***Official Political Discussion Thread***

From my dvr:
Somebody will upload it.
aviary-image-1582260333040.jpeg
aviary-image-1582260387521.jpeg
aviary-image-1582260465997.jpeg
giphy.gif
 
I will give it to Bloomberg, he's been masterfully plotting and planting seeds for a minute. Like one of those evil mastermind movies where the twist is revealed at the end.
 
I will give it to Bloomberg, he's been masterfully plotting and planting seeds for a minute. Like one of those evil mastermind movies where the twist is revealed at the end.
He was a Republican all along! *everybody pretends to be shocked*
 


The usual response to this buffoonery is to point out that an older, dual professional income household being able to buy three houses is not too uncommon whereas owning entire apartment buildings and mansions is not. Another response is that one of those houses is a condo in DC which Bernie needs for his job. Another, very prudent Response is out right mockery and sarcasm to a fundamentally bad faith argument.

I’ll use this tweet and thousands like it to talk about housing and socialism.

About 80% of this country is poor or near poor. Housing is a prime example of this fact. Obviously we have people with no housing. Another group are those with inadequate housing. Either the housing unit is in bad shape, or had to be shared with far more people, or the occupant has to live in a housing unit that is far from their job or is even further from centers of employment and educational opportunities. Then you have people who have a good housing situation but it costs far more than a third of their household budget.

The reason why no socialist cares about Bernie’s houses is because we like housing, we want the mass of people to have more and better housing. This stands in stark contrast to capitalists and their neoliberal intellectual defenders who insist that even basic housing is not a human right and that it’s good that people have to be homeless or spend more than half their income on housing or have seven roommates in a two bedroom apartment.

The universal socialist retort is that the bottom 80% will get more after socialism takes over. Obviously there are times and contexts where we must emphasize the barbarism of capitalism, as an economic order; the barbarism of its patriarchal and white supremacist super structure; and the barbarism of the American state without which our current regime of globalized, financialized, neoliberal model of capitalism would not be able to exist. Ultimately though, socialism has to be about the comfort and the abundance that everyone will enjoy.

For obvious practical and environmental reasons not everyone will live exactly the way a very upper middle class American lives today. But instead an exurban McMansion, your family will have a very well built townhome or three story, 2,500 square foot home in the city or a close in suburb and you’ll know that it’s in a great school district (there won’t be any bad school districts) and it’s no more than a 30 minute commute to your job.

Obviously, jetting out to the Caribbean or Europe for two weeks will be a thing of the past. Instead, everyone be they a janitor or a high ranking official will be able to take weeks and sometimes months long vacation and will use high speed rail and ships to travel either for a few days in another North American city or to visit family abroad for a few weeks or to spend a few months exploring the world, all will enjoy the joys of travel.

Obviously we’ll have sporting associations were everyone of every skill level and age can have fun. Sports that are currently associated with whiteness and wealth will be open to all with socialism. Outdoor sports, sailing, camping, horse back riding etc and the equipment and equipment available to all.

For the more indoor types, cheap and fast internet will carry better videos games (no more buying DLC), no more silos of streaming content, no more tiered access to content. And again, everyone will have access to that.

For all but a very few, capitalism is scarcity and deprivation and for all but a very few, the triumph of socialism will mean a significantly more dignified and secure life, yes, but also a richer and just plain more enjoyable life than what they currently have.

Bread and roses, let’s get them both.
 
Last edited:


The usual response to this buffoonery is to point out that an older, dual professional income household being able to buy three houses is not too uncommon whereas owning entire apartment buildings and mansions is not. Another response is that one of those houses is a condo in DC which Bernie needs for his job. Another, very prudent Response is out right mockery and sarcasm to a fundamentally bad faith argument.

I’ll use this tweet and thousands like it to talk about housing and socialism.

About 80% of this country is poor or near poor. Housing is a prime example of this fact. Obviously we have people with no housing. Another group are those with inadequate housing. Either the housing unit is in bad shape, or had to be shared with far more people, or the occupant has to live in a housing unit that is far from their job or is even further from centers of employment and educational opportunities. Then you have people who have a good housing situation but it costs far more than a third of their household budget.

The reason why no socialist cares about Bernie’s houses is because we like housing, we want the mass of people to have more and better housing. This stands in stark contrast to capitalists and their neoliberal intellectual defenders who insist that even basic housing is not a human right and that it’s good that people have to be homeless or spend more than half their income on housing or have seven roommates in a two bedroom apartment.

