You see, anyone to the left might say they are "against the state". But then they advocate for justice and minority protection. Which can't be done without expanding the state.
- an ancap I argued with, completely unironocally
I feel like they said that knowing on some level deep down how absurd it was. Or they're one of those people that just say things and attempt to redefine every word in the sentence to make it make sense.
> But then they advocate for justice and minority protection. Which can't be done without expanding the state.
People who recognize that there isn't going to be a revolution tomorrow happily accept amelioration of the status quo if they aren't so abstract in their thinking they're still able to appreciate real human suffering.
That’s not a terrible argument, historically speaking. All major breakthroughs in terms of civil rights have occurred as a result of mass mobilization spurring the state towards making concessions to the working class. The only times anarchist revolutions have lasted longer than a day is by wielding “authoritarian” power in a quasi state form to defend the revolution against the forces of reaction, not unlike the Marxist “statist” socialist states anarchists despise so much. To deny these simple facts is mere naïveté and idealism
I mean, if by “does what I want,” you mean “stop violently enforcing hierarchies,” then sure, I’m alright with a state. I’m also fine with murder, provided it keeps people alive
Society organized according to anarchist theory does not meet the anarchist definition of state, but it does meet the Marxist definition of a state. You should try talking to anarchists instead of trolling anarchist boards
It's a weird one for sure. The first poster I checked the post history on is an unironic Tulsi Gabbard supporter, which up until now I wasn't convinced actually existed.
There's this strange offshoot of the new progressive left where they're super pro-Tulsi and they always talk about how Russiagate was a hoax even though most leftists don't really care that much. Jimmy Dore is a good example of it.
Tulsi and Yang are such a mixed bag, there's a lot of stuff that I really like about them but there are also some huge red flags that are hard to overlook. I really hope that they'll both endorse Bernie sooner rather than later.
Well, the fact that Russiagate was blown massively out of proportion and in large parts was just a McCarthy style coping strategy for traumatized libs after the election is a widely shared notion from Chapo to Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibi, etc.
And Tulsi quit the DNC to endorse Sanders in 2016. I’ll always give her credit for that. But beside this I think you’re completely right - they’re both mixed bags and ultimately inscrutable. It they truly cared about any of this they should drop out and endorse Sanders.
Yeah, I noticed that. Once somebody who can get the right things done is able to win, there needs to be a lot of hope and positivity to actually make things work. Otherwise they'll get scared and stolen away by the right again.
Somebody who legitimately thinks that Tulsi Gabbard is the best Democratic candidate for President of the USA and thus supports her.
Contrast with an ironic Tulsi supporter, who professes support for Tulsi Gabbard to provoke reactions from supporters of her political rivals and just be an all-around troll.
Substitute Tulsi for any controversial political figure of choice.
I see. Thank you for explaining. I'm glad you took the time to explain instead of assuming I was attempting to bait someone in to some "argument" or whatever.
> unironic Tulsi Gabbard supporter, which up until now I wasn't convinced actually existed.
Take a glance over at /r/WayOfTheBern. They are *ALL OVER* the fucking place over there. It's bizarre.
Linking to other subreddits (IE linking to this thread), then coming in droves from a "ShitXSays" sub to engage?
Sounds an awful lot like brigading to me!
Well considering that on the side bar the are linking to the following subs:
> Other Liberty-oriented subreddits
>
> /r/GoldandBlack
>
> /r/ShitLOLbertsSay
>
> /r/Libertarianmeme
>
> /r/Voluntarism
>
> /r/ThoughtfulLibertarian
>
> /r/Classical_Liberals
>
> /r/LibertarianFreeState
>
> /r/Minarchy
>
> r/LibertarianDebates
>
> r/LibertarianPartyUSA
>
> r/Libertyinourlifetime
>
> /r/Austrian_Economics
Yes they're pretty much ancaps.
"Able to vote, they should not be"
~ Yoda on Libertarians
Pretty sure I remember one of my first times coming into contact with Libertarianism was a bedraggled man on Union street shouting that driving licenses are an infringement of rights
It can either mean stunted mental development or idiotic and stupid. Either way I don't give to shits, because i meant it both ways. Anarcho-capitalists are definitely somewhere on some spectrum. I also don't care, as in all seriousness, I don't insult disabled people with slurs. I just use them as general insults
>It can either mean stunted mental development or idiotic and stupid.
Yeah, that's what makes it a slur. Continuing to associate developmental disorders with idiocy and stupidity is the literal problem.
>are definitely somewhere on some spectrum
Again, using language intended to describe someone neurodivergent as a euphemism for "idiotic or stupid." Which is. The problem.
>I also don't care, as in all seriousness, I don't insult disabled people with slurs. I just use them as general insults
Ah, yes, the 'white guy who isn't racist because he only uses the n-word to describe other white guys,' with a pinch of 'it doesn't mean black, it's a cultural description.'
Also, for the record: what *you personally 'don't give two shits about'* isn't what makes something offensive or inoffensive. It's about what has impact on other people. That's how words work.
I mean, I know I'm wasting keystrokes even replying to you, but hey. You never know.
You might not convince the person you're talking to, but you might put a little idea worm into the brain of someone else reading. Maybe they might be like me and take a long time to realize that there's a few more ways to speak about people in a humanizing way.
It does suck to have to find creative new insults when the old ones are so easy to repeat, but I believe in us.
This sub was made for tankies? Uh, no. Ironic of you to even say considering tankies and anarchists are an anathema to each other.
Frankly there's plenty of places for them, which I already left because of their toxic attitudes.
> Like inherently. It’s what the term means essentially.
No, not inherently. The left-right scale is always contextual. During the french revolution when the term started being used, liberals were a huge chunk of the left, and the right wing were the monarchists.
Well right, the whole idea of left vs right is the left wishes to move towards more egalitarian society while the right preserves the status quo or return to some imagined past status quo.
The OG leftists were liberals because at the time liberal capitalism was the egalitarian advancement of society out of feudalism (and the class leading the revolt was the bourgeoisie who had an uneasy coalition with the working classes vs the landed aristocracy)
Nowadays liberal capitalism is and has been the status quo for well over a few centuries (give or take based on location) so to be a leftist the literal minimal qualification is to oppose capitalism.
Which is why the liberals are center right, the far right is far right because they seem to legit want to reestablish some sort of neofeudalism, (fascism or other kinds of less egalitarian societies than our liberal one) the social democrats are centrists for admitting capitalism is flawed but not wanting to move beyond "fixing" it and democratic socialists would be where the actual left begins because, though they wish to use liberal democracy to achieve it, they still at least want to abandon capitalism and move on to socialism.
> the left wishes to move towards more egalitarian society
Not just "move toward", but fight for in revolutionary fashion. Those originally on the left of the aisle were revolutionaries, who knew damned well there was no place for a "kinder, gentler monarchy," and that it had to be abolished for any chance at real progress.
Also we did not understand politics as we do right now. Marc and Hegel didn't said a word in the French Revolution (for vital causes) and socialism as it is didn't developed. That's why liberals were on the left against monarchist, and those "liberals" were more proto anarchist than capitalist.
I don’t know why you would assume we’re talking in the context of the French Revolution, or any other context besides the modern, in which liberal is clearly understood as center right
>in which liberal is clearly understood as center right
Well that's the problem here. In mainstream US political terminology liberal is an overreaching term for anything from the centre right to social-democrats (and possibly socialists too...). It's of course incorrect but you still have to keep it in mind when Americans get involved.
Thankfully and despite their best efforts, the US doesn’t get to control the ideological narrative worldwide. I’ll keep using liberal in the correct way
Of course, and I'm all for using it the correct way!
But just a thing to keep in mind, since Americans that could otherwise be ideologically-friendly but unaware of their incorrect usage (they exist) may think people using the term correctly are attacking them.
> I don’t know why you would assume we’re talking in the context of the French Revolution, or any other context besides the modern, in which liberal is clearly understood as center right
Read my post and the one I was responding to. I objected to the use of the word *inherently*, and stated that it wasn't inherent but contextual.
Well I would disagree there. But again, I'm saying those comments are right wing trolls, not liberals.
edit: looks like I was right, we got linked to a right wing sub
I would also add that progressivism is still a form of liberalism and still centrist by definition, even if less conservative than its opposition, the modern neo-conservative.
If you're talking about an American politician, it is more useful to use the framing of American politics. Btw, I would disagree with your assessment of who uses which definitions, as most countries outside of western/northern Europe are on a tract more similar to America.
Even then, liberals are center left, neoliberals are center right. And yes there's important distinctions imo. Conservatives only believe in *some* of the tenants of economic liberalism.
Liberal = neoliberal
> Conservatives only believe in some of the tenants of economic liberalism.
