That's fair to call it a protest vote. I know you didn't say it, but the news and pundits here all the time will refer to both Trump and Sanders as outsiders. Surely he received some protest votes for "not Clinton" seeing as the networks were acting as though she was already the nominee since before she entered the race. Trump, well...uziq wrote:
well it's no different from Corbyn in the uk – who was an MP way out in the hinterlands of history for decades and now has become the leader of the opposition. protest votes don't mean candidates have to be total outsiders – just not the party line or establishment position, I.e. people with an ordinary chance of winning.DesertFox- wrote:
I find it strange that people have called Sanders an outsider, when he has been in Congress for over two decades. He's a bit different from your run-of-the-mill Democrat or Republican who you could paint as the privileged government worker hobnobbing with wealthy bankers and businessmen, but he's still very much a part of the "establishment". Contrasted with Trump, who has never held a public office, it seems a very big difference.
Haha what?Jay wrote:
Yes. Both here and in Europe, it's a soft rebellion against technocracy.uziq wrote:
bernie or trump, they're both alternatives to a perceived establishment, aren't they?SuperJail Warden wrote:
That sounds like all of the loser liberals voting third party because Bernie didn't win.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3940
He has a point. Sanders supporters seem to reject the very idea of compromise and procedure in politics. They want a "political revolution" so they can get all the free stuff they want without having to make deals and work through the political system to get it.
Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8.
Mac's clearly trolling. Bringing up the misrepresentative "free stuff" agenda and ignoring that a "political revolution" by definition works through the "political system" to achieve such goals.
Mac's clearly trolling. Bringing up the misrepresentative "free stuff" agenda and ignoring that a "political revolution" by definition works through the "political system" to achieve such goals.
so who are the technocrats those undertaking the "soft rebellion" are fighting against?
It's literally nonsense.
It's literally nonsense.
technocracy is more relevant in europe where we do kinda have unelected officials making laws and regulations for the member states who are a) not elected and b) unaccountable to any higher power. they're a self-elect of 'we know best' technocrats. that has strengths and weaknesses. in america it feels more like widespread dissatisfaction with establishment politics – vested interests, wall street, lobbies, etc. shrug.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3940
You are just upset because you know it is true. Most Sanders supporters are only in it for free college, healthcare, and more. They don't really care about the poor. It's always "millionaire and billionaires" and "break up the banks". Never any talk about shifting unnecessary middle class programs to help the more needy. There's never any talk about a VAT tax or taxes on the middle class to pay for expansive programs. It is always the rich people's fault. And don't even get me started on some of the language and behavior coming from the Sanders supporters as he started losing.DesertFox- wrote:
Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8.
Mac's clearly trolling. Bringing up the misrepresentative "free stuff" agenda and ignoring that a "political revolution" by definition works through the "political system" to achieve such goals.
Yeah my guess is that Jay is inferring that people are fed up with the dissection of elections into demographic data sets to conquer one by one, winning vote shares as dictated by data mining and polls, as opposed to trying to gain broad support from the population in order to win the election. My assumption is he currently has a hard on for pointing out failed business management strategies in real life because of the book he read about case studies of failed MBA management strategies.uziq wrote:
technocracy is more relevant in europe where we do kinda have unelected officials making laws and regulations for the member states who are a) not elected and b) unaccountable to any higher power. they're a self-elect of 'we know best' technocrats. that has strengths and weaknesses. in america it feels more like widespread dissatisfaction with establishment politics – vested interests, wall street, lobbies, etc. shrug.
The first part is a valid concern - winning slight majorities from the major voting blocs instead of gaining broad support.
But that isn't the same as a "soft rebeliion" against technocracy. That sentence is virtually nonsense in regards to the USA.
