Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Snoopy said:
Pemalite said:

The Government will make money from other avenues thanks to the added tourism such a scheme would bring.
We spend fuck all per capita relative to the US on healthcare remember, not difficult for the Government to turn a profit.

We shall see, also that would include Illegal immigrants because they are considered Americans as well by the Democrats. 

I don’t think that's accurate. The Democratic politicians said this included undocumented immigrants, but not illegal immigrants (as in those who are in the US for the purpose of criminal activity).

Additionally, the US declaration of Independence - which states the US revolutionary plan (All people equal, the right to overthrow governments who stand in the way of equality and people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). 

It would be inconsistent with the US experiment to block people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on simple documentation status. To place the status of “illegal” on the basis of documentation seems opposed to the US revolutionary spirit and the core value of that nation.

And I quote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

But, of course, the people on the left in the US have less of the revolutionary spirit than their founding fathers.

It makes me wonder: The first step was independence from the Empire. The second was the abolition of slavery. The third step was universal suffrage and the civil rights movement. The next phase of that US experiment is currently in progress, the next big conflict between the right-wing against those on the right side of history.

I rambled on, it’s late, almost morning (we don’t sleep here). I wish you people of the US good luck in your revolutionary experiment. This election will hopefully put things back on track.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
Jaicee said:
HylianSwordsman said:

As for the being a woman aspect, I understand the appeal, though it obviously isn't quite the almost existential imperative that it is for you. Like you said, we have a literal rapist in chief, so that obviously affects you quite more directly in ways I can't fully appreciate. And I respect that. Much as I support Bernie over Warren because while there isn't much daylight left between the two, I have absolute faith that Bernie won't swing to the center in the general or in office, and what he's running on now is what he actually believes. He really will fight for us. In the same way, you support the women progressives, because you have an absolute faith in them that they'll represent you on women's issues no matter what is politically convenient at the time. I get that and respect that. And I definitely agree that her answers should have gotten a better response, and I'm honestly surprised that she didn't benefit more from the debates in the polls.

Well..."absolute faith" is a strong term. I don't actually consider myself to necessarily be an ideological progressive, I just agree with the left the most on economics. I trust female progressives more than other candidates when it comes to the combination of economic and social issues, but that doesn't mean I actually have great faith in any particular kind of politician when it comes to women's issues. I think the left is often characterized, in part, by varying levels of left wing misogyny.

If right wing misogyny refers to a belief that women should be the private property of individual men (i.e. patriarchy) then left wing misogyny refers to the belief that women should instead be the public property of all men. For example, since 2018, the official platform of Women's March, Inc. has included a plank advocating the legalization of prostitution. A classic example of what their advocacy around that looks like was seen last year when they protested the closing of Backpage.com, the internet's leading facilitator of child sex trafficking at the time, disingenuously claiming that "The shutting of Backpage is an absolute crisis for sex workers..." Jacobin magazine, the official publication of the Democratic Socialists of America, feels much the same way about prostitution. I just highlight the intersectional left's enthusiasm for prostitution here as a particularly clear example of what I mean.

In this country, unfortunately we don't seem to recognize the existence of left wing misogyny and it's a major cultural blind spot. So to say that I have absolute faith in progressives in the area of women's interests is a stretch. I'm not a big fan of the sex industry, the beauty industry, gender identity, any of that sort of thing any more than I am the prohibition of abortion or intolerance for lesbians. Just for clarity!

You truly are a radical feminist aren't you? I mean that ideologically, not pejoratively, of course. That's a very radical feminist position, the idea that prostitution is inherently bad for women from a power perspective, and thus should not be legalized. I'm curious, are you against pornography as well? The same logic would seem to apply, and it is another common radical feminist position that I've seen. Well, I say common, but I haven't actually had a conversation with many radical feminists. But at least from what I've read from them.