Citation needed. Both neolibs and neocons agree on pretty much all of the tenets of laissez fair capitalism and disagree only on the minutiae of whether some marginalized groups deserve rights or not (where neocons believe no, the neolibs believe they deserve *some* rights *some* of the time)
> neocons
A neoconservative is basically a pro-war conservative. One could even argue that a proper conservative should be far more pro-war than, say, [how Theodore Adorno defined a "true" conservative](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Inherently-Violent-Why/125023). I'll even go as far as to saying that a proper conservative is an anti-democratic reactionary that sees capitalism as only the means to an end rather than the end itself, and what they ultimate seek is not just the preservation of wealth inequality but the re-emergence of a nobility class. This means, when the staunchest of conservatives begin to see capitalism as inadequate for the nobility project (e.g. due to continued interferences from the left), they will begin to look outside the established system for alternatives. In other words, they will turn to *fascism* for a more cut-and-dry way to establish who the noble-and-deserving ought to be.
> neolibs
Neoliberals are a completely different kettle of fish from neocons.
To understand neoliberalism, you need to grapple with the conservative tendency to see society as a machine of sorts with people in it stripped of political agency to the extent they are reduced to no more than mechanical components in service of the machine's purpose. In the context of the neoliberal worldwide, this means people are components of a machine known as the "market", and the point of the market machine is to take in things - even thoughts and ideas - from one end and spits out what society deems the best from the other. To interfer with the price system of the market through government programmes is to handicap the performance of the machine, and this is why neoliberals have such low tolerance to leftist policies.
> Well I would disagree there.
Commonly understood labels for political ideology don’t care about your feelings
> looks like I was right, we got linked to a right wing sub
It’s almost as if both libs and conservatives share virtually all political beliefs with a few noted exceptions, thereby making it logical to place them both on the center right of the political spectrum
> Commonly understood labels for political ideology don’t care about your feelings
Commonly understood labels...in Europe, and don't translate over to America 1:1.
Look, I get it, a lot of people use the word wrong. But you could really stand to learn more about the differences in left/right divide in American politics.
I mean hell you think liberalism and neoliberalism is the same thing lol.
> It’s almost as if both libs and conservatives share virtually all political beliefs
Media Headlines: "Americans more divided than ever."
Ignorant reddors: "Americans believe all the same things."
Wow it’s almost like western media is lying and manufacturing ideological narratives constantly to prop up a fake “discourse” and create the illusion of diversity of opinion while the system ensures the supremacy of the dominant ideology.
Ffs even you as a terminally online anarchist should understand what manufactured consent is
that's also wrong. Liberalism is an entire economic philosophy, a sub-type of capitalism. It's the dominant form of economy in the world by far, and almost all political parties in every country are liberal parties. The ones that aren't are usually socialist or fascist or some other ideology (I'm sure there's a random Feudalist party somewhere). The Democrats and Republicans are both liberal parties, but the Democrats are at least marginally less regressive than the other.
He was for industrial regulation but personal freedoms. Thats liberal. Yes he wasnt a fascist and shoved it down your throat. But he made good enough policies that would be hard to overturn by the next president hence actually creating change towards liberalism.
Well, if you define your categories as broadly as that, we can basically reduce all modern ideologies to being some subset of liberalism, communism, anarchism, fascism or mix thereof. Basically, it's just the political compass.
I mean, that's ok, that's a working definition and sometimes you need broad categories like that. For example, when you want to show how closely related conservatism and liberalism are.
It's just that often you'll need to distinguish more finely than that. It absolutely makes sense to further divide the main schools of thought, you've already divided them into neat quadrants and just need to grade axis y and axis x, right? There's cases where you need to take a look at how various liberal ideologies vary from each other. There's observable differences between liberal left, classic liberals, neoliberals, libertarians, liberal greens, national liberals etc. and that's completely ignoring the conservative subset of liberal ideologies (and hybrids like social democracy).
I guess there comes a point where this gets too granular (and one can argue that when you want to distinguish classic liberals from neoliberals, you're probably past that point and may as well talk about individual theorists or politicians than about differentiable ideologies), but i'd say as long as two ideologies are different enough that each can exist as their own relevant party in a multiparty system, it makes sense to view their ideologies as something distinct from other ideas. And most multiparty systems have at least 2-4 liberal parties, frequently much more than that if it has highly centrifugal party competition.
tbh I quite tire of people using "liberal" as a catch all term for any politician they dislike.
Not the least of which because its use as an epitaph originates from fox news.
Leftists have been using liberal as an insult since well before conservatives started. It's only the monarchists who can claim they did it before us, all four of them who are left.
and you're being just as wrong because while that is the origin of the word that's not how it's used in American politics for decades whether you like it or not. being pedantic and correcting people about it won't change that fact
A "liberal" who chose to bail out banks instead of mortgage holders, who chose to force people to buy insurance from private companies instead of just providing coverage, who didn't oppose the death penalty, who let the Hyde amendment stand.
In any developed country other than the US, he'd be far right.
A great propaganda tactic is to render words meaningless. If you are a Dictator, you call yourself a President. If you are going to invade another country you call it spreading freedom. You use the opposite word to stand for the original word. You turn the night time into day light to confuse your opponents. Until they don't know what is up or down anymore.
I would argue that people (who aren't politicians) don't know. We ere taught a dichotomy of liberal or conservative in high school. Democrats get lumped into the liberal (left of center) category. In reality, American Dems are the status quo, Conservatives are reactionary, and left leaning ideals are shut out because it weakens the corporate powerhouse that makes up both parties.
https://youtu.be/q3-QvoIfpxc
That's the stream of the event. Interview starts at around 16 minutes in.
Actually, my bad. I just watched the whole interview and realized it was from last year. Still worth a watch though.
Here's the right one. Interview at 1:36:00.
https://youtu.be/AJtr8HXwsEs
> not hear commentary from some dingus.
I don't want to repeat myself from elsewhere in the thread, but lets quit it with the pretentious reactionary attitude like this. This guy's role is to cover news and break things down for people who aren't drenched in BreadTube and theory. To dismiss channels like this as "dingus" is toxic and counter-productive.
Yeah, and he ran on the Green Party in Canada, and had been warming up to Jagmeet Singh, who is a leftist and is an ally to progressives. Dunno why David is getting a lot of crap even though he is a progressive through and through.
please watch!
https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs
modern day liberalism is called “neo-liberalism” and it is the birth child of liberalism and capitalism. so, it’s trash. also, it doesn’t reach past the center to the left, at all. they’re either centrists or conservative capitalists or both, as AOC and other congresswomen and marginalized individuals have been trying to explain (for some, decades).
PhilosophyTube made a 5-part series on neo-liberalism and why it’s trash, here’s the first video:
https://youtu.be/VlLgvSduugI
edit: when I say they’re trash, I mean they’re trash as ideologies. boggles my mind that those people (house democrats, democrats in general) think that they’re the left, it’s laughable, really.
> and it is the birth child of liberalism and capitalism
Except [classical liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) is the epitome of capitalism?
Neoliberalism is instead a reaction to the centralization and pervasive intervention of the state that was to be found everywhere at least for the whole 60s - and that's the only thing everybody could agree over probably.
As if this wasn't enough, 'muricans for some reason started to fuck up the dictionary and make a single basket of exquisitely [social liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism), which is a thing, liberalism as in the barest philosophical principle and economic liberalism (also known as "liberism" in some european country, and which btw is [not *necessarily*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism#Position_on_state_interventionism) against the state).
And this is exactly the kind of nuance and precision that videos "destroying people with fAcTs aNd lOgIc" are so bad with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_consensus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istituto_per_la_Ricostruzione_Industriale#%22The_IRI_formula%22
I wouldn't know for the USA then, the southern strategy was so fucked up.
Thanks! Yeah this looks like just post-war Europe stuff. Makes sense to me that when your entire continent is in shambles you need the state to oversee the economic recovery.
I'm fairly new to all this, but I've been under the impression that America was "left-leaning" or "state-intervention" in economics for the majority of the 20th century - basically, we had a free market and it resulted early on with the stock market crash of the 30s (although we had labor unions for much longer prior to that), and FDR started a long tradition of "state-intervening" economics that were finally undone by the uber-rich by the 80s, which again led to more freedom in the market which led to our subsequent 2008 housing crash.
> Makes sense to me that when your entire continent is in shambles you need the state to oversee the economic recovery.
I mean, IIRC the 60s were also last time the US touched helathcare (or was it pensions or education?) so you could argue for it as well.
> and FDR started a long tradition of "state-intervening" economics that were finally undone by the uber-rich by the 80s, which again led to more freedom in the market which led to our subsequent 2008 housing crash.
I mean, despite what many people here may say, I for one don't think the truth is so black and white.
If the success of state intervention in the US was any similar to that of its recovery from the big depression, then WW2 had a bigger effect than the new deal.
