1100
Pardon me for not finding “vulnerable people need to die for my ideology” very convincing.
(mbin.grits.dev)
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
1100 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
6843 readers
1399 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
Bare minimum vote for them and get your friends and family involved in politics as well. I'm doing that as well as donating and doing social media outreach.
Because we need momentum, we get 5% this year, maybe 10% in 2028. If we instead vote for Dems we will gain nothing.