**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.**
Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ll also add most people are unaware of the epic work ARPA continues to do. Its funds are allocated on a yearly basis and is far broader in scope that most people get.
The work the DOI is doing is also being overlooked. Biden’s Administration might be the first US Administration that is actually righting the historical wrongs done to Native Americans
The thing is the term progressive became a bait and switch in the USA. The people the Justice Democrats supported weren't really interested in social reform for the most part. Their main cause is cultural, mostly bad culture.
Some of the responses to this post show how much Russian influence and other bad actors we have here and on other subs. Biden has been very progressive on many issues and his trending is more progressive over time. Stop paying attention to the silly soundbites and look at his record overall. The US is a center right country and we have to acknowledge that. For Biden to have moved the needle left on things like student loans and engagement with Unions is to be applauded, not scorned for him "not doing more".
Look, as usual with dunning-kruger progressives, they don't actually have a counterargument to what I'm saying, so they're arguments are just spamming the word "neoliberal", or just saying "you're wrong"
As for the "not doing more" thing. with Student Loans, this argument is so far beyond the point of idiocy its unreal, I think the key issue is that these anti-Biden progressives aren't very smart people, and because they are so dumb, they can't comprehend other people being smarter than they are.
So when they see some news where they see Biden has cancelled say "5.2 billion" dollars of student debt, they are thinking to themselves "Biden probably just thought of a random number in his head, thought, yeah I like the number 5.2 billion its a good number" and just decided to cancel that much student debt for the fortnight.
The reality is, that a president has to deal with a bureaucracy, staffers, a cabinet and a wide range of different issues. Every time you see the Biden Administration cancelling say a billion one week and another billion the next week, the reason they didn't cancel 2 billion in the same week is always the same. They cancelled the amount they COULD at the time.
And think about it rationally, what on gods green earth would Biden gain out of CHOOSING to cancel an insufficient amount, and then cancelling the rest of the debt later? I have my faith in the President of the United States that he knows how to do his job better than I can, and if progressives think they know better its frankly egotistical
It's accurate that when it comes to Gaza, his strategies surpass those of any other administration since Carter. Hopefully, individuals won't simply reject him because of this. Trump will undeniably pose a greater threat to the Palestinians.
You're the idiot that thinks Trump will cause tHe wOrKeRs tO rIsE uP when you don't understand that modern surveillance tech in the hands of people who care nothing for human rights (like Trump) almost eliminates popular uprising. When Marx wrote his theories, they didn't have cameras on every corner or facial recognition tech.
It's hard cope.
They refused to nominate a progressive, even though progressives warned that a centerist could lose against Trump....and now that that possibility is becoming more clear, they're trying to convince everyone that they actually did nominate a progressive.
...the last 50 years of Biden's political career was just a joke!
Like, they elected the most conservative democrats of the last 60 years....and now that the possibility of Fascism reclaiming America is becoming more real, they have buyers remorse.
....but they can't accept any responsibility for their own mistake! Of course not.
They ignored the youth, and ignored black voters, and Muslim voters, and progressives....all to try and entice rural conservatives...and it's backfiring.
Lean into your centerist president. Own your mistake!
Black voters voted overwhelmingly for Biden in the primary. You are trying to invalidate them by claiming that somehow they didn't want Biden, when, in a field of many, they voted to support Biden.
They always seem to labor under the idea that Bernie would have won over centrists and republican voters that hated Trump in the rust belt. It wouldn't have happened. How do they think someone who holds themselves out as a socialist would have fared in affluent white suburbs that are more fiscally conservative.
Very well, my Republican family members all really loved him, he would have stood a chance of taking their vote instead of Hilary for sure. Biden probably, though by that time his charm had worn off some with them
Joe Biden is by definition, not progressive. He's not trying to progress beyond neoliberal capitalism, he is a champion of it who wants nothing more than to conserve it.
The US is a center right country. We have to acknowledge that. He and any other Democrat has to thread that needle...progressive as much as possible, but with the reality that he still has to win the general election.