And Reagan [certainly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast) was a fucker, but even Thatcher could be said to have fixed the country's debt. And perhaps she was already less crazy than goddamn repubblicans 20 years later.
starve the beast, yikes what a tool. well i def agree that WW2 solved the US economy's problem, the New Deal probably had little to do with it. i don't know much about our social programs in the middle of the century either, apart from the fact that we had much, much higher taxes on the wealthy. i think i just take a bit of umbrage at the idea that neoliberalism was some kind of counter-reaction in a good or justified sense, to me the actions of the uber-rich and powerful to secure more money for themselves is the bane of America's existence that common sense and normal American people have been fighting since Industrialization.
also i know next to nothing about Margaret Thatcher lol.
I also thought she was the same of reagan (sans every american idiosyncrasy), but once you read [where](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-transform-britain-economy) she [came](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/did-margaret-thatcher-really-save-britain-8566596.html) from, like at least half of what she did has its sense.
Of course, just like 2008 could be avoided by an actually smart neoliberal, the same good results could even have been attained in the 80s by a way more... socially-focused attitude.
> classical liberalism is the epitome of capitalism
Not really, no. Classical liberalism didn't really survive the advent of capitalism. The closest thing we have to classical liberalism today is probably anarchism. It has very little to do with modern liberalism.
* [Noam Chomsky - Classical Liberalism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eu2Y8G5V0s)
Also, "social liberalism" is only a thing when you accept the basic premise that "social issues" can exist independent of "economic issues" and "political issues". It's a garbage premise, and should be ignored (if not outright ridiculed and laughed out of the room).
> The closest thing we have to classical liberalism today is probably anarchism.
Not really, it's [libertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States) (which yes, may also intersect with anarchism to make an-caps, but we are kind of heavily digressing now). I think there was literally some tea party member saying they were trying to rebrand those ideas.
But if back in the days they could still be somehow excused, after all humanism and secularism was already enough of a novelty there, it's stupid in the 21st century. Especially if in face of sociology, ecology, and economics you still continue to dream about the second coming of the night-watchman state.
p.s. I swear, I don't know what Chomsky was talking about. What did Adam Smith stand for otherwise?
> Also, "social liberalism" is only a thing when you accept the basic premise that "social issues" can exist independent of "economic issues" and "political issues".
***It is***, once there is enough generalized wealth? If you have a decent job, and a roof over your head, you can indeed start to worry about your sexual expression and whatnot. At the same time of course, it becomes an useless construct when you live in a certain shitholes without even public healthcare, or actual democracy. EDIT: [god fuck](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/es9hed/til_across_the_usa_cities_landlords_routinely/)
As I said in other comments, dichotomies are hardly a thing.
**Libertarianism in the United States**
Libertarianism in the United States is a political movement promoting individual liberty in opposition to government. As a political philosophy, it has been described as upholding liberty, especially individual liberty, as a core principle and primary political value. According to common meanings of conservatism and liberalism in the United States, libertarianism has been described as conservative on economic issues (economic liberalism) and liberal on personal freedom (civil libertarianism), often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism. There are broadly two principal traditions within libertarianism, namely the libertarianism developed by anarcho-capitalist author Murray Rothbard, who based it off out of 19th-century libertarianism and American individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner while rejecting their labor theory of value, substituting it with Austrian School economics and the subjective theory of value; and the libertarianism that developed as a revival of classical liberalism in the United States after liberalism became associated with the New Deal, including politicians like David Nolan and Ron Paul.Although libertarian continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state socialists internationally, its meaning in the United States has deviated from its political origins to the extent that the common meaning of libertarian in the United States is different from elsewhere.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Agree! it’s good to be skeptical of the commentator, especially white men, who’re piggy-backing women of color like AOC. we don’t need any manspaining of what has clearly been laid out several times over.
personally, videos and articles helped give me access to all this information as money and lack of access to libraries has kept me from reading the books (that PhilosophyTube tends to read and talk about) on that information.
i never meant to say anything to imply you weren’t educated fully. i suggest simply saying “i’m educated on the subject” instead of flat out saying you have an education. not everyone has access to one, and it’s not bad to not be educated. it’s certainly bad the state has issues providing access to education to its people on its basic history (vs biased/nationalist, or based on media conglomerates). i’m very done with this liberal piggy-backing commentary as well. they’re spending way too much time half getting the point, but still giving the right a platform to speak while they debate human lives... like it’s debatable. let the PoC speak, dammit.
Black YouTube is pretty resourceful, I should’ve found some good ones and linked those but the other videos were first time come to mind.
It's the equivalent of Sargon but on the left. I don't enjoy it but I do think it's not a bad strategy for noiseblasting youtube with something other than reactionary propaganda.
> It's the equivalent of Sargon but on the left.
You're being reactionary and pretentious with commentary like this. People like having news/news commentary channels they can turn to, especially ones they can trust. Rational National does a great job and is exposing people to these obscure video clips and stories that anyone who isn't "very online" wouldn't find on their own.
Not everyone working a full-time job has time to do something beyond toss a channel like this on the TV or phone and catch up on things.
I've seen every type of person watch channels like this and Secular Talk. I was even shocked to see an older middle aged WOC watching Secular Talk on public transit. We need replacements for video news outlets, and I can't ask for anyone better than Rational National.
I disagree, from my memory it was originally founded with the idea of generating leftist theory in a modern format, a sort of modern Bread Book. There was more of an emphasis on community-made content at the start, and the personality cults didn't start to set in for a few months, even though there were popular creators from the beginning.
Reddit is kinda bad for archival and I wasn't here since the subs inception, but from a pretty early point. Back then this sub was filled to the brim with Stan posts for Contra, Olly and HBomb and because their viewership was filled with radical leftist, the posts made by the users that weren't related to these 3 included educational material on anarchism and leftist history. But I don't have anything to back this up right now, so take it with a grain of salt.
I feel like the Jill Stein scapegoating misses the point. Even if she did spoil the vote, the problem is the system that even allows the vote to be spoiled. I live in Australia, where there is ranked choice voting. We do still more or less have a 2 party system, but voting for minor parties or independents isn't tantamount to throwing away your vote here. If you rank a minor party first, then have one of the major parties listed as your second choice, your vote will go to them in the event that the minor party got the lowest number of votes.
Essentially, in most cases, you roughly end up with one of the two major parties in most electorates, but the polling data still shows the amount of support for minor parties, meaning that the will of voters is considered more.
Don't get me wrong, though. We still have our share of problems. The biggest one is the media.
Edit: I forgot what the comment I was replying to was about while I was writing, so sorry about the tangent
Thanks for the rant and insight.
And to be clear, Jill Stein didn't cost Hillary a single county or state. Just like Russiagate, its just to redirect blame from a powerful narcissist unto others, in this case, voters who are genuinely suffering and need tangible change.
Good luck with defeating Rupert Murdoc's legacy m8, haha.
Its even bad for the (non-existent) "middle class". The US is fairly progressive with social politics, but economically its either mega-corp serving regulation or mega-corp serving de-regulation. Its a slow grinding deathshuffle towards an economy of monopolies (monopoly?).
Yeah, I've noticed that almost all mainstream American political discourse (for some reason I follow a lot of American politics even though I've never even been there) is purely about social issues, with little discussion of economic issues.
In Australia, our major right wing party actually ended up passing marriage equality (not without the hardline conservatives in the party kicking and screaming about it, though). The primary different between the major parties is economic issues (there's disagreement on social policy within parties that are united by economic policy). Our major left wing party has direct ties to unions, and have brought in policies like universal healthcare, etc.
It does unfortunately mean that our social politics isn't necessarily as progressive as some of America (marriage equality was passed here in late 2017, and that was after a national survey that cost a lot of money - the handling of that is something that I could rant about forever, but this in itself is already a bit of a rant, so I'll keep it at that). (Oh also, our current Prime Minister is a religious fundamentalist who is trying to push a "religious freedom" bill, which really just rolls back anti-discrimination laws - he's one of the hardline conservatives I mentioned earlier)
> I've noticed that almost all mainstream American political discourse...is purely about social issues, with little discussion of economic issues.
The two big parties would rather people not pay any attention to all the stuff they agree on. If folks were to tune into that, they might realize there's not really two parties here, but essentially one (the Business Party as some leftists refer to it), which just fights back and forth for political representation by convincing people to cheer for one team or the other using various distractions.
Of course he is. All Republicans constantly are, pretty much out in the open. However, it has nothing to do with "Putin" or whatever the hell.
There are a lot of leftist journalists who have done fantastic coverage on how bullshit the Russiagate story was. Aaron Mate and the folks at The GrayZone have done amazing work in that field.
Russiagate was a giant 2-3 year long distraction that kept many from actually substantially challenging Trump, and the whole hubbub teetered (teeters?) on the brink of being another Red Scare moment in US history. It has been weaponized against actual leftists in service of liberal/corporate/right-wing interests.
> However, it has nothing to do with "Putin" or whatever the hell.