Many people, such as KENNINGS and myself and all I know who support Sanders, are out of college and thus wouldn't see that "free college", but have seen and experienced that it's fucked up that many people spend the better part of their 20s digging themselves out of a debt hole for a degree that is as necessary today as a high school diploma was 40 years ago. As far as healthcare, it is a fairly prevalent opinion that getting sick should not also be a one-way ticket to the poor house, compared to other countries with our level of development. The gap between what used to be the middle class had exponentially widened over the past few decades as well.SuperJail Warden wrote:
You are just upset because you know it is true. Most Sanders supporters are only in it for free college, healthcare, and more. They don't really care about the poor. It's always "millionaire and billionaires" and "break up the banks". Never any talk about shifting unnecessary middle class programs to help the more needy. There's never any talk about a VAT tax or taxes on the middle class to pay for expansive programs. It is always the rich people's fault. And don't even get me started on some of the language and behavior coming from the Sanders supporters as he started losing.DesertFox- wrote:
Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8.
Mac's clearly trolling. Bringing up the misrepresentative "free stuff" agenda and ignoring that a "political revolution" by definition works through the "political system" to achieve such goals.
Your average "middle-class" family today probably has a healthy, American amount of debt from student loans or healthcare costs (funny how you mentioned both of those). And you propose a VAT to help? Like a flat tax rate, it's going to disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class more than it hurts the wealthy as a percentage of what they're able to spend. However, as a 20-something who has paid off my student loans and has a steady job, I'm not opposed to my taxes going up, but only if they actually go to funding things I actually want.
Last edited by DesertFox- (2016-06-21 15:37:33)
No one likes unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, who have been shown time and again to be in the pockets of special interests, running the show. In Europe, the union is falling apart, with the Euro a mess, the Swiss pulling their application, and the possibility of a Brexit being something real. We have central bankers around the world pushing interest rates into negative territory based on theory and fucking over everyone with a savings account.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Haha what?Jay wrote:
Yes. Both here and in Europe, it's a soft rebellion against technocracy.uziq wrote:
bernie or trump, they're both alternatives to a perceived establishment, aren't they?
Most people can't articulate why they would protest against the government, but the condescension that drips from "our betters" in Washington (and I'm sure it's the same with the technocrats in Brussels) couldn't be more clear, or more off-putting. People are tired of getting lied to. They're tired of getting swindled. They're tired of having their lives fucked over by academics in government playing god and applying their theories onto society. Trump and Sanders and Brexit are just the symptoms.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
We have the same here. Rules and regulations are drafted behind closed doors by government agencies packed full of academics. Congress has largely abdicated it's legislative role because the issues they've delved into are much too complex for a professional politician to understand. They're at least smart enough to understand that bit - too bad they don't understand that they shouldn't have meddled in the first place.uziq wrote:
technocracy is more relevant in europe where we do kinda have unelected officials making laws and regulations for the member states who are a) not elected and b) unaccountable to any higher power. they're a self-elect of 'we know best' technocrats. that has strengths and weaknesses. in america it feels more like widespread dissatisfaction with establishment politics – vested interests, wall street, lobbies, etc. shrug.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Is it? Who staffs the EPA, the SEC, the DEA, HHS and the rest of the alphabet soup agencies? Who elected them? Who holds them accountable? No one. They're staffed with government lifers that, as designed, are "above politics" and survive through many administrations. Is it any wonder that policy under Bush is virtually unchanged from policy under Obama? The people behind the scenes that actually run shit haven't changed. They're still pushing to abridge civil liberties at every turn. They're still looking to expand the military and its role. They're still looking to expand the war on drugs contrary to all evidence. Congress gets the blame for all this, but as I said, they abdicated their legislative role a long time ago. All they do now is create agencies and send them off to meddle in our lives.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah my guess is that Jay is inferring that people are fed up with the dissection of elections into demographic data sets to conquer one by one, winning vote shares as dictated by data mining and polls, as opposed to trying to gain broad support from the population in order to win the election. My assumption is he currently has a hard on for pointing out failed business management strategies in real life because of the book he read about case studies of failed MBA management strategies.uziq wrote:
technocracy is more relevant in europe where we do kinda have unelected officials making laws and regulations for the member states who are a) not elected and b) unaccountable to any higher power. they're a self-elect of 'we know best' technocrats. that has strengths and weaknesses. in america it feels more like widespread dissatisfaction with establishment politics – vested interests, wall street, lobbies, etc. shrug.
The first part is a valid concern - winning slight majorities from the major voting blocs instead of gaining broad support.