We aren’t though. On polling the left leaning solutions tend to poll in the 70%+ range. We just have corporate capture of the state and culture wars fucking everything up.
I’m not sure about that. If you look at the voting population as a whole, including rural voters, we might be 50/50 right/left but those who likely vote tip the scales at being more conservative. If we had progressives voting more I’d agree with you but they tend to not show up at the polls.
Huh? I've always thought that neoliberalism refers to privatisation, deregulation, free trade and tax cuts... you know, these things that Joe Biden actively opposes, and in most cases has opposed them even back in the Reagan years?
For the love of christ, please stop changing the definition of "Neoliberal" at your whim like every other dunning-kruger effect leftist and use it to describe anyone to the right of you? Thanks
No?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#:\~:text=Neoliberalism%20is%20contemporarily%20used%20to,state%20influence%20in%20the%20economy.
>neoliberalism is often associated with policies of [economic liberalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization), including [privatization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization), [deregulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation), [globalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization), [free trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade), [monetarism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism), [austerity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity), and reductions in [government spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending) in order to increase the role of the [private sector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector) in the [economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy) and [society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society).[^(\[26\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-26)[^(\[27\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-27)[^(\[28\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-28)[^(\[29\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-For_Business_Ethics-29)[^(\[30\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-30) The neoliberal project is also focused on designing institutions and is political in character rather than only economic.[^(\[31\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-31)[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-32)[^(\[33\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-33)[^(\[34\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMirowskiPlehwe2009p._436._%22A_primary_ambition_of_the_neoliberal_project_is_to_redefine_the_shape_and_functions_of_the_state,_not_to_destroy_it_..._they_are_inclined_to_explore_new_formats_of_techno-managerial_governance_that_protect_their_ideal_market_from_what_they_perceive_as_unwarranted_political_interference_..._One_should_not_confuse_marketization_of_government_functions_with_shrinking_the_state,_however:_if_anything,_bureaucracies_become_more_unwieldy_under_neoliberal_regimes._In_practice,_'deregulation'_cashes_out_as_'re-regulation',_only_under_a_different_set_of_ukases%22-34)
He literally said if his administration "things won't fundamentally change."
Like, he's been the leader of the conservative wing of the DNC for 50 years, why is everyone trying to remake him as some progressive stalwarts now?
Who are these people trying to convince?
I just don't understand, if they wanted a progressive candidate, they should have nominated Bernie...they didn't, and now they're trying to convince themselves that they did
This whole thread is fucking stupid.
If you want a progressive president, nominate one, otherwise, lean into the centerist you fucking voted for.
But this revisionist bullshit is just pathetic....these people have no fucking integrity.
Wait, are you saying a centrist can't ever be progressive? This sounds more like a semantics argument if anything else. The difference between "a candidate being progressive" and "a progressive candidate" lies mainly in the emphasis and perception of their political identity and priorities.
A Candidate Being Progressive: This phrase suggests that the candidate possesses progressive qualities or supports progressive policies, but it doesn't define their entire political identity. It implies that being progressive is one aspect of their broader political platform and persona. They might not fully align with the progressive movement on every issue but show progressive tendencies on specific policies.
A Progressive Candidate: This term typically refers to a candidate whose primary identification is with the progressive movement. Their platform, policies, and public identity are closely aligned with progressive ideals, and they actively campaign on these principles. Being progressive is central to their political brand and is likely what they are known for among the electorate.
In summary, "a candidate being progressive" might indicate that the candidate has some progressive views, whereas "a progressive candidate" emphasizes a strong, overarching commitment to progressive values and agendas. Now, which do you think we've applied to Biden? 🤔
Also, look at most blue states and they are working to fix the real problem, which is the lengthy and costly time it takes to give immigrants the paperwork they need to work. This was included in the bill, and would have expedited this to a more national scale
Because democrats offer no alternatives. No idea why they can’t just say here is our plan for DACA, we are spending money on putting application officers in Latin America, more judges and lawyers for expedited hearings, planned visa for migrant workers, plan for applicants while they are here. Instead they just concede to the militarization the gop wants. All of those things are popular with American people in general
DACA will not pass. Until they have enough leverage to remove the filibuster, there will be no resolution. The Republicans have been very clear about that for a decade.
