i'd be willing to wager i know more about macro and micro than kthx will possibly ever learn. In 2004 I was cutting Ron Paul articles to use for debate rounds, in 2008 I had the chance to vote for him, as Louisiana was one of the few states that had a third party put Paul on the ticket. I used to do weekly politics threads and I'd love to see even one post where kthx sat down and wrote something like this

anyways that thread is proof that i've been hyper-critical of the NYT and "the mainstream media" for AT LEAST a decade, so idk its hard to take kthx seriously when he accuses me of getting all my news from CNN or whatever

but you're right that people just don't argue/debate anymore, they just sort of throw statements at eachother and never really engage with the ideas themselves.

Anyways, Qan you think that by saying we that I am actually homogenizing an entire voting base instead of just saying that in general most of us would agree on these issues based on the fact that I have been a part of said group since its existence when Trump announced his run. You are absolutely wrong here.

the wording is a bit vague here so i can't tell if you're saying trump voters dont really agree on much else besides a "trump is god" personality cult, or if you're saying you're all obedient sheep who follow the party line with no deviation because critical thinking is hard. neither of these are a good look

Most countries are a blend of capitalism and socialism, the US being one of the most prominent examples. Taking away Social Security is about as unthinkable as disbanding the NYSE at this point. I don't think there's anyone pushing to remove SS. But if they were "real" capitalists, they would of a necessity, because that's big government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Pure capitalism is pure plutocracy, rule by the affluent/powerful (same thing), and utter tyranny. Pure socialism/communism is quickly captured by a Leninist-style elite ("well, sheeeeeit, this dictatorship of the proletariat ain't gonna lead itself"), usually by people who were rich before the inevitable violent revolution needed to institute said "pure" socialism, and who invested a lot of capital in order to get that "revolution," aka de facto coup, to take root.

Both are idealistic in the extreme, one ascribing some truth or beauty or godlike quality to a perfect "market" which has never existed and never will exist, the other assuming the good nature of human beings -- something which is extremely naive if you're any student of history. In practice the two must somewhere meet. The balance can be debated, and the implementation. But for the most part, a blend of socialism and capitalism is the only real form of modern governance, and probably will be so for the foreseeable future.

A blend like that might be referred to as "social democracy" or "democratic socialism" (though the more hardcore leftists will find a million nuances to bitch at me about for saying that) and I absolutely agree that at the moment it's quite an ideal form.

I take issue with the classic "human nature" argument against socialism: it's hard for an ideology to assume "humans are naturally good" when a main tenet of that ideology is that an entire group/class of people are actually pretty shitty and bad :P socialism is about reigning in those bad tendencies. Capitalism is about exploiting those bad tendencies: if you're greedy, producing goods for people is a great way to get rich, so theoretically everyone benefits. Personally, however, I see a world where profits are increasingly becoming separated from the general standard of living, and I've come to the conclusion that capitalism is no longer a net benefit to the masses. For every bill gates out there, there's like five martin shkreli's.

Of course I do subscribe to the more radical notion that capital may yet one day be abolished. Is it likely in our lifetime? No, but I do think that we will be seeing the internal contradictions of capitalism become more obvious, severe and pronounced in our lifetime. Increasingly destructive recessions, falling wages (when adjusted for inflation), and an organized effort to influence the government in ways that will benefit the elites at everyone else's expense. These are things I began noticing, and *then* someone told me to read Marx, and I was blown away to see how clearly he saw this future at a time when markets were revolutionizing and improving society at a staggering rate.

gonna end this wall of text post with an article i read recently that i found interesting, because it highlights the weird contradictory new ideology that trump - and i guess, by extension, kthx - seem to subscribe to. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/11/t...mind-interview

[kthx]

Nah, socialism is for starving faggots

[qan]

I just want Jerome to admit that socialism is retarded.

Most countries are a blend of capitalism and socialism, the US being one of the most prominent examples. Taking away Social Security is about as unthinkable as disbanding the NYSE at this point. I don't think there's anyone pushing to remove SS. But if they were "real" capitalists, they would of a necessity, because that's big government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Pure capitalism is pure plutocracy, rule by the affluent/powerful (same thing), and utter tyranny. Pure socialism/communism is quickly captured by a Leninist-style elite ("well, sheeeeeit, this dictatorship of the proletariat ain't gonna lead itself"), usually by people who were rich before the inevitable violent revolution needed to institute said "pure" socialism, and who invested a lot of capital in order to get that "revolution," aka de facto coup, to take root.

Both are idealistic in the extreme, one ascribing some truth or beauty or godlike quality to a perfect "market" which has never existed and never will exist, the other assuming the good nature of human beings -- something which is extremely naive if you're any student of history. In practice the two must somewhere meet. The balance can be debated, and the implementation. But for the most part, a blend of socialism and capitalism is the only real form of modern governance, and probably will be so for the foreseeable future.

[kthx]

I just want Jerome to admit that socialism is retarded.

