Trumpism has completely destroyed the Republican party.

[Warren Moon]

You're running in circles without saying anything. You haven't brought in a single receipt, haven't cited a single source. You might as well be in TLR. Get serious.

I just quoted Brad DeLong calling himself "fundamentally a neoliberal shill". Do you believe him or not? Those are his OWN words, and he was part of the Clinton Administration. He worked for Robert Rubin, who is seen as the head of Clinton's neoliberal strategy. Rubin's key deputy was Lawrence Summers and he worked extremely closely with Alan Greenspan, head of the Fed, who is seen as one of the biggest drivers of the neoliberal agenda in D.C. history. They together pushed through Glass-Steagall, fought to keep derivatives from being regulated, constantly argued that the poor should be helped via business investment rather than direct aid, and through the IMF promoted American neoliberal economic policy throughout the world. And who was the key aide to both Rubin and Summers? Timothy Geithner.

Where have we heard all those names before?

Oh yeah, Rubin who headed Clinton's Treasury was also one of Obama's key economic advisers.
Oh yeah, Summers (who considers Milton Friedman a hero) took over Treasury under Clinton before becaming the head of Obama's National Economic Council.
Oh yeah, Geithner who served as UnderSecretary of Treasury under Clinton then joined the IMF followed by the New York Fed, became a leading driver of Bush's response to the economic crisis....and was then picked by Obama to be his Treasury Secretary
Oh yeah, Greenspan, a close friend of Milton Friedman who was frequently praised by him and considered well in line with his agenda, ran the Fed under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and then Bush again.
Let's not forget Greenspan's replacement Ben Bernanke, a huge Milton Friedman stan who was literally mentored by him, was a Bush economic adviser who as then nominated by Bush to head the Fed, and then kept by Obama in that same role so he could guide the economic recovery.
Let's just throw in Paul Volcker, praised by Milton Friedman for how he combated inflation while heading the Fed under Reagan, and then became chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board under Obama.


How are they "three distinct examples" if they're largely recycling the same central people in the same fukking roles.

Quoting for later. Meetings all day. Cherry-picking motherfukker. I can’t wait to destroy this

 

[Warren Moon]

@Warren Moon seemingly knows nothing about this yet speaks as if he’s some kind of authority.... I’m not sure why people do this nonsense.

wtf is economic easing fukk out of here dude.

 

[ogc163]

The entire thread is operating under the assumption that leftist policy is the gold standard and what people actually want.

Americans really rock with Progressives beloved, just look at the polls!! We just gotta wait for the old racist dumb boomers to die and then we'll have our Progressive revolution bruh. Because we all know racism and bigotry isn't intergenerational and the Boomers children ain't bringing those attitudes with them into the future beloved.

I mean we just saw the progressive agenda win with Gen Xers across the purple states lead to the election of Bern...oh wait.

 

[John Reena]

Progressives still believing America is more progressive than moderate is astonishing

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Americans really rock with Progressives beloved, just look at the polls!!

Progressives still believing America is more progressive than moderate is astonishing

Do y'all think America is more or less progressive now than it was in 1932? Or 1968? Real question.

Also, how do you both do on this little quiz? Can You Guess How Popular Bernie Sanders’s Policies Are?

We just gotta wait for the old racist dumb boomers to die and then we'll have our Progressive revolution bruh. Because we all know racism and bigotry isn't intergenerational and the Boomers children ain't bringing those attitudes with them into the future beloved.

Interesting that you bring in racism. So if your argument is "but racism is intergenerational!".....then what are you actually arguing for? How does defeatism regarding racism morph into some sort of strategy....are you saying that we just need to go full Biden and partner with segregationists? Oh, wait, there aren't any segregationists in power anymore...how did that happen? Did they not have children?

I mean we just saw the progressive agenda win with Gen Xers across the purple states lead to the election of Bern...oh wait.

Second quiz of the day.

1. When Gen Xers were asked, "Who understands your issues more?" or "Whose policies do you agree with more?", who do you think more of them named, Bernie or Biden?

2. Do you believe, as many people in this thread are arguing, that Biden is pushing a very progressive platform? Do you believe he wants to win the general? So if Biden wants to win and Biden has historically been very conservative....then why is he pushing such a progressive platform out of step with his previous stances?

