The American Politics Thread

I've been annoyed a number of times by apologists for White Nationalists linking White culture with Confederate statues. I'm White. They're not part of my culture. If Conservatives object to celebrating diversity and prefer celebrating unity, then not celebrating Confederate icons should be priority one.

Speaking of slogans, 'You will not replace us' is among the darker ones in recent memory.

Seems econ has killed the thread. THIS is why America keeps electing terrible people 

Edited by JJLehto - August 23 2017 at 23:33

SteveG wrote: JJLehto wrote: So taking a break from this rather depressing and angering stuff, (I am sure we will have plenty of race based news to discuss in the future) there is a new chart out from Saez & Piketty. It's the most complete work on inequality yet and it kinda smashes conservative (or neo liberal) claims.  This is average annual wage growth across all income earners for 34 years. This takes into account taxes, employer benefits and gov payments. (Many of the criticisms from the right).  We see: The middle class is not getting smaller because more are moving up out of it. The super wealthy really are hoarding a large share of growth. Inequality isn't "rich vs poor" but the very rich vs all else. The upper middle class is being left behind as well. (Perhaps the progressives really should took a page out of Corbyn's book and not be afraid to take their message to the upper middle class suburbs)  Even at the 80 and 90th percentiles avg yearly income growth was not even 2% and seems half the nation didn't even manage 1% And for good measure, this is the same data 1946-1980. Night and day difference.  Hmmmmm, high tax, high income, big gov and strong union days seem to provide broad based prosperity, the low tax, minimal regulations, smash gov and weaken labor days since Reagan....not so much. Shocking I know.  Now, who said there was strength in numbers? I guess that doesn't apply to this scenario!   Thanks JJ. This is really good stuff. I just wish that Trump's supporters understood this.

Edited by JJLehto - August 25 2017 at 00:11

JJLehto wrote: And note how much better a large part of the US is doing post tax. Goes to show how dependent 50 (maybe 70%) of the nation really is on the government.

JJLehto wrote: The upper middle class is being left behind as well. (Perhaps the progressives really should took a page out of Corbyn's book and not be afraid to take their message to the upper middle class suburbs)

JJLehto wrote: A Person wrote: It is important to note that while some antifa members/groups are liberal, many are not, they are often socialists of various types, from democratic socialists to anarchists to Maoists. You can't really use liberal metrics to explain their actions because they are actively against them. That's for sure. The "liberal metrics" they are against are things like: peace? non violence? Understanding if you take to destruction or are willing to quickly jump to injuring, you may be not much better than the fascists?  And while what you say is true, talk about details and stuff many Americans will have no time for. In the end their actions will lead many people to think "ugh crazy liberals" and the causes are harmed. I'm sure you'll say the causes I deem liberal are not what antifa wants so they dont care, and they may not care if Repubs keep winning because the Dems "are no better" but that's where agree to disagree shall come in.

I just remembered I'd posted about this days ago. Basically, leftists engaging in antifa action are looking at it in a pragmatic way: to them, it is about power. To allow white supremacists to organize openly with no counter-protest is to send a message to ever unorganized racist who hears about it that their feelings are not just shared, but that they are acceptable and should be acted on. Their rallies are intentional acts of intimidation towards PoC, and antifa members often act as defense for other protestors (as seen in Charlottesville, where they protected clergymen), and take potential direct action if it becomes violent. In a very direct way this is a form of protection you will rarely see from those who have the legal authority to use violence, in fact Deandre Harris was beaten by white supremacists right outside the Charlottesville police department. After the events in Charlottesville and the massive counterprotest in Boston, tons of rallies across the country were cancelled. That in the end was the intended effect. I agree that it does not endure itself to those who feel it is violent and non-liberal, but for leftists who engage in it it is a practical way to protect minorities who are endangered by the very presence of those who call themselves the alt-right/white nationalists/white supremacists/Klan members/neo-nazis/etc.
And yes, they do view capitalism and the capitalist state as inherently being white supremacist in nature, with the acts of people like the above being the visible tip of a very large iceberg. I think Stokely Carmichael said it best: “If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power. Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you're anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.”

Indeed Mick but there are of course regional differences. Most of those are the Northeast, West Coast and ya know random northern cities/areas. The sun belt, where people are flocking too and college educated people are filling up Metro areas remains quite conservative. Not that we need to win those tomorrow...just the usual Ohio and Iowa. (Assuming we dont lose the rust belt states again). As ya said, just repeat the Obama success which shouldn't be hard assuming the Dems get their heads out of their asses. 

JJLehto wrote: Oh yeah...gunna have to disagree. I have no issue at all bashing capitalism and the societal problems it can produce but racism is very clearly outside that. That person can't seriously claim racism is a result of capitalism, and thus....ending capitalism would end racism? That, sounds a bit silly. Racism is sadly an inherent part of human nature and I reckon will exist outside any socioeconomic system.

I would disagree but I dont want to drag the thread in that direction, but I will say that race in its modern conception is only a few hundred years old and not a part of human nature imo (and I'd further add there is no such thing as human nature).

Yeah, tribalism is the oldest ism and the root of, well, many of our problems.  Just that communists, just like capitalists, are unaware of how tribal they are.