But that isn't the same as a "soft rebeliion" against technocracy. That sentence is virtually nonsense in regards to the USA.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3940
Middle class families have to pay for better access to jobs? How awful. We need to make that free. Sanders 2016.DesertFox- wrote:
Many people, such as KENNINGS and myself and all I know who support Sanders, are out of college and thus wouldn't see that "free college", but have seen and experienced that it's fucked up that many people spend the better part of their 20s digging themselves out of a debt hole for a degree that is as necessary today as a high school diploma was 40 years ago. As far as healthcare, it is a fairly prevalent opinion that getting sick should not also be a one-way ticket to the poor house, compared to other countries with our level of development. The gap between what used to be the middle class had exponentially widened over the past few decades as well.SuperJail Warden wrote:
You are just upset because you know it is true. Most Sanders supporters are only in it for free college, healthcare, and more. They don't really care about the poor. It's always "millionaire and billionaires" and "break up the banks". Never any talk about shifting unnecessary middle class programs to help the more needy. There's never any talk about a VAT tax or taxes on the middle class to pay for expansive programs. It is always the rich people's fault. And don't even get me started on some of the language and behavior coming from the Sanders supporters as he started losing.DesertFox- wrote:
Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8.
Mac's clearly trolling. Bringing up the misrepresentative "free stuff" agenda and ignoring that a "political revolution" by definition works through the "political system" to achieve such goals.
Your average "middle-class" family today probably has a healthy, American amount of debt from student loans or healthcare costs (funny how you mentioned both of those). And you propose a VAT to help? Like a flat tax rate, it's going to disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class more than it hurts the wealthy as a percentage of what they're able to spend. However, as a 20-something who has paid off my student loans and has a steady job, I'm not opposed to my taxes going up, but only if they actually go to funding things I actually want.
Your average middle class family is a lot better off than the poor in this country. They have the money to spare for programs to improve the lives of the truly needy. The really needy part of the country isn't going to get to go to college. The obvious classism of Sanders and his followers is evident by this focus on education.
Who staffs the EPA, SEC, DEA? Not technocrats. And people aren't actively participating in politics because of the EPA and HHS. Try again.Jay wrote:
Is it? Who staffs the EPA, the SEC, the DEA, HHS and the rest of the alphabet soup agencies? Who elected them? Who holds them accountable? No one. They're staffed with government lifers that, as designed, are "above politics" and survive through many administrations. Is it any wonder that policy under Bush is virtually unchanged from policy under Obama? The people behind the scenes that actually run shit haven't changed. They're still pushing to abridge civil liberties at every turn. They're still looking to expand the military and its role. They're still looking to expand the war on drugs contrary to all evidence. Congress gets the blame for all this, but as I said, they abdicated their legislative role a long time ago. All they do now is create agencies and send them off to meddle in our lives.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah my guess is that Jay is inferring that people are fed up with the dissection of elections into demographic data sets to conquer one by one, winning vote shares as dictated by data mining and polls, as opposed to trying to gain broad support from the population in order to win the election. My assumption is he currently has a hard on for pointing out failed business management strategies in real life because of the book he read about case studies of failed MBA management strategies.uziq wrote:
technocracy is more relevant in europe where we do kinda have unelected officials making laws and regulations for the member states who are a) not elected and b) unaccountable to any higher power. they're a self-elect of 'we know best' technocrats. that has strengths and weaknesses. in america it feels more like widespread dissatisfaction with establishment politics – vested interests, wall street, lobbies, etc. shrug.
The first part is a valid concern - winning slight majorities from the major voting blocs instead of gaining broad support.
But that isn't the same as a "soft rebeliion" against technocracy. That sentence is virtually nonsense in regards to the USA.