The universal socialist retort is that the bottom 80% will get more after socialism takes over. Obviously there are times and contexts where we must emphasize the barbarism of capitalism, as an economic order; the barbarism of its patriarchal and white supremacist super structure; and the barbarism of the American state without which our current regime of globalized, financialized, neoliberal model of capitalism would not be able to exist. Ultimately though, socialism has to be about the comfort and the abundance that everyone will enjoy.

For obvious practical and environmental reasons not everyone will live exactly the way a very upper middle class American lives today. But instead an exurban McMansion, your family will have a very well built townhome or three story, 2,500 square foot home in the city or a close in suburb and you’ll know that it’s in a great school district (there won’t be any bad school districts) and it’s no more than a 30 minute commute to your job.

Obviously, jetting out to the Caribbean or Europe for two weeks will be a thing of the past. Instead, everyone be they a janitor or a high ranking official will be able to take weeks and sometimes months long vacation and will use high speed rail and ships to travel either for a few days in another North American city or to visit family abroad for a few weeks or to spend a few months exploring the world, all will enjoy the joys of travel.

Obviously we’ll have sporting associations were everyone of every skill level and age can have fun. Sports that are currently associated with whiteness and wealth will be open to all beer socialism. Outdoor sports, sailing, camping, horse back riding etc and the kissing and equipment available to all.

For the more indoor types, cheap and fast internet will carry better videos games (no more DLC), no more silos of streaming content, no more tiered access to content. And again, everyone will have access to that.

For all but a very capitalism is scarcity and deprivation and more all but a very few, the triumph of socialism will mean a significantly more dignified and secure life, yes, but also a richer and just plain more enjoyable life than what they currently have.

Bread and roses, let’s get them both.


these dudes acting like bernie owning a lake front property in the middle of nowhere Vermont makes him un-relatable to working class people. This **** is valued at only $600k. ****, this lake house is still more affordable than 2bd/1ba properties in some of the grimeyest hoods of East Oakland. Laughable that Bloomberg tried to separate Sanders from the common folk and portray him as “Bourgeoise Bernie.” Meanwhile he’s spending $7 million a day of his own money to finance his campaign.
 


The usual response to this buffoonery is to point out that an older, dual professional income household being able to buy three houses is not too uncommon whereas owning entire apartment buildings and mansions is not. Another response is that one of those houses is a condo in DC which Bernie needs for his job. Another, very prudent Response is out right mockery and sarcasm to a fundamentally bad faith argument.

I’ll use this tweet and thousands like it to talk about housing and socialism.

About 80% of this country is poor or near poor. Housing is a prime example of this fact. Obviously we have people with no housing. Another group are those with inadequate housing. Either the housing unit is in bad shape, or had to be shared with far more people, or the occupant has to live in a housing unit that is far from their job or is even further from centers of employment and educational opportunities. Then you have people who have a good housing situation but it costs far more than a third of their household budget.

The reason why no socialist cares about Bernie’s houses is because we like housing, we want the mass of people to have more and better housing. This stands in stark contrast to capitalists and their neoliberal intellectual defenders who insist that even basic housing is not a human right and that it’s good that people have to be homeless or spend more than half their income on housing or have seven roommates in a two bedroom apartment.

The universal socialist retort is that the bottom 80% will get more after socialism takes over. Obviously there are times and contexts where we must emphasize the barbarism of capitalism, as an economic order; the barbarism of its patriarchal and white supremacist super structure; and the barbarism of the American state without which our current regime of globalized, financialized, neoliberal model of capitalism would not be able to exist. Ultimately though, socialism has to be about the comfort and the abundance that everyone will enjoy.

For obvious practical and environmental reasons not everyone will live exactly the way a very upper middle class American lives today. But instead an exurban McMansion, your family will have a very well built townhome or three story, 2,500 square foot home in the city or a close in suburb and you’ll know that it’s in a great school district (there won’t be any bad school districts) and it’s no more than a 30 minute commute to your job.

Obviously, jetting out to the Caribbean or Europe for two weeks will be a thing of the past. Instead, everyone be they a janitor or a high ranking official will be able to take weeks and sometimes months long vacation and will use high speed rail and ships to travel either for a few days in another North American city or to visit family abroad for a few weeks or to spend a few months exploring the world, all will enjoy the joys of travel.

Obviously we’ll have sporting associations were everyone of every skill level and age can have fun. Sports that are currently associated with whiteness and wealth will be open to all beer socialism. Outdoor sports, sailing, camping, horse back riding etc and the kissing and equipment available to all.

For the more indoor types, cheap and fast internet will carry better videos games (no more DLC), no more silos of streaming content, no more tiered access to content. And again, everyone will have access to that.