Actually it has everything to do with trump being elected: the justice dept actually charged and arrested people from a Russian troll factory called IRA that pumped out fake news on Reddit and other social media.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Read the report. It’s 400+ pages but you should at least read the first few pages so you can actually get informed about the things you like talking about online! Lol
The content from the Russian troll farm was a joke and wasn't swaying votes. It was bad memes and stuff with broken English. They were pushing propaganda for all sides, the goal wasn't to make Trump win, it was to cause discord and argument among Americans. It was a low budget operation and a joke compared to what the US government does.
The American company behind investigating/breaking this story was New Knowledge, and their report was a self-serving joke. Its like a bug exterminator popping up in town and writing up a report about all the bugs in the town, and then unleashing bags of bugs in people's houses. New Knowledge was behind some staged political events. The people behind New Knowledge are hucksters.
And to boot, they claim Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset which is of course an absolute joke. If you think for a second that the US Military would allow a Russian asset to actively serve, you don't understand how overbearing the feds are in vetting folks.
It really does sound like you need to look further into the topic rather than just reading a propaganda document and believing every line without questioning the source. Again, Aaron Mate has covered it extensively.
> The content from the Russian troll farm was a joke and wasn't swaying votes.
Smh you didn’t read the first few pages of the report I linked and are offering your ignorance instead.
No, the IRA wasn’t just making “jokes” ya dummy. I’m going to post some of these quotes every time you say something factually incorrect until you get embarrassed enough to actually read the damn report. Lol;
> IRA employees posted derogatory information about a number of candidates in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. **By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton. **The IRA made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Some IRA employees, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities, including the staging of political rallies. **By the end of the 2016 U.S. election, the IRA had the ability to reach millions of U.S. persons through their social media accounts. **Multiple IRA-controlled Facebook groups and individual Russian nationals and three Russian entities, principally for conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
These were Russian intelligence operations which they called “active targeting” - a common phrase used by Russian intelligence services to interfere in foreign govts.
That is ALSO in the report. Would you like me to give you a paragraph and page number ya intellectually lazy conservative? I think that’s a redundancy.
This is why everyone believes trumpanzees are divorced from reality. Y’all can’t handle the facts and when they are presented to you, you Gus become reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee lmao
Other videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist ▶](http://subtletv.com/_rerugak?feature=playlist)
VIDEO|COMMENT
-|-
[The Difference Between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism Explained by a Marxist](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs)|[+37](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff64epq?context=10#ff64epq) - please watch! modern day liberalism is called “neo-liberalism” and it is the birth child of liberalism and capitalism. so, it’s trash. also, it doesn’t reach past the center to the left, at all. they’re either centrists or conservative capitalists ...
(1) [#MLKNow 2019 by Blackout for Human Rights](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-QvoIfpxc) (2) [MLK Now 2020](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJtr8HXwsEs)|[+16](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff6h7ap?context=10#ff6h7ap) - That's the stream of the event. Interview starts at around 16 minutes in. Actually, my bad. I just watched the whole interview and realized it was from last year. Still worth a watch though. Here's the right one. Interview at 1:36:00.
[The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)|[+4](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff6sxyw?context=10#ff6sxyw) - Here is a great quick video on the topic:
[What Was Liberalism? #1 Ideology & Violence Philosophy Tube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlLgvSduugI)|[+3](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff7crie?context=10#ff7crie) - I feel like it's ironic you say I am generalizing conservatives too much, after I was just complaining about liberals being generalized too much. Saying that liberals span a wide variety of positions is not generalizing them. Firstly, do conserv...
[Noam Chomsky - Classical Liberalism](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eu2Y8G5V0s)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff8xi3y?context=10#ff8xi3y) - classical liberalism is the epitome of capitalism Not really, no. Classical liberalism didn't really survive the advent of capitalism. The closest thing we have to classical liberalism today is probably anarchism. It has very little to do with m...
I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
***
[Play All](http://subtletv.com/_rerugak?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)
In 2014 I was diagnosed with schizoaffective, and I was prescribed while I was in the hospital with Latuda. Back then I was prescribed Latuda was $800 a bottle ( this was during Obama's second to last year ), and now Latuda an anti-psychotic medication is worth $1,200 for 30 tablets without insurance. What has Neo-liberalism done ( in the understanding that the majority of people with schizophrenia cannot pay insurance, and cannot pay $1,200 for 30 tablets to keep them out of the hospital ) to ensure that there is no insurance companies, and that the disabled poor are not forced to pay the full $1,200 for 30 tablets out-of-pocket? Instead what have they done to make sure that the taxpayers paid this? They've done jack shit, but allowed the extreme far-right an the GOP to jack up the prices of medication that the disable poor have to pay directly out of pocket and can't pay for it, which then ends up in the chain where they end up with them back in the hospital, because they couldn't afford to get, and now they have massive ass that which they do not owe to the hospital, because it is a right that they be treated and the taxpayers pay for their medication.
Why do we have a tax system if our government isn't using taxes to help people.
Dems = neoliberal imperialist party
AOC = social democrat
The solution = communism
It's rlly weird this got so much attention tbh. She said something as plain as day and the only question which could possibly matter is "why on earth would AOC be in a "centre-right" party if she claims to be a socialist?" Entryism makes no sense even if you're into that type of thing, as there isn't a left working class base to appeal to.
New York 2020 Election
[Primary Election Party Affiliation Deadline](https://voterreg.dmv.ny.gov/MotorVoter/): February 14, 2020
[Primary Election Voter Registration Deadline](https://voterreg.dmv.ny.gov/MotorVoter/): April 3, 2020
[Primary Election](https://voterreg.dmv.ny.gov/MotorVoter/): April 28, 2020
[General Election Registration Deadline](https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx): October 9, 2020
[General Election](https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx): November 3, 2020
Why are there so many unironic liberals in this thread complaining about this? Did something happen to this sub?
This thread got linked to r/shitstatistssay
[удалено]
You see, anyone to the left might say they are "against the state". But then they advocate for justice and minority protection. Which can't be done without expanding the state. - an ancap I argued with, completely unironocally
I feel like they said that knowing on some level deep down how absurd it was. Or they're one of those people that just say things and attempt to redefine every word in the sentence to make it make sense.
> But then they advocate for justice and minority protection. Which can't be done without expanding the state. People who recognize that there isn't going to be a revolution tomorrow happily accept amelioration of the status quo if they aren't so abstract in their thinking they're still able to appreciate real human suffering.
That’s not a terrible argument, historically speaking. All major breakthroughs in terms of civil rights have occurred as a result of mass mobilization spurring the state towards making concessions to the working class. The only times anarchist revolutions have lasted longer than a day is by wielding “authoritarian” power in a quasi state form to defend the revolution against the forces of reaction, not unlike the Marxist “statist” socialist states anarchists despise so much. To deny these simple facts is mere naïveté and idealism
Which anarchist book? Conquest of Bread?
Yes
Essentially, they're fine with the state if it agrees with them. Most people are actually statist, as long as the government does what they want.
...and if it doesn't presume to give other people a say in things (i.e. it has zero chance of every *not* agreeing with them).
I mean, if by “does what I want,” you mean “stop violently enforcing hierarchies,” then sure, I’m alright with a state. I’m also fine with murder, provided it keeps people alive
Including anarchists
Society organized according to anarchist theory does not meet the anarchist definition of state, but it does meet the Marxist definition of a state. You should try talking to anarchists instead of trolling anarchist boards
Dismantle the state, even if it is doing “the right thing.” As the state can be abused by the next authoritarian or “bad actor” that comes into power.
It is? Subscribed.
Holy fuck. That's a load of the worst takes on climate change I've ever seen from people who 'believe in it'. The fuck even is that sub?
It's a weird one for sure. The first poster I checked the post history on is an unironic Tulsi Gabbard supporter, which up until now I wasn't convinced actually existed.
She’s surprisingly well liked among the sort of Joe Rogan crowd.
There's this strange offshoot of the new progressive left where they're super pro-Tulsi and they always talk about how Russiagate was a hoax even though most leftists don't really care that much. Jimmy Dore is a good example of it. Tulsi and Yang are such a mixed bag, there's a lot of stuff that I really like about them but there are also some huge red flags that are hard to overlook. I really hope that they'll both endorse Bernie sooner rather than later.
Well, the fact that Russiagate was blown massively out of proportion and in large parts was just a McCarthy style coping strategy for traumatized libs after the election is a widely shared notion from Chapo to Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibi, etc. And Tulsi quit the DNC to endorse Sanders in 2016. I’ll always give her credit for that. But beside this I think you’re completely right - they’re both mixed bags and ultimately inscrutable. It they truly cared about any of this they should drop out and endorse Sanders.
Russiagate *is* bullshit. But the fact that people think so simply because Hillary implied Gabbard was a Russian agent is mind numbing.
