American Politics

[xi0]

This whole thing with people at the US voting against their own interest is so absurd... that bernie sanders has invariably been one of the most popular politicians in the US for.... years... and years... and even then democrats do their absolute best to not have him get the nomination. In any other sane country you'd have parties begging someone as popular as bernie to run. In any case by now a bernie presidency simply won't happen, he will definitely be too old 4 years from now to run.

It's the whole American Dream nonsense that is at the heart of it. It sounds great and is possible, but no one mentions how many achieve said status without any effort of their own. I don't have to pay a ton of taxes, but when I become a multi-millionaire I wouldn't want to, so why ask that of them? A complete ignorance of the fact that the American workforce that makes these corporations billions are worth far more than what they actually earn, have piss-poor benefits because of how unions are demonized. And the best part is none of the people in charge pay the sort of taxes that should be required of them either, yet they're first in line to receive bail-out money.

It's really rare to see a country so rich be in complete denial about how top-heavy the system is, and the average person is in complete denial of it or better yet, thinks they're getting something out of being unabashed corporate bootlickers.

 

[M3J]

This whole thing with people at the US voting against their own interest is so absurd... that bernie sanders has invariably been one of the most popular politicians in the US for.... years... and years... and even then democrats do their absolute best to not have him get the nomination. In any other sane country you'd have parties begging someone as popular as bernie to run. In any case by now a bernie presidency simply won't happen, he will definitely be too old 4 years from now to run.

The thing is, how many Democratic politicians think they're going against their own interest? The politicians' greediness is the main issue here, and Bernie would do everything he can to ensure people benefit while Wall Street, corps, and the wealthy don't keep benefiting, which could cause Dems to lose money in donations. He's against the interest of some Democratic voters as well. People aren't going to support someone that goes against their interest no matter how popular.

 

[desin24]

Bernie being president would be a pretty clear message BUT that won't change a simple fact: Bernie will have virtually no allies in the senate and congress. Bernie's policy positions are well more popular than he is given credit for when it comes to congress and senate members they are almost violently unpopular. And this is largely because pretty much the entirety of congress and the senate is inherently, comically, corrupt in this regard. bernie would be basically proposing tax hikes to:

1.- people who will specifically pay more taxes.
2.- People who take campaign donations from people whose only interest is to see their taxes stay the same or lowered.

The above applies largely to both parties.

Another bit worth considering is what policies tend to get bipartisan support nowadays. Generally its 3 things (though there can be more depending on the circumstances): The first would be tax cuts, the second would be spying on people and the third would be increasing military budgets. Bernie opposes basically all 3 of those... Meaning he will almost invariably get bipartisan opposition on them.

Climate change wise.... democrats are technically for regulation in this regard BUT mainstream democrats are usually extremely weak on this sort of thing. Over concerns of what it will do to the economy (and their donors).

A bernie presidency would be rocky, filled with a crapton of infighting within bernie's own "allies" and the odds of him getting something done are low at best. The only upside IMO is that there will be at least a chance for meaningful change... contrary to joe "nothing will change" biden (who is still better than trump though).

There is also bernie's main policy position... remove money out of politics. Being president won't actually give him the power to actually solve this issue. This issue is solved via a constitutional amendment... Being president would give bernie an unparalleled chance to get the message out on this but it won't actually give him the power to simply pass legislation on this. Add to that, the congress and senate members who basically profit from this would be the ones to have to vote in favor of bernie's amendment.

It'd be a wild ride but under any reasonable scenario a bernie presidency would have literally everything stacked against it.

Pretty much agree with everything you say. Bernie would not be able to enact much change but the message would hopefully be for a possibly decade long transition. The people would need to take the power back into their hands, especially young people but that's all a dream. Money rules politics and trying to change the system from within the oval office seems indeed impossible. Geezus just the thought how hopeless it is, is depressing.

If Bernie's surge of popularity in the previous election as well as continued popularity this election, as well as Hillary losing and Biden getting criticized, hasn't sent a message, then a Bernie presidency definitely will not. His rise alone has sent a message that people are ready for a change, but the Democrats and Republicans do not want this.

Well, they can still veto stuff as they do have some anti-Bernie supporters, and majority of corps and wealthy people are not going to be supporting Bernie or are keen on him becoming the president. The money will still come in, and they can demand more for opposing a popular person of their own party.

Fuck no, Trump would fuck things up even more than he already has. If we had Hillary, then this whole crisis could have been handled better, and we wouldn't be in as much economic dires.

For a Bernie presidency the media would have had to support Bernie right after Hillary lost. He should have been four years in the making with support from the establishment and media to be able to beat Trump. Beating an encumbent President with a cult following besides him having the best economy in a long time behind him is hard enough but the Democrats decided they did not want to win. Just shows that Trump as a president is fine and not a cancer that needs to be gotten rid of at ANY price.

