Senate Going Postal: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

I have no idea. If Orwell does have a quote about that, I wasn't referring to it. That was more of my belief.

 

Because there's right-wing populism and there's left-wing populism, and they're not the same thing. They're similar in that they're both about harnessing the potent feeling that some effers from a different group are taking stuff that rightfully belongs to you. Where they're massively different is that right-wing populism incorrectly blames immigrants and ethnic minorities, whereas left-wing populism correctly blames the rich.

And of course right-wing populism is actually a false populism because it shields the real culprits from accountability while simultaneously demonizing working class people who aren't part of the favored group. That's why capitalists always side with the fascists in the end. Supporting fascism is a way of molding populist discontent into a form which keeps the working classes distracted with racial conflict while the economic elites get to retain their power.

But the fact that both forms of populism ultimately arise from the same feeling of anxiety over scarce economic resources is why there's actually a little bit of crossover between the two demographics, and we can actually poach some people from the other side if we play our cards right. Of course we can't convert the committed, hardcore Nazi and Nazi-adjacent types, because that would requires decades of cultural deprogramming. But we don't need them.

That all being said, I'd say that inspiring turnout from economically left-leaning populations that usually don't vote is probably a more important component of left-wing populist strategy. But that doesn't mean there's no merit in appealing to those infamous Obama-Trump voters in the Rust Belt, since that should happen just by virtue of doing what we should be doing anyway.

 

Mitch McConnell is the epicenter of corruption. Can't stand him. He is an enemy to democracy.

 

The epicenter of corruption doesn't lie in any one individual, and that way of thinking is not one that will lead to long-term success. Mitch McConnell is simply playing a role, and if we defeat him, someone else will eventually take his place to do the exact same thing.

Now, McConnell is pretty damn good at playing his role, and there's a good chance the person immediately replacing him won't be as good at it. So getting rid of him might lead to slightly better results in the short term. But that won't last long. Eventually someone as smart or smarter than him will be found to do his job, and we'll be right back where are now.

The only true way to eradicate the corruption is to eliminate it at its source. And that means radical structural change.

 

Mitch McConnell is an eternal concept

 

Turtles *do* live a long time.

 

Turtles that sold their soul to the devil live even longer... or so I hear...

 

I agree with the differences generally, but I don't think the fact that there are still toxic elements of left wing populism should be easily disregarded. Sanders doesn't appear to have any toxic elements in his platform (just maybe some questionable economic policies), but while it was blown out of proportion, there is truth to their being some anti-Semitism elements in the British Labour Party. Old tropes about Jewish people and capital ownership, etc, etc.

 

He's basically an Eldritch Abomination in turtle form. He knows that Trump has a very thick skull, but he compliments it and says it's a very strong skull. I mean, if some of the less popular Republican senators could break party, that would be great, but it's difficult to foresee people swayed by de facto fascism having any courage. Alan Moore wouldn't be able to stand writing these people if they were fictitious.

I'm just ready for these primaries to get underway. I don't see Biden getting far. It looks like Warren and Mayor Pete will be Bernie's main competitors. However, if we wins California, as he is now projected to do, there will be little the establishment can do.

 

itt neck shaming

 

Tbh it's more the nose.

 

Better check if Mitch has a tail of seaweed growing on his back........high five for whoever gets that reference

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michel...oe-bidens-presidential-campaign/#3e499d3f159e

Here are the lists of billionaires backing Joe Biden's campaign. Interestingly, George Lucas' wife donated to him, but Lucas himself donated to Kamala Harris.

Personally, I agree with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren with regard to billionaires. I don't think they are all bad, but I think that their wealth could be used to finance things like a universal healthcare system, among other things.

 

I don't think it's as simple as saying they aren't all bad. The main point is that being a billionaire means one human being has wayyyyy more resources they could ever spend in their lifetime. It won't matter if the person is "good" or "bad" - it's that the concentration of wealth in itself is bad for society.

 

That's what I meant. I was thinking more about Leon Cooperman and how he is so callous about about helping others. He acts like only he and his fellow billionaires are worthwhile, and he wept on live television at the prospect of a wealth tax from Warren. It was just disgusting to me because he was talking about Trump's crimes as though they didn't matter, and I can never take anyone seriously who thinks that sexual assault and locking children in cages is irrelevant. I just am like, "Get out of my life," to them.

 

Thank you.

 

This is correct. The fact is that at some point, amassing wealth for wealth's sake simply should not exist. I know for a lot of people that comes of as "punishing people for their success" but the truth is, there are plenty of things we don't let people who have "worked hard" do. We don't let them hunt other human beings for sport. We don't let them launch nukes. We don't let them do a lot of things. I wanna add "amass wealth" to that list.

 

I mean, there's no way any one human being can spend a billion dollars or more in the things they personally need, within reason, so it all comes down to spending in vulgar excess, or leaving much of it to their spouses and/or family when they die - and it would be easy for several generations of their relatives to live off of it. Ultimately, many of the people who will benefit from the money left over by the billionaires are going to be ones who DID NOT WORK FOR IT.

 

Inheritance cap at $100k. They amass wealth to pass it down on their bloodline and keep it away from the rest of us. This way, they only get to pass down $100k total, and the rest gets confiscated.

Yeah, I know they're gonna yell "death tax" and all that jazz, but I'm unfazed.

 

Why does the right always end up making us sound so freaking cool?

 

There's anti-Semitism everywhere. It has nothing whatsoever to do with left-wing populism intrinsically. The campaign to pain Labour as riddled with anti-Semitism was nothing but selective outrage ginned up by a right wing which has its own fair share of anti-Semitism and a much, much more troubling problem with Islamophobia which actually is intrinsic to it.

As much as I admire Lucas as an artist, he's also a multi-billionaire, and he's no class traitor. Kamala Harris is extremely on brand for him.

 

It sometimes forms in populist leftists groups out of the ideology, which is the point. It was clearly exaggerated in the case of British Labour though, which I already said.

 

Can you explain to me what part of leftist ideology leads to antisemitism?

 

Can lead. It's very easy for some to associate capital owners with the Jewish people inherently.