What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 46.10: A New Hope

Status
Not open for further replies.
rufus said:
And yet, you keep voting for the people who do. Huh.
Click to expand...

Nothing says privilege like voting economic interests before social ones. Susan Collins was “proud” to vote for Trump’s tax cuts, which added $2 trillion to the deficit, the vast majority going to the wealthy. But, yes, we’ll take his vote for Biden against Trump. Any other Republican manages to win, we won’t have his vote.
 
psych said:
Excellent chart. Which Democrats are able to breakthrough to those persuadable voters? Porter? Brown? Tester?
Click to expand...

It's the opposite. There are no persuadable voters. There are only our voters, who we can further energize. Move more left economically and socially. Get younger and more diverse and less Christian. Follow the kids because the kids are the future.

The Right learned the lesson in the mid-90s that you punch above your weight by becoming more extreme. That is how they have stayed nationally relevant despite being only a third of the population. Well, we are half the population in our own right. So go all the way. Be the real Left. We will steamroll the Nazis.
 
Kepler said:
It's the opposite. There are no persuadable voters. There are only our voters, who we can further energize. Move more left economically and socially. Get younger and more diverse and less Christian. Follow the kids because the kids are the future.

The Right learned the lesson in the mid-90s that you punch above your weight by becoming more extreme. That is how they have stayed nationally relevant despite being only a third of the population. Well, we are half the population in our own right. So go all the way. Be the real Left. We will steamroll the Nazis.
Click to expand...

That's fair. I think my point is, how do people like Sherrod Brown successfully get Ohioans to vote for him? What message does he use? I'm assuming he emphasizes the economic populism while keeping the cultural issues quiet, but I'm not an Ohioan, and I don't follow him that closely. Katie Porter wins in a seat that probably is more of the Drew S. type voter. How does she win that seat? Tester might just be because he's a badas- motherf-cker.
 
I used to consider myself economically conservative. I still do, sortakindabutnotreally? Perhaps in a definition that isn't valid anymore? But either way, to me Trumpism was the final proof of the lie that the GQP is actually economically conservative in any way (not that they've been for decades), or that most "I'm socially liberal but econ/con" people - again, something I used to define myself as - are merely selfish wallet worshippers who don't give a shit about protecting rights they don't exercise. Or actively don't want people they find icky to have said rights.


I'm not a socialist. I'm not even particularly economically liberal. But I wouldn't call myself conservative in any universe anymore.
 
Swansong said:
I used to consider myself economically conservative. I still do, sortakindabutnotreally? Perhaps in a definition that isn't valid anymore? But either way, to me Trumpism was the final proof of the lie that the GQP is actually economically conservative in any way (not that they've been for decades), or that most "I'm socially liberal but econ/con" people - again, something I used to define myself as - are merely selfish wallet worshippers who don't give a **** about protecting rights they don't exercise. Or actively don't want people they find icky to have said rights.


I'm not a socialist. I'm not even particularly economically liberal. But I wouldn't call myself conservative in any universe anymore.
Click to expand...

I used to consider myself Libertarian, because I felt we should afford the working class the best possible opportunity by making everything a complete meritocracy. Rich morons and lard as-ses would drop, poor geniuses and hard workers would rise.

But then I started studying history and economics and understanding that wealth perpetuates itself and poverty is a death spiral, and you need not just equality but equity -- laissez faire is maximally unfair as well as inhumane because it replicates and then amplifies advantages and disadvantages. Combined with the bribery of politics under Capitalism, it destroys democracy and ends the ability of a society to self-correct.

So I went from Libertarianism straight to Socialism. I always understood Liberalism was a trap -- a way for people to pat themselves on the back and enjoy their privileges while soothing their conscience by fulminating against injustice while doing exactly nothing to address the root causes. I always understood the solution is radical fairness. But what I learned was the only way for human beings to overcome the unfairness of inequality of birth was by direct, proactive, affirmative action. That means taking wealth from the rich and giving it, no strings, to the poor. It means making it 100x harder to make your 100th $100k than your first $100k.
 
