Jump to content

~*Official Utterly Useless Old Woman, AOC, and UBI Thread*~


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Since this is the ubi thread...

 

There may be merits to ubi in general, but this version of ubi would be really, really bad

 

Yeah although I'm semi-optimistic about UBI or negative taxes, from what I've heard I don't like his plan for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Yeah, his UBI policy is actually my least favorite of his policies, ironically.

 

It’s worth noting, however, that regressive VAT’s are how the Nordic states fund their welfare states.

VATs aren't that bad, tbh, if certain controls and limits are in place (not on food, medicine, clothing under a certain value, etc) but the more concerning thing is the choice you'd have to make between traditional benefits such as WIC, housing assistance/heating assistance, etc and $1k/month

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, legend said:

Jesus fucking Christ. Fuck you Zuck!

 

 

 

The interesting part of that exchange to me was what came right before. AOC asked if she could run ads telling voters the wrong election date and Zuck said no, which seems completely out of line with the rest of his argument. His argument is that he shouldn't be in the business deciding which lies politicians get to advertise; which even if I don't agree with, I understand. But if you're going to remove some lies and not others, then you're necessarily deciding what lies are ok and which aren't. At least with something like election dates it's super easy to figure out the right date.

 

Personally, I think the distinction that should be made more prominent is lies in advertising and lies in posts. They already allow politicians (and everyone else) to say basically whatever the hell they want on their pages. Let Trump or AOC or anyone else spew whatever nonsense they please over their audience that has opted in. Sure, you're the platform, but there's a certain distance from that I can appreciate in that Facebook hasn't arbitrarily forced that post on you. When you're taking money to boost a specific message (advertising!), that distance is erased and now you have a direct hand in determining how many people that message reaches. 

 

Facebook has already taken that responsibility to heart, a fact born out in the types of ads that Facebook already bans. Sure, they don't let you advertise straight up illegal things, but there's a bunch of other stuff they don't advertise. They won't let you advertise legal weapons, "unsafe supplements" (where Facebook decides what unsafe means), any adult product or service, cryptocurrency, surveillance equipment, payday loans, multilevel marketing schemes, penny auctions, tobacco, and pharmaceuticals. I don't really even disagree with those bans and I certainly haven't heard anyone complain about the poor pharmaceuticals companies rights to free speech.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

The interesting part of that exchange to me was what came right before. AOC asked if she could run ads telling voters the wrong election date and Zuck said no, which seems completely out of line with the rest of his argument. His argument is that he shouldn't be in the business deciding which lies politicians get to advertise; which even if I don't agree with, I understand. But if you're going to remove some lies and not others, then you're necessarily deciding what lies are ok and which aren't. At least with something like election dates it's super easy to figure out the right date.

 

Personally, I think the distinction that should be made more prominent is lies in advertising and lies in posts. They already allow politicians (and everyone else) to say basically whatever the hell they want on their pages. Let Trump or AOC or anyone else spew whatever nonsense they please over their audience that has opted in. Sure, you're the platform, but there's a certain distance from that I can appreciate in that Facebook hasn't arbitrarily forced that post on you. When you're taking money to boost a specific message (advertising!), that distance is erased and now you have a direct hand in determining how many people that message reaches. 

 

Facebook has already taken that responsibility to heart, a fact born out in the types of ads that Facebook already bans. Sure, they don't let you advertise straight up illegal things, but there's a bunch of other stuff they don't advertise. They won't let you advertise legal weapons, "unsafe supplements" (where Facebook decides what unsafe means), any adult product or service, cryptocurrency, surveillance equipment, payday loans, multilevel marketing schemes, penny auctions, tobacco, and pharmaceuticals. I don't really even disagree with those bans and I certainly haven't heard anyone complain about the poor pharmaceuticals companies rights to free speech.

 

I by and large agree with you. I'm more forgiving of not regulating facebook posts. However, I'm also starting to question that. The way social media is weaponized is a serious fucking problem that is going to get worse. I'm not sure what we do as a society going forward about that, because I think we also need to be careful not to become China.

 

But what they allow with ads is beyond absurd.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Is everyone finally catching up to me and seeing that Pelosi is a weak corproate democrat who won't even support the policies of the Democratic frontrunners in the primaries? Fucking pathetic. She's such a weak leader, and she's bought by companies (hence all the praise for her "fundraising"). She drank the Kool-Aid.

 

Edit: Corporate Democrats love to talk about "unity" when conservate Democrats are running but as soon as we have Democratic presidential progressive frontrunners suddenly Pelosi's "unity" goes out the window. Hmmmm . . . 

 

Also strange that corproate Democrat Richard Neal on the House Ways and Means Committee was offered Trump's tax returns and he literally said to New York that he doesn't want them. Fucking corporatists man.

 

Hopefully people are realizing the same about Buttigieg . . . finally.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Is everyone finally catching up to me and seeing that Pelosi is a weak corproate democrat who won't even support the policies of the Democratic frontrunners in the primaries? Fucking pathetic. She's such a weak leader, and she's bought by companies (hence all the praise for her "fundraising"). She drank the Kool-Aid.