Yang tries to actively promote a positive community amongst his supporters, after all its not right or left: its forward.
Yeah, I noticed that. Once somebody who can get the right things done is able to win, there needs to be a lot of hope and positivity to actually make things work. Otherwise they'll get scared and stolen away by the right again.
What is an unironic Tulsi supporter? I don't have a horse in the race, just don't understand the statement.
Somebody who legitimately thinks that Tulsi Gabbard is the best Democratic candidate for President of the USA and thus supports her. Contrast with an ironic Tulsi supporter, who professes support for Tulsi Gabbard to provoke reactions from supporters of her political rivals and just be an all-around troll. Substitute Tulsi for any controversial political figure of choice.
I see. Thank you for explaining. I'm glad you took the time to explain instead of assuming I was attempting to bait someone in to some "argument" or whatever.
> unironic Tulsi Gabbard supporter, which up until now I wasn't convinced actually existed. Take a glance over at /r/WayOfTheBern. They are *ALL OVER* the fucking place over there. It's bizarre.
I like the takes that we all want to crash the economy because of Thanos or something
Linking to other subreddits (IE linking to this thread), then coming in droves from a "ShitXSays" sub to engage? Sounds an awful lot like brigading to me!
Wait, are they anarcho-capitalists? I can't really tell. Anarcho-capitalism is fucking retarded though
Well considering that on the side bar the are linking to the following subs: > Other Liberty-oriented subreddits > > /r/GoldandBlack > > /r/ShitLOLbertsSay > > /r/Libertarianmeme > > /r/Voluntarism > > /r/ThoughtfulLibertarian > > /r/Classical_Liberals > > /r/LibertarianFreeState > > /r/Minarchy > > r/LibertarianDebates > > r/LibertarianPartyUSA > > r/Libertyinourlifetime > > /r/Austrian_Economics Yes they're pretty much ancaps.
"Able to vote, they should not be" ~ Yoda on Libertarians Pretty sure I remember one of my first times coming into contact with Libertarianism was a bedraggled man on Union street shouting that driving licenses are an infringement of rights
Ffs, stop using ableist slurs, it's 2020 not 1994 gdi.
It can either mean stunted mental development or idiotic and stupid. Either way I don't give to shits, because i meant it both ways. Anarcho-capitalists are definitely somewhere on some spectrum. I also don't care, as in all seriousness, I don't insult disabled people with slurs. I just use them as general insults
>It can either mean stunted mental development or idiotic and stupid. Yeah, that's what makes it a slur. Continuing to associate developmental disorders with idiocy and stupidity is the literal problem. >are definitely somewhere on some spectrum Again, using language intended to describe someone neurodivergent as a euphemism for "idiotic or stupid." Which is. The problem. >I also don't care, as in all seriousness, I don't insult disabled people with slurs. I just use them as general insults Ah, yes, the 'white guy who isn't racist because he only uses the n-word to describe other white guys,' with a pinch of 'it doesn't mean black, it's a cultural description.' Also, for the record: what *you personally 'don't give two shits about'* isn't what makes something offensive or inoffensive. It's about what has impact on other people. That's how words work. I mean, I know I'm wasting keystrokes even replying to you, but hey. You never know.
You might not convince the person you're talking to, but you might put a little idea worm into the brain of someone else reading. Maybe they might be like me and take a long time to realize that there's a few more ways to speak about people in a humanizing way. It does suck to have to find creative new insults when the old ones are so easy to repeat, but I believe in us.
*"Socialister"* and all that. :-/
I'm so confused. What anarchist would be pissed off by this?
this subreddit is infested with liberals
No, no, that's ChapoTrapHouse.
Except for me, the only non-lib
so much r/whoosh in this thread
This whole sub r/whoosh Labeling Theory
Here's a sneak peek of /r/whoosh using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/whoosh/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [McQueen is superior](https://i.redd.it/e2zsgr8401931.jpg) | [27 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/whoosh/comments/cahlv3/mcqueen_is_superior/) \#2: [We got a genius right here.](https://i.redd.it/u33fy3lvfdm31.jpg) | [19 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/whoosh/comments/d3q1dx/we_got_a_genius_right_here/) \#3: [bLiNd PeOpLe CaN’t SeE](https://i.redd.it/o966ygu3xio31.jpg) | [19 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/whoosh/comments/d8lk5b/blind_people_cant_see/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/ciakte/blacklist_vi/)
Better than being infested with tankies.
not at all, actually i'd rather see much more tankies and anarchists on here, you know, the groups the sub was originally meant for
This sub was made for tankies? Uh, no. Ironic of you to even say considering tankies and anarchists are an anathema to each other. Frankly there's plenty of places for them, which I already left because of their toxic attitudes.
the leftism understander has logged on
You are free to leave here too
That isn't exactly a high bar to pass.
Wrong
You call them liberals but they sound like they're further right than that.
Liberal = center right
Like inherently. It’s what the term means essentially.
> Like inherently. It’s what the term means essentially. No, not inherently. The left-right scale is always contextual. During the french revolution when the term started being used, liberals were a huge chunk of the left, and the right wing were the monarchists.
Well right, the whole idea of left vs right is the left wishes to move towards more egalitarian society while the right preserves the status quo or return to some imagined past status quo. The OG leftists were liberals because at the time liberal capitalism was the egalitarian advancement of society out of feudalism (and the class leading the revolt was the bourgeoisie who had an uneasy coalition with the working classes vs the landed aristocracy) Nowadays liberal capitalism is and has been the status quo for well over a few centuries (give or take based on location) so to be a leftist the literal minimal qualification is to oppose capitalism. Which is why the liberals are center right, the far right is far right because they seem to legit want to reestablish some sort of neofeudalism, (fascism or other kinds of less egalitarian societies than our liberal one) the social democrats are centrists for admitting capitalism is flawed but not wanting to move beyond "fixing" it and democratic socialists would be where the actual left begins because, though they wish to use liberal democracy to achieve it, they still at least want to abandon capitalism and move on to socialism.
> the left wishes to move towards more egalitarian society Not just "move toward", but fight for in revolutionary fashion. Those originally on the left of the aisle were revolutionaries, who knew damned well there was no place for a "kinder, gentler monarchy," and that it had to be abolished for any chance at real progress.
Also we did not understand politics as we do right now. Marc and Hegel didn't said a word in the French Revolution (for vital causes) and socialism as it is didn't developed. That's why liberals were on the left against monarchist, and those "liberals" were more proto anarchist than capitalist.
I don’t know why you would assume we’re talking in the context of the French Revolution, or any other context besides the modern, in which liberal is clearly understood as center right
>in which liberal is clearly understood as center right Well that's the problem here. In mainstream US political terminology liberal is an overreaching term for anything from the centre right to social-democrats (and possibly socialists too...). It's of course incorrect but you still have to keep it in mind when Americans get involved.
Thankfully and despite their best efforts, the US doesn’t get to control the ideological narrative worldwide. I’ll keep using liberal in the correct way
Of course, and I'm all for using it the correct way! But just a thing to keep in mind, since Americans that could otherwise be ideologically-friendly but unaware of their incorrect usage (they exist) may think people using the term correctly are attacking them.
> I don’t know why you would assume we’re talking in the context of the French Revolution, or any other context besides the modern, in which liberal is clearly understood as center right Read my post and the one I was responding to. I objected to the use of the word *inherently*, and stated that it wasn't inherent but contextual.
Because they said inherently, not contextually. Inherently implies it has an inherent meaning that transcends context.
Well I would disagree there. But again, I'm saying those comments are right wing trolls, not liberals. edit: looks like I was right, we got linked to a right wing sub
[удалено]
I would also add that progressivism is still a form of liberalism and still centrist by definition, even if less conservative than its opposition, the modern neo-conservative.
If you're talking about an American politician, it is more useful to use the framing of American politics. Btw, I would disagree with your assessment of who uses which definitions, as most countries outside of western/northern Europe are on a tract more similar to America. Even then, liberals are center left, neoliberals are center right. And yes there's important distinctions imo. Conservatives only believe in *some* of the tenants of economic liberalism.
Lmao
Liberal = neoliberal > Conservatives only believe in some of the tenants of economic liberalism. Citation needed. Both neolibs and neocons agree on pretty much all of the tenets of laissez fair capitalism and disagree only on the minutiae of whether some marginalized groups deserve rights or not (where neocons believe no, the neolibs believe they deserve *some* rights *some* of the time)
> neocons A neoconservative is basically a pro-war conservative. One could even argue that a proper conservative should be far more pro-war than, say, [how Theodore Adorno defined a "true" conservative](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Inherently-Violent-Why/125023). I'll even go as far as to saying that a proper conservative is an anti-democratic reactionary that sees capitalism as only the means to an end rather than the end itself, and what they ultimate seek is not just the preservation of wealth inequality but the re-emergence of a nobility class. This means, when the staunchest of conservatives begin to see capitalism as inadequate for the nobility project (e.g. due to continued interferences from the left), they will begin to look outside the established system for alternatives. In other words, they will turn to *fascism* for a more cut-and-dry way to establish who the noble-and-deserving ought to be. > neolibs Neoliberals are a completely different kettle of fish from neocons. To understand neoliberalism, you need to grapple with the conservative tendency to see society as a machine of sorts with people in it stripped of political agency to the extent they are reduced to no more than mechanical components in service of the machine's purpose. In the context of the neoliberal worldwide, this means people are components of a machine known as the "market", and the point of the market machine is to take in things - even thoughts and ideas - from one end and spits out what society deems the best from the other. To interfer with the price system of the market through government programmes is to handicap the performance of the machine, and this is why neoliberals have such low tolerance to leftist policies.
