Liberal Forum

Voters are commonly preclusive towards programs that aid the populus as a whole and not the "rich". So why has nobody noticed the pro labor policies of the Biden Presidency? Is there any voters out there who still support the deep blue spending of the like of Bernie Sanders supporters? It seems the dialogue has broken down to some sort of debate on non-binary identification (whatever the hell that means) and not on the true governmental roles of the policies of fiscal policy that was the crux of the debate for most of the past century. Am I wrong about this? I personally deplore spending policies on unwise investments that seem to find themselves in the pockets of organized crime and other nefarious actors, but the politics of race baiting and their opposition seems to be what grabs viewers. That in turn has altered the political calculus from my vantage point. Please can we go back to the debate of policy that doesn't involve our differences as a center point.

Monderegal » 05 Dec 2022, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 3:53 pm

Voters are commonly preclusive towards programs that aid the populus as a whole and not the "rich". So why has nobody noticed the pro labor policies of the Biden Presidency? Is there any voters out there who still support the deep blue spending of the like of Bernie Sanders supporters? It seems the dialogue has broken down to some sort of debate on non-binary identification (whatever the hell that means) and not on the true governmental roles of the policies of fiscal policy that was the crux of the debate for most of the past century. Am I wrong about this? I personally deplore spending policies on unwise investments that seem to find themselves in the pockets of organized crime and other nefarious actors, but the politics of race baiting and their opposition seems to be what grabs viewers. That in turn has altered the political calculus from my vantage point. Please can we go back to the debate of policy that doesn't involve our differences as a center point.

Government policies, that focus on the general welfare of the populous, tend to be one-sided by nature. I don't think it's intentional, it's just inherently favorable to one group on the expense of another. Therefore, the division will always be sharp, by default. For instance, welfare is favorable to the poor, but it must be established and operational by taking money from the middle-class and rich. This ends in resentment. This is more applicable today than in the past. Things are far more expensive for the middle class, it's rare to see a one-income home anymore. The middle class need their money to make ends meet just like the poor do. However, the poor gets to claim other people's money without mutual benefit. This is just one example, there are others. 

Monderegal » 05 Dec 2022, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 3:53 pm

Voters are commonly preclusive towards programs that aid the populus as a whole and not the "rich". So why has nobody noticed the pro labor policies of the Biden Presidency? Is there any voters out there who still support the deep blue spending of the like of Bernie Sanders supporters? It seems the dialogue has broken down to some sort of debate on non-binary identification (whatever the hell that means) and not on the true governmental roles of the policies of fiscal policy that was the crux of the debate for most of the past century. Am I wrong about this? I personally deplore spending policies on unwise investments that seem to find themselves in the pockets of organized crime and other nefarious actors, but the politics of race baiting and their opposition seems to be what grabs viewers. That in turn has altered the political calculus from my vantage point. Please can we go back to the debate of policy that doesn't involve our differences as a center point.

no. Reasonable doubt corrupts absolutely.

Monderegal » 05 Dec 2022, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 3:53 pm

Voters are commonly preclusive towards programs that aid the populus as a whole and not the "rich". So why has nobody noticed the pro labor policies of the Biden Presidency? Is there any voters out there who still support the deep blue spending of the like of Bernie Sanders supporters? It seems the dialogue has broken down to some sort of debate on non-binary identification (whatever the hell that means) and not on the true governmental roles of the policies of fiscal policy that was the crux of the debate for most of the past century. Am I wrong about this? I personally deplore spending policies on unwise investments that seem to find themselves in the pockets of organized crime and other nefarious actors, but the politics of race baiting and their opposition seems to be what grabs viewers. That in turn has altered the political calculus from my vantage point. Please can we go back to the debate of policy that doesn't involve our differences as a center point.

pro labor policies of Biden?

all he has done thus far is try to suppress the railroad strike

The fringe Taliban wing of the Dimocrat party controls the party. You should think about registering as an independent
 

Selaphobia » 05 Dec 2022, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 4:18 pm

It would be impossible for BV to put this much thought into a response.

I can tell you what his response to this would be, being the predictable moron that he is. 

He will say : "You are a **** idiot." 