 

[Conan]

Progressives still believing America is more progressive than moderate is astonishing

It's not. A nation that still has legalized slavery in the form of prison labor, a nation which kills black men at will... Isn't progressive.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

America is very progressive for White people. We don’t have progressive policies because of racism. That’s literally it, that’s why when we point to other countries with socialist policies you immediately hear racist whites saying. “But those countries are homogeneous, and we aren’t”. That excuse is them telling on themselves and hilariously they’ve never realized it.

it’s also bullshyt because last time I checked the UK and Canada have plenty of minorities

If White people didn’t think minorities would get the benefits Bernie Sanders would literally be president right now.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Quoting for later. Meetings all day. Cherry-picking motherfukker. I can’t wait to destroy this

Great, we have to wait a day for you to

Here, I'll give you a quick 3-part quiz that you can answer between meetings:

1. Did Brad DeLong of the Clinton Administration call himself "fundamentally a neoliberal shill" and did he describe the Democrats from the 1990s until today as neoliberals or not?

2. Did Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, and Timothy Geithner lead the economic policy of both Clinton and Obama or not? And did Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury Brad DeLong refer to this group of economic policy makers as the "Rubin wing of the Democratic Party" who are "Market-friendly neoliberals", or not?

3. Did Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Lawrence Summers have a huge, direct impact on all three of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations or not? And were they all big Milton Friedman stans or not?


It's really easy, I'm sure you can do it. Will we see DIRECT answers to those questions, or more juelzing as before?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Do y'all think America is more or less progressive now than it was in 1932? Or 1968? Real question.

Also, how do you both do on this little quiz? Can You Guess How Popular Bernie Sanders’s Policies Are?




Interesting that you bring in racism. So if your argument is "but racism is intergenerational!".....then what are you actually arguing for? How does defeatism regarding racism morph into some sort of strategy....are you saying that we just need to go full Biden and partner with segregationists? Oh, wait, there aren't any segregationists in power anymore...how did that happen? Did they not have children?





Second quiz of the day.

1. When Gen Xers were asked, "Who understands your issues more?" or "Whose policies do you agree with more?", who do you think more of them named, Bernie or Biden?

2. Do you believe, as many people in this thread are arguing, that Biden is pushing a very progressive platform? Do you believe he wants to win the general? So if Biden wants to win and Biden has historically been very conservative....then why is he pushing such a progressive platform out of step with his previous stances?

Yeah, I don't understand that mentality of, "America is racist so let's not try to get better laws on the books." Better laws would help combat the racism not make it worse.

 

[Warren Moon]

Great, we have to wait a day for you to

Here, I'll give you a quick 3-part quiz that you can answer between meetings:

1. Did Brad DeLong of the Clinton Administration call himself "fundamentally a neoliberal shill" and did he describe the Democrats from the 1990s until today as neoliberals or not?

2. Did Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, and Timothy Geithner lead the economic policy of both Clinton and Obama or not? And did Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury Brad DeLong refer to this group of economic policy makers as the "Rubin wing of the Democratic Party" who are "Market-friendly neoliberals", or not?

3. Did Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Lawrence Summers have a huge, direct impact on all three of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations or not? And were they all big Milton Friedman stans or not?


It's really easy, I'm sure you can do it. Will we see DIRECT answers to those questions, or more juelzing as before?

some of us have jobs with actual employees reporting to us throughout the day.

u seem to be an employee.


Im a have direct answers for your questions though. Your knowledge on how the economic structure works in America is naive at best. Or just ignorant.

Your entire premise is:

Guy A says he’s a neoliberal. Did he work for a president? Yes, then that presidential economic structure was neoliberalism.

you’re literally using the exact same argument, right wingers use when calling him a socialist.

Guy A says he’s a democratic socialist. Did he work for Obama? Yes. Then Obama is a democratic socialist.

it’s literally the exact same thinking pattern they use, no difference or nuance at all. Simpleton are it’s finest.


You’ll convince yourself it isn’t tho, that somehow what u think is right, even tho u think in the same way that ppl who are obviously wrong do.