Personally, I am pro legalization, but not in the industry's current state. Surely decriminalization of sex work would appeal to you though? As in making it not a crime to be a sex worker, but still a crime to be a pimp? I think that would help to protect vulnerable women in that industry, and would probably be my first step if I had a magic wand that changed laws and politics. But what if a women genuinely wants to be a prostitute? Not from a position where she's coerced in any sense by the power dynamics of her situation, but because she evaluated the possibility and her own feelings about it and came to a rational conclusion that she was comfortable with sex work and in fact wished to pursue it? Shouldn't she be free to do so? For that to be possible, the industry would have to change, but the only way for that to happen is for it to be legalized so that a regulatory framework can be set to ensure that women aren't taken advantage of in any way. So to your point about prostitution making women "public property", that's only if they were working under a pimp, and even then, only if they didn't have absolute power to refuse any request without fear of backlash from her employer. In my mind, it's literally her body; if she wants to sell services with her body, that's her absolute choice and no one else's. So I would think legalizing prostitution without any fear of making women public property in the way you describe would require that pimps be outlawed, so that no one but her could have any contractual or legal say in the matter. If she were self-employed as a prostitute by her own rational choice, I don't see how you could credibly argue that she had become public property. In such a scenario, she is her own property. No man can claim ownership or entitlement to her services simply because she's a prostitute. So long as she had absolute right to refuse any service with any person for any reason without legal risk to her for doing so, I don't see how you could claim that she's anyone's property, public or private, except her own.

All of this said, I don't think misogyny should be ideologically labeled. It's like labeling terrorism after its ideological source. What does it matter? It's terrorism! If you don't simply call it what it is and instead attach a political or ideological label to it, all you accomplish is to divide society along political or ideological lines for or against you, and then you typically accomplish nothing, or if you accomplish anything, it takes a terribly long time. Furthermore, you can hardly say that the right wing of politics is the sole domain of those who would view women as private property, nor that the left wing is where you would find all those who view them as public property. For example college fraternity brothers are not remotely associated with the left, quite the opposite really, yet their culture often views women as the public property of anyone attending their party, or at least that's how some of them speak and behave. On the other hand, the Democratic party elite think that simply by being the less misogynistic party, that all women in America owe them their votes, which effectively means they view women as the private property of their organization. They spoke with such indignation at white women when they saw that Hillary had "lost" the white female vote. Nevermind that she had won just barely under half of them and thus the Dems were writing off effectively half of the white female population as if they counted for nothing just because they felt owed the other half, but would have written off the other half as not existing had their half been nominally bigger. And of course, there are plenty of right wingers that support legalization of prostitution, such as libertarians, and there are plenty of possessive boyfriends that vote Democrat and probably even some that call themselves democratic socialists, even as they treat their girlfriends like a piece of property. Then you have the up and coming specters of female sex robots and VR rape experiences, which are already attracting interest across the political spectrum for public and private use, and carrying with them all sorts of troubling implications. I guarantee you that while they might eventually get polarized as well as a more clear political narrative develops around them, there will still be an audience for them across the political spectrum using them in both public and private settings, regardless of what ends up being legal in the end. Misogyny is wrong, no matter who it comes from, or what ideology they use to justify it, and we're weaker in fighting it when we apply identity based labels to it that encourage people to take sides.

You listed the beauty industry alongside the sex industry and gender identity. Do you regard the beauty industry as left leaning? I mean I'd be hard pressed to make such a judgement but I guess the elites of the beauty industry probably lean left, but what does the larger political left have in its narrative that affirms the goals of the beauty industry? Because from what I see, the left as a whole tends to regard the beauty industry with disgust. Perhaps that's confirmation bias as I'm a psychology educated left-leaning environmentalist and animal advocate so I hate the beauty industry for the harm its done to the environment, animal rights, and the mental health of people, especially women, so I might just talk to a lot of likeminded people. But from what I read from most left leaning news outlets and pundits, there doesn't seem to be a lot of love on the left for the beauty industry. I haven't seen any left motivated arguments in their favor. Like, ever.



Jumpin said:

Additionally, the US declaration of Independence - which states the US revolutionary plan (All people equal, the right to overthrow governments who stand in the way of equality and people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). 

It would be inconsistent with the US experiment to block people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on simple documentation status. To place the status of “illegal” on the basis of documentation seems opposed to the US revolutionary spirit and the core value of that nation.

And I quote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

But, of course, the people on the left in the US have less of the revolutionary spirit than their founding fathers.

It makes me wonder: The first step was independence from the Empire. The second was the abolition of slavery. The third step was universal suffrage and the civil rights movement. The next phase of that US experiment is currently in progress, the next big conflict between the right-wing against those on the right side of history.