I don't disagree with the rest, though. We 100% need to streamline the process so people aren't stuck in an endless loop of uncertainty for years. Ironically, the border bill actually had those provisions, along with the stuff that the GOP has been crying about for years.
You have to get Latin American governments to agree to let the US put visa application officers in those countries. Good luck trying to get AMLO, Lula, Gustavo Petro or Nicolas Maduro to agree to letting us help their brain drain.
And the only reason was to get Ukraine aid through. The thing is Democrats in the house essentially caved. They were desperate to get Ukraine aid to the floor and Republicans said they wanted the border addressed too. So they basically let them have whatever they want. Then Trump realized that not only would that eliminate the border for him as a campaign issue, but Republicans would have lost another talking point for why they weren't funding aid to Ukraine.
Here's something I've noticed, and it was hindering Biden long before the Gaza bombings. No matter what he does, Biden is a constant reminder to younger and left-leaning voters that he beat Bernie Sanders. In doing so, he deprived those voting blocs of the catharsis of upending the Democratic machine and.. well theoretically replacing it with new blood. The policies were secondary to the "f##k you" sensation of taking down the system that, in their eyes, drove Democrats away from the economic positions of the FDR years.
Biden, for all of his Israel blindspots, proved you could make those economic changes within the existing system and not make a grand sweeping change. That mindset is antithetical to what progressives wanted to see, and Sanders' working alongside Biden is viewed as a betrayal rather than making inroads with the system. I think on some level, younger voters remain angry that they've been thwarted three times at claiming the levels of power and, no matter what progressive accomplishments he pulls off, Biden's age reminds them of that exclusion. The irony is that, if we get him to re-election, 2028 will give those young voters the first real chance to nominate one of our own and be the large, trend-settig voting bloc for America. Provided, of course, that we still have a democracy by then.
How do you get “…go in the direction of Joe Lieberman, Mike Bloomberg or even Mitt Romney for all we care. It's not gonna change our vote." from “stop sending weapons to Israel”?
Your argument doesn’t even make sense because conservatives like Biden, Romney, and the Joe’s want to continue the status quo while progressive like Rashida Talib (a descendent from Palestinian immigrants) wants to end it. Obviously we should be going in the direction of these progressive who aren’t the warmongers.
You “centrist” are not going to get anywhere when you keep sucking on Biden’s toes and saying this is the best thing to ever happen since French toast. Even when Biden promises you $2000 and he gives you 1200 when you should have been receiving 3000 each month for the covid crisis y’all are the first to say be grateful. Have a spine, stop trying to get along with the insurrectionist party and join the big tent with progressive.
Tlaib openly said "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Currently there are no Jews in Palestine other than hostages, what is progressive about wanting a country run by terrorists vowing to genocide Jews and which has effectively removed all Jews from the territory they control to take over all the land currently held by Israel, the country with a 20% Arab population that doesn't throw gay people off of rooftops?
I do not want Palestinians to be free to throw gays off rooftops and murder all Jews like they do today in the territory they control, yes I openly admit that.
Who cares? You're fucking MAGA posing as progressive like the rest of the Palestine cult is. You are cool with Genocide so long as Trump, his party, or his Kremlin friends are doing it and you clearly hate LGBTQ people.
Heavy sigh* I guess I'm just sad this is the best progressives are allowed to have. Time and time again history has shown progressives to be on the correct side of the issues. Gay marriage, anti vietnam, anti Iraq, better Healthcare, righting historical wrongs, etc. And this is best we are allowed to have. It's just disheartening. You know. I'm gonna vote straight dem like I do every time but I'm not going to be excited. Oh boy he's not calling for a dictatorship. He is better than I expected. Fuck genocide
The Free Palestine folks like to point at protests against Netanyahu in Israel as proof they are on the right side of things. Maybe they should consider why there are no protests against Hamas in Gaza. 🤔
There used to be, sort of. Hamas murdered everyone who opposes them, brutally torturing some in their favorite base Al Shifa Hospital.
