Private health insurance is the biggest fucking scam ever. The private insurance companies benefit by getting the aggregate healthiest population into their plans (working adults). The most likely to be expensive people, i.e. old people (on medicare) or poor people (on medicaid, or not even on an insurance plan) are on government, tax payer insurance plans. There is literally no reason except for corporate profiteering that Medicare should not be expanded to cover all people.
Also all those conversations, especially in the 2020 election period, were totally bullshit. You say something like M4A will cost 44 trillion dollars or whatever, which sounds like an insane amount of money. What is often left out of the discussion is that estimated cost was 1) over 10 years and 2) has to be weighed against the current costs we already pay for insurance. So the deal was very simple: the overall costs would go down because the overall spending would be less, and at the same time millions of people without coverage would be covered, and at the same time you don't have to contemplate stupid bullshit like in network, out of network providers. Or ever again talk to your insurance about why something is or isn't covered. Boils my blood when I think too much about this.
Not even gonna weigh in on things like how medicare can't negotiate prescription drug prices (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/23/us/politics/medicare-drug-price-negotiations-lawsuits.html), or how dental, vision, and hearing are treated separately from general healthcare, or how med school is prohibitively expensive, or how the residents after med school are overworked because the guy who institutionalize that practice was literally a cokehead. Those are all just bonus topics. The point is we are getting fleeced.
NoYeah no. Get out of US bubble.
Private and public are both viable models of operations with some applicability overlap. Private doesn’t necessarily pursue profit first, despite US literally enforcing it.
Basic needs that are either unchanging or change very slowly are the purview of public policy. Healthcare, infrastructure, etc. Privatize it and you’ll have a catastrophe.
Basic needs that benefit from variation and supply elasticity with a necessary baseline is where hybrid model works well. Public entrepreneurship provides variation, regulations or public enterprises cover baseline. Agriculture is a great example of such overlap. Private-only agriculture leads to profiteering on basic human need. Public-only agriculture leads to famines due to incompetence, malice, or lack of elasticity.
Desires that people can live without and can change on a whim is where private innovation thrives. Be it a product to sell or a charity project to pursue. Some of the results of said innovation can and will become matters of public interest. Forbid private enterprise here, and you’ll end up in a bleak reality of North Korea.
We literally had a case of “public everything” half a century ago and it didn’t fucking work. It needed serfdom and insane amounts of natural resources to prop itself up. It also left a mafia-led capitalism in its wake.
We also have a live case of blind trust in markets, as if information was immediately available everywhere. It leads to a very similar looking outcome.
Sadly one of the main exports of the US is its ideology, so many other countries want to implement the same heartless, profit-oriented privatizations of every state organism.
The only instances where privatized offerings may work IMO is if the government themselves are the competition, acting as a "control".
Without a stable control that has the sole purpose of serving the people, fully privatized offerings will just squeeze more money out of already stretched households for profit as you've said... which is the case for practically everything RN
Even though this is top comment, this is an underrated answer.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chiropractor-neck-adjustment-caitlin-jensen-b2363357.html
Also, you can buy Tic Tacs from any newsagent or gas station.
Not to defend homeopathy, but a big part of why placebo works is how we percieve the medicine/treatment.
Tic tacs wouln't work as well as fake medicine (aka homeopathy) because they don't look as "official".
The entire industry is built on catering to the vast swaths of women who get ignored by doctors and need somewhere to turn.
I highly suspect doctors are taught in medical school, "women are over emotional and prone to exaggeration."
Hell, "hysteria" was considered a valid diagnosis until the 1950s.
This guy gets it. Chiropractors are a scam, but scammers are drawn to people who "fall through the cracks" because they're treated like their problems don't actually exist. Finally, they meet someone who takes their pain seriously. It's too bad the person who takes it "seriously" is a fucking charlatan.
It falls harder on women, who have more instances of pain that are ignored by the medical community, partially from the history mentioned above, claiming women must be experiencing "hysteria."
It absolutely happens because of the failings of the medical community.
The stock market and publicly traded companies. The idea that a business that is making consistent profits isn't good unless those profits are increased each quarter is asinine. This system of shortsighted hyper focus on short term quarterly growth for the sake of growth is the cause of so much pain and suffering in the world. Even companies with amazing financials will work to push workers compensation down, cut corners and exploit loopholes to make sure their profits are always growing. Consistent large profits aren't good enough.
Instapot. Instapot made too good of a product, most people buy one and its good for years. That's good for consumers but terrible for investors. The company that bought them out and took them public saddled them with a ton of debt from other sectors and now they're bankrupt.
Yup. Great article about that and many other failures of capitalism here if anyone wants something to share with a fence sitter in their life.
Google's shares are divided into two types, Class A and Class C. Class A shares, traded as GOOGL, confer one vote per share as a typical stock would. Class C shares, traded as GOOG, confers no voting privileges. This dual shares system was done to raise more money selling less useful Class C shares (intended for mutual funds and the like) while keeping control of the company in the hands of those held on to Class A shares (i.e. longtime executives).
Ah, thanks for the info. That's actually what I suspect is happening with the new fractional shares thing, but the brokerage is the one retaining control.
The scam that has passed the test of time. So scamming good, that even communists turn to it!
Which communists? The USSR was infiltrated and the US then spent millions getting the bumbling mass of ethanol known as Yeltsin to win an election. They (the new capitalist government) even sieged the parliament building and sent tanks in Moscow to disperse the huge waves of protestors. It then lead to one of the worst humanitarian crisis in the modern age almost overnight.