I rambled on, it’s late, almost morning (we don’t sleep here). I wish you people of the US good luck in your revolutionary experiment. This election will hopefully put things back on track.

Oh my God, you have no idea how much it frustrates me. We have an opportunity to commit a revolutionary act in the election of Sanders, and we're too scared to try.



Jumpin said:
Snoopy said:

We shall see, also that would include Illegal immigrants because they are considered Americans as well by the Democrats. 

I don’t think that's accurate. The Democratic politicians said this included undocumented immigrants, but not illegal immigrants (as in those who are in the US for the purpose of criminal activity).

Additionally, the US declaration of Independence - which states the US revolutionary plan (All people equal, the right to overthrow governments who stand in the way of equality and people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). 

It would be inconsistent with the US experiment to block people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on simple documentation status. To place the status of “illegal” on the basis of documentation seems opposed to the US revolutionary spirit and the core value of that nation.

And I quote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

But, of course, the people on the left in the US have less of the revolutionary spirit than their founding fathers.

It makes me wonder: The first step was independence from the Empire. The second was the abolition of slavery. The third step was universal suffrage and the civil rights movement. The next phase of that US experiment is currently in progress, the next big conflict between the right-wing against those on the right side of history.

I rambled on, it’s late, almost morning (we don’t sleep here). I wish you people of the US good luck in your revolutionary experiment. This election will hopefully put things back on track.

Every nation has, and should have, borders, that they enforce - Even the free and equal United States. Why should we in the US exclusively be exempt from this? If you don't have some sort of boundaries, well.. you won't have a United States much longer, and then what's the point? 

I'm all for an easier path to legal citizenship, but illegal crossings are, well, illegal.. I'd love to let everybody in (who isn't a criminal) who would be a possitive influence to society that want to escape a shittier life for a chance at prosperity here, but it's like they said on South Park - if we let everyone in who wants to come in, we'll eventually end up being shitty too. You just cannot have a sustainable country with a billion residents without the vast marjotiry (legal AND illegal) living in extreme poverty), at least I don't see it. We already have millions struggling to make a living wage here. Is it really a good idea to add 10s of millions more? At what point does the fabric of the country become torn apart completely? 

And I'm so done with that "right side of history," that cringeworthy phrase. It just sounds a little creepily cultish and authoritarian to me. Take it from a guy who have studied history thoroughly and has graduated university w/a history degree. Many people who are 100% convinced they were on the "right side of history" end up being very, very much on the WRONG side of it. The "right side of history" is always "to be determined", and usually pretty subjective.

At least from where I sit, I'm seeing the left wing in our country become insanely Authoritarian, intolerant, and pro-censorship. That isn't the right side of history from my lens. 



Snoopy said:

We shall see, also that would include Illegal immigrants because they are considered Americans as well by the Democrats. 

You can start by considering illegal immigrants as people, and see where that takes you.  



Around the Network
Jaicee said:

Well..."absolute faith" is a strong term. I don't actually consider myself to necessarily be an ideological progressive, I just agree with the left the most on economics. I trust female progressives more than other candidates when it comes to the combination of economic and social issues, but that doesn't mean I actually have great faith in any particular kind of politician when it comes to women's issues. I think the left is often characterized, in part, by varying levels of left wing misogyny.

If right wing misogyny refers to a belief that women should be the private property of individual men (i.e. patriarchy) then left wing misogyny refers to the belief that women should instead be the public property of all men. For example, since 2018, the official platform of Women's March, Inc. has included a plank advocating the legalization of prostitution. A classic example of what their advocacy around that looks like was seen last year when they protested the closing of Backpage.com, the internet's leading facilitator of child sex trafficking at the time, disingenuously claiming that "The shutting of Backpage is an absolute crisis for sex workers..." Jacobin magazine, the official publication of the Democratic Socialists of America, feels much the same way about prostitution. I just highlight the intersectional left's enthusiasm for prostitution here as a particularly clear example of what I mean.

In this country, unfortunately we don't seem to recognize the existence of left wing misogyny and it's a major cultural blind spot. So to say that I have absolute faith in progressives in the area of women's interests is a stretch. I'm not a big fan of the sex industry, the beauty industry, gender identity, any of that sort of thing any more than I am the prohibition of abortion or intolerance for lesbians. Just for clarity!

