U.S. Presidential debate

[FireIceTalon]

Now, it should be well known around these parts here by now that I couldn't care less about bourgeois candidates and elections, since anyone with even an ounce of intelligence knows they are a complete sham and mockery, with absolutely no class analysis whatsoever.

That being said, I figured I would try and catch part of the debate and see what both of these (pathetic) candidates had to say about the Divided States of Embarassment and the future of its role in global capitalist hegemony, just for laughs. Well, there were indeed a few chuckle worthy moments, but mostly what I got from it is that there were no real winners in this debate.

In fact, there was not one, not two, but three losers. Who were they? Hint: None of them was either candidate. They were, in fact....




1. The fleeced American public (but especially minorities)
2. The world proletariat
3. The future victims of America's imperialism and continued conquest for sabotoging the rest of the world, which also largely consists of #2.

[Taem]

For the first time, possibly ever, I don't think there's a single person who disagrees with your assessment of the current situation. We're (Americans, and on a much broader level the rest of the world) totally fucked with the current candidates.

[kandrathe]

Ya know, I was just telling Taem... absolutely no class analysis ... zero.

[FireIceTalon]

For the first time, possibly ever, I don't think there's a single person who disagrees with your assessment of the current situation. We're (Americans, and on a much broader level the rest of the world) totally fucked with the current candidates.

Yes, but the point is, we (when I say we I mean the working class - the majority of society, the class who produces all social wealth in it) have ALWAYS been fucked with the current candidates, from 1788-2016.

The American proletariat needs to stop the madness now, and NOT vote for either of these candidates. ALL democrats and republicans are corporate controlled and will never have the working class interest in mind, but come on now. These two candidates are possibly the biggest mockery and embarassment yet in Americas shit-fest political history. Even if I weren't a communist, I would still think that this whole thing is just some horrible joke that cannot be real. Sadly, it is all TOO real.

[Taem]

Lol, you're on a streak! Again, I completely agree with you that us (Americans) need to wake up and vote something else, preferably liberalist imo, but at this point I'd settle for just about anything other than what's currently on the table. Unfortunately, that'll never happen. Most people I've talked to are already firmly entrenched in their party lines not out of duty or because they like their candidate, but out of fear they will throw away their vote if they don't vote for one of the two popular party candidates. Is it a wool fleece over their eyes, or just some good old fashioned fear of not being heard, of not making a difference? I don't know.

[LavCat]

I had to laugh. I almost agree with FireIceTalon. I intend to vote for Clinton, not out of love but out of fear of the Republican platform.

[FireIceTalon]

I hate ALL capitalist politcians. Nothing new there. But something about these two particular candidates, is really scary to me, much more so than any other that has ran in recent memory (which is saying something considering the Republican Party has monstrocities like Cruz, Perry, Cain, etc and on the Dems side, Obama's deplorable war mongering policies are responsible for the death of thousands of innocent persons; who, despite all the right-wing red baiting claims of him being a communist or socialist, resembles a CONSERVATIVE far more than he does a Marxist if we examine his track record). I think its because both of them are so blatantly chauvinistic (and both are EXTREMELY racist) even by bourgeois standards that it kind of shows the capitalists are getting desperate. At this point, I'm sure the ruling class would elect Vladimir fucking Lenin for president if they thought it could save their failing capitalist system.

[Taem]

I hate ALL capitalist politcians. Nothing new there. But something about these two particular candidates, is really scary to me, much more so than any other that has ran in recent memory (which is saying something considering the Republican Party has monstrocities like Cruz, Perry, Cain, etc and on the Dems side, Obama's deplorable war mongering policies are responsible for the death of thousands of innocent persons; who, despite all the right-wing red baiting claims of him being a communist or socialist, resembles a CONSERVATIVE far more than he does a Marxist if we examine his track record). I think its because both of them are so blatantly chauvinistic (and both are EXTREMELY racist) even by bourgeois standards that it kind of shows the capitalists are getting desperate. At this point, I'm sure the ruling class would elect Vladimir fucking Lenin for president if they thought it could save their failing capitalist system.

And this thread was going so well... Do you have any setting other than "extreme"? I could filter out the usual political jargon from your first two posts, but this one goes straight to the hating, then accusations, then agenda, then back to hating. The initial post was some middle-ground where I felt most of us agreed on the same subject, which could've lead to some interesting talking points...

[FireIceTalon]

What you call extreme I call simply stating the truth. Name ONE thing I said in my post that is wrong or off base in any way. You can't, not without lying to yourself anyway.

What IS extreme is the truth itself: that these candidates hold highly backwards views and policies that are all too reflective of a backwards and outdated system that has more than worn out its welcome and shouldn't exist.