And in China they are assuredly not capitalist, this becomes very clear once you read Deng Xiaoping. It's Schroedinger's China: when they do something bad they're communists, and when they do something good (like lifting people out of poverty) they're capitalists.
Cuba is still socialist, DPRK is still socialist, Vietnam is also reforming and opening up kinda like China did but a bit differently so still socialist
Are we really denying that the "Chinese Characteristics" of the PRC's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is Capitalism? Btw, I think the good parts of China are the socialism bits.
capitalism is not bits and pieces here and there, it's an entire mode of production with its own base and superstructure. In that sense China can't be called capitalist. At best we could say it has "capitalist elements" but even then that's a stretch when getting down into the details of what these elements actually are.
I mean, some (most? Idk) of the means of production are owned by the state (ostensibly a proxy for the people, I'd rather it was more direct but the government has consistently high approval so I'll give it a pass) and those are clearly socialistic.
But there are certainly factories and what not owned by capitalists, and as that accounts for much of the production that goes on in China, and as these products are not destined to serve the public weal but rather to be sent abroad as bits and bobs to be sold and promptly thrown away as serves global capital, I really don't get the desire to not call this capitalism.
China, to me, has a very clear mixed economy with elements of both socialism and capitalism.
But as I've argued, having elements of capitalism like commodity production (and the subsequent export of these commodities) does not make China capitalist by themselves, which is also the original point I was making, that China has not "turned" to capitalism* like OP might have implied.
Markets are not inherently capitalist, and these capitalist elements in China allow them to build their productive forces which are required to achieve socialism, they're also the same commodities they build for the Belt and Road initiative, for example 😁
Capitalism can be summed up in many ways, and one of them is production for the sake of finding a market and making money. There is capital in China (in the marxist definition) and people can make money, but while these capitalist want to simply make more money, for the Chinese government the goal is to build up production and achieve socialism, hence why the superstructure of China vs. any country in the imperial core is different. In the first case (capitalism) we'll just keep producing and creating markets infinitely, the "anarchy of production and socialisation of labour", and in the second case they're using some methods (with the consequences that come with it -> if you make a factory to produce stuff, you will have to find a market to buy that stuff so you can produce more stuff) as a stepping stone until they don't need to any more.
Of course the superstructure is predicated on the base, and in China for example land is leased to businesses, but never sold, and the government can take back their property at any time, including whatever is on it. It's fundamentally different to capitalism in the west.
The CPC controls all capital in the country. They are coordinating and intervening in the economy with the goal of building a socialist society. This is very different from the US and it's client states. Capital is controlled by the bourgeois, with no obligations other than a gluttonous desire to accumulate.
I would argue that feudalism is a lot more time tested than this garbage system that even in theory is so flawed that it regularly results in global economic crises. Feudalism on the other hand has been considerably more stable throughout the centuries and whether or not you are forced to serve a nobleman or a CEO is not a big difference. So, stop getting scammed and get back to the fields, peasant.
I'm also looking forward to a viable/stable alternative. I have serious doubts that I'll see one in my lifetime, unfortunately.
You should stop getting your evaluations on alternatives to capitalism from the capitalists and their countries
There is a reason I reply to lemmygrad and hexbear people, and follow some of the communities. Sometimes I get interesting responses. Not your response, but sometimes.
No, but you didn't need to engage in circle-jerking with your friends either. You are capable of more, and I look forward to reading your future contributions.
If I did something worth reading about, you'd condemn it just like you do all the other socialist projects, so don't get your hopes up.
Me? I'm pretty open minded, while trying to apply critical thinking. Make a good argument, and I'll digest it. You seem to be jumping to conclusions, which may hurt your cause (edit: your ability to convince others, to the detriment of your cause)
What on earth do you mean by that? Was it intended to disrupt the conversation with nonsense, or is there some meaning that you can explain?
You asked me to give you an argument. What sort of argument are you asking for? What conclusion am I supposed to be asserting?
If you don't have something useful or interesting to add, there is another option....
There is no stable alternative. There is always going to be class struggle. Materialist conditions and human rights must always be fought for and defended, else you’re gonna lose them.
I have serious doubts that I'll see one in my lifetime, unfortunately.
Not with that attitude you won't
I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.
That's why it's called "the lesser of two evils."
The problem is that they aren't two evils, they're two parts of the same evil machine whose functions are mutually dependent and mutally reinforcing
Show
"The United States is also a one-party state, but in typical American extravagance, they have two of them." -Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means.
It doesn't mean "that guy's bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!"
It means "no matter which one of these assholes wins, I'm fucked, but if I'm lucky the one guy will use lube."
I can't do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can't see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I'm to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I'm fucked no matter who I pick, so I'm sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I'm sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I'm a gullible moron instead.
You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means.
Yes, they do, they were trying to explain to you that it's a scam and only serves to move the nation to the right. Everybody understands "lesser of two evils" we're all browbeaten with it our entire lives.
Edit: Sorry, wrong starting sentence. I meant to say:
Clearly not browbeaten enough.
Lesser of two evils means we're fucked either way, but one way slightly less. It means there are not good choices, just less bad ones. If you sat through the Trump presidency and still think there's no difference, then I don't know what the fuck to tell you. If you can't look at how fucked trans people are in Florida and other red states right now and still say there's no difference, then go fuck yourself.
They're both shit, but one of wants to fucking murder my friends. There's a fucking difference. And if I sound mad, it's because people saying shit like this vote dumbass third parties that can't possibly win, or sit out an election because of protests. People are fucking dead because of this dumbass "there's no difference" bullshit.