>belief that women should instead be the public property of all men

You don't think it's a stretch to call "legalizing prostitution = public property of all men"?  

The latter to me implies that women would be forced to become prostitutes, the former is about giving women (and men) the agency to do what they want with their bodies.  

People could have the agency to choose, and having it be legal means that we can make protections for people.  It would mean there are legal avenues for prostitution, which takes away from the black market and all the issues that go along with it.  



DarthMetalliCube said:
Jumpin said:

I don’t think that's accurate. The Democratic politicians said this included undocumented immigrants, but not illegal immigrants (as in those who are in the US for the purpose of criminal activity).

Additionally, the US declaration of Independence - which states the US revolutionary plan (All people equal, the right to overthrow governments who stand in the way of equality and people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). 

It would be inconsistent with the US experiment to block people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on simple documentation status. To place the status of “illegal” on the basis of documentation seems opposed to the US revolutionary spirit and the core value of that nation.

And I quote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

But, of course, the people on the left in the US have less of the revolutionary spirit than their founding fathers.

It makes me wonder: The first step was independence from the Empire. The second was the abolition of slavery. The third step was universal suffrage and the civil rights movement. The next phase of that US experiment is currently in progress, the next big conflict between the right-wing against those on the right side of history.

I rambled on, it’s late, almost morning (we don’t sleep here). I wish you people of the US good luck in your revolutionary experiment. This election will hopefully put things back on track.

Every nation has, and should have, borders, that they enforce - Even the free and equal United States. Why should we in the US exclusively be exempt from this? If you don't have some sort of boundaries, well.. you won't have a United States much longer, and then what's the point? 

I'm all for an easier path to legal citizenship, but illegal crossings are, well, illegal.. I'd love to let everybody in (who isn't a criminal) who would be a possitive influence to society that want to escape a shittier life for a chance at prosperity here, but it's like they said on South Park - if we let everyone in who wants to come in, we'll eventually end up being shitty too. You just cannot have a sustainable country with a billion residents without the vast marjotiry (legal AND illegal) living in extreme poverty), at least I don't see it. We already have millions struggling to make a living wage here. Is it really a good idea to add 10s of millions more? At what point does the fabric of the country become torn apart completely? 

And I'm so done with that "right side of history," that cringeworthy phrase. It just sounds a little creepily cultish and authoritarian to me. Take it from a guy who have studied history thoroughly and has graduated university w/a history degree. Many people who are 100% convinced they were on the "right side of history" end up being very, very much on the WRONG side of it. The "right side of history" is always "to be determined", and usually pretty subjective.

At least from where I sit, I'm seeing the left wing in our country become insanely Authoritarian, intolerant, and pro-censorship. That isn't the right side of history from my lens. 

You have a weird idea of what authoritarianism is if you think it is the revolutionary founding principle of the United States which can be summarized as: the equality of all people and the fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You are ideologically on the wrong side of US history because what you support is counter to the goals of the US’s founding fathers and their revolutionary experiment. Call them a cult if you like, it doesn’t make your assertions any more correct. History is not on your side.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

the-pi-guy said:
Jaicee said:

Well..."absolute faith" is a strong term. I don't actually consider myself to necessarily be an ideological progressive, I just agree with the left the most on economics. I trust female progressives more than other candidates when it comes to the combination of economic and social issues, but that doesn't mean I actually have great faith in any particular kind of politician when it comes to women's issues. I think the left is often characterized, in part, by varying levels of left wing misogyny.

If right wing misogyny refers to a belief that women should be the private property of individual men (i.e. patriarchy) then left wing misogyny refers to the belief that women should instead be the public property of all men. For example, since 2018, the official platform of Women's March, Inc. has included a plank advocating the legalization of prostitution. A classic example of what their advocacy around that looks like was seen last year when they protested the closing of Backpage.com, the internet's leading facilitator of child sex trafficking at the time, disingenuously claiming that "The shutting of Backpage is an absolute crisis for sex workers..." Jacobin magazine, the official publication of the Democratic Socialists of America, feels much the same way about prostitution. I just highlight the intersectional left's enthusiasm for prostitution here as a particularly clear example of what I mean.