[qan]

OK, fair enough. Sounds like you're not in too deep. Maybe you haven't succumbed to the idea of being on the Purple Team, waving the glorious yellow flag, etc.


This polarization of politics is encouraged by the MSM because it's profitable, is encouraged by the US government because it leads to stability of existing power structures. If you're addicted to feeling angry or superior to the enemy team, you'll consume news media that provides that feeling, and this in turn drives advertising markets. If you're too distracted with punching "Nazis" or LARPing against "SJWs," you won't question how the government functions.


At the core of this polarization is identity politics: "we." Holding allegiance to a group, adhering to a set of principles that you can put any name to (any -ism, party, movement, etc.), believing a political candidate... These are all unworthy of any active and independent mind -- at least, in my opinion.


That doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a moderate. Or be apolitical. You can and should hold views, and those views should be constantly changing and evolving with new information and experience. Rational people are always willing to listen to others and consider what they have to say. They also bear analysis of what they believe, admit when they're wrong, and adapt. I don't see much of that on any side of any argument anymore. Makes me sad. Do these voices still exist in a world addicted to feeling smugly superior?

[kthx]

Anyways, Qan you think that by saying we that I am actually homogenizing an entire voting base instead of just saying that in general most of us would agree on these issues based on the fact that I have been a part of said group since its existence when Trump announced his run. You are absolutely wrong here.

[kthx]

We don't give a fuck what you think Qan, you can't even circle shit correctly.

[qan]

Yeah but we hate like.. 90% of those people.

Are you using the royal "we," or admitting you're a slave to fashion and identity politics, incapable of thinking for yourself?

4/pol/ is antithetical to everything """we" stood for back in the day. 2004-2006 those boards were about having fun. It was about freedom. Apolitical, anarchic, absurdist. No bedtimes, no rules. From that, """""""we""""" helped form what is now worldwide culture.

Now? It's a hugbox. Deviate from the norm and like every other section of society, you are shamed.

But hey, it's always the job of the so-called normies (a modern coinage) to homogenize and conform everything to particular social standards, I guess. It's just a shame to see that kind of discourse disappear. Because people like yourself insist that there is a "we." And so one comes into existence. And what's there that's good and worthwhile and free vanishes into thin air, and in its place we are left with hard ideologies lacking any sense of mirth. Exactly what is needed out of you by those you claim to hate. Good slave!

[kthx]

Thats because it isn't really needed, Moore will likely win to be honest, especially now that the yearbook thing has been basically debunked. Basically once the oust the dipshit leadership who don't follow his agenda the rest will fall in line.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Yeah but we hate like.. 90% of those people. Cruz might be a good SCJ, Rand Paul isn't the man his father was but I guess hes not the worst, Pence is.. I think trump has changed him honestly. Gowdy is a fucking faker who acts tough I mean.. that doesn't do your point any justice at all.

ok yeah i hate them too but they're still in congress, turtleface mitch is still senate majority leader, bill cassidy was the dude besides graham trying to pull off that terrible ACA repeal attempt, etc etc

also keep in mind that good/strong presidents are able to effectively campaign for people other than themselves. obama was a great self-promoter but when it came to using his position to endorse candidates... well he sucked at it and under Obama the dems lost the most seats theyve ever lost in one term (i think any party has ever lost), like 200 seats flipped republican

november isnt even over yet and it looks like trump's having the same problem. trump candidates are losing either to 1) more mainstream republicans or 2) democrats (tranny democrats at that lol)

so yeah i think the tea party is on its way out but i'm not exactly seeing a surge of trumpistas being elected to serve some trumpian agenda filling the power vacuum there either

[kthx]

people elected on tea party platforms:
mike pence
mitch mcconnell
paul ryan
scott walker
michelle bachman
john boehner
trey gowdy
steve king
rand paul
bill cassidy
steve scalise
ted cruz

basically i never hear about any of these people so u right, tea party had no impact on GOP leadership

Yeah but we hate like.. 90% of those people. Cruz might be a good SCJ, Rand Paul isn't the man his father was but I guess hes not the worst, Pence is.. I think trump has changed him honestly. Gowdy is a fucking faker who acts tough I mean.. that doesn't do your point any justice at all.

[Jones]

neoliberalism is a term with two main connotations, one definition is around 60 years old and the other about 40 years old, it's a term used by scholars frequently and they definitely know what they mean when they talk about it

it doesnt mean "new liberals" or something like that (ie neoconservative or neonazi etc), it refers not to liberal politics but to the idea of Liberalism, the philosophy that was the basis of 17-19th century Europe. Neoliberalism is specific to political thought emerging in the postwar 60's, it's the philosophy that shaped the idea of a "global order" where world wars would never happen again and free trade would enrich everyone, and all problems could be solved by merely tweaking laws and regulations. An example of this type of thinking is when Clinton was all, "America is ALREADY great!" - she genuinely believes our system is already perfect and just needs some slight adjustments and maybe some new leadership. "America is already great" is a neoliberal-as-hell type thing to say

i see. thanks.