Why aren't the really needy part of the country going to get to go to college?SuperJail Warden wrote:
Middle class families have to pay for better access to jobs? How awful. We need to make that free. Sanders 2016.DesertFox- wrote:
Many people, such as KENNINGS and myself and all I know who support Sanders, are out of college and thus wouldn't see that "free college", but have seen and experienced that it's fucked up that many people spend the better part of their 20s digging themselves out of a debt hole for a degree that is as necessary today as a high school diploma was 40 years ago. As far as healthcare, it is a fairly prevalent opinion that getting sick should not also be a one-way ticket to the poor house, compared to other countries with our level of development. The gap between what used to be the middle class had exponentially widened over the past few decades as well.SuperJail Warden wrote:
You are just upset because you know it is true. Most Sanders supporters are only in it for free college, healthcare, and more. They don't really care about the poor. It's always "millionaire and billionaires" and "break up the banks". Never any talk about shifting unnecessary middle class programs to help the more needy. There's never any talk about a VAT tax or taxes on the middle class to pay for expansive programs. It is always the rich people's fault. And don't even get me started on some of the language and behavior coming from the Sanders supporters as he started losing.
Your average "middle-class" family today probably has a healthy, American amount of debt from student loans or healthcare costs (funny how you mentioned both of those). And you propose a VAT to help? Like a flat tax rate, it's going to disproportionately affect the poor and middle-class more than it hurts the wealthy as a percentage of what they're able to spend. However, as a 20-something who has paid off my student loans and has a steady job, I'm not opposed to my taxes going up, but only if they actually go to funding things I actually want.
Your average middle class family is a lot better off than the poor in this country. They have the money to spare for programs to improve the lives of the truly needy. The really needy part of the country isn't going to get to go to college. The obvious classism of Sanders and his followers is evident by this focus on education.
So we should focus on reducing the middle class to help the needy instead of the upper class? What planet are you from?
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3940
I think you misunderstand me. The really poor in this country don't have the ability to perform at or attend universities. More taxes on the wealthy would be better spent improving the lives of the poor instead of giving a handout to a middle class family who was going to college anyway. Of course the wealthy should get taxed more but a pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year is obvious middle class pandering. Why not $150,000? That's a normal middle class family income and they definitely have money to spare to help out the $15,000 a year family.
Most poor people can barely pass high school, let alone the entrance exams for college. The ones that can are generally given pretty generous scholarships, or they have access to cheap as dirt community college.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. The really poor in this country don't have the ability to perform at or attend universities. More taxes on the wealthy would be better spent improving the lives of the poor instead of giving a handout to a middle class family who was going to college anyway. Of course the wealthy should get taxed more but a pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year is obvious middle class pandering. Why not $150,000? That's a normal middle class family income and they definitely have money to spare to help out the $15,000 a year family.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't really put any weight in any politician saying they won't raise taxes, so I agree any claim regarding tax rates is pandering. However, the middle class has been shrinking for the last 40 years or so, and the middle class is an economic engine. The middle class needs support. Wealth is being consolidated - I know I don't have to show a graph to you explaining this, because at this point it is well-known and indisputable. Everyone is suffering except for the top 1% - their wealth is growing.
Providing free education helps level the playing field. Yes, the middle class will be a winner in this. So will the poverty-stricken. A college degree helps you earn more money - I know you know this because you used an example of Clinton's college plan for latinos in this very thread.
Poverty isn't going to be solved by providing free college education. It's a good step though. I'm still kind of scratching my head why you are arguing about this. It seems your only argument is that a free college education benefits the middle class too?
Providing free education helps level the playing field. Yes, the middle class will be a winner in this. So will the poverty-stricken. A college degree helps you earn more money - I know you know this because you used an example of Clinton's college plan for latinos in this very thread.
Poverty isn't going to be solved by providing free college education. It's a good step though. I'm still kind of scratching my head why you are arguing about this. It seems your only argument is that a free college education benefits the middle class too?
No, he's saying that the free college plan won't benefit the poor at all and would just be a white urban middle class bailout.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I don't really put any weight in any politician saying they won't raise taxes, so I agree any claim regarding tax rates is pandering. However, the middle class has been shrinking for the last 40 years or so, and the middle class is an economic engine. The middle class needs support. Wealth is being consolidated - I know I don't have to show a graph to you explaining this, because at this point it is well-known and indisputable. Everyone is suffering except for the top 1% - their wealth is growing.