In this country, unfortunately we don't seem to recognize the existence of left wing misogyny and it's a major cultural blind spot. So to say that I have absolute faith in progressives in the area of women's interests is a stretch. I'm not a big fan of the sex industry, the beauty industry, gender identity, any of that sort of thing any more than I am the prohibition of abortion or intolerance for lesbians. Just for clarity!

>belief that women should instead be the public property of all men

You don't think it's a stretch to call "legalizing prostitution = public property of all men"?  

The latter to me implies that women would be forced to become prostitutes, the former is about giving women (and men) the agency to do what they want with their bodies.  

People could have the agency to choose, and having it be legal means that we can make protections for people.  It would mean there are legal avenues for prostitution, which takes away from the black market and all the issues that go along with it.  

The issue is prostitution as an avenue to get forced down for survival. This goes for all forms of exploitative industries (not just sex related) that become options for people to get forced into for survival.

Prostitution should be legal, but it should never be something that is expected of women who have no other means of supporting themselves. Rather it should be open for women who genuinely want to pursue this path because they want to, and they have dreams/plans of making it work out well for them.

A couple of very obvious options:

1. Licenses/regulations.

2. Provide living benefits and public employment opportunities to women who are unskilled enough for the private industry professions.

These are the options that some countries have pursued. Women in regulated countries have the absolute authority to turn anyone down they don’t wish to service. It is not public ownership of their bodies.

Interesting fact: the Netherlands has less than half the number of prostitutes per capita as the United States. I don’t think the largely Puritanical girls in the US like sex more than all those naughty Dutch girls =)

Joking aside, it is evidence the US is not doing things correctly. It is likely that many in the US’s current system are forced into sex from economic stresses.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 06 July 2019

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

DarthMetalliCube said:

Every nation has, and should have, borders, that they enforce - Even the free and equal United States. Why should we in the US exclusively be exempt from this? If you don't have some sort of boundaries, well.. you won't have a United States much longer, and then what's the point? 

I don't think anyone is saying that borders shouldn't be enforced.

Historically it isn't the case that every nation has borders that they enforce.  Illegal immigration as a concept didn't exist in the US until the late 19th century.  For the first hundred years there were no restrictions on immigration.  If you got on a boat to come to America, you were basically free to do that.  

Even today most countries don't enforce their borders with walls.  

DarthMetalliCube said:

I'm all for an easier path to legal citizenship, but illegal crossings are, well, illegal.. I'd love to let everybody in (who isn't a criminal) who would be a possitive influence to society that want to escape a shittier life for a chance at prosperity here, but it's like they said on South Park - if we let everyone in who wants to come in, we'll eventually end up being shitty too. You just cannot have a sustainable country with a billion residents without the vast marjotiry (legal AND illegal) living in extreme poverty), at least I don't see it. We already have millions struggling to make a living wage here. Is it really a good idea to add 10s of millions more? At what point does the fabric of the country become torn apart completely? 

>You just cannot have a sustainable country with a billion residents without the vast marjotiry

The ideas that:

-anyone is supporting the idea of a "billion" people coming over

-hundreds of million residents would even come over, even if they could

is so ridiculous that it's hard to take you seriously after that.  

The whole argument is based off scare mongering by taking the most extreme version of a policy that could ever exist (a version so extreme, no one is seriously proposing it).  

DarthMetalliCube said:

At least from where I sit, I'm seeing the left wing in our country become insanely Authoritarian, intolerant, and pro-censorship. That isn't the right side of history from my lens. 

Some left wingers are definitely extreme, but if you think it's just the left wing that's "become insanely authoritatian, intolerant and pro-censorship", then I'd say you haven't been paying attention.  On the left, it's a minority, on the right a lot of that is pushed by the president, and all the comments are given a pass.  



The arguments from the Democratic Candidates have largely been about making sure to document everyone, and putting people who wish to be Americans on a path to citizenship on the basis of the preamble in the US’s revolutionary founding document.

The Democratic party seems to have become the ideological descendants of the revolutionaries, while the republicans have transformed to be the newest version of the ideological opponents of the revolution’s ideology. This is abundantly clear.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.