You wanna tear down the system and stat over? Fine, great, get going. I'll even help if it looks like you might have a prayer. But right now, there is no hope. There's just mitigation of harm. Your idealism gets people killed.
It's amazing that despite knowing everybody, everywhere, already knows what "lesser of two evils" means, you still resort to just belaboring the point pedantically to repeat what everybody already knows. I'm sure you think you're very clever, but your tactics suggest you find basic knowledge to be esoteric and worth repeating over and over.
I tend to repeat myself whenit appears that my audience isn't listening. You're the third person who seemed to think that "lesser of two evils" meant "if one guy's bad, the other guys good." People in this thread keep acting like I'm happy with the Democratic party or something.
So, since it seemed like you didn't understand what I'd said, I repeated myself. I'm pedantic for the same reason: you're either ignoring what I'm saying or don't understand it. Either way, I apparently have to spell it out.
Nice use of the word "esoteric". Did you find that in the word a day calendar this morning? It doesn't really apply here, though, because nothing I've said is esoteric. It's not arcane, obscure, or in any way difficult to understand. And I don't think it is.
I just think you're either being intentionally obtuse to rile me up, or you really don't get what I'm saying.
It's all good, though, dude. I'm tired. I'm just so fucking tired. I've been watching this shit unfold for close to five decades, sometimes while getting shot at, and I'm tired.
I'm mad, but I fucking give up. My position - despair - isn't worth fighting for and I don't know why I briefly thought it was. I fucking surrender.
Let me know how that revolution you guys are never going to have goes.
I tend to repeat myself whenit appears that my audience isn't listening. You're the third person who seemed to think that "lesser of two evils" meant "if one guy's bad, the other guys good." People in this thread keep acting like I'm happy with the Democratic party or something.
The irony here is you're the one who seems to not be reading or comprehending us. Nobody's saying you think one guy's good, we're saying voting for a marginally slower fascist is a stupid thing to give a shit about because it doesn't even produce results.
So, since it seemed like you didn't understand what I'd said, I repeated myself. I'm pedantic for the same reason: you're either ignoring what I'm saying or don't understand it. Either way, I apparently have to spell it out.
What you are saying is said by millions of people, you're neither clever nor cutting new ground here. We all understand it, and we think it's wrong. You might be exposing your intellectual shortcomings here that you can't figure that out.
Nice use of the word "esoteric". Did you find that in the word a day calendar this morning? It doesn't really apply here, though, because nothing I've said is esoteric. It's not arcane, obscure, or in any way difficult to understand. And I don't think it is.
Now I'm really starting to think you're a dumb guy deeply invested in pretending to be smart. Esoteric isn't an unusual, special word - read a fuckin book.
I just think you're either being intentionally obtuse to rile me up, or you really don't get what I'm saying.
I disagree with you. Fundamentally. Grapple with the disagreement instead of trying to fake being high-minded or just repeating shit children understand.
Let me know how that revolution you guys are never going to have goes.
Nobody's going to update a reactionary who can't even allow themselves to directly consider arguments against their atrophied, ignorant worldview.
Look, I'm really tired here. And I'm formally apologizing. I have so radically failed at making my point that you think I'm a reactionary. I'm not. I'm utterly convinced that the whole world is completely fucked, and the absolute best we can do is try to tread water as long as we can before drowning. Reacting? To what? To what end? The system's irrevocably broken, I can't do anything about it, so what's the point?
And I'm not particularly smart. I mean, I know some stuff, and I've been through a lot. But smart? Meh. When I was in the Army, I drove a tank for a living. Does that sound like the career choice of a smart man?
I'm just so fucking tired. Please tell me how anything you're doing will help. No sarcasm, I want to know. How do you move forward?
I'll quit shouting. I just don't have the spoons.
You are an absolute fool
If you actually want to learn, re read the comments trying to explain it to you, and resist the urge to retort with a programmed response or thought terminating cliche
Under the policies of the greater evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them. Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them.
It makes no difference, both parties should be opposed and true change can only come through revolution and the abolition of the capitalist class.
Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die as you say.
Under the policies and rhetoric of the greater evil, a woman just got brutally murdered in California for the crime of hanging a fucking flag outside her shop.
My point, as I have been trying in vain to make this whole time (but apparently don't have the writing ability to convey) is that if you're fucked no matter what you do, then do the thing that hurts your friends less.
If you have some other course of action that can lead to actual change, then tell me. If you have some other course of action that will help my trans friends today, then tell me. Because billions dying over the next century doesn't mean much to people who get shot, stabbed, or beaten to death today.
I want to believe there's a better way, though, so explain it to me.
The action that leads to security and a better life for yourself and those around you is to organize your community along whatever lines are possible. Unionize with your coworkers, form a tenant's union with your neighbors, physically get out in the street and provide security for LGBT+ events and spaces. Build up parallel structures so that when the government fails, you and those you care about will still have access to food and water, a place to live, and security. Join a political organization that's active and actually does things in your area (one of the communist parties, DSA, or even just Food not Bombs) and do all you can to prepare for a revolution that might never come.
I'll close this by saying that I've been harsh on voting and the electoral system in general during this conversation, and probably too hostile in tone towards you. I apologize for that, because it's sometimes hard to tell when someone is actually acting in good faith, this being the internet and all. Voting isn't something I think is particularly useful, but if you vote for the democrats because they're less openly fascistic, that's up to you. The key is to not let your political activity start and end at voting, because direct action in the real world is by far the best way to achieve positive change. I wish you and yours the best in surviving the collapsing fascist hellhole we find ourselves in.
spoilered giant emoji
I agree with everything but the "it makes no difference" part. Thinking it makes no difference is a privilege a whole shit ton of people can't afford.