It's the whole American Dream nonsense that is at the heart of it. It sounds great and is possible, but no one mentions how many achieve said status without any effort of their own. I don't have to pay a ton of taxes, but when I become a multi-millionaire I wouldn't want to, so why ask that of them? A complete ignorance of the fact that the American workforce that makes these corporations billions are worth far more than what they actually earn, have piss-poor benefits because of how unions are demonized. And the best part is none of the people in charge pay the sort of taxes that should be required of them either, yet they're first in line to receive bail-out money.

It's really rare to see a country so rich be in complete denial about how top-heavy the system is, and the average person is in complete denial of it or better yet, thinks they're getting something out of being unabashed corporate bootlickers.

Shows how good the brainwashing/marketing is. If you work hard enough you can get rich even though social mobility is basically inexistent and the ones in power do everything they can to hold everyone down or lose focus due to infighting. Not sure if it is the educational system or a transition from the American Dream to the American Depression where a generation is hopeless and doesn't even want to get involved so the result is the same.

 

[M3J]

For a Bernie presidency the media would have had to support Bernie right after Hillary lost. He should have been four years in the making with support from the establishment and media to be able to beat Trump. Beating an encumbent President with a cult following besides him having the best economy in a long time behind him is hard enough but the Democrats decided they did not want to win. Just shows that Trump as a president is fine and not a cancer that needs to be gotten rid of at ANY price.

The media will never support Bernie, and the theory is that if they weren't in Hillary's pockets, he would have won the 2016 Primary. I'm not so sure what happened during this Primary as I wasn't really keeping up with newspapers, though.

But yeah, neither the establishment nor the media (at least the major ones) will support him. As I've said, Dems likely prefer money with Trump over dismantling wealth to help the poor with Bernie. Hell, majority of the Dems likely oppose Trump mainly because he's a Republican and not because they hate his ideas or rhetoric.

 

[kkck]

Pretty much agree with everything you say. Bernie would not be able to enact much change but the message would hopefully be for a possibly decade long transition. The people would need to take the power back into their hands, especially young people but that's all a dream. Money rules politics and trying to change the system from within the oval office seems indeed impossible. Geezus just the thought how hopeless it is, is depressing.

I don't think bernie would straight up fail, I just think the odds hypothetically would be stacked against him (there is a pretty big difference there).

Unfortunately the main issue in regards to millenials and younger people is that they don't show up to vote. Frankly, that's on them rather than the system.

 

[Sanity Check]

If chinese virus / wuhan virus is racist.

Should russian collusion also be racist?

They should call it COLLU-13 instead of russian collusion, shouldn't they.

 

[Ramen]

If chinese virus / wuhan virus is racist.

Should russian collusion also be racist?

They should call it COLLU-13 instead of russian collusion, shouldn't they.

Terrible analogy.

 

[xi0]

If chinese virus / wuhan virus is racist.

Should russian collusion also be racist?

They should call it COLLU-13 instead of russian collusion, shouldn't they.

Is this a troll post? Because I'm kind of confused to what your point is.

 

[Sanity Check]

Is this a troll post? Because I'm kind of confused to what your point is.

Consistency of naming conventions 101. If attaching national labels to pandemics, crisis and conspiracy is indeed racist as the media claims.

It should unilaterally be applied across the board to all naming conventions. Including terms like russian collusion.

The absence of such suggests a cherry picked approach where only some select naming conventions are deemed offensive. Which could imply political agendas or narratives being the motive behind it. Rather than a legitimate attempt at objectivity.

 

[M3J]

Consistency of naming conventions 101. If attaching national labels to pandemics, crisis and conspiracy is indeed racist as the media claims.

It should unilaterally be applied across the board to all naming conventions. Including terms like russian collusion.

The absence of such suggests a cherry picked approach where only some select naming conventions are deemed offensive. Which could imply political agendas or narratives being the motive behind it. Rather than a legitimate attempt at objectivity.

This literally makes no sense. Why are you comparing an act to a virus? Is this more what-aboutism that the right are known for?

 

[xi0]

Consistency of naming conventions 101. If attaching national labels to pandemics, crisis and conspiracy is indeed racist as the media claims.

It should unilaterally be applied across the board to all naming conventions. Including terms like russian collusion.

The absence of such suggests a cherry picked approach where only some select naming conventions are deemed offensive. Which could imply political agendas or narratives being the motive behind it. Rather than a legitimate attempt at objectivity.

The Russian collusion allegations are leveled against a Russian government made up of people that had malicious intent. It's nothing like naming what is essentially a force of nature after a nation of people. The term Chinese and Wuhan aren't interchangeable either.

 

[hokageji]

I don't think there's anything wrong in calling it a Wuhan virus.... Chinese virus would be inconsistent when compared to recent names iirc....
Ebola virus- EBola river
Hantavirus - Hanten place in korea
Lyme disease - connecticut....

Calling it chinese virus wouldn't make it racist though... there's nothing wrong in going against the chinese government for it.

 

[xi0]

Calling it chinese virus wouldn't make it racist though... there's nothing wrong in going against the chinese government for it.

They're not calling it the CCP Virus or the Chinese Government Virus.

Why exactly do you think people would insist on calling it the Chinese Virus?