As for hate, well yes. Most people who are oppressed, hate their oppressors. Or at least they should. What is there to like about either of these candidates and their brethren, and the rotten-to-the-core system they seek to uphold? Nothing that I can see. Racists, xenophobes, imperialists, and chauvinists are not deserving of any sympathy.

As for the so-called "accusations" I made, they have merit since it is very, very easy to prove they are guilty of said accusations, to the point where its pretty much beyond proving and considered common knowledge. The Obama administrations imperialist agenda and counter-terrorist policies and have resulted in the death of thousands (millions?) in the Middle East, civilians and otherwise. Fact. Additionally, he supports Israeli apartheid. Fact. And both of these current candidates are blatantly xenophobic and racist, fact (there are a ton of quotes from both I can gather for you if you believe otherwise). Either one will continue the same deplorable policies of the current administration, and much more I'm afraid.

[EspyLacopa]

But isn't it the Electoral College that votes in the President, not the regular voters? You know, that group of people who many times don't even have to cast their vote in support of the people they supposedly represent.

[Jester]

But isn't it the Electoral College that votes in the President, not the regular voters? You know, that group of people who many times don't even have to cast their vote in support of the people they supposedly represent.

In the electoral college, faithless electors are extremely rare, and I don't believe they have ever changed the outcome of an election (though I'm not entirely certain about this for elections before 1820 or so, when things were weird).

The electoral college system is weird, but the aspects that affects presidential elections is that states allocate their electors in blocks rather than proportionally, and that states do not have a number of electors exactly proportional to their population, not that electors change their votes in undemocratic ways.

Even then, it's pretty rare for that to matter for the outcome, though it did happen in 2000.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But isn't it the Electoral College that votes in the President, not the regular voters? You know, that group of people who many times don't even have to cast their vote in support of the people they supposedly represent.

In the electoral college, faithless electors are extremely rare, and I don't believe they have ever changed the outcome of an election (though I'm not entirely certain about this for elections before 1820 or so, when things were weird).

The electoral college system is weird, but the aspects that affects presidential elections is that states allocate their electors in blocks rather than proportionally, and that states do not have a number of electors exactly proportional to their population, not that electors change their votes in undemocratic ways.

Even then, it's pretty rare for that to matter for the outcome, though it did happen in 2000.

-Jester

The electoral system is in a way a throwback to federalism. The total popular vote is irrelevant, beyond the state level. The states are given a number of electoral votes proportional to their population (e.g. count of Representatives + 2 senators). Each state decides how their electoral votes are cast. Some are proportional, and some are winner takes all. My state has eight congressional districts, and every state has 2 senators, so we get to cast 10 electoral votes. Here, we have local caucuses to choose party delegates to the state convention, where they endorse the presidential candidate (here it was Bernie/Rubio), they then select delegates from the state to the national party convention (DNC/RNC) who endorse the national party nominee. The winner of the state popular vote wins the electoral votes, or proportion if that is the state's law. I believe it is the winning party's delegates who cast the electoral votes according to their laws.

But, here there is little love for either party's candidate. But, it has only a little to do with their stand on Capitalism as a system. More of the same old BS promises to deluded voter sycophants who believe their party's candidate will benefit their situation.

So, I will again propose some potential solutions to allow the "99% classes" to build their own ladder. We need to stop tossing free money at the 1% richest people via the central banks free helicopter money for billionaires plan, and focus the QE funding toward stimulus that has impact to the aspiring classes. The last decade of QE central bank policy has actually harmed the majority of the middle and lower classes. Yet, we keep thinking the political types in power are looking out for us.

Even as the economy has at last begun to expand at a more rapid pace, growth in wages and benefits for most American workers has continued its decades-long stagnation. Real hourly wages of the median American worker were just 5 percent higher in 2013 than they were in 1979, while the wages of the bottom decile of earners were 5 percent lower in 2013 than in 1979. Trends since the early 2000s are even more pronounced. Inflation-adjusted wage growth from 2003 to 2013 was either flat or negative for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution. Compounding the problem of stagnating wages is the decline in employer provided health insurance, with the share of non-elderly Americans receiving insurance from an employer falling from 67 percent in 2003 to 58.4 percent in 2013. Source: The High Public Cost of Low Wages Poverty-Level Wages Cost U.S. Taxpayers $152.8 Billion Each Year in Public Support for Working Families by Ken Jacobs, Ian Perry, and Jenifer MacGillvary

I would like to see monetary policy focus on redirecting stimulus investments in human capital, namely the 99% who supply the needed productivity, to allow us the means to improve our own lot. I've maybe mentioned this here before, but I see the aspiration to improve your quality of life is somewhat like a beetle attempting to climb the sides of a somewhat slippery sided bowl. Whenever something unexpected happens, maybe a health issue, or a hurricane, then that person slides back down toward a bleaker life (has a bought of negative social mobility). The government, somewhat due to the compulsion and necessity of regulation has made that bowl steeper, requiring more gumption and luck in climbing the sides of that bowl. What I envision is the means for us all to build our own ladder, and prevent those slides back down. The current implementation has the government in control of the safety net, which often comes into effect when you've already face planted squarely into the ground.