 

Edit: Corporate Democrats love to talk about "unity" when conservate Democrats are running but as soon as we have Democratic presidential progressive frontrunners suddenly Pelosi's "unity" goes out the window. Hmmmm . . . 

 

Also strange that corproate Democrat Richard Neal on the House Ways and Means Committee was offered Trump's tax returns and he literally said to New York that he doesn't want them. Fucking corporatists man.

 

Hopefully people are realizing the same about Buttigieg . . . finally.

 

1. Who is everyone? Who supports her leadership here?

 

2. People are not realizing the same about Buttiegieg. His stock is rising, not falling.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

1. Who is everyone? Who supports her leadership here?

 

2. People are not realizing the same about Buttiegieg. His stock is rising, not falling.

 

Back when Pelosi was made Speaker of the House in 2018, many on the board were happy about it. And everyone kept saying she had "big dick energy" etc. It was ceaseless. And then because she ended a shutdown that shouldn't have even begun got her more praise. Maybe you've missed it but it's only been very lately that people have been coming around. Skillzdadirecta was a big proponent of hers, as an example.

 

I said hopefully people are realizing it about Mayo Pete. Yes, he is replacing Biden, I just meant on this board. Buttigieg is inauthentic and only does political calculations. He sucks. And his tenure as mayor of South Bend (his only political experience) was terrible. More tranquilizing drug of incremental change? That isn't going to get the job done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Pelosi is super rich now so why would she care 

 

Probably because it's supposed to be her fucking job to care. Warren and Sanders aren't poor and they care. I feel like people forget that technically speaking, being a politician is being a civil servant who works FOR US. But now that bribery is legal in politics politicians work for their donors, not us.

 

It's the money Lebowski. It always has been. Believe people when they tell you who they are, and Pelosi has told us. Buttigieg has told us. The conversation is over. I'm done with inauthentic people, particularly in politicians. 

 

For the group: why do you think Trump once had such strong support? Because he's authentic. He's a MONSTER, but an authentic monster. It's always been clear he's a terrible person, stupid, and a clear criminal, and despite all his denials, it's clear and people know what he is, so they see him as being authentically himself. People like Buttigieg and Pelosi are doing "political calculations" and that lack of authenticity inspires nothing and certainly won't help win elections. Trump indicated authenticity is what people want. I want capable AND authentic, hence my support for Warren (and even moreso) Sanders. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Back when Pelosi was made Speaker of the House in 2018, many on the board were happy about it. And everyone kept saying she had "big dick energy" etc. It was ceaseless. And then because she ended a shutdown that shouldn't have even begun got her more praise. Maybe you've missed it but it's only been very lately that people have been coming around. Skillzdadirecta was a big proponent of hers, as an example.

 

I said hopefully people are realizing it about Mayo Pete. Yes, he is replacing Biden, I just meant on this board. Buttigieg is inauthentic and only does political calculations. He sucks. And his tenure as mayor of South Bend (his only political experience) was terrible. More tranquilizing drug of incremental change? That isn't going to get the job done. 

 

To be fair, Pelosi was pretty good during the government shutdown. 

 

B7hISx2.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

To be fair, Pelosi was pretty good during the government shutdown. 

 

B7hISx2.jpg

 

I could have done a better job in terms of messaging than she did. Yes, she pulled it off, but only just. I give her credit for it but not a lot and she certainly has undone any goodwill she created with that since anyway. :p 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sahil is also one of those extreme centrists so subtlety might be lost on him. Not that I would know in this specific case, I haven't watched the interview myself. I do know that Pelosi almost never spends her own political capital and runs more in the Obama vein of "push me to do it," which is debatable as a strategy but it seems easier to just try and shame her (which isn't gonna work).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 12:43 PM, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I love the false dichotomy of labor vs environmental regs

What false dichotomy? I don’t like her fatalism, but she’s not wrong: labor has broadly resisted environmentalism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chris- said:

What false dichotomy? I don’t like her fatalism, but she’s not wrong: labor has broadly resisted environmentalism. 

This is only true if you severely restrict who and what labor is. It's also a framing that allows centrists and right wingers to cynically avoid talking about dealing with the issue at hand: climate change.

 

(This is also why the transition from carbon needs to have healthcare, good job replacements, and pension protection for not only those whose livelihood will be directly impacted by the transition, but others, too)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait for Obama 2012-2014 redux. No climate bill (of any kind), no voting rights bill, and certainly no increase in support for those on Obamacare exchanges let alone M4A.

 

 

Every democratic candidate for president just got neutered on policy, even Joe or Pete or Amy. There is no significant bill that will get through the Senate, and I'd be shocked if they can so much as fill their cabinet or confirm a judge. Mitch will do what Chuck will not do: grind the Senate to a halt to undermine new administration

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...