It hasn’t though. Dems aren’t Communists, but they’ve moved slowly toward the left over decades.
Even if strategy A is a total failure, that’s no indication that strategy B will succeed just because it isn’t strategy A. That’s a ridiculous conclusion. It’s like saying “Bloodletting didn’t cure my cancer, therefore healing crystals will!”.
they’ve moved slowly toward the left over decades.
Absolutely false. Dems have moved to the right for decades since Clinton’s attacks on the working class with NAFTA. Obama called himself a moderate republican and governed like it. Read “Listen, Liberal” by Thomas Frank for a detailed description of this.
Even if strategy A is a total failure, that’s no indication that strategy B will succeed just because it isn’t strategy A
Then try it and see, that’s how it works. Instead you want to consent to the Democratic party’s right wing policies without getting any concession for your vote. ___
Dems have moved to the right for decades since Clinton’s attacks on the working class with NAFTA. Obama called himself a moderate republican and governed like it.
So your assertion is that the arc Clinton -> Obama -> Biden represents an increasing rightward shift in the party, is it?
Do you know what would have happened to a self-described socialist who tried to get the nomination in 1996, or a Palestinian congresswoman who talked about “From the river to the sea” in 2008?
Read “Listen, Liberal” by Thomas Frank for a detailed description of this.
I genuinely started looking for this, because I was curious what it had to say, but then I reread how you summarized it and concluded I probably don’t need to.
So your assertion is that the arc Clinton -> Obama -> Biden represents an increasing rightward shift in the party, is it?
That is factual. Income and wealth inequality and all legislation allowing it proves me right.
Do you know what would have happened to a self-described socialist who tried to get the nomination in 1996, or a Palestinian congresswoman who talked about “From the river to the sea” in 2008?
Do you know what would happen to Biden if he went back in time and ran in the 1930’s? The workers would riot.
I genuinely started looking for this, because I was curious what it had to say, but then I reread how you summarized it and concluded I probably don’t need to.
It is a book written by a liberal like you who actually researched the Democratic party abandoning workers. You refuse to read it because it would hurt your feelings to know you’re wrong.
This, was the clearest single chart I could find that can encapsulate the extremely complex topic of income inequality in a succinct way.
Notice the Reaganesque skyrocket in inequality that continued under Clinton, and then its flatness under Obama. Of course, having the chart end in 2014 means it’s tough to use it to say anything about Biden, but I do know that wages at the 10th percentile were rising very substantially, even outpacing historic inflation, during the first few years of Biden’s presidency, as income at the 90th percentile was actually dropping somewhat as inflation ate up their gains.
What numbers are you looking at that are saying that Clinton was best on inequality, then Obama after him, and Biden was worst? To me it looks like 100% the exact opposite.
Cherry picked chart, also wealth inequality is more important. You misunderstood my previous comment, Clinton was not good on inequality, it was the opposite. He started the trend of abandoning workers with NAFTA and it’s gotten worse ever since. It was the Dems before him that were decent. Those Dems are long gone now.
Look at what you’re trying to celebrate with that article:
Bunny White, 65, is a cashier at pro sports stadiums in New Orleans. She was part of a movement at her workplace to form a union, and they secured their first contract in early April. The result? Her pay will go from $12.50 an hour to $16 an hour, she said.
To help pay her bills, she has a second job at a private catering company and also occasionally drives for Uber or Lyft, or delivers meals for DoorDash. Now, she said, she has more flexibility to take time off.
Living paycheck to paycheck still, no future for them, even stating they would need more raises to have savings. All of this is irrelevant considering how bad wealth inequality is.
It’s getting worse because of the Dems shift to neoliberalism, there is no counter to Republicans economic policy. Only way to stop it is to not vote for them and instead express democracy and vote for a candidate that has decent economic policy.
Clinton was not good on inequality, it was the opposite. He started the trend of abandoning workers with NAFTA
Yes, 100%. This part I agree with; Clinton was very bad.
and it’s gotten worse ever since
This part I also agree with.
You spent a long time restating your claim that the Democrats are responsible for all of that and that the trend is accelerating with successive Democrats, neither of which I agree with, and I already laid out some data to say why. Did you have some kind of data or something to back up the argument?
(I saw your chart… it’s hard to draw too many conclusions from just 3 data points on the X axis but it looks to me like what it shows is what I said: Inequality got massively worse under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 1 and 2, and then tapered off although still getting worse under Obama, and nothing is shown after that. I.e. I’m not sold that that chart means that Democrats are the ones doing it.)