First, is the expansion and semi-privatization of social security over twenty years. Current participants will be converted in a fair manner away from the federal budget. Every citizen/participant will designate their own "America Fund" which you will fund with your own social security/FICA deductions and any % of self funding you'd like to contribute. Upon your death, the remains of your fund will be split equally into your spouse/children's funds. The fund can only be expended for three limited purposes (with the details to be defined), health care costs (outside of what is covered by insurance), education (tuition) costs, and retirement/disability stipend. The fund can only be invested as guaranteed rate of return, and is underwritten by FDIC. If your fund reaches zero, the government will provide up to a certain amount per year per category, with rules on what, when it is valid. This evolves to a less costly, more fully comprehensive safety net, funded by the individuals primarily. This is your own personal safety net established on your behalf at birth, and follows you to death. It is in your own self interest to invest in it, and be shrewd in expending it to further your own life goals.

Second, I would propose the expansion of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to cover all student loans, for all students who complete their program of study. This gives students the means (and incentive) to complete their education, and pay it back through a good citizenship contribution to society. The threshold for a student to qualify for it now is after you've paid 120 monthly payments (10 years). The way it is currently enacted is stupid. The average student loan debt, for those with loans is ~$28K-$40k, which is a burden for 10 years, and not indexed to income. For this to benefit and incentivize participation, it needs to go into effect upon graduation, and the dollars of forgiveness would be commensurate to your participation and current income level. In some of the worst case scenarios, students borrow in excess of $120K, which is a huge liability for a new graduate ready to get invested in their future. This is where stimulus spending would do more good by helping these motivated people shed their yokes.

Third, redirect more grant and low interest loan funding toward the Small Business Administration and look into easing or eliminating the red tape entrepreneurs face in building a new enterprise. Less write offs for the fortune 500, and more investment in the mom and pops, or small local start ups. The current allocation of $157 million for business loans and $231 million for entrepreneurial development programs is far too low. For context, 15 corporations in the fortune 500 paid zero taxes last year on $107 billion in profits. Just taxing them reasonably would garner 10-15 billion dollars to grow the economy by investing in small businesses.

Fourth, support redevelopment of the national electrical grid to better support renewable energy development. The heart of the future economy is cheap and abundant clean energy with the least damaging environmental impact. One good use of Federal involvement is helping to negotiate and navigate interstate agreements. I'd also like to see them pitch in with some low cost loans, red tape wrangling, and underwriting infrastructure projects.

[Alram]

There is another alternative, one we can use to express our disapproval of Clinton and Trump. Vote for Gary Johnson.

[Ashock]

Not constructive. -Bolty

You know what one of the biggest problems is in today's society?

Everyone is afraid to call a spade, a spade.

I'm not part of that problem.

[FireIceTalon]

Not constructive. -Bolty

[eppie]

Now, it should be well known around these parts here by now that I couldn't care less about bourgeois candidates and elections, since anyone with even an ounce of intelligence knows they are a complete sham and mockery, with absolutely no class analysis whatsoever.

Worse than the candidates is that society apparantly is ok with this.
To me it is showing the failure of democracy. Voting doesn't happen because of the issues but because of hatred towards a candidate or one liners.

I think I wrote the same things when GW Bush was running for president.....but your society apparantly hasnt learned anything from that disaster.

Of course this is not an american problem only. In most countries politics are like that today, and in countries like russia things are not much better.

[FireIceTalon]

Worse than the candidates is that society apparantly is ok with this.

Yes. Although there is certainly a growing discontent for the status quo and I think a lot of people are finally realizing they are getting played for fools. Most people I talk to hate both of these candidates, even people who generally align themselves with a respective party. It's a start I suppose, but we still have a loooong way to go.

To me it is showing the failure of democracy. Voting doesn't happen because of the issues but because of hatred towards a candidate or one liners.

'Bourgeois democracy' (if you can even call it democracy at all) has been a failure and a sham from day 1, but the politics have been dumbed down even more to further blur or altogether hide the elephant in the room....shown in 10 second soundbytes with catchy (but meaningless) buzz words and jargon on single issues to spark peoples emotions.