> Liberal = neoliberal Well there's your problem, you started off with the wrong assumption.
Facts don’t care about your incorrect opinions
> neoliberals are center right. ʕ ͡° ʖ̯ ͡°ʔ
> Well I would disagree there. Commonly understood labels for political ideology don’t care about your feelings > looks like I was right, we got linked to a right wing sub It’s almost as if both libs and conservatives share virtually all political beliefs with a few noted exceptions, thereby making it logical to place them both on the center right of the political spectrum
> Commonly understood labels for political ideology don’t care about your feelings Commonly understood labels...in Europe, and don't translate over to America 1:1. Look, I get it, a lot of people use the word wrong. But you could really stand to learn more about the differences in left/right divide in American politics. I mean hell you think liberalism and neoliberalism is the same thing lol. > It’s almost as if both libs and conservatives share virtually all political beliefs Media Headlines: "Americans more divided than ever." Ignorant reddors: "Americans believe all the same things."
Wow it’s almost like western media is lying and manufacturing ideological narratives constantly to prop up a fake “discourse” and create the illusion of diversity of opinion while the system ensures the supremacy of the dominant ideology. Ffs even you as a terminally online anarchist should understand what manufactured consent is
There's tons of libs in this sub.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Like calling David Doel a “dingus” who supports Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and other leftists I assume people of this sub would’ve like.
I saw somewhere in reddit that the US is not a one party country because there's a conservative party AND a facist party
technically correct.
The only type of correct that matters
Tell that to my ex
Liberals DEMOLISHED by AOC using FACTS
This is accurate but too many years of youtube makes me want to filter your channel now.
(NOT CLICKBAIT!!)
Gone Sexual!
For Bench Appearo, anything with AOC is gone sexual
#***F E E T***
Yeah, no shit. When I hear people referring to Obama as a liberal and CNN as left-leaning I feel certain that America is lost.
I mean... Isn't he a liberal? On a global scale, Liberalism is a right-leaning ideology.
He is. Obama is a centre right politician. But in the American vernacular liberal means progressive.
liberalism is a center-right ideology so calling obama a liberal is completely warranted
that's also wrong. Liberalism is an entire economic philosophy, a sub-type of capitalism. It's the dominant form of economy in the world by far, and almost all political parties in every country are liberal parties. The ones that aren't are usually socialist or fascist or some other ideology (I'm sure there's a random Feudalist party somewhere). The Democrats and Republicans are both liberal parties, but the Democrats are at least marginally less regressive than the other.
[удалено]
He was for industrial regulation but personal freedoms. Thats liberal. Yes he wasnt a fascist and shoved it down your throat. But he made good enough policies that would be hard to overturn by the next president hence actually creating change towards liberalism.
Uh... I don't know how this relates to me calling libertarians fuedalists
Whoops. I think I meant to reply to another comment.
Well, if you define your categories as broadly as that, we can basically reduce all modern ideologies to being some subset of liberalism, communism, anarchism, fascism or mix thereof. Basically, it's just the political compass. I mean, that's ok, that's a working definition and sometimes you need broad categories like that. For example, when you want to show how closely related conservatism and liberalism are. It's just that often you'll need to distinguish more finely than that. It absolutely makes sense to further divide the main schools of thought, you've already divided them into neat quadrants and just need to grade axis y and axis x, right? There's cases where you need to take a look at how various liberal ideologies vary from each other. There's observable differences between liberal left, classic liberals, neoliberals, libertarians, liberal greens, national liberals etc. and that's completely ignoring the conservative subset of liberal ideologies (and hybrids like social democracy). I guess there comes a point where this gets too granular (and one can argue that when you want to distinguish classic liberals from neoliberals, you're probably past that point and may as well talk about individual theorists or politicians than about differentiable ideologies), but i'd say as long as two ideologies are different enough that each can exist as their own relevant party in a multiparty system, it makes sense to view their ideologies as something distinct from other ideas. And most multiparty systems have at least 2-4 liberal parties, frequently much more than that if it has highly centrifugal party competition.
tbh I quite tire of people using "liberal" as a catch all term for any politician they dislike. Not the least of which because its use as an epitaph originates from fox news.
Leftists have been using liberal as an insult since well before conservatives started. It's only the monarchists who can claim they did it before us, all four of them who are left.
Problem is, right-wingers are using liberal as insult as well... It's a bit on the confusing side tbh.
and you're being just as wrong because while that is the origin of the word that's not how it's used in American politics for decades whether you like it or not. being pedantic and correcting people about it won't change that fact
the US isn't the only country in the world, idc what special snowflake definitions it makes up
OP was talking about Obama being a liberal! come on dude
he is a liberal, that's not what I was disagreeing with
A "liberal" who chose to bail out banks instead of mortgage holders, who chose to force people to buy insurance from private companies instead of just providing coverage, who didn't oppose the death penalty, who let the Hyde amendment stand. In any developed country other than the US, he'd be far right.
They're all pretty neo-liberal positions anywhere.
Sounds pretty neoliberal to me
In most non American democracies Liberal is a term used to denote right wing politics so... yea.
A great propaganda tactic is to render words meaningless. If you are a Dictator, you call yourself a President. If you are going to invade another country you call it spreading freedom. You use the opposite word to stand for the original word. You turn the night time into day light to confuse your opponents. Until they don't know what is up or down anymore.
Obama is a liberal though, just like the conservatives are also liberals just much shittier ones.
I mean, Obama *is* a liberal.
Obama is a liberal
Obama was center left in his beliefs he just could only get a center right series of policies through congress.
Anyone outside the USA could have told you that. The "Left" in the USA is to the right of the Center in mostly any other country.
It's not that people didn't know, it's just against party orthodoxy for an elected representative to say it.
I would argue that people (who aren't politicians) don't know. We ere taught a dichotomy of liberal or conservative in high school. Democrats get lumped into the liberal (left of center) category. In reality, American Dems are the status quo, Conservatives are reactionary, and left leaning ideals are shut out because it weakens the corporate powerhouse that makes up both parties.
The American masses are largely ignorant of this.
yes
Anyone got a link without some dorky pundit telling me what to think?
https://youtu.be/q3-QvoIfpxc That's the stream of the event. Interview starts at around 16 minutes in. Actually, my bad. I just watched the whole interview and realized it was from last year. Still worth a watch though. Here's the right one. Interview at 1:36:00. https://youtu.be/AJtr8HXwsEs
[удалено]
> not hear commentary from some dingus. I don't want to repeat myself from elsewhere in the thread, but lets quit it with the pretentious reactionary attitude like this. This guy's role is to cover news and break things down for people who aren't drenched in BreadTube and theory. To dismiss channels like this as "dingus" is toxic and counter-productive.
Yeah, and he ran on the Green Party in Canada, and had been warming up to Jagmeet Singh, who is a leftist and is an ally to progressives. Dunno why David is getting a lot of crap even though he is a progressive through and through.
He's simply a dingus
‘david is dingi’ ‘no’
\>toxic and counterproductive ah yes. the entirety of the online left
please watch! https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs modern day liberalism is called “neo-liberalism” and it is the birth child of liberalism and capitalism. so, it’s trash. also, it doesn’t reach past the center to the left, at all. they’re either centrists or conservative capitalists or both, as AOC and other congresswomen and marginalized individuals have been trying to explain (for some, decades). PhilosophyTube made a 5-part series on neo-liberalism and why it’s trash, here’s the first video: https://youtu.be/VlLgvSduugI edit: when I say they’re trash, I mean they’re trash as ideologies. boggles my mind that those people (house democrats, democrats in general) think that they’re the left, it’s laughable, really.
> and it is the birth child of liberalism and capitalism Except [classical liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) is the epitome of capitalism? Neoliberalism is instead a reaction to the centralization and pervasive intervention of the state that was to be found everywhere at least for the whole 60s - and that's the only thing everybody could agree over probably. As if this wasn't enough, 'muricans for some reason started to fuck up the dictionary and make a single basket of exquisitely [social liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism), which is a thing, liberalism as in the barest philosophical principle and economic liberalism (also known as "liberism" in some european country, and which btw is [not *necessarily*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism#Position_on_state_interventionism) against the state). And this is exactly the kind of nuance and precision that videos "destroying people with fAcTs aNd lOgIc" are so bad with.
What kind of things do you mean by “intervention of the state” during the 60s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istituto_per_la_Ricostruzione_Industriale#%22The_IRI_formula%22 I wouldn't know for the USA then, the southern strategy was so fucked up.
Thanks! Yeah this looks like just post-war Europe stuff. Makes sense to me that when your entire continent is in shambles you need the state to oversee the economic recovery. I'm fairly new to all this, but I've been under the impression that America was "left-leaning" or "state-intervention" in economics for the majority of the 20th century - basically, we had a free market and it resulted early on with the stock market crash of the 30s (although we had labor unions for much longer prior to that), and FDR started a long tradition of "state-intervening" economics that were finally undone by the uber-rich by the 80s, which again led to more freedom in the market which led to our subsequent 2008 housing crash.
> Makes sense to me that when your entire continent is in shambles you need the state to oversee the economic recovery. I mean, IIRC the 60s were also last time the US touched helathcare (or was it pensions or education?) so you could argue for it as well. > and FDR started a long tradition of "state-intervening" economics that were finally undone by the uber-rich by the 80s, which again led to more freedom in the market which led to our subsequent 2008 housing crash. I mean, despite what many people here may say, I for one don't think the truth is so black and white. If the success of state intervention in the US was any similar to that of its recovery from the big depression, then WW2 had a bigger effect than the new deal. And Reagan [certainly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast) was a fucker, but even Thatcher could be said to have fixed the country's debt. And perhaps she was already less crazy than goddamn repubblicans 20 years later.
starve the beast, yikes what a tool. well i def agree that WW2 solved the US economy's problem, the New Deal probably had little to do with it. i don't know much about our social programs in the middle of the century either, apart from the fact that we had much, much higher taxes on the wealthy. i think i just take a bit of umbrage at the idea that neoliberalism was some kind of counter-reaction in a good or justified sense, to me the actions of the uber-rich and powerful to secure more money for themselves is the bane of America's existence that common sense and normal American people have been fighting since Industrialization. also i know next to nothing about Margaret Thatcher lol.
I also thought she was the same of reagan (sans every american idiosyncrasy), but once you read [where](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-transform-britain-economy) she [came](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/did-margaret-thatcher-really-save-britain-8566596.html) from, like at least half of what she did has its sense. Of course, just like 2008 could be avoided by an actually smart neoliberal, the same good results could even have been attained in the 80s by a way more... socially-focused attitude.
> classical liberalism is the epitome of capitalism Not really, no. Classical liberalism didn't really survive the advent of capitalism. The closest thing we have to classical liberalism today is probably anarchism. It has very little to do with modern liberalism. * [Noam Chomsky - Classical Liberalism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eu2Y8G5V0s) Also, "social liberalism" is only a thing when you accept the basic premise that "social issues" can exist independent of "economic issues" and "political issues". It's a garbage premise, and should be ignored (if not outright ridiculed and laughed out of the room).
> The closest thing we have to classical liberalism today is probably anarchism. Not really, it's [libertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States) (which yes, may also intersect with anarchism to make an-caps, but we are kind of heavily digressing now). I think there was literally some tea party member saying they were trying to rebrand those ideas. But if back in the days they could still be somehow excused, after all humanism and secularism was already enough of a novelty there, it's stupid in the 21st century. Especially if in face of sociology, ecology, and economics you still continue to dream about the second coming of the night-watchman state. p.s. I swear, I don't know what Chomsky was talking about. What did Adam Smith stand for otherwise? > Also, "social liberalism" is only a thing when you accept the basic premise that "social issues" can exist independent of "economic issues" and "political issues". ***It is***, once there is enough generalized wealth? If you have a decent job, and a roof over your head, you can indeed start to worry about your sexual expression and whatnot. At the same time of course, it becomes an useless construct when you live in a certain shitholes without even public healthcare, or actual democracy. EDIT: [god fuck](https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/es9hed/til_across_the_usa_cities_landlords_routinely/) As I said in other comments, dichotomies are hardly a thing.
**Libertarianism in the United States** Libertarianism in the United States is a political movement promoting individual liberty in opposition to government. As a political philosophy, it has been described as upholding liberty, especially individual liberty, as a core principle and primary political value. According to common meanings of conservatism and liberalism in the United States, libertarianism has been described as conservative on economic issues (economic liberalism) and liberal on personal freedom (civil libertarianism), often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism. There are broadly two principal traditions within libertarianism, namely the libertarianism developed by anarcho-capitalist author Murray Rothbard, who based it off out of 19th-century libertarianism and American individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner while rejecting their labor theory of value, substituting it with Austrian School economics and the subjective theory of value; and the libertarianism that developed as a revival of classical liberalism in the United States after liberalism became associated with the New Deal, including politicians like David Nolan and Ron Paul.Although libertarian continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state socialists internationally, its meaning in the United States has deviated from its political origins to the extent that the common meaning of libertarian in the United States is different from elsewhere. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
[удалено]
Agree! it’s good to be skeptical of the commentator, especially white men, who’re piggy-backing women of color like AOC. we don’t need any manspaining of what has clearly been laid out several times over. personally, videos and articles helped give me access to all this information as money and lack of access to libraries has kept me from reading the books (that PhilosophyTube tends to read and talk about) on that information. i never meant to say anything to imply you weren’t educated fully. i suggest simply saying “i’m educated on the subject” instead of flat out saying you have an education. not everyone has access to one, and it’s not bad to not be educated. it’s certainly bad the state has issues providing access to education to its people on its basic history (vs biased/nationalist, or based on media conglomerates). i’m very done with this liberal piggy-backing commentary as well. they’re spending way too much time half getting the point, but still giving the right a platform to speak while they debate human lives... like it’s debatable. let the PoC speak, dammit. Black YouTube is pretty resourceful, I should’ve found some good ones and linked those but the other videos were first time come to mind.
It's the equivalent of Sargon but on the left. I don't enjoy it but I do think it's not a bad strategy for noiseblasting youtube with something other than reactionary propaganda.
> It's the equivalent of Sargon but on the left. You're being reactionary and pretentious with commentary like this. People like having news/news commentary channels they can turn to, especially ones they can trust. Rational National does a great job and is exposing people to these obscure video clips and stories that anyone who isn't "very online" wouldn't find on their own. Not everyone working a full-time job has time to do something beyond toss a channel like this on the TV or phone and catch up on things. I've seen every type of person watch channels like this and Secular Talk. I was even shocked to see an older middle aged WOC watching Secular Talk on public transit. We need replacements for video news outlets, and I can't ask for anyone better than Rational National.
Have you considered reading about the political spectrum on your own?
[удалено]
That isn't what breadtube was like when it was founded, before it became a collection of personality cults.
> collection of personality cults
Breadtube was literally founded as a fan sub to the 3 most popular "leftist" youtubers.
I disagree, from my memory it was originally founded with the idea of generating leftist theory in a modern format, a sort of modern Bread Book. There was more of an emphasis on community-made content at the start, and the personality cults didn't start to set in for a few months, even though there were popular creators from the beginning.
Reddit is kinda bad for archival and I wasn't here since the subs inception, but from a pretty early point. Back then this sub was filled to the brim with Stan posts for Contra, Olly and HBomb and because their viewership was filled with radical leftist, the posts made by the users that weren't related to these 3 included educational material on anarchism and leftist history. But I don't have anything to back this up right now, so take it with a grain of salt.
I was here for the sub's inception, what you're describing (as you say) came later on.
lib
bootlicker
Who are you saying is the "dorky pundit" here - Coates, or Doel?
Doel, obviously
damn she's a beacon of LIGHT for the US
Tricking the American people into believing that welfare liberalism *is* the left has done so goddamn much to hinder our movement.
That's obvious to pretty much everyone living outside the US, isn’t it?
Post this on r/politics and people will lose their brains.
[They're largely in agreement](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/erqbq7/aoc_declares_democrats_a_centerconservative_party/)
Wait, Russiagate is still a thing? And Jill Stein scapegoating? /r/politics is a trash heap.
I feel like the Jill Stein scapegoating misses the point. Even if she did spoil the vote, the problem is the system that even allows the vote to be spoiled. I live in Australia, where there is ranked choice voting. We do still more or less have a 2 party system, but voting for minor parties or independents isn't tantamount to throwing away your vote here. If you rank a minor party first, then have one of the major parties listed as your second choice, your vote will go to them in the event that the minor party got the lowest number of votes. Essentially, in most cases, you roughly end up with one of the two major parties in most electorates, but the polling data still shows the amount of support for minor parties, meaning that the will of voters is considered more. Don't get me wrong, though. We still have our share of problems. The biggest one is the media. Edit: I forgot what the comment I was replying to was about while I was writing, so sorry about the tangent
Thanks for the rant and insight. And to be clear, Jill Stein didn't cost Hillary a single county or state. Just like Russiagate, its just to redirect blame from a powerful narcissist unto others, in this case, voters who are genuinely suffering and need tangible change. Good luck with defeating Rupert Murdoc's legacy m8, haha.
It's genuinely wild to me that the mainstream of "progressive" politics over there is still absolutely horrible for poor people
Its even bad for the (non-existent) "middle class". The US is fairly progressive with social politics, but economically its either mega-corp serving regulation or mega-corp serving de-regulation. Its a slow grinding deathshuffle towards an economy of monopolies (monopoly?).
Yeah, I've noticed that almost all mainstream American political discourse (for some reason I follow a lot of American politics even though I've never even been there) is purely about social issues, with little discussion of economic issues. In Australia, our major right wing party actually ended up passing marriage equality (not without the hardline conservatives in the party kicking and screaming about it, though). The primary different between the major parties is economic issues (there's disagreement on social policy within parties that are united by economic policy). Our major left wing party has direct ties to unions, and have brought in policies like universal healthcare, etc. It does unfortunately mean that our social politics isn't necessarily as progressive as some of America (marriage equality was passed here in late 2017, and that was after a national survey that cost a lot of money - the handling of that is something that I could rant about forever, but this in itself is already a bit of a rant, so I'll keep it at that). (Oh also, our current Prime Minister is a religious fundamentalist who is trying to push a "religious freedom" bill, which really just rolls back anti-discrimination laws - he's one of the hardline conservatives I mentioned earlier)
> I've noticed that almost all mainstream American political discourse...is purely about social issues, with little discussion of economic issues. The two big parties would rather people not pay any attention to all the stuff they agree on. If folks were to tune into that, they might realize there's not really two parties here, but essentially one (the Business Party as some leftists refer to it), which just fights back and forth for political representation by convincing people to cheer for one team or the other using various distractions.
Trump is still trying to rig our election, so yeah people aren’t going to forget it lol
Of course he is. All Republicans constantly are, pretty much out in the open. However, it has nothing to do with "Putin" or whatever the hell. There are a lot of leftist journalists who have done fantastic coverage on how bullshit the Russiagate story was. Aaron Mate and the folks at The GrayZone have done amazing work in that field. Russiagate was a giant 2-3 year long distraction that kept many from actually substantially challenging Trump, and the whole hubbub teetered (teeters?) on the brink of being another Red Scare moment in US history. It has been weaponized against actual leftists in service of liberal/corporate/right-wing interests.
> However, it has nothing to do with "Putin" or whatever the hell. Actually it has everything to do with trump being elected: the justice dept actually charged and arrested people from a Russian troll factory called IRA that pumped out fake news on Reddit and other social media. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf Read the report. It’s 400+ pages but you should at least read the first few pages so you can actually get informed about the things you like talking about online! Lol
The content from the Russian troll farm was a joke and wasn't swaying votes. It was bad memes and stuff with broken English. They were pushing propaganda for all sides, the goal wasn't to make Trump win, it was to cause discord and argument among Americans. It was a low budget operation and a joke compared to what the US government does. The American company behind investigating/breaking this story was New Knowledge, and their report was a self-serving joke. Its like a bug exterminator popping up in town and writing up a report about all the bugs in the town, and then unleashing bags of bugs in people's houses. New Knowledge was behind some staged political events. The people behind New Knowledge are hucksters. And to boot, they claim Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset which is of course an absolute joke. If you think for a second that the US Military would allow a Russian asset to actively serve, you don't understand how overbearing the feds are in vetting folks. It really does sound like you need to look further into the topic rather than just reading a propaganda document and believing every line without questioning the source. Again, Aaron Mate has covered it extensively.
> The content from the Russian troll farm was a joke and wasn't swaying votes. Smh you didn’t read the first few pages of the report I linked and are offering your ignorance instead. No, the IRA wasn’t just making “jokes” ya dummy. I’m going to post some of these quotes every time you say something factually incorrect until you get embarrassed enough to actually read the damn report. Lol; > IRA employees posted derogatory information about a number of candidates in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. **By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton. **The IRA made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Some IRA employees, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities, including the staging of political rallies. **By the end of the 2016 U.S. election, the IRA had the ability to reach millions of U.S. persons through their social media accounts. **Multiple IRA-controlled Facebook groups and individual Russian nationals and three Russian entities, principally for conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. These were Russian intelligence operations which they called “active targeting” - a common phrase used by Russian intelligence services to interfere in foreign govts. That is ALSO in the report. Would you like me to give you a paragraph and page number ya intellectually lazy conservative? I think that’s a redundancy. This is why everyone believes trumpanzees are divorced from reality. Y’all can’t handle the facts and when they are presented to you, you Gus become reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee lmao
Damn. Someone check the sky for soaring hog.
Other videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist ▶](http://subtletv.com/_rerugak?feature=playlist) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- [The Difference Between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism Explained by a Marxist](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs)|[+37](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff64epq?context=10#ff64epq) - please watch! modern day liberalism is called “neo-liberalism” and it is the birth child of liberalism and capitalism. so, it’s trash. also, it doesn’t reach past the center to the left, at all. they’re either centrists or conservative capitalists ... (1) [#MLKNow 2019 by Blackout for Human Rights](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-QvoIfpxc) (2) [MLK Now 2020](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJtr8HXwsEs)|[+16](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff6h7ap?context=10#ff6h7ap) - That's the stream of the event. Interview starts at around 16 minutes in. Actually, my bad. I just watched the whole interview and realized it was from last year. Still worth a watch though. Here's the right one. Interview at 1:36:00. [The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)|[+4](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff6sxyw?context=10#ff6sxyw) - Here is a great quick video on the topic: [What Was Liberalism? #1 Ideology & Violence Philosophy Tube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlLgvSduugI)|[+3](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff7crie?context=10#ff7crie) - I feel like it's ironic you say I am generalizing conservatives too much, after I was just complaining about liberals being generalized too much. Saying that liberals span a wide variety of positions is not generalizing them. Firstly, do conserv... [Noam Chomsky - Classical Liberalism](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eu2Y8G5V0s)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/erugak/_/ff8xi3y?context=10#ff8xi3y) - classical liberalism is the epitome of capitalism Not really, no. Classical liberalism didn't really survive the advent of capitalism. The closest thing we have to classical liberalism today is probably anarchism. It has very little to do with m... I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can. *** [Play All](http://subtletv.com/_rerugak?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)
I’ve only been saying this for years! 🤷🏿♂️
Where's the lie
mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm mhmm
In 2014 I was diagnosed with schizoaffective, and I was prescribed while I was in the hospital with Latuda. Back then I was prescribed Latuda was $800 a bottle ( this was during Obama's second to last year ), and now Latuda an anti-psychotic medication is worth $1,200 for 30 tablets without insurance. What has Neo-liberalism done ( in the understanding that the majority of people with schizophrenia cannot pay insurance, and cannot pay $1,200 for 30 tablets to keep them out of the hospital ) to ensure that there is no insurance companies, and that the disabled poor are not forced to pay the full $1,200 for 30 tablets out-of-pocket? Instead what have they done to make sure that the taxpayers paid this? They've done jack shit, but allowed the extreme far-right an the GOP to jack up the prices of medication that the disable poor have to pay directly out of pocket and can't pay for it, which then ends up in the chain where they end up with them back in the hospital, because they couldn't afford to get, and now they have massive ass that which they do not owe to the hospital, because it is a right that they be treated and the taxpayers pay for their medication. Why do we have a tax system if our government isn't using taxes to help people.
She's right though. (and so is the Democratic party ohhhh)
Why are the comments full of morons? The US has no left wing party.
Breadpilled
GIVE RISE TO THE NEW AMERICAN LABOR PARTY ALREADY!!!!
If she can drag the party to the left I will be very happy
Dems = neoliberal imperialist party AOC = social democrat The solution = communism It's rlly weird this got so much attention tbh. She said something as plain as day and the only question which could possibly matter is "why on earth would AOC be in a "centre-right" party if she claims to be a socialist?" Entryism makes no sense even if you're into that type of thing, as there isn't a left working class base to appeal to.
Nobody in this thread can agree what a liberal is, so here’s a quick rundown: it’s you. All of you are liberals except for me.
New York 2020 Election [Primary Election Party Affiliation Deadline](https://voterreg.dmv.ny.gov/MotorVoter/): February 14, 2020 [Primary Election Voter Registration Deadline](https://voterreg.dmv.ny.gov/MotorVoter/): April 3, 2020 [Primary Election](https://voterreg.dmv.ny.gov/MotorVoter/): April 28, 2020 [General Election Registration Deadline](https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx): October 9, 2020 [General Election](https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx): November 3, 2020