Like you said income and wealth inequality is a complicated topic, the link I posted has several graphs and statistics, and from looking around most studies show wealth inequality is getting worse. It’s not entirely the Dems fault, I’m saying they’re not doing enough to oppose the Republicans and that having an competitor like the Green party start to grow in support would push the Dems to do more about it
Yeah, we tried that, in 2016. We saw: Trump won, stacked the courts, dismantled public services, rolled back taxes on billionaires and shifted the tax burden onto the working class, dismantled pandemic watchdog labs which directly lead to the pandemic, and that’s just scratching the surface. How did Dems respond? Biden.
We tried it, we saw, it was an abject failure that played right into the hands of the far right. You’re either politically illiterate, or a bad faith actor trying to make the country mask-off fascist by splitting the left
We tried it, we saw, it was an abject failure that played right into the hands of the far right. You’re either politically illiterate, or a bad faith actor trying to make the country mask-off fascist by splitting the left
No, we didn’t. A pathetic attempt to vote for Bernie in primaries and then have him tell everyone to vote Clinton is not trying. Had he told us to vote for Greens it would be different. You’re coping so hard to support Dems.
Your strategy has consistently failed. You’re too stupid to realize that or you are working for the Dems.
Alright dude, keep shilling for the far right. That is what you’re doing, whether you’re doing it on purpose or because you’ve fallen for the propaganda. Your strategy failed and we’re all worse of for it. If you keep advocating the same strategy that’s sure to fail, then you’re just a pawn for the fascists. I don’t really care whether you’re a fool or malicious, I’m done with this brainless nonsense.
Alright dude, keep shilling for the far right. That is what you’re doing, whether you’re doing it on purpose or because you’ve fallen for the propaganda
Oh the delicious irony.
Your strategy failed and we’re all worse of for it.
Just proved you wrong with a pdf, you know real life data in reality. Once Greens get 10% we can say we tried my strategy.
There’s only one thing we know for sure, your strategy has consistently failed to oppose the Republicans, and you still support it.
Dems are fascist capitalists so that’s you, not me. I’m the one that understands the basic definition of democracy and will express it by voting for someone I agree with.
Are you smoking crack? Dems are a lot of unsavory things, but if you’re suggesting they’re equal to Republicans on the fascism scale you’re either unbelievably idiotic or a bad faith actor. The longer you talk the more you seem like the latter, so these responses aren’t even for you; they’re for the onlookers who might be confused enough to think your argument makes sense.
Leftists: this person is either an idiot who doesn’t understand US elections, or is deliberately trying to help the far right. DO NOT vote third party in the general election, the only thing that accomplishes is splitting the vote on the left which actively helps the right. All this “Vote your conscience! Show Genocide Joe you won’t support him!” rhetoric is designed to confuse you so Republicans win the general election. They are actively making the country worse for women, minorities, and the working class, don’t let these trolls equivocate “Not progressive enough” and “Actively evil”.
The Dems aren’t great but the Republicans are orders of magnitude worse across the board. There are many ways to support third parties and progressive candidates in order to benefit the left, voting third party in the general election is NOT one of them, and only HURTS leftists. Project 2025 is not a joke, if Republicans win this November we may not have another fair election again.
It hasn’t though. Dems aren’t Communists, but they’ve moved slowly toward the left over decades.
Even if strategy A is a total failure, that’s no indication that strategy B will succeed just because it isn’t strategy A. That’s a ridiculous conclusion. It’s like saying “Bloodletting didn’t cure my cancer, therefore healing crystals will!”.
Absolutely false. Dems have moved to the right for decades since Clinton’s attacks on the working class with NAFTA. Obama called himself a moderate republican and governed like it. Read “Listen, Liberal” by Thomas Frank for a detailed description of this.
Then try it and see, that’s how it works. Instead you want to consent to the Democratic party’s right wing policies without getting any concession for your vote. ___
So your assertion is that the arc Clinton -> Obama -> Biden represents an increasing rightward shift in the party, is it?
Do you know what would have happened to a self-described socialist who tried to get the nomination in 1996, or a Palestinian congresswoman who talked about “From the river to the sea” in 2008?
I genuinely started looking for this, because I was curious what it had to say, but then I reread how you summarized it and concluded I probably don’t need to.
That is factual. Income and wealth inequality and all legislation allowing it proves me right.
Do you know what would happen to Biden if he went back in time and ran in the 1930’s? The workers would riot.
It is a book written by a liberal like you who actually researched the Democratic party abandoning workers. You refuse to read it because it would hurt your feelings to know you’re wrong.
This, was the clearest single chart I could find that can encapsulate the extremely complex topic of income inequality in a succinct way.
Notice the Reaganesque skyrocket in inequality that continued under Clinton, and then its flatness under Obama. Of course, having the chart end in 2014 means it’s tough to use it to say anything about Biden, but I do know that wages at the 10th percentile were rising very substantially, even outpacing historic inflation, during the first few years of Biden’s presidency, as income at the 90th percentile was actually dropping somewhat as inflation ate up their gains.
What numbers are you looking at that are saying that Clinton was best on inequality, then Obama after him, and Biden was worst? To me it looks like 100% the exact opposite.
Cherry picked chart, also wealth inequality is more important. You misunderstood my previous comment, Clinton was not good on inequality, it was the opposite. He started the trend of abandoning workers with NAFTA and it’s gotten worse ever since. It was the Dems before him that were decent. Those Dems are long gone now.
Look at what you’re trying to celebrate with that article:
Living paycheck to paycheck still, no future for them, even stating they would need more raises to have savings. All of this is irrelevant considering how bad wealth inequality is.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/charts-that-explain-wealth-inequality-in-the-united-states/
It’s getting worse because of the Dems shift to neoliberalism, there is no counter to Republicans economic policy. Only way to stop it is to not vote for them and instead express democracy and vote for a candidate that has decent economic policy.
Yes, 100%. This part I agree with; Clinton was very bad.
This part I also agree with.
You spent a long time restating your claim that the Democrats are responsible for all of that and that the trend is accelerating with successive Democrats, neither of which I agree with, and I already laid out some data to say why. Did you have some kind of data or something to back up the argument?
(I saw your chart… it’s hard to draw too many conclusions from just 3 data points on the X axis but it looks to me like what it shows is what I said: Inequality got massively worse under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 1 and 2, and then tapered off although still getting worse under Obama, and nothing is shown after that. I.e. I’m not sold that that chart means that Democrats are the ones doing it.)
Like you said income and wealth inequality is a complicated topic, the link I posted has several graphs and statistics, and from looking around most studies show wealth inequality is getting worse. It’s not entirely the Dems fault, I’m saying they’re not doing enough to oppose the Republicans and that having an competitor like the Green party start to grow in support would push the Dems to do more about it
Sounds great. I like the idea. How can I help the Greens become a more serious contender in the future?
Also, how does risking Trump winning the general election in November assist in that effort in any way?
Yeah, we tried that, in 2016. We saw: Trump won, stacked the courts, dismantled public services, rolled back taxes on billionaires and shifted the tax burden onto the working class, dismantled pandemic watchdog labs which directly lead to the pandemic, and that’s just scratching the surface. How did Dems respond? Biden.
We tried it, we saw, it was an abject failure that played right into the hands of the far right. You’re either politically illiterate, or a bad faith actor trying to make the country mask-off fascist by splitting the left
False. The Libertarians got over 3x the votes of the Greens. We didn’t try anything lol https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/federalelections2016.pdf
No, we didn’t. A pathetic attempt to vote for Bernie in primaries and then have him tell everyone to vote Clinton is not trying. Had he told us to vote for Greens it would be different. You’re coping so hard to support Dems.
Your strategy has consistently failed. You’re too stupid to realize that or you are working for the Dems.
Alright dude, keep shilling for the far right. That is what you’re doing, whether you’re doing it on purpose or because you’ve fallen for the propaganda. Your strategy failed and we’re all worse of for it. If you keep advocating the same strategy that’s sure to fail, then you’re just a pawn for the fascists. I don’t really care whether you’re a fool or malicious, I’m done with this brainless nonsense.
Oh the delicious irony.
Just proved you wrong with a pdf, you know real life data in reality. Once Greens get 10% we can say we tried my strategy.
There’s only one thing we know for sure, your strategy has consistently failed to oppose the Republicans, and you still support it.
Dems are fascist capitalists so that’s you, not me. I’m the one that understands the basic definition of democracy and will express it by voting for someone I agree with.
Are you smoking crack? Dems are a lot of unsavory things, but if you’re suggesting they’re equal to Republicans on the fascism scale you’re either unbelievably idiotic or a bad faith actor. The longer you talk the more you seem like the latter, so these responses aren’t even for you; they’re for the onlookers who might be confused enough to think your argument makes sense.
Leftists: this person is either an idiot who doesn’t understand US elections, or is deliberately trying to help the far right. DO NOT vote third party in the general election, the only thing that accomplishes is splitting the vote on the left which actively helps the right. All this “Vote your conscience! Show Genocide Joe you won’t support him!” rhetoric is designed to confuse you so Republicans win the general election. They are actively making the country worse for women, minorities, and the working class, don’t let these trolls equivocate “Not progressive enough” and “Actively evil”.
The Dems aren’t great but the Republicans are orders of magnitude worse across the board. There are many ways to support third parties and progressive candidates in order to benefit the left, voting third party in the general election is NOT one of them, and only HURTS leftists. Project 2025 is not a joke, if Republicans win this November we may not have another fair election again.