Talking about class is considered offensive or 'socialist', although on the rare occasions it is brought up, it is only brought up in the context of income inequality or the like - rather than who owns the means of prouction, which is the root of the problem. Such ideas held by bourgeois leftist parties are considered radical positions in the media, while socialist positions are ignored entirely (and no, Sanders is not a socialist)....so people are offered only a very particular conventional and rigid framework that they have to discourse within. Identity politics continue to rule the day.

Ideas like trade unionism, a $15 minimum wage, student loan forgiveness, taxing the wealthiest of citizens, calling for police to stop their systemic killing of minorities, etc are all still considered radical ideas.....for communists, such ideas are merely the BEGINNING for social change, not the end.

I think I wrote the same things when GW Bush was running for president.....but your society apparantly hasnt learned anything from that disaster.

Well, as I've said many times in the past, big capital has complete control of all outlets in society - from education to the media, so they dictate the narrative and what is allowed to be discussed in it. This makes change (intentionally so) very difficult. Until the working class can organize itself into a political force by understanding its objective interests to counter ruling class ideology, pro-capitalist agendas and mainstream capitalist parties like Republicans and Democrats, change will never come.

[kandrathe]

Worse than the candidates is that society apparently is ok with this.

I don't think they are OK with it. Most everyone is disgruntled.

To me it is showing the failure of democracy. Voting doesn't happen because of the issues but because of hatred towards a candidate or one liners.

I think I wrote the same things when GW Bush was running for president.....but your society apparently hasn't learned anything from that disaster.

Our problem is rooted in the party processes in how their candidate list is selected. It tends to be more related to celebrity (from the limelight money can buy), rather than the substance of their positions. This is in a way a too much democracy problem, where the hoi polloi backed the ones they wanted. The media, in a way, is complicit in this travesty, in that they are more interested in a good story, than a good President.

The Republicans ended up with a candidate no one wanted to endorse. They had so many candidates running, that no one had a substantial edge or endorsement, and too many people to thoroughly vet. The guy who used his celebrity didn't have to buy ads, but kept himself in the media spotlight by being outrageous. When he began this fiasco, I didn't think he had the character to be President. It turns out he's more of a slime than I thought. Issues are irrelevant if the person is a criminal, which it seems to be the case. At this point, I will be more upset if Trump wins, as I believe him to be the more offensive criminal.

The Democrats torpedoed the socialist their party probably would have nominated over Hillary. I think Sanders should have been the Democrats candidate. They've stacked their deck with super delegates so that the establishment party core gets a big hand in selecting their person. Sanders made them reveal their flawed system.

Of course this is not an American problem only. In most countries politics are like that today, and in countries like Russia things are not much better.

We don't yet kill off the opposition party, or throw them in a gulag. But, we may be edging closer. We have been in a cycle of hyper investigation of the opposition until enough muck raking justifies a "special prosecutor" who usually is able to trap some "enemies" in the act of perjury. Liars can't stop their lying. It's hard to know sometimes what is befuddlement, deception, or a lack of memory.

[Jester]

The Democrats torpedoed the socialist their party probably would have nominated over Hillary. I think Sanders should have been the Democrats candidate. They've stacked their deck with super delegates so that the establishment party core gets a big hand in selecting their person. Sanders made them reveal their flawed system.

I am confused by this. The Democrats held a primary. Hillary won, by any count at all - the primary by the rules, the popular vote, the most states, the biggest states, without counting superdelegates, only counting superdelegates, etc. There is no way to slice the result of that election such that Bernie Sanders would have won it. That IS the Democrats nominating their candidate. They didn't pick Bernie, they did pick Hillary.

If Hillary (or the DNC) stacked the deck, they didn't need to. It was closer than I thought possible for someone as far left as Bernie, but it wasn't a photo finish.

-Jester

[eppie]

We don't yet kill off the opposition party, or throw them in a gulag. But, we may be edging closer. We have been in a cycle of hyper investigation of the opposition until enough muck raking justifies a "special prosecutor" who usually is able to trap some "enemies" in the act of perjury. Liars can't stop their lying. It's hard to know sometimes what is befuddlement, deception, or a lack of memory.

Well it is just a bit more sophisticated in the west....you make people think they choose by themselves but it is common knowledge under psychologists (and politicians and the ruling class) that there are lots of tools that can be used to make people think something.

I think I wrote this before somewhere here on the lounge but some time ago in the US they explained people what happened in a certain society and asked if they would found that better than the current state of things in the US. Most agreed, and it turned out it was a description of sweden. Would you ask a normal american about sweden, they would likely say it is a socialist hellhole. Point is just telling people they only can vote for one person or is not much different than letting them choose between two persons (giving them the idee they have something to say) who both basically work for the rich class.