 

[hokageji]

You think the people who are name calling will put the effort to say its PRC virus or words like that? When they say chinese, they clearly mean the government.

Trump has been attacking China even before he took up the presidency, and throughout referred to the country as CHINA, suddenly when the disease comes up from there, he's not going to make it politically correct.

Like i said, there's nothing wrong in calling it wuhan virus, which would be more apt than chinese... What part of this do u see it as racist? i am sorry, i dont get it, please educate me, i am open to change my opinion..

--- Double Post Merged, May 8, 2020, Original Post Date: May 8, 2020 ---

The government represents the country, and everyone is referring to the country when they say chinese, just like spanish flu (which is a misomer) and German measles. Nobody's saying, spanish people caused the virus, or germans did.

Practices like wet markets are the reason, which china has ignored for ages. The name calling puts pressure on the country.

 

[M3J]

No, when they say Chinese, they clearly mean people from China and are blaming them. I'm too lazy to see if there's any correlation between people calling it Chinese virus and being bigoted towards Asians. Most justifications for calling it Chinese virus are horseshit, especially when it's commonly known as coronavirus and covid-19.

No one here has said anything about not calling it Wuhan virus....

 

[xi0]

Like i said, there's nothing wrong in calling it wuhan virus, which would be more apt than chinese... What part of this do u see it as racist? i am sorry, i dont get it, please educate me, i am open to change my opinion..

It might not be racist at face value, but they don't call Ebola, HIV, or Zika "African Virus 1/2/3" do they? You're being naive if you think people insisting on calling it Chinese virus are doing so from any sort of logical precedent. For Trump it's a political move, and his followers will do it for racist and xenophobic reasons. There's no benefit to insisting upon such a thing, unless you want to simply "other" China. If naming convention is supposed to be geographical, people can be more specific than naming it after the entire third largest country in the world. It makes no sense, unless the goal is to piss people off or sow division.

 

[Sanity Check]

Observe the following naming conventions.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Named after Werner Heisenberg.
Pythagoream Theorem Named after Pythagoras of Samos.
Socratic Method Named after Socrates.

Standard conventions involving illness and pandemics named after their place of believed origin.

Spanish Flu
West Nile Virus
German Measles
African Swine Flu

Other illnesses named after the place of their origin that are less obvious:

Ebola Named after the ebola river in africa.
Zika Fever Zika forest in uganda.

...

Based on the above precedent.

Is chinese virus or wuhan virus really racist?

...

I remember in 2016 it was common for many to say Donald Trump is a racist.

Gradually, as time passed, the concept of Trump being a racist lost traction and people stopped saying it.

Perhaps we'll witness something similar occur here.

 

[M3J]

Sigh.

Spanish flu is now called the 1918 flu pandemic, and it's been theorized that it may have originated in USA, and the soldiers lied. I have no idea why you brought up names, they're unrelated to bad things being called the country of origin, especially when it already has a name.

Ebola and zika don't say "Africa virus" or whatnot. Most people won't know where it originated without googling, I bet.

Chinese virus really is racist. No one ever said Wuhan virus was racist, and I have no idea why members keep claiming that. Link us to a post that said that. I also have no idea why it's necessary to call it Chinese virus when the names are coronavirus and covid-19.

Trump is a lying racist. Time may pass, but it won't change this fact. Many people still know Trump is racist, but his other failures and stupidity have overshadowed that, at least for now.

 

[hokageji]

It might not be racist at face value, but they don't call Ebola, HIV, or Zika "African Virus 1/2/3" do they? You're being naive if you think people insisting on calling it Chinese virus are doing so from any sort of logical precedent. For Trump it's a political move, and his followers will do it for racist and xenophobic reasons. There's no benefit to insisting upon such a thing, unless you want to simply "other" China. If naming convention is supposed to be geographical, people can be more specific than naming it after the entire third largest country in the world. It makes no sense, unless the goal is to piss people off or sow division.

I am not gonna deny that Trump is a racist, he's done enough to prove that itself. But its not only him who's talking about calling this the "wuhan virus" or the "chinese flu". Trump is doing it ignoring the racial repercussions, and if you mean that, i agree with you, my point is the political aspect which is an important one, which often gets buried behind a discussion like that.

In regards to China's ignorance of calling it a pandemic, some studies suggest that the virus spread would've been contained by 95% if China hadn't ignored pandemic possibility. They've been criticized for wet markets for ages and yet, those have reopened again.Now i do agree naming the virus will do little impact, but the world has to look to hold them accountable to an extent. WHO personnel when asked about how well Taiwan acted on the epidemic replied " some chinese states are fairing better than others". Ignoring to even acknowledge Taiwan as a country, and their accomplishment. Lots of journalists are reporting about misinformation from China on this virus, so the governments must take action.

 

[kkck]

From what I've read so far what governments around the world are accusing china of is basically withholding information about the virus so that they could hoard medical supplies to deal with it. I am not sure if any information around suggests china was outright indifferent to the virus spreading. They just hid information presumably to protect their businesses and stockpile supplies they were going to need.