Providing free education helps level the playing field. Yes, the middle class will be a winner in this. So will the poverty-stricken. A college degree helps you earn more money - I know you know this because you used an example of Clinton's college plan for latinos in this very thread.
Poverty isn't going to be solved by providing free college education. It's a good step though. I'm still kind of scratching my head why you are arguing about this. It seems your only argument is that a free college education benefits the middle class too?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
well he's wrong. Next topic!
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3940
I agree that the middle class needs more support. I just disagree with you where that support should be given. I haven't heard of Clinton's plans for Latinos? I complained a lot regarding Sanders free college plan. You probably misremembered.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I don't really put any weight in any politician saying they won't raise taxes, so I agree any claim regarding tax rates is pandering. However, the middle class has been shrinking for the last 40 years or so, and the middle class is an economic engine. The middle class needs support. Wealth is being consolidated - I know I don't have to show a graph to you explaining this, because at this point it is well-known and indisputable. Everyone is suffering except for the top 1% - their wealth is growing.
Providing free education helps level the playing field. Yes, the middle class will be a winner in this. So will the poverty-stricken. A college degree helps you earn more money - I know you know this because you used an example of Clinton's college plan for latinos in this very thread.
Poverty isn't going to be solved by providing free college education. It's a good step though. I'm still kind of scratching my head why you are arguing about this. It seems your only argument is that a free college education benefits the middle class too?
My issue is: I am 100% okay with raising taxes on the wealthy. I am not crazy enough to think that there won't be economic consequences though. And if we are going to deal with those consequences, I rather they are a result of spending the money on a group of who need support more and on a cause that is more important than making sure the average middle class college graduate can avoid a monthly student loan payment. I can think of a dozen things that the $80 billion Sanders proposes to spend that would be better than handing it over to colleges.
And it is really irking that the Bernie supporters going around telling everyone about Sander's college plan and the other great things he plans to do for the middle class are also some of the most classist and selfish individuals around. They aren't going to go to the rally for the school's janitor's union because they don't give a shit about the janitor and their union. They never did and never will. They just want free shit.
Is he really?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well he's wrong. Next topic!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Mac, do you not read the links you post? Please tell me a staunch supporter of Hillary (due to her elucidated platforms) has actually read up on her platforms? Especially if you link said platform in a post specifically regarding platforms and how well-thought out they are.
https://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?p … 6#p3941116
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing … mmunities/
Macbeth, it sounds like you hate Sanders supporters more than you hate the guy himself. A lot of your negativity regarding Bernie is placed on the actions of his supporters. I don't know what to tell you about that.
https://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?p … 6#p3941116
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing … mmunities/
do you disagree with every stat ever that shows on average, people with a college degree earn more than those without?Jay wrote:
Is he really?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well he's wrong. Next topic!
Macbeth, it sounds like you hate Sanders supporters more than you hate the guy himself. A lot of your negativity regarding Bernie is placed on the actions of his supporters. I don't know what to tell you about that.
Oh, I don't disagree that college grads earn more, not at all. What I'm saying is that the people who are actually qualified to go to college are not poor. They're not attending, not because they don't have access, but because most of them can't fucking read or write or multiply. Look at the people who complain about the cost of college. Look at the bulk of the people who made up the Occupy movements. Almost completely white, and from the middle and upper middle classes, and bitching about their student loans. Give me a fucking break. I wish the biggest debt I had to pay off was $30,000 in student loans.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
do you not read the links you post?
https://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?p … 6#p3941116
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing … mmunities/do you disagree with every stat ever that shows on average, people with a college degree earn more than those without?Jay wrote:
Is he really?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well he's wrong. Next topic!
Macbeth, it sounds like you hate Sanders supporters more than you hate the guy himself. A lot of your negativity regarding Bernie is placed on the actions of his supporters. I don't know what to tell you about that.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The existence of the occupy movement/angry white middle class 20 somethings doesn't negate the idea that providing access to higher education to people who otherwise couldn't afford it is a good thing.
I would really like you to read what you wrote. Most poor people can't read, write or multiply. Really dude?
I would really like you to read what you wrote. Most poor people can't read, write or multiply. Really dude?