They're both horrible. Capitalism sucks. But to say there's no difference? That's just delusional. You're missing the trees for the forest.
Until that "true change" you're talking about happens, I'm not willing to sit by and let women, immigrants, minorities, and LGBTQIA+ people get fucked over even worse than I am. And fuck you if you are.
Roe V Wade was repealed under Biden. The concentration camps at the border are still open. In response to the mass murder of black people by cops, Biden gave more money to the cops. The extermination of trans people is continuing apace at the state level and the dems are doing nothing to stop it. This is all to say nothing about foreign policy, where the US is still complicit with killing thousands if not millions since 2020 through sanctions and facilitating genocide in Yemen. Or lifting all COVID restrictions despite the massive danger still posed.
There is a rhetorical difference between the two parties, but there isn't much evidence of a material difference.
Okay.
What word did I say that made you think I'm happy with the Democrats? That I actually support them rather than hate them just marginally less than the fascists in the other party?
It's all fucked. And the Supreme Court was stacked by the last administration, so you're arguing against yourself buddy.
What word did I say that made you think I'm happy with the Democrats?
I never said you were. I was addressing the claim that they're a lesser evil, which I'm not convinced by.
It's all fucked.
Agreed!
And the Supreme Court was stacked by the last administration
Largely irrelevant. Biden could stack the court, or just tell them to fuck off since they have no real power, or codified Roe into law when the dems controlled congress. There are excuses for why they couldn't do any of those things, sure (not least of which that Biden opposes abortion rights himself because he's a fucking monster). But all of them show that they're fundamentally unserious in fighting back against the fascists. I'm not going to vote for von Hindenburg 2.
Until that "true change" you're talking about happens, I'm not willing to sit by and let women, immigrants, minorities, and LGBTQIA+ people get fucked over even worse than I am. And fuck you if you are.
Did you vote for Biden? So you voted and still got roe v wade overturned. You voted and Biden has continued the staggering majority of Trump's inhumane border policies. You voted, and we're one well-timed court case away from the SC overturning gay marriage. Congratulations, the better guy won and all the same shit happened.
you voted and still got roe v wade overturned.
Roe v Wade got overturned by a Supreme Court that was stacked by the Republicans during the previous administration you absolute waste. You're literally arguing against your own point.
And again: what fucking part of any fucking word I've typed makes you think I'm happy with the Biden administration.
Oh, wait! You're not actually reading anything I'm saying! You're just shifting goalposts and regurgitating talking points! Holy fuck, it's like talking to a communist version of my mother.
Don't talk to me unless you actually know something. Take your useless idealism elsewhere.
Roe v Wade got overturned by a Supreme Court that was stacked by the Republicans during the previous administration you absolute waste. You're literally arguing against your own point.
And what is your vote doing to stop that? Anything at all?
Oh, wait! You're not actually reading anything I'm saying! You're just shifting goalposts and regurgitating talking points! Holy fuck, it's like talking to a communist version of my mother.
I'm reading what you're saying, it's just so dumb and trite it might as well be embroidered on a tea cozy
I'm reading what you're saying, it's just so dumb and trite it might as well be embroidered on a tea cozy
The fact that I feel the same way about you probably indicates that this is a pointless waste of time on all sides.
And what is your vote doing to stop that? Anything at all?
In the Biden election? Nothing. Roe was done for as soon as Trump won. It was on life support, but people refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils pulled the plug.
I'm tired dude. I'm just so fucking tired.
Do what you want. You're not gonna accomplish any more than I am so I'm not sure why I cared enough to get worked up. We're all fucked no matter what. Do your little protest vote or whatever the fuck. I'm sure it's gonna do so fucking much.
Roe was done for as soon as Trump won.
Why did Trump win? Did it have anything to do with the Clinton campaign choosing a pied pipe strategy where they boosted everything Trump did in the primary and ignored all the less fascist candidates? Do you suppose that continuing to use that tactic is good? The Democrats continue to use their donations to amplify the furthest right candidates in races, and they do not have anywhere near a 100% success rate in defeating those fascists they intentionally amplify. To make the point, money given to the DNC is, in some small proportion, money given to the RNC because the DNC would prefer to amplify worst case scenarios to improve their chances instead of offering GOOD CANDIDATES to entice voters. Supporting that is supporting the rightward slide of everything.
It was on life support, but people refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils pulled the plug.
That's one way to see it - the same way the DNC paid pundits and managers see it, since it validates them. Another way to see it is, the Democrats steadfastly refuse to offer a better alternative.
Do your little protest vote or whatever the fuck. I'm sure it's gonna do so fucking much.
You know that voting for Biden resulted in a worse world, and here you are sneering at anyone who thinks that was a waste.
edit: let's address Obama, too - he had a fucking SC appointment, and instead of doing anything serious to seat a good candidate, he fucking punted on the assumption - the incredibly stupid assumption - that Clinton would win. Obama is why Roe is gone. So your vote for Obama was also a vote for letting Republicans pick a SC candidate. Can't you connect the dots? It doesn't matter how hard you vote for Democrats. They will always let the Republicans win, because they're both paid by the same masters.