For all but a very capitalism is scarcity and deprivation and more all but a very few, the triumph of socialism will mean a significantly more dignified and secure life, yes, but also a richer and just plain more enjoyable life than what they currently have.

Bread and roses, let’s get them both.



i ain’t gone lie fam. I ain’t read all that.

but I did skim around, and every time I stopped, you was speaking fax

So I’m just going to assume it’s all fax and rep

:hat :hat
 
these dudes acting like bernie owning a lake front property in the middle of nowhere Vermont makes him un-relatable to working class people. This **** is valued at only $600k. ****, this lake house is still more affordable than 2bd/1ba properties in some of the grimeyest hoods of East Oakland. Laughable that Bloomberg tried to separate Sanders from the common folk and portray him as “Bourgeoise Bernie.” Meanwhile he’s spending $7 million a day of his own money to finance his campaign.

his wife’s aunt left it to her when she died
 
I really don't give a **** about Bernie's houses but it is funny as hell watching his supporters flip out and people are pointing out that the so proclaimed people's champ is also another rich white guy. :lol:

I remember when Beto being well off was an issue for them . Something, something, something his father-in-law :lol:
 
Last edited:
I really don't give a **** about Bernie's houses but it is funny as hell watching his supporters flip out and people are pointing out that the so proclaimed people's champ is also another rich white guy. :lol:

I remember when Beto being well off was an issue for them . Something, something, something his father-in-law :lol:


The Sanders family can defend their honor, him and Jane don't need us leaping out to defend him on that score.

The reason why we get a little heated is because every single person who raises this issue would also say that Bernie is a loser and unfit to lead if he were not somewhat affluent. It's not even a counter factual thought experiment. We saw how they reacted to AOC when she was their ideal poor socialist leader and scrambling to get a new wardrobe and a place in DC after she got elected in 2018. The line a year and half ago was that if you "can't manage you're money, you shouldn't decide how government spends money."

Can't they just say that they don't like socialism. We all hate Dwalk because he hates black people but won't say it and he makes us talk about everything else under the sun except his manifest anti blackness because of his oblique rhetorical nonsense.

Plus, context matters. You guys joke about Big momma and uncle zel and it's hilarious because its mostly black guys doing a bit and satirizing black conservatives and it's great; coal gang, thanksgiving invites all that its great. If Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani were yucking it up about how blacks don't pay their debts and are alcoholics and how they can't even do a thanksgiving without it turning to ****, there would be a different vibe, to say the least.

Leftists and even progressives, whom we like, can joke all they want about the incongruity of Bernie and a bunch of leftists politicians and activists not living in the most proletarian of conditions. When Bloomberg makes the same joke, it reads very differently.

It's ultimately a funny thing, it's a stupid thing and in the coming months it will, hopefully, be a trivial thing. Although I know that my dad and my paternal grandparents, gusano reactions that they are, will send chain emails featuring the same two or three pictures of President Bernie Sander's palatial cabin. Bernie doesn't golf, unlike Obama, so they'll have to really lean on the three houses thing to recreate the Obama era right wing magic of "socialist President lives like a king" narrative.
 
Last edited:
Omg two 70 year olds can afford a 600k house together???

what are they billionaires or something?
these dudes acting like bernie owning a lake front property in the middle of nowhere Vermont makes him un-relatable to working class people. This **** is valued at only $600k. ****, this lake house is still more affordable than 2bd/1ba properties in some of the grimeyest hoods of East Oakland. Laughable that Bloomberg tried to separate Sanders from the common folk and portray him as “Bourgeoise Bernie.” Meanwhile he’s spending $7 million a day of his own money to finance his campaign.

“Only $600K”. I’m not defending Mini-Mike but this $600K doesn’t put the entire story into context because we don’t know the value of his other two homes. I’m not a real estate expert but I don’t think the average American can afford that. And those Average or below average Americans that live in homes worth that that much probably bought them long ago and the property value likely rose due to gentrification.

Again, not saying this is a big deal to me/us. However, the average American expects politicians to be poor because they don’t understand the game. So even though Bloomberg is a mega-billionaire which disgusts the average voter, the fact that Bernie has 3 cribs seems appalling too.

This just lies on the ignorance of the American population.
 
A 70+ y/o longtime senator having a home in his hometown,in Washington where he works and a summer home really is appalling??

He's literally one of the least wealthy members of the Senate too according to Politifact and with Mayo Pete,the least wealthy person in this race so if people are appalled by that, they'll be petrified by everyone else :lol:

The bad faith arguments of the week (homes, supporters, health etc) we've been seeing pushed seemingly have nothing to do with policy at all which is what would actually effect peoples lives funny enough. Not manufactured attack lines

In other news



Of course >D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom