***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[frank 7he t4nk]

"I realize that my place and position in history is that I will go down as the voice of this generation, of this decade, I will be the loudest voice" ...

this guy

 

[whywesteppin]

this guy

I thought this was an old quote someone dug up but nope.

Also, this reply explains a lot about why America is ******.

 

[dwalk31]

Term limits for public assistance are based on the premise that poor people are poor because of bad habits and by limiting lifetime benefits, poor people will be motivated to change their habits and become well off as a result.

It’s a sick joke when we realize that our political and economic system keeps people poor and that that system needs poor people and needs people in extreme poverty in order to function.

Sadly there are some people that want term limits for this reason.

I just am not one of them.

Which is demonstrated by the fact that I don't want the funding to cease at any time limit. Just a shift in the source. And my stance is focused on black empowerment and black leaders/organizations pouring into black communities.

It is not a general solution to poverty in America.

That is why the general charitable donation decrease during a downturn data is not exactly on point as it relates to what I am proposing.

But as Meth said, I fully acknowledge that it is just a "belief."

 

[617collector]

Had him sweating

 

[stuntman mike]

dwalk31 are you and your soon-to-be wife going to vaccinate your kids?

my brother-in-law and his wife didn’t do the initial vaccines at first. my wife told them **** that, we won’t be bringing our kids around their daughter. couple days later the kid got vaccinated. i understand being suspicious when it comes to the government but not vaccinating you’re kids is not the hill for them to die on.

 

[Upptempo]

Listening to the BS that Kanye spews on a consistent basis makes me happy I've never purchased any Yeezys.

 

[DLF]

Can the thread starter change the title of the thread to “ask Dwalk anything. Vol: the dwalk opinion thread”

 

[stuntman mike]

Listening to the BS that Kanye spews on a consistent basis makes me happy I've never purchased any Yeezys.

they nike yeezy 2 is a nice shoe. i made some ok money reselling em. didn’t get any ROs though.

MBDTF is a genre-crossing masterpiece. i love that album. don’t listen to any of his music anymore though. not even the old stuff. maybe that’ll change down the line.

 

[rexanglorum]

Sadly there are some people that want term limits for this reason.

I just am not one of them.

Which is demonstrated by the fact that I don't want the funding to cease at any time limit. Just a shift in the source. And my stance is focused on black empowerment and black leaders/organizations pouring into black communities.

It is not a general solution to poverty in America.

That is why the general charitable donation decrease during a downturn data is not exactly on point as it relates to what I am proposing.

But as Meth said, I fully acknowledge that it is just a "belief."

Two things here, one is the funding and one is the general attitude around programs for low/no income people.

As for funding, it's important to remember that the federal government of the United States has monetary sovereignty and while its ability to spend money is not limitless a dollar spent by the federal government is less costly than a dollar spent by States, organizations or households. For any federally funded program, if you want to delegate it to State and private actors, it means you want less of it. This is to say nothing of the fact that you want to replace tax based funding with donation based funding which will certainly mean even fewer resources.

You say this is about black empowerment. There's the first problem that a majority of people using programs like SNAP and TANF are not black. But suppose we divided up these programs along racial lines and well off blacks would donate money for social services for poor blacks as well well off Latinos and whites and Asians for poor people of their own race. Black people have lower incomes and less wealth so the black people who are well off would need to take on the burden of caring for blak people who are out of work in working for very low wages, outcomes which are almost entirely caused by whites, in the public and private sector.

An almost entirely white federal reserve raises rates to increase the real rate of return for mostly white bond holders, as result, unemployment goes up this disproportionately causes black workers to lose their job and now they need to be care at the expense of the black middle class and upper class? Or you have a disproportionately black retail work force getting paid such low wages that they need public assistance to get by and now you expect black households to fill that funding gap, effectively forcing what wealth black households have to ultimately subsidize Bezos' and the Waltons' business empire?

This sounds an awful lot like the situation for Jews throughout much of the Middle Ages where those who did make money had to give up most of that money since Christian pogroms would always be sending new waves of newly impoverished Jews into the charge of wealthier Jews. You're making the more well off people within a marginalized group subsidize the plunder and predation of the dominant group.


My second point is about how these programs, for people with low or no income, are not charity or they shouldn't be thought of as charity. This is especially true of programs that help impoverished parents. Having and raising children is not a burden on our system, it is vital for its ability to function. Every economic system needs to replenish its labor force and under capitalism every new child likely means another future worker whose labor will grow the wealth of capital owners. So in your world view, the people upon whom you depend should be scorned and forced to live in even deeper poverty and/or have whatever scant assistance they receive comes with a moralizing lesson. Someone needs a new morality and it isn't poor black women who are raising the next generation of workers.

 

[elpablo21]

It's not systemic but a "widespread phenomenon".

K

 

[whywesteppin]

It's not systemic but a "widespread phenomenon".

K

His problem was not with the racist policing but the distrust in the police.

It took him a lot just to say that blacks are "not given the benefit of the doubt."

I guess that's better than nothing from grand wizard barr.

 

[rexanglorum]

I don't know why Bernie has to preface everything with a disclaimer. "While @JoeBiden and I, and our supporters, have strong disagreements about some of the most important issues facing our country" and "Though the end result isn't what I or my supporters would've written alone." I guess Deion can't help but dance.

We already know Prime Time is a far-left socialist, even an idiot like Trump knows that. You don't have to remind us of it every time you do something that's not extreme enough for your Bernie bros.

Anyway, I'm happy they're working together. This is great for the country and it's amazing that Biden is building a coalition that spans the far left all the way to the center right. He obviously can't do everything that everybody wants but I think we'll see that getting 50% of the way there is a big improvement for this country that could have an impact for generations to come. That's the optimistic view. Pessimistic view is he gets Trump out of office but doesn't do much, which is still a huge plus.

We have a huge coalition, in part because the GOP has become so repellent and also because we have to since the GOP has set it up where we need a super majority to beat them. The contradictions within this vast coalition are undeniable and these qualifiers, IMO are ponderous and redundant, but I can see their utility.

The contradictions are undeniable and leftists, progressives, moderates, centrists and even these newly converted Republicans (if they choose to stay in our coalition after Trump is gone) will have to resolve those contradictions but none of us have a chance of getting our way until the GOP and its minoritarian rule is removed. So removing Trump is god because it will reduce suffering, somewhat, but most importantly its a precondition of moving the frontier of meaningful political fights to the space between liberals and the left as opposed to where it is now, between quiet, genocidal conservatism and loud, genocidal conservatism.

 

[gry60]

these newly converted Republicans (if they choose to stay in our coalition after Trump is gone)

You know that's a pipe dream under normal circumstances. They're only mad because every day that Trump spends in the White House, he gives away the game plan.

The only way this coalition stays together is if they work towards a common goal. The current one is to get rid of Trump. The second one is the kind of reform that will break up the control that Democrats and Republicans have on the legislative branch. True multipartisme. Unfortunately, I don't trust that the Never Trumpers will not want to get a hold of the political and messaging advantage they currently enjoy. We have at most 2 years of sanity under Biden before they try to sell us some Bush-style compassionate Republican BS during the next midterms.

 

[whywesteppin]

We have a huge coalition, in part because the GOP has become so repellent and also because we have to since the GOP has set it up where we need a super majority to beat them. The contradictions within this vast coalition are undeniable and these qualifiers, IMO are ponderous and redundant, but I can see their utility.

The contradictions are undeniable and leftists, progressives, moderates, centrists and even these newly converted Republicans (if they choose to stay in our coalition after Trump is gone) will have to resolve those contradictions but none of us have a chance of getting our way until the GOP and its minoritarian rule is removed. So removing Trump is god because it will reduce suffering, somewhat, but most importantly its a precondition of moving the frontier of meaningful political fights to the space between liberals and the left as opposed to where it is now, between quiet, genocidal conservatism and loud, genocidal conservatism.

I think this is a good time to get into politics because, barring a Trump win and a further slide into authoritarianism, it will really be an open frontier, both in terms of what direction Democrats will go in and also the Republican party having to figure out their true identity.

I'm being too optimistic and there are bigger forces than Trump at play, but there could be an opening these next couple years to make progress that hasn't been possible for a while on some issues.

 

[rexanglorum]

You know that's a pipe dream under normal circumstances. They're only mad because every day that Trump spends in the White House, he gives away the game plan.

The only way this coalition stays together is if they work towards a common goal. The current one is to get rid of Trump. The second one is the kind of reform that will break up the control that Democrats and Republicans have on the legislative branch. True multipartisme. Unfortunately, I don't trust that the Never Trumpers will not want to get a hold of the political and messaging advantage they currently enjoy. We have at most 2 years of sanity under Biden before they try to sell us some Bush-style compassionate Republican BS during the next midterms.

There are a number of never Trumpers who are absolutely unreconstructed Republicans who either don't like Trump's aesthetic and/or they are mad that he didn't give them White House jobs so they have attached themselves to the Democratic Party for the time being.

At the same time, as loath as I am to admit it, there are some college educated whites in the suburbs who are truly realigning. Or more precisely, an affluent older white women, registered as a Republican, dies and is essentially replaced by a young, affluent white college grad, who registers as a Democrat, and lives in the same Congressional District as the aforementioned older white women.

 

[RustyShackleford]

You know that's a pipe dream under normal circumstances. They're only mad because every day that Trump spends in the White House, he gives away the game plan.

The only way this coalition stays together is if they work towards a common goal. The current one is to get rid of Trump. The second one is the kind of reform that will break up the control that Democrats and Republicans have on the legislative branch. True multipartisme. Unfortunately, I don't trust that the Never Trumpers will not want to get a hold of the political and messaging advantage they currently enjoy. We have at most 2 years of sanity under Biden before they try to sell us some Bush-style compassionate Republican BS during the next midterms.

I think that some just want Trump out and see the Dems as a vehicle for that, but if those Republicans want their party back, the Dems have to crush the GOP electorally for the next decade. Trumpism and far right reactionary politics needs to fall out of flavor with Republican voters. As a result of this, I have two major concerns:

Republican voters and Republican politicians are gonna more quickly turn their back on democracy if democracy can not delivering them political power, before the realize they need to moderate themselves.

Second, these Never Trumpers are completely self serving and they convince just enough centrist to sabotage the policy agenda for the Democratic Party. So progressives and liberals might agree on something, there might be widespread support for a policy, but enough centrist are convinced they need to undermine the party as a way to keep them from "moving too far left".

That is why I think the Dems right away if the get the Senate should get rid of the filibuster and pass tons of electoral reforms that moves the marginal vote in Congress when they have the power away from being a centrist, and toward it being a mainstream liberal. Before Never Trumpers can formulate a plan to seize control of the Democratic Party, their voices need to be marginalized within the party.

 

[dwalk31]

dwalk31 are you and your soon-to-be wife going to vaccinate your kids?

my brother-in-law and his wife didn’t do the initial vaccines at first. my wife told them **** that, we won’t be bringing our kids around their daughter. couple days later the kid got vaccinated. i understand being suspicious when it comes to the government but not vaccinating you’re kids is not the hill for them to die on.

Man I don’t have any children yet but I don’t subscribe to the antivaxxer rhetoric.

I think the soon-to-be wife would side with yours on this one.

 

[dwalk31]

Two things here, one is the funding and one is the general attitude around programs for low/no income people.

As for funding, it's important to remember that the federal government of the United States has monetary sovereignty and while its ability to spend money is not limitless a dollar spent by the federal government is less costly than a dollar spent by States, organizations or households. For any federally funded program, if you want to delegate it to State and private actors, it means you want less of it. This is to say nothing of the fact that you want to replace tax based funding with donation based funding which will certainly mean even fewer resources.

You say this is about black empowerment. There's the first problem that a majority of people using programs like SNAP and TANF are not black. But suppose we divided up these programs along racial lines and well off blacks would donate money for social services for poor blacks as well well off Latinos and whites and Asians for poor people of their own race. Black people have lower incomes and less wealth so the black people who are well off would need to take on the burden of caring for blak people who are out of work in working for very low wages, outcomes which are almost entirely caused by whites, in the public and private sector.

An almost entirely white federal reserve raises rates to increase the real rate of return for mostly white bond holders, as result, unemployment goes up this disproportionately causes black workers to lose their job and now they need to be care at the expense of the black middle class and upper class? Or you have a disproportionately black retail work force getting paid such low wages that they need public assistance to get by and now you expect black households to fill that funding gap, effectively forcing what wealth black households have to ultimately subsidize Bezos' and the Waltons' business empire?

This sounds an awful lot like the situation for Jews throughout much of the Middle Ages where those who did make money had to give up most of that money since Christian pogroms would always be sending new waves of newly impoverished Jews into the charge of wealthier Jews. You're making the more well off people within a marginalized group subsidize the plunder and predation of the dominant group.


My second point is about how these programs, for people with low or no income, are not charity or they shouldn't be thought of as charity. This is especially true of programs that help impoverished parents. Having and raising children is not a burden on our system, it is vital for its ability to function. Every economic system needs to replenish its labor force and under capitalism every new child likely means another future worker whose labor will grow the wealth of capital owners. So in your world view, the people upon whom you depend should be scorned and forced to live in even deeper poverty and/or have whatever scant assistance they receive comes with a moralizing lesson. Someone needs a new morality and it isn't poor black women who are raising the next generation of workers.

First, I appreciate your post and how you addressed the my proposal.

Second, I take it that you agree that the status quo is not the solution.

Can you tell me what you think the best idea is to address black poverty and promote black empowerment?

Since everyone unanimously appears to think my plan is utterly bogus.

I know that black empowerment is not typically your focus on here, but I am honestly interested in hearing your response.

 

[Methodical Management]

You are right, aside from anecdotal evidence I can't prove or demonstrate how my belief will work.

I will assume, based on the way they were couched, that the questions in the large paragraph are rhetorical.

And as I conceded earlier, there is no real point in arguing personal beliefs.

But again, I am not arguing for a reduction to the recipients because I don't believe there will be a reduction in what the recipients receive--just a shift in the funding source.

You are arguing for a reduction in SNAP benefits. You’re just hoping that someone else will make up for it.

Everyone who believes that you’re selfish and greedy for using an emergency loan program to supply “necessary working capital” to your home-based sneaker reselling venture isn’t suggesting that your business doesn’t desperately need a $1,000 cash infusion, they just want you to shift the funding source.

Perhaps a GoFundMe page would’ve been more empowering.

 

[Benny Hinn]

 

[mplsdunk]

Dude is just rambling.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[DLF]

Well how dare you post that here without asking for Delks commentary. Isn’t that what this thread has become?

so dwalk31 . Thoughts?

 

[whywesteppin]

should've been a female narrator

 

[whywesteppin]

A female interviewer began the conversation in a room fitted out with a professional set-up of lights and camera with a few softball questions before, as Giuliani tells us, “This guy comes running in, wearing a crazy, what I would say was a pink transgender outfit.

“It was a pink bikini, with lace, underneath a translucent mesh top, it looked absurd. He had the beard, bare legs, and wasn’t what I would call distractingly attractive.”

[that's when Rudy went full Karen]

Giuliani, 76, said he didn’t immediately recognize the gate-crasher as Cohen, “This person comes in yelling and screaming, and I thought this must be a scam or a shake-down, so I reported it to the police. He then ran away.”

Rudy Giuliani called the NYPD on Sacha Baron Cohen over prank interview

“This guy comes running in, wearing a crazy, what I would say was a pink transgender outfit.”

pagesix.com