That works coming later don’t worry. . I love shutting up racists and smart dumb Nikkas like yourself too.

 

[ogc163]

Interesting that you bring in racism. So if your argument is "but racism is intergenerational!".....then what are you actually arguing for? How does defeatism regarding racism morph into some sort of strategy....are you saying that we just need to go full Biden and partner with segregationists? Oh, wait, there aren't any segregationists in power anymore...how did that happen? Did they not have children?

I did not state or imply that racisms prevalence means that progressive policies can't pass, but it does influence how whites vote for progressive policies. Their belief that progressive policies disproportionately benefit Black people limits the probability that those policies become law. And so, acknowledging the huge constraints that racism places on progressive policies doesn't equal being defeatist.

1. When Gen Xers were asked, "Who understands your issues more?" or "Whose policies do you agree with more?", who do you think more of them named, Bernie or Biden?

Why are their answers to the questions relevant? And if they are relevant, do their answers matter more than how they actually voted?

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Imagine being such a narcissist that you honestly believe being a manger and having employees that report to you gives you the authority to act like you know more than Cornell fukking West on this subject.

Go sit in the corner you dumb mother fukker



@Warren Moon

 

[Professor Emeritus]

some of us have jobs with actual employees reporting to us throughout the day.

u seem to be an employee.

What sort of right-wing bullshyt attempt to win internet points is this?

If it must be told, I'm an independent contractor who has attained enough economic freedom in life that I can pick up or drop contracts whenever I feel like it. Technically I do have a "boss" because I'm on a contract, but I set my own duties and hours because they've agreed to my proffered services and I report maybe every few weeks. I have a number of employees, some of which come as part of the deal and some of which I pick up for the particular contract.

That's all you're gonna get out of that useless diversion, do you want to whip them out next?

Im a have direct answers for your questions though. Your knowledge on how the economic structure works in America is naive at best. Or just ignorant.

Your entire premise is:

Guy A says he’s a neoliberal. Did he work for a president? Yes, then that presidential economic structure was neoliberalism.

you’re literally using the exact same argument, right wingers use when calling him a socialist.

Guy A says he’s a democratic socialist. Did he work for Obama? Yes. Then Obama is a democratic socialist.

it’s literally the exact same thinking pattern they use, no difference or nuance at all. Simpleton are it’s finest.

If Obama was appointing Democratic Socialists to any prominent economic position then I'd be impressed as fukk! The fact that he NEVER did such a thing tells you how well your analogy works.

And no, my argument was not just "the Deputy UnderSecretary of Treasury said he was a neoliberal." It was that he said he was a straight shill for neoliberals and he described the entire movement of thought and governance he was a part of as neoliberals. He called the neoliberals he was a part of "Rubin Democrats" after the fukking Secretary of the Treasury. YES, I think the political position of the Secretary of the Treasury and those under him informs us quite strongly on a president's economic policy.

And on top of that, the part of the argument you're completely ignoring is that I also showed that Greenspan, Summers, and Bernanke were at the forefront of Clinton/Bush/Obama economic policy, and they treated Milton Friedman, the Godfather of neoliberalism, as if he were their best friend or greatest hero. You just want to sweep that under the rug and pretend like that shyt didn't happen. You just want to pretend that Obama putting a huge Friedman stan who was one of Bush's economic advisers at the front of his economic recovery didn't happen. You tried to claim that Clinton and Obama were so radically different in economic policy that they couldn't be mentioned under the same title even though they had all the same people on the top. The fact that you just ignored all of this to talk about "I'm a boss" and repeat multiple times how you were going to destroy me tells me exactly how strong your argument is.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I did not state or imply that racisms prevalence means that progressive policies can't pass, but it does influence how whites vote for progressive policies. Their belief that progressive policies disproportionately benefit Black people limits the probability that those policies become law. And so, acknowledging the huge constraints that racism places on progressive policies doesn't equal being defeatist.

Of course. Thankfully:

1. Whites have shown at multiple points in history that they will support progressive candidates under certain circumstances, even pro-Black candidates.

2. Millennial/Gen Z whites are more likely to fall into that category than any generation before them.

3. Trump is alienating the fukk out of young people.

4. White people are becoming an increasingly smaller % of the voting population.

Those are all helpful trends.

Why are their answers to the questions relevant? And if they are relevant, do their answers matter more than how they actually voted?

Because it shows that the main impediment to progressive policies is not public support for those policies, but the public framing of candidates. The Overton Window has already shifted. A meaningfully large % of the voting public already believes that progressive policies are strong, desirable policies. All they need to be convinced of now is that candidates who support such policies are electable. For this to happen, they have to have:

1. Their own supposedly "left wing" Democratic leaders stop demonizing the policies and trying to equate anything left of Eisenhower/Nixon centrism with communism.

2. The largely corporate media who supports said establishment Democrats to stop shilling for said demoniztion.

3. To believe that a candidate who supports the same things they support is actually electable.

We saw during the primaries that the time has not come. Establishment Dems and media cared far more about red-baiting a perfectly accurate 1982 quote from Sanders than they cared about Biden straight lying about his experience in South Africa on a daily basis. They did everything possible to sabotage Bernie's candidacy.

They claim to believe in progressive principles. If they did so and had endorsed Bernie, he would be the nominee right now, and he would beat Trump in November. That's all it would take.

 

[ogc163]

Of course. Thankfully:

1. Whites have shown at multiple points in history that they will support progressive candidates under certain circumstances, even pro-Black candidates.

2. Millennial/Gen Z whites are more likely to fall into that category than any generation before them.

3. Trump is alienating the fukk out of young people.

4. White people are becoming an increasingly smaller % of the voting population.

White people may be a smaller % of the population, but what's more relevant is where they reside. Also, if white people still make up a disproportionate amount of the electorate in swing states then with the electoral college in place they may potentially still have ample political power. Thus, I'm not convinced that whites decreasing in population will have a big impact in the short to medium time range. Unless they are replaced by left-leaning minorities in large numbers in those swing states, which is not a given.

Because it shows that the main impediment to progressive policies is not public support for those policies, but the public framing of candidates. The Overton Window has already shifted. A meaningfully large % of the voting public already believes that progressive policies are strong, desirable policies.

And yet, Generation X-ers in swing states still chose Biden over Bernie, this shows that the answers to the aforementioned questions don't necessarily predict how people will vote. Data shows that...

"Among those in their 40s, Sanders only won 31 percent of the vote. This pattern continued in the remaining contests that voted in March. Sanders won 60 percent of the votes among thirty-somethings in Arizona, but only 39 percent of those in their 40s; a 21 percent difference. There were similar large differences between the views of those ages 30 to 39 and those 40 to 49 in Missouri (59 percent to 38 percent), Illinois (54 percent to 35 percent) and Florida (45 percent to 24 percent). The numbers show those 40 and up were much less likely to vote for Sanders."



All they need to be convinced of now is that candidates who support such policies are electable. For this to happen, they have to have:

1. Their own supposedly "left wing" Democratic leaders stop demonizing the policies and trying to equate anything left of Eisenhower/Nixon centrism with communism.

2. The largely corporate media who supports said establishment Democrats to stop shilling for said demoniztion.

3. To believe that a candidate who supports the same things they support is actually electable.

We saw during the primaries that the time has not come. Establishment Dems and media cared far more about red-baiting a perfectly accurate 1982 quote from Sanders than they cared about Biden straight lying about his experience in South Africa on a daily basis. They did everything possible to sabotage Bernie's candidacy.

They claim to believe in progressive principles. If they did so and had endorsed Bernie, he would be the nominee right now, and he would beat Trump in November. That's all it would take.

I don't think these 3 factors were as important as you think, even if these forces didn't exist I think Sanders would have lost. The Eisenhower/Nixon comparison is trivial if not irrelevant because the narratives attached to Progressive policies today didn't exist on the same level back then. Further, the lack of persuasive messaging on a national scale also plays a part in progressives' lack of success. While I don't deny the mainstream media isn't always fair to progressives, it shouldn't serve as a vehicle to internally ignore their lack of persuasiveness in regards to important voting blocs. And so, it would be beneficial for progressives to internally change their weak points instead of focusing on external factors that are highly unlikely to change.