Last edited:
I still consider myself a libertarian, in that I am pro-liberty, but I've kind of adopted the Asimovian concept of a "Zero'th Law":
A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.


The first law is about "a human", and in later Foundation books they (the robots) interpreted this to mean that "many" > "one", and that if harming one human substantially protects many, then that is the priority.



edit: plus I'd like to think I'm just a lot less selfish than I once was
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Someone on here convinced me it's impossible to be socially liberal and economically conservative.
Click to expand...

I know people who are...but most of them are more "live and let live" on social issues not chanting in the street about it. Most "cons" I know would never vote Republican because of the God issue and the Stupid issue but would never vote Dem because of the tax and spend issue. (though they hate the GOP cut taxes and spend more)

I get the sentiment behind arguments like that, but it ignores the fact that people are not quantifiable when it comes to the things they care about. There is nothing inherently off if someone believes Gay Marriage should be allowed or that all people deserve to be safe and protected while also thinking the budget is out of control and we need to cut it. It only becomes an issue if they are for cutting social services or the like. Arguments like "you can't be both" ignore nuance which is ridiculous because ignoring nuance is why we are where we are.
 
The whole odd part about the debate is how the poor right completely ignore how a good tax structure and strong unions made their grandparents and parents prosper so much.

And as those crumbled, the wealth gap accelerated so fast that it’s almost impossible to be better off than your parents without a good economic start.

Regulation and taxing is great for the economy if done correctly.
 
They were sold the economic reactionary package by corporate cons who tacked on the fascist social conservative window dressing. The Echo Chamber made it forbidden to ever discuss economic liberalism, so if the rubes wanted to hear their favorite racist and sexist hits they had to swallow the anti-labor garbage.

The Liberals tried the opposite.

It turned out the rubes were more racist and sexist than they were interested in giving their kids a better life. They chose this. Let them suffer.
 
Handyman said:
I know people who are...but most of them are more "live and let live" on social issues not chanting in the street about it. Most "cons" I know would never vote Republican because of the God issue and the Stupid issue but would never vote Dem because of the tax and spend issue. (though they hate the GOP cut taxes and spend more)

I get the sentiment behind arguments like that, but it ignores the fact that people are not quantifiable when it comes to the things they care about. There is nothing inherently off if someone believes Gay Marriage should be allowed or that all people deserve to be safe and protected while also thinking the budget is out of control and we need to cut it. It only becomes an issue if they are for cutting social services or the like. Arguments like "you can't be both" ignore nuance which is ridiculous because ignoring nuance is why we are where we are.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was me. Live and let live. I didn't vote R because of the reasons you say and I didn't really vote D for the same. That changed fully in 2020 when it wasn't a choice between two approximately evenly awful choices (2016 was a push for me because I'm in MA where my Pres vote truly doesn't matter), but instead a clear choice between "meh whatever, fine" and "straight up fascism". I'd take economic policies I don't fully align with over christofascism 1000 out of 1000 times.
 
In fairness, most of the South has a deep history of being anti-labor and anti-union. It’s not really anything new.
 
Jimjamesak said:
In fairness, most of the South has a deep history of being anti-labor and anti-union. It's not really anything new.
Click to expand...

This is a good summary of the South's anti-union herpa-derpitude.

The key to breaking their balls is an alliance of women, non-Whites, and the young. Drive the old white Christian dou-chebags onto their own self-made killing floor. Make it a mark of maturity in the South to reject your parents' and grandparents' racism and sexism.

The whole Boomer thing is dumb, but dumb works with the masses, so tie the Boomers to these old, moronic attitudes and make it social poison for the kids to adopt them. Kill the Nazis with shame. Celebrate the Southern Left and target our mockery not to the South but to the Right.
 
Last edited:
Jimjamesak said:
In fairness, most of the South has a deep history of being anti-labor and anti-union. It’s not really anything new.
Click to expand...

Well, historically, they would rather own the labor.

Still, the time the economic expansion was advantaging the most, taxes were robust and labor unions strong. It was far from perfect- bordering on criminal, but more Americans did better overall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top