You're not gonna accomplish any more than I am so I'm not sure why I cared enough to get worked up
one more edit: the distinction is you keep repeating shit everybody knows, whereas I (and other leftists) are trying to explain you to a new concept. It's clear you're not listening, but I'll keep trying until you give up.
the distinction is you keep repeating shit everybody knows, whereas I (and other leftists) are trying to explain you to a new concept
I keep repeating shit because you keep not hearing me. You still think I'm trying to defend the Democratic party. You still think I find the Biden administration defendable. If you understand "lesser of two evils" so well, why do you think I'm trying to defend a party I keep calling evil?
So I'll tell you what, I'll deal with the "new concept" part of what you said when you explain that to me. Once I understand why you think I'm defending a position that I haven't once defended, I might be able to move on.
You, a smart guy: you should vote for Biden because lesser evil
Me, a complete idiot: no, you should not
You, a very smart guy: NUH UH I NEVER SAID YOU SHOULD, I DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND THE PERSON I SAID YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR
I didn't say Biden. I never said Biden. I never brought up his name. I at no point defended the actions of his administration or his party.
All I said is that the other guy is worse, which means you vote to try to have it not be the worse one. That's explicitly not a defense of any party. It's an attack on them both. I'd repeat my initial phrase, but apparently even though everyone seems to think it means I'm defending someone, trying to drive it home has gotten me labeled a congenital idiot.
And you've been misrepresenting me and jumping up and down on me ever since.
And nobody has presented me with a better option. They just keep calling me names, saying I'm repeating myself, and saying "they're all the same" and "Biden bad!"
So please, for the next election, give me an action I can take that has some sort or hope of getting us all out of this collective shit show.
All I said is that the other guy is worse, which means you vote to try to have it not be the worse one. That's explicitly not a defense of any party. It's an attack on them both. I'd repeat my initial phrase, but apparently even though everyone seems to think it means I'm defending someone, trying to drive it home has gotten me labeled a congenital idiot.
This is at best, an outright lie. You want people to vote for the "lesser evil", that is an endorsement of Biden and any other Democrat.
And you've been misrepresenting me and jumping up and down on me ever since.
No, this is also a lie. You are a liar.
And nobody has presented me with a better option. They just keep calling me names, saying I'm repeating myself, and saying "they're all the same" and "Biden bad!"
The better option is organize, instead of voting for the party you endorse but curiously refuse to defend. * or challenge
So please, for the next election, give me an action I can take that has some sort or hope of getting us all out of this collective shit show.
Organize, outside of the party that apparently you refuse to defend but think we should all vote for and get snotty and sneer about being questioned.
It's very eye opening that "lesser evil" proponents are so cagey about the candidates they're explicitly telling us to vote for. Genuinely curious what irrational mental space you're in that you think you can browbeat people to vote for democrats but allow yourself to get offended when people say democrats suck ass and shouldn't be voted for. Pick a side, you fucking weenie.
I want to be very clear: I used to be a reliable blue voter, for maybe fifteen years. That is behind me. Voting for shitbags who will never care about the poorest people in America is wasted effort, I will not bother myself to drive fifteen minutes to the rural voting station to endorse assholes whose only responsibility is to their big money capitalist donors.
Have you seen Sophie's Choice? If not, this won't make much sense, but When Sophie chose Eva over Jan, was she endorsing Jan's death?
Because I don't think she was, but by the reasoning you're using on me here, you would have to think Sophie endorsed Jan's murder. As far as I can follow your logic, Sophie was not only in favor of Jan's death, she supported it fully, and could find no fault in it.
We were going to have Trump or we were going to have Biden. No third choice I made - or anyone else at the time made - could do anything to change that. So, even though I didn't like the creepy, handsy, corporatist faux-progressive ancient douche, and didn't care all that much for his former boss, or his party, I chose him. Because the other guy had shown himself to be worse. All the same bullshit, plus rabble-rousing hate speech, direct attacks on my LGBTQIA friends, and more. He was empirically worse.
If you can, somehow, read that as an endorsement, then I'm relatively certain we're not speaking the same language, and this has all been a huge waste of our time.
And fuck off with calling me a liar. I haven't. If my language skills have failed me, and I haven't managed to get my meaning across, fine. If I'm wrong, fine. But I didn't set out to deceive anyone, nor have I intentionally or knowingly made a false statement.
Edit: grammar
Sophies choice is a binary. Voting isn't. You have to make a case for the vote you want people to make. This is extremely simple shit.
Also, you are a liar.
Sorry. In what way have I knowingly told a falsehood? I'm lost, because I may be kind of an idiot, but I was present for this whole conversation, and I'm pretty sure I at no point tried to deceive you or anyone else.
Seriously? I already directly addressed this in a reply to you.
This is at best, an outright lie. You want people to vote for the "lesser evil", that is an endorsement of Biden and any other Democrat.
You are trying to play a game where you admonish people to vote for Biden but get to dodge the argument about whether he's worth voting for. You endorse Biden but will not tackle his inadequacies because they're inconvenient, so you act snide about it instead of addressing them. This is lying, but it's understandable - his actions and the actions he has failed to follow through on are indefensible.
Anyway, I'm 40 and have voted most of my life until recently. I didn't vote in the 2020 election and I won't be voting in any other elections because I'm done voting for Democrats pretending to give a shit about anyone other than themselves.
Seriously? I already directly addressed this in a reply to you.
This is at best, an outright lie. You want people to vote for the "lesser evil", that is an endorsement of Biden and any other Democrat.
It isn't an endorsement. How is calling something "evil" an endorsement? If I said "I hate beer cheese and pimento cheese, but if I have to eat one, I'll take beer cheese" an endorsement of beer cheese? As far as I can see, I just said I hated them both.
You are trying to play a game where you admonish people to vote for Biden but get to dodge the argument about whether he's worth voting for.
No, I'm not, and the fact that you think I am completely baffles me. All I said was *the other guy is worse." That's the position I took. That does not require providing evidence of Biden's virtues, because that position has nothing to do with his virtues.
How am I explaining this wrong? How am I fucking up my point this badly? Am I writing in English?
You endorse Biden
Again, no. Calling someone slightly less horrible than former president Cheeto isn't an endorsement in the same way coming out of a movie theater and saying "well, at least it wasn't Bloodfeast 2" isn't a positive review.
but will not tackle his inadequacies because they're inconvenient, so you act snide about it instead of addressing them.
Because my statement has nothing whatsoever to do with his inadequacies. I'm not being snide, I'm just fucking confused as to why you think I like the guy.
Rattle off all the shit you want about how horrible he his. I DO NOT CARE. HE'S NOT AS BAD AS THE OTHER GUY.
That's not me being snide or sarcastic. That's me shouting the same fucking thing I've been saying for days now. I'm not endorsing him, I'm anti-endorsing Trump. I didn't vote for Biden, I voted against Trump.
Congrats. I've shifted from "confused and exasperated" to "fucking pissed off." If that was your goal this whole time, well trolled.
- This is lying
It is not. It is, at worst, being disingenuous. I'm not splitting hairs here. Lying is making false statements with the intent to deceive. Even if I was avoiding your question instead of trying my goddamndest to answer it, it would still not be lying.
Fuck, it wouldn't even be dishonest, just shitty rhetorical practice and an asshole move.
I didn't vote in the 2020 election and I won't be voting in any other elections because I'm done voting for Democrats pretending to give a shit about anyone other than themselves.
Jesus fucking Christ fine! If that's what your conscience demands, then fucking do that! Just get off my dick, and learn what the words "liar" and "endorse" mean.
Fuck's sake.
It isn't an endorsement. How is calling something "evil" an endorsement? If I said "I hate beer cheese and pimento cheese, but if I have to eat one, I'll take beer cheese" an endorsement of beer cheese? As far as I can see, I just said I hated them both.
Because you don't have to choose either. I'm not reading further, you're just too silly and this is too fucking simple to let some chud drag me into it. You're wrong, sucks, go vote for the lesser fascist and imagine you're fighting the power or whatever. Buh byeeee
Okay. Don't read any further. Go ahead and walk away. It's not like you were paying attention to anything I said anyway.
You're wrong. I'm not lying. I'm not even being disingenuous. But, hey, fuck you decided I was, and u guess that's fucking it.
Jesus. No matter what side of the argument, it's assholes like you ruining the world for the rest of us. Have a nice life.
Eta: sorry, I meant to say have a nice life, you fucking coward.
You don't seem to know what "lesser of two evils" means.
It doesn't mean "that guy's bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!"
It means "no matter which one of these assholes wins, I'm fucked, but if I'm lucky the one guy will use lube."
I can't do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can't see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I'm to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I'm fucked no matter who I pick, so I'm sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I'm sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I'm a gullible moron instead.
Ugh. I'm not pro establishment. People who are pro establishment think it works. People who are pro establishment have hope
Where the fuck did you get that out of what I wrote? Do I sound hopeful? Or like I think the system in any way works?
Or is that just your canned response when someone disagrees with you and you can't think of a decent comeback?
Is that what you kids call a "cope"? It sounds like a "cope". My generation just calls it "What the fuck are you even talking about?"
I'm not pro establishment
I just continue to legitimize the establishment in word and deed.
How. How am I doing that? I'm too tires to fight you, I'm just looking for information at this point.
Any legitimate vote is defacto consent for the system. The biggest stand you can take in a voting booth is spoiling your ballot with obscenities. It is abundantly clear that "harm minimization" doesnt work. Voting for a lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.
So your answer is essentially don't vote, or be really rude with your ballot in protest.
Okay. I can do that.
How does that help? What does it accomplish?
The people counting the votes see the dissent. Low voter turn out delegitimizes the system. If only 30% of people voted it is easy to say the system is corrupt and that outside pressure is justified. If 30% of ballots are being thrown out it calls into question the entire system.
If "bad country" reported that 30% of their ballots were discounted the USA would slap sanctions on them and start banging war drums.
The people counting the votes see the dissent.
Assuming they're not machine counted, fine. What does that accomplish?
Low voter turn out delegitimizes the system. If only 30% of people voted it is easy to say the system is corrupt and that outside pressure is justified. If 30% of ballots are being thrown out it calls into question the entire system.
Okay. So say the system is "delegtimized" this way. What now? That doesn't change anything as far as I can see. The asshats in power will just… keep being in power, because no matter how morally, ethically, or even rationally unjustifiable, the corrupt system is, it's legal.
I'm/not saying you're wrong. I don't think you are. I just don't see what it accomplishes.
In the long run, it means revolution I guess. But in the meantime, how do we stop old ladies from getting murdered over pride flags (to use a recent example)? Cristofascists and those that profit from them winning elections legitimizes their hate. It empowers the twatknuckles that support them. Even dumb crap like calling COVID the "Chinese Virus" spurs on hate crime.
How do we deal with that?
In the long run, it means revolution I guess. But in the meantime, how do we stop old ladies from getting murdered over pride flags (to use a recent example)? Cristofascists and those that profit from them winning elections legitimizes their hate. It empowers the twatknuckles that support them. Even dumb crap like calling COVID the "Chinese Virus" spurs on hate crime.
Has voting stopped this?
How do we deal with that?
Organize with other people who want a new system. Convince other people that nothing is going to get better by voting. Make connections with others groups who are doing the same. Build/join a network so that you/they know when critical mass is reached. While you wait for revolution, do what you can in your local community to make people's lives better. This will also help pull people to the cause.
Also be ready to be a partisan because fascism rides electoralism to power so things are likely to get worse before they get better.
By arguing for the lesser of evils, you are arguing for the legitimacy of the establishment.
No. I'm not. That's like saying that acknowledging the existence of the Chicago Bears means I'm a football fan.
I'm arguing that the establishment exists and there's nothing I can do about it. I'm arguing for despair.
All I have left is harm reduction. Which is also 100% hopeless, but it keeps me from jumping off a building because no matter how ineffective it is, it's fucking something.
If you have a better idea, please. I'm all ears.
The way we got to that situation you describe is through 3 generations of “the lesser evil” over and over and over
Turns out that made everything get more evil, who’d have thought!
If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.
Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?
I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don't win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.
But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that's 9%.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
So I'm asking: how does it help. If it helps, I'll try. But from where I'm sitting, it's all hopeless. I don't want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.
But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way.
I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot's (or more relevant, Gary Johnson's since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it's hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
I'll guess ending the Vietnam war...
Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.
Which brings me back to my point. If:
- My vote isn't going to help further discourse, and …
- Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn't going to be remembered all that well, and…
- If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then…
what's my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn't have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.
And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.
So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn't specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn't a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.
That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that's not on me.
So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I'll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.
But that's what I was already doing.
Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.
If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that's respectable. Since we can't do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It's a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.
The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn't give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn't follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy?
I don't think it's at all unrelated.
Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed.
It is. That's why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can't support the party's platform anymore, for instance). Also, it's got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it's just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.
Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I'm not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process
I'm not confident either, but the free market hasn't done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we've had success with regulation.
I agree their current incarnation is, but you don’t mean to say that sports are inherently anti-intellectual do you?
The United States health insurance system. It's such a for-profit racket that more taxpayer money goes into it per capita than any other system out there and its outcomes are worse and shittier.
It was so disheartening that the ACA just funneled billions more to insurance companies, only it was taxpayer money.
It would be like trying to fix broadband internet by forcing everyone to have a Comcast plan, and using taxpayer dollars to pay for those plans.
Would medicare for all be a good next step to push for? Are any progressive politicians putting forth a viable plan for getting us closer to universal healthcare?
american healthcare will continue to suck as long as politicians are friends instead of enemies of private health insurance. as long as both parties are on the payroll of big insurance we're all getting screwed
Credit scores. It goes up when you have more debt and goes down when you pay your debt off, but it goes down if you ask for a loan and it goes down if you even try to check what it is.
Absolute nonsense.
It's so stupid, in a state with a communist vanguard party a social credit system is unironically better since it marks a step towards a classless moneyless society that the American credit score system is antithetical towards.
It doesn't usually go down when you pay debt off. In fact, paying off all your credit card debt every single month is a great strategy that will get you a good credit score. And is ideal, because that way you avoid the high interest rates that credit cards have.
It also doesn't go down if you check it with sites like Credit Karma. I believe what you're thinking of is hard checks, which loan issuers use and they can slightly ding your score as they represent you about to get a new line of credit. Though honestly that part is pretty sketchy, since it applies even if you don't get a new loan.
Oh man- here I am having paid off every debt I've had early and never being punished for it. Guess your response of 1989 just really showed me.
I've got dings on my credit report for no debt lol. I get dings for not using enough of my credit limit and also for using too much. It's a stupid system that exists to measure how easily banks can fleece you.
It's not about paying it off, it's about closing an account. When you pay a loan off the account closes, and that's where you get dinged. Paying off a credit card isn't a problem, because the account is still active.
Yes that's not my experience. It's a measure of how responsibly you utilize your debt. They like to see you use your debt. But they like to see you pay it off. They don't like for you to sit at a high percentage of debt. And they like to see that you've used your debt responsibly for an extended period of time
They want you in debt so you're forced to work, and so that they can grift interest money off you. According to their system it's irresponsible to not have debt, and it's also irresponsible to ask what their magic number is.
When you pay a loan off your score will go down because an account is closed. It's short term though. Not paying a debt will tank the score.
This person is passionately against something they have convinced themselves they fully understand without having any real idea wtf they are talking about. Reading his comments is reminiscent of my mother arguing to me that cost of living isn’t real, such pointless garbage and she gets upset unless you just nod your head and act enlightened somehow. Reading his comments, he’s convinced himself of how the credit rating system is bad, likely reinforced by misunderstood anecdotal evidence and other ignorant people sharing their anecdotal misunderstood experiences, or even made up hogwash. So much so that he digs his heels in and refuses to learn anything that would even allow him to form a valid critique against the credit rating system, preferring instead to be convinced he is infallible and enlightened while loudly spewing confidently incorrect bullshit.
For-profit housing is a massive racket. Investment firms posing as housing developers get tax breaks for buying up properties, inflating the market, pricing out families, and renting those same homes back to the community to pay the mortgage on their investment, plus profit. What fucking purpose do they serve society? Pure predatory capitalist greed at the expense of our housing. For-profit housing needs to be banned. Investment real estate needs to be regulated until all our citizens can afford to buy homes in their localities.
No because at grocery stores, you get a product.
With renting, you are paying for landlord's mortgage. You don't even get to own anything.
Also, grocery stores do operate like a scam in certain cases, for example price gouging during a pandemic or other disasters.
Are you a landlord?
With renting, you're paying for a place to live and store your stuff. That's a product. It's a physical thing you can touch.
With food, you use it for a while then it just goes down the toilet in the end. Does that mean you should stop eating?
Is it though? You get the same home and get to own it if you had enough down-payment. The only thing landlord has the renter doesn't is the capital for down-payment.
Once again asking, are you a landlord?
There are people who can't save up for a down payment and therefore wouldn't be able to responsibly take care of a house even if they were given one.
There's people who don't want to own a house. A house comes with a bunch of costs and responsibility.
- Your furnace goes out in winter, bam, that can be an expensive service call or several thousands of dollars to replace.
- Your sewer line backs up because of tree roots on a Sunday or holiday and now it's several hundred dollars to get a drain company out there.
- Need a new roof? That's a $5,000+ expense all at once.
These are just a few examples. There's quite a number more. Some people like knowing that expenses like that are covered by someone else.
In the grocery store example, there's people who like growing their own food. For others, they'd rather someone else do that even if they're paying a markup to buy it from a grocery store, because they can get everything in one place.
60-65% of households in the USA are homeowners, either outright or through a mortgage. 80-90% of households in Eastern Europe are homeowners. It's pretty clear that people who are perennial renters are mostly people who cannot clear the financial hurdle of a down payment. I don't think the "some people don't want to" line is a solid argument. It's the exception thata proves the rule.
The repairs and property taxes and mortgage all add up to a total that is less than the rent, on average. Otherwise, landlords would have a disincentive, and every landlord would be operating at a loss.
The points you made are points that landlords use as justification for their occupation/position. Are you a landlord?
Water should be safe to drink from taps. Holy shit. I have a 1 liter bottle, I fill it a couple of times a day at home and it's great...
if you haven't already, consider getting a reusable bottle not made of plastic, over time it degrades significantly and sheds a lot more microplastics in the water
The "Covid is over" propaganda. Covid is not over. It is still killing people, still disabling people, still giving people lifelong autoimmune conditions and other long-term health problems. "Covid is over" Is code for "Go back to work so the capitalist class can reap the rewards of your labor, no matter how dead or disabled you become in the process."
I've been struggling with long COVID since I got it a second time in April. It's destroyed my body.
I don't really know what to make of it to be honest. I always knew it would be "over" before all of the circumstances that made it an emergency were over. Actually I was very surprised it continued to be taken seriously for as long as it did at least here in Australia because I assumed political and economic interests would kick in after only a very short while I guess because of my usual cynicism.
However, part of the trouble with the whole thing is that there's no agreement on what over would really mean and no acceptable set of preconditions that could reasonably be set to define it. It's very unlikely we'll ever eradicate the virus, so we need to become endemic, but it's also very contagious and frequently mutates. We can set the threshold of the point at which health services can keep on top of cases but that's dependent on different contexts in different countries and regions and also politics. We can help that along tremendously with vaccines but that has to keep going and be taken by whopping majorities of people forever. Take up was good, but helped in large part by being an emergency and if it needs to be an emergency to achieve that then it will never be "over". It's also difficult because while critics and conspiracy theorists kept pointing out how the mortality rate was comparatively low against other infections diseases, the comparatively heavy (albeit with a shaky start) public measures to combat the disease could be justified by both the numbers of people vulnerable to it making the total number of deaths high and the fact that we posessed means we previously didn't to respond to such a pandemic scenario which made us ethically obliged to do so. That's all entirely reasonable justification for being in a state of varying forms of "emergency" which allowed for temporary and extraordinary measures but it begins to wear away with time as the consequences of the measures begin to manifest their own harms and ironically as our measures begin to see some success.
It's a hell of a problem because diseases just don't fit with the way we go about solving problems which is more like a project with an end date and a budget and a tally of easily identified harms and benefits. Unfortunately it means COVID will inevitably be "over" because we say it is before it ever actually can truly be and it kind of puts us on track for more waves of it and also for forgetting about and leaving behind people still contracting or suffering lasting consequences from it.
But I don't really see a solution. It really does have to be over at some point. People genuinely can't be expected to be worrying about this forever and eventually will tire of caution and tire of restrictions and as well they should since we'd consider it madness to still be in a state of health emergency with temporary restrictions to freedom of movement and business and mandatory medical procedures and constant news broadcasts with the latest case numbers for the Spanish Flu pandemic, it even the 2003 SARS virus.
Covid is the third or fourth leading killer in the USA, right after heart disease and cancer, but liberals believe it no longer exists. They are literally killing themselves and everyone around them to keep the line up.
Wait are there downbeats on it? We don't have downbeats anymore so we can't see them
Car dealerships. They are awful on purpose. In many places car manufacturers are not legally allowed to sell their cars directly to customers, in order to create what is essentially legally mandated car dealerships, which all suck.
My younger coworker was just super stoaked that he only paid $3000 over MSRP for his new car. They gave him a year of oil changes and undercoat for free though!
Yeesh.
Man, I am so tired of feeling broke all the time... But I'd still rather get a used car than do that.
In many places car manufacturers are not legally allowed to sell their cars directly to customers
I want to hear the excuse they made for this
Car dealership owners are a pretty big lobby, at least 20% of them are making 1.5m/y and tend to be very involved in local politics.
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~yagan/Capitalists.pdf
Dollar stores. A lot of the time they are profiting by selling you a smaller quantity at a slightly lower price. They target low income communities.
Well they are good for things like cups and all , at least in india !
I mean yeah, obviously they're profitable. It's the convenience though. Sometimes they have good deals if you don't want to buy a giant pack of something.
still didnt answer my question
