Archangel1313 @ Archangel1313 @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

241

Joined

2 mo. ago

It's a representative democracy...which means you need to flip seats in Congress in order to take over a party. That's all. It's a gradual process, but one that is entirely possible within the current system. We the people, have the power to do this, just by voting.

The biggest problem is, that progressives are fighting against the money. Tea Party Republicans didn't have that problem, since most of their socio-political ideology aligns with Libertarian policies. No taxes, no regulations, no corporate accountability. That draws a lot of support from the kinds of people who were already dissatisfied with the compromise Democrats and Republicans had struck between the elites making more money, and the consumers they use to make it.

The Tea Party and later MAGA are all in on fucking us all over to benefit the ruling class. Most of their voters are just too gullible to realize that. They think they're somehow "sticking it to the elites", by giving them everything they could have ever hoped for.

In many ways, it was never a real grassroots movement. It was always just an astroturfed effort. But it demonstrates how you can fundamentally change the entire direction of a party in US politics. One seat at a time...until the new majority votes the way you want them to.

They didn't have a single populist in the beginning. They just had "Tea Party Republicans". Unfortunately, this new "flavor" of conservative was even more racist and unintelligent than the original recipe.

Their voters immediately gravitated towards them, because they were seen as relatable outsiders, whose biggest policy position was to do whatever it took to hurt "the left", and/or anyone who even suggested the idea of "working together" with them. (ie. RINOs)

Trump just eventually took advantage of this movement and declared himself its leader. But when it first started, he still considered himself a Democrat.

Two sides of the same coin.

Of course you can. Just look at how the MAGA movement has taken over the Republican party. It started during Obama's term, with the Tea Party movement. One-by-one, they primaried the old-school moderate Republicans, and eventually held majority control over their party's policy decisions. Once they had that, the remaining moderates either chose to fall in line, or were forced to retire.

That's how democracy works. Revolution is just an excuse to kill people for their political beliefs, when you're too lazy to convince them to change their minds.

Then their losses are on them...not the voters.

Except that white folks aren't "excluded" from anything. You would have to be an idiot to think that white people aren't already receiving the full benefit of everything that society has to offer. This doesn't need to be "advertised". it's simply a fact.

Regardless, if Carney doesn’t break this unambiguous election promise, that’s not a cause for celebration or congratulations. He could’ve passed a bill to protect supply management - was asked directly to do so - and he intentionally didn’t do it.

Then what's this.

It's not the voters fault. If you split the Democratic vote, you will only get a permanent Republican government. And that doesn't help anyone.

Politicians like Mamdani are the only way forward. We need more people like him to run for local government like this, and move their way up from there...making way for more like them to take their places, as they go. You can't change things at the top, without laying the foundation for that change, first.

If AI can replace so many people that there aren't jobs for them all, wouldn't that also mean AI is producing enough to sustain those people, jobs or not?

Unfortunately, that isn't what's happening. AI isn't "producing" anything that people need to survive. It's just replacing people. We aren't seeing any net gains to society that would be able to support so many people no longer being needed in the workforce.

If they were training AI to produce food, build housing or anything that people actually need more of right now, I would say you are absolutely correct to assume that people would be just fine with this transition. But that's not what they're using AI for.

Optimistically, AI could and definitely should be used for those things...and the logical conclusion would be to implement a form of UBI so that we can all benefit from this. But do you honestly see that happening?

I don't. And I think that's what OP is also seeing. We aren't ready, as a species, to make that transition yet. There isn't even the slightest intention on behalf of our current leadership, of providing for an entire population of jobless people. They will ultimately be left to fend for themselves. And as it stands right now, society isn't equipped to function with that kind of excess population.

I have a very hard time believing that all of a sudden, this clown gives a shit about "debt slaves". There is no way he's complaining about us peons having to pay for all this spending.

He sure as fuck didn't care how his funding cuts were going to affect the peasant class when he was gleefully setting fire to all our social safety nets...so what the hell is he even talking about?

It's not necessary about their "value" to society. People need to eat in order to survive. That means having a way of supporting themselves. Having no way of supporting themselves means a lot of people are going to die.

I'd say that's a net negative to society.

And the problem runs deeper than "retraining" or "upskilling". With the emergence of technologies that replace human workers...there will simply be a massive excess of unemployed workers hitting the market. Period. Skills or not. Where are they going to work, when there are now ten people applying for every available job?

This asshole really needs to resign, if this is how he feels about doing his fucking job. If you want to spend time with your family at the beach so badly...by all means, get the fuck out of office and make room for someone who actually gives a shit.

Which is exactly why things like DEI need to be taught in schools.

If parents are racist...they teach their kids to be racist. And that comes out when they go to school and encounter other kids that their parents have taught them to hate. There is no better place to push back on that, than in the place where they encounter those other kids.

Teachers should not be forced to turn a blind eye to that hate. They should be required to teach kids a better way of interacting with each other, because it solves two major problems at once...

A)...it provides every kid in that school with a safer learning environment.

And B)...it might actually prevent some of those kids from growing up to also teach their kids to be racist, and end the generational learning curve that perpetuates racism in the 1st place.

Lol! What the actual fuck? No.

Not if it's still running.

He should team up with Andrew Yang. Just a couple of rich boys, fighting against the system. Good times. /s

I honestly don't understand how these asshats can think that "diversity" doesn't also include white folks. Or that "equity" doesn't also include white folks. Or the "inclusion" doesn't also include white folks.

Teaching kids to respect each other, regardless of their race, religion, sex or gender, is never a bad thing.

(settles back and puts feet up with a giant bowl of popcorn)

Don't hold your breath. There are none.