That's his deep-thinking abilities and superior intellect at work. 

@Blackvegetable  

FOS » 05 Dec 2022, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 4:17 pm

pro labor policies of Biden?

all he has done thus far is try to suppress the railroad strike

thanks to CP I figured out why there was a threat of a national RR strike. Warren Buffett helping Joe look good artificially.

The only genuinely pro labor movement in the past 200 years was fascism. Voters don't know this, but the elites do. 

And that is in fact the only way to seriously attempt to benefit labor. 

Indeed...unions and 'racism' are natural allies. The elite know that also. The various union/labor riots in the usa were also racist....because blacks/foreigners make natural scabs. You see?

so even if you attempted a 'de facto' fascist sort of syndicalism, it would predictably result in anti semitism...as labor looks seriously at who is exploiting them and who opposes them. Thus the radical anti semite Henry Ford was a natural product of the quasi fascist progressive era. 

So the post war 'left' have preferred to pretend that communism is the way to benefit workers...although in practice it does the opposite. And they spin a narrative that fascism is the opposite of communism white deregulated individualism 'capitalism' represents some sort of moderate center...which is a total lie.

Selaphobia » 05 Dec 2022, 4:54 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 4:54 pm

No he will say

can you show me anything quite as gay?

Selaphobia » 05 Dec 2022, 5:29 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 5:29 pm

You're engaged in an epic struggle, aren't you.

Vegas » 05 Dec 2022, 4:03 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 4:03 pm

Government policies, that focus on the general welfare of the populous, tend to be one-sided by nature. I don't think it's intentional, it's just inherently favorable to one group on the expense of another. Therefore, the division will always be sharp, by default. For instance, welfare is favorable to the poor, but it must be established and operational by taking money from the middle-class and rich. This ends in resentment. This is more applicable today than in the past. Things are far more expensive for the middle class, it's rare to see a one-income home anymore. The middle class need their money to make ends meet just like the poor do. However, the poor gets to claim other people's money without mutual benefit. This is just one example, there are others.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ps ... al-utility

According to science, the utility (money can be an example) is of more value at the lower end of the spectrum than the higher end of the spectrum. Take a welfare recipient from your example and let's say a middle class household. If you are on welfare, a dollar can mean a lot more than a dollar for someone with a modest income that can afford more amenities. Therefore, redistributing income has a scientific basis for adding utility (money) to the poor than to the middle class. Of course, the theory can be taken to the extremes of Communism that don't work in practice given their colossal failures. However, that shouldn't preclude that perhaps fairer distributions have no merit. It's backed by science even if economics usually does just shuffle the deck so I agree with you on that point.
 

Monderegal » 05 Dec 2022, 7:31 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 7:31 pm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ps ... al-utility

According to science, the utility (money can be an example) is of more value at the lower end of the spectrum than the higher end of the spectrum. Take a welfare recipient from your example and let's say a middle class household. If you are on welfare, a dollar can mean a lot more than a dollar for someone with a modest income that can afford more amenities. Therefore, redistributing income has a scientific basis for adding utility (money) to the poor than to the middle class. Of course, the theory can be taken to the extremes of Communism that don't work in practice given their colossal failures. However, that shouldn't preclude that perhaps fairer distributions have no merit. It's backed by science even if economics usually does just shuffle the deck so I agree with you on that point.
 

What science is that? metaphysical theories pretending there is no such thing as kinetic physical absolutes where time is stationary compared to all things evolving in perpetual cycles compounding into never the same total sum twice forward from here.

Warcok » 05 Dec 2022, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 4:18 pm

The fringe Taliban wing of the Dimocrat party controls the party. You should think about registering as an independent

The Taliban is a bunch of religious zealots that took over Afghanistan after they defeated Communist forces that invaded and centralized the command structure and came to power. Democrats don't force men to grow beards and ban VCRs. Just the opposite, Democrats tend to be secularists that don't mix politics and religion as a rule although that is a more mainstream theory within the party. Try telling a Taliban member if he is pro choice.

Monderegal » 05 Dec 2022, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 7:35 pm

The Taliban is a bunch of religious zealots that took over Afghanistan after they defeated Communist forces that invaded and centralized the command structure and came to power. Democrats don't force men to grow beards and ban VCRs. Just the opposite, Democrats tend to be secularists that don't mix politics and religion as a rule although that is a more mainstream theory within the party. Try telling a Taliban member if he is pro choice.

Wrong. The communists were defeated by a different group, the Mujahideen...who became the northern alliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance

The main thing that created the taliban is that they opposed pedophilia. No i am not joking. https://76crimes.com/2021/10/21/sex-tra ... ghanistan/

The taliban is not really more religious than the average afghani. They just have a better sense of morality.
 
 
 

Monderegal » 05 Dec 2022, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 3:53 pm

Voters are commonly preclusive towards programs that aid the populus as a whole and not the "rich". So why has nobody noticed the pro labor policies of the Biden Presidency? Is there any voters out there who still support the deep blue spending of the like of Bernie Sanders supporters? It seems the dialogue has broken down to some sort of debate on non-binary identification (whatever the hell that means) and not on the true governmental roles of the policies of fiscal policy that was the crux of the debate for most of the past century. Am I wrong about this? I personally deplore spending policies on unwise investments that seem to find themselves in the pockets of organized crime and other nefarious actors, but the politics of race baiting and their opposition seems to be what grabs viewers. That in turn has altered the political calculus from my vantage point. Please can we go back to the debate of policy that doesn't involve our differences as a center point.

The problem I have is this: The Democrats and Republicans are fake enemies.  They put on a show to galvanize their supporters so they don't need to be truly accountable.  Way too much lobby money goes into the coffers of congress to truly get policies changed that would benefit the working class.   Big Corporations have more power than anyone else in congress.   Right now, inflation is wrecking the economy because of Corporations raising prices and netting record profits.
 

ScottMon » 05 Dec 2022, 9:12 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 9:12 pm

The problem I have is this: The Democrats and Republicans are fake enemies.  They put on a show to galvanize their supporters so they don't need to be truly accountable.  Way too much lobby money goes into the coffers of congress to truly get policies changed that would benefit the working class.   Big Corporations have more power than anyone else in congress.   Right now, inflation is wrecking the economy because of Corporations raising prices and netting record profits.

People in politics will tell you that people vote on bull$!&#. You can't really galvanize on interest rates. Ad hominem is the best practice to win even if it is faulty reasoning.
 

Monderegal » 05 Dec 2022, 9:45 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 9:45 pm

People in politics will tell you that people vote on bull$!&#. You can't really galvanize on interest rates. Ad hominem is the best practice to win even if it is faulty reasoning.

Yeah, Pretty much.  Conspiracies and boogiemen drive the vote.  Red Scare, etc....

Monderegal » 05 Dec 2022, 9:45 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 9:45 pm

People in politics will tell you that people vote on bull$!&#. You can't really galvanize on interest rates. Ad hominem is the best practice to win even if it is faulty reasoning.

that is the campaign strategy of artur finklestein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_J._Finkelstein

jewish

Monderegal » 05 Dec 2022, 9:45 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2022, 9:45 pm

People in politics will tell you that people vote on bull$!&#. You can't really galvanize on interest rates. Ad hominem is the best practice to win even if it is faulty reasoning.
 

Whom isn't into politics electing the lesser of two evils governing a species by reasonable doubt rather than discovering there never was missing links in active evolving changing the current population from the past to current events.

Life never stays same lifetimes occupying space here now. Line of succession and where are you located? Great great grandchild cradle to grave or dies and still reached 1 of 16 great great grandparents without you being alive.

What ancestry does in plain sight eternally separates ancestors occupying space when specifically here. Alphabetic reverse psychology in syllables making up vocabulary directing outcomes of all resident ancestors occupying space now.

live evil. lived devil in disguise. Intellect is the great Satan, instincts are the voice of God. Eternal life is centered as genetically occupying the moment here in plain sight.

How many years has Judeo, Christian, Muslim religions denied now is eternity and the mayhem, madness, misery induced socially because of it. Same can be said for all Buddhists, Taoism, Hinduism.

all the Pagan mythologies. Judgement Day arrived 16 years ago and I delivered it.

Union suck dick. That's why nobody likes them