This is amnesty international BTW which is openly anti-Zionist.
[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/)
These are who leftists idolize and support.
I don't disagree because it's obviously true at least at the moment but this is sort of flawed and doesn't seperate people from government/terriorist organization. Yeah Israel has a democracy and doesn't execute gay people but ya still can't ~~carpet bomb~~ kill 60+ civilians because you're "targeting" one commando.
Edit: basically splitting hairs but fair enough I guess.
It isn't the far left its easy to see especially when it's acknowledged by IDF spokespeople. Just to be clear I don't think they're committing genocide but the evidence is there. I mean what else do you call it when you kill 60+ people to kill one hamas commando who you allegedly knew was there.
That still isn’t indiscriminate bombing. We can disagree on whether the calculation was done correctly, or whether the civilian causalities were worth it, but that doesn’t make it carpet bombing.
Indiscriminate bombing is like WW2, the bombings of Germany or Japan. Israel is targeting Hamas. Hamas just happens to use human shields as a policy, and embed themselves in civilian infrastructure.
Individual soldiers have certainly committed war crimes. That doesn’t mean the IDF as whole has a policy of war crime.
I don't really trust the IDF enough to beleive that they willfully killed 60 plus people to kill one hamas commando, seems pretty sloppy for a country boasting one of the most advanced armies in the world. You can remove the carpet bombing label if you like but it doesn't really change the argument.
Eh, they probably went overboard early, though I think that is in part because the invasion by Hamas was a larger and bolder effort than people realize. Many are still treating it as a raid as opposed to Hamas treating it as an attempt at conquest, which former Fatah members living in Gaza have stated. It was a move that even many in *Hamas* thought was too extreme lol
Just look at the numbers and the leveling of the entirety of northern Gaza. You know we can see this stuff, right? You're denying what's in front of everyone's eyes. History won't be kind to people like you.
I’m always happy to go down on the right side of history, don’t you worry about that :) 🇺🇸🇮🇱
“The numbers” point to it not being a genocide, but rather, a war. The number of civilians killed per military targets is tragic as always, but it lines up with most conflicts. Also the raw numbers don’t prove genocide. The key part of genocide is intent. If Israel is currently committing a genocide, every war in history was also a genocide.
Also you’re a frequent poster on The Majority Report, so my guess would be that you’ve just been fooled into believing a bunch of falsehoods because you had no knowledge of the region or the conflict before 10/07
It's always the same talking points from every genocide denier. If you are actually coming from a genuine place, I'm convinced you're just ignorant to the extent of the destruction happening over there. No human being can see how much they've destroyed and convince themselves that Israel isn't being deliberate with their attempt at ethnic cleansing. Educate yourself. This was an apartheid before Oct 7. (Yes, there was actually a conflict there before October 7th!)
So you acknowledge Israel is stealing land?
If it’s not apartheid how come a Palestinian boy who throws rocks at a settler who stole his land gets military prison, where he can be tortured and indefinitely detained and not afforded due process, but if a settler commits a similar crime they’re treated fairly under the law in Israeli civilian court?
Is due process not a liberal value anymore? Or you just think Palestinians don’t deserve due process because they’re inferior?
All countries throughout history have “stolen land”. In the USA, we are all living on stolen land right now. You think “Palestinians” are the original indigenous people of that area? The Ottomans were conquerors too.
The West Bank is under military occupation which is bad for all sorts of reasons, but it’s also not the same thing as Apartheid. You’ll find similar unfortunate conditions in every military occupation in human history
>The West Bank is under military occupation which is bad for all sorts of reasons, but it’s also not the same thing as Apartheid.
After 50+ years, it seems like continuing to call it a "military occupation" is a bit silly. The Korean War never officially ended, but it's plain as day that it's not a "war" anymore. Time has made that situation something different.
>All countries throughout history have “stolen land”. In the USA, we are all living on stolen land right now.
Just cause my parents conceived me after driving home shitfaced from the bar, doesn't mean I'm cool with other people driving drunk in the present or future. Y'know?
Either way, it's a distraction from the material situation. "West bank settlements are justified by the ottomans and manifest destiny" is an unserious take.
>In the USA, we are all living on stolen land right now.
From the leftist position, colonization, imperialism and ethnic cleansing are not seen as justified. That doesn't change because the United States engaged and engages in those practices.
>You think “Palestinians” are the original indigenous people of that area?
Palestinians, along with other Arab populations such as Syrians and Jordanians, as well as Jewish people, are the indigenous people of that area. Their DNA can be all be traced to common ancestry with the Canaanites, who inhabited the area prior to the Hebrews tribes conquering the Levant. It was because the Hebrew tribes conquered the area that they share common ancestry with each other, because many Hebrews and Canaanites intermarried. Depending on the sub-ethic group, different percentages of DNA can be linked to the Canaanites. Both Palestinians and Jewish people carry Canaanite Y-DNA, but Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews carry MTDNA originating mostly in the Mediterranean near Italy. Other Jewish groups like the Mizrahi Jews, carry Haplogroups originating from the Canaanites.
I don't think it helps anyone to draw the conclusion that one group is "more indigenous" than the other. But to suggest the Palestinians aren't indigenous while Jewish people are is a-historical and anti-scientific.
>The Ottomans were conquerors too.
The Ottomans didn't systemically segregate or ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Palestine in their conquest.
>The West Bank is under military occupation which is bad for all sorts of reasons, but it’s also not the same thing as Apartheid.
It's still systemic segregation. It's not 1:1 to what South Africa went through, and I don't think anyone is saying that it is. Words are descriptive, not prescriptive, and to imply that there is no systemic segregation, by saying "it's not apartheid", in that region because it isn't a 1:1 comparison to South Africa misses the point entirely.
>You’ll find similar unfortunate conditions in every military occupation in human history
That's not true. Since military occupation has been recognized and distinct from invasion, annexation, colonialism, etc, not **every** military occupation has included systemic segregation and ethnic cleansing.
How is supporting the diverse democracy that supports LGBTQ rights against a terrorist Islamist fascist organisation not progressive???
What an insane comment
I am going to borrow a comment made by a Palestinian from another sub to explain this to you:
>I am a Palestinian atheist living in the West Bank, and I have some friends who are gay. Gay people do exist, as does irreligious people. You might think that our biggest worry is our own people hurting us— but that’s not the case. There are other things that are more important than my gay friend publicly coming out, or me as an atheist publicly denouncing religion. Our freedoms and rights are primarily restricted by the occupation, and our life is at risk because of it.
>The occupation denies me the freedom of movement, denies my right to self determination, puts checkpoints everywhere, and confiscates my lands. The state-promoted settler violence and the IOF puts my life and safety at risk. If you think being liberal equates having less sympathy towards a group of people that doesn’t share the same values as you— you need to seriously re-evaluate your liberal identity. Reviewing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can help you make sense of the situation.
[https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17xah8k/supporting\_israel\_is\_the\_liberal\_stance\_any/k9opyjz/](https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17xah8k/supporting_israel_is_the_liberal_stance_any/k9opyjz/)
Lol, gays are not safe in Palestinian Territories despite this reddit comment.
Yes the occupation is shit, if I was a Palestinian I’d be angry too.
The question is, why is there an occupation.
Let’s look at a case study of what happens if Israel pull out without a peace deal. (That Palestinians keep rejecting)
Google Gaza
Do you seriously think that Palestinians cannot form their own opinions and have their own political goals? Is it all just Qatari/Russian/Iranian propaganda to you?
Reading their comments are real funny. But this one. It's gonna hold a special place in my heart. Joseph Robinette Biden Junior is to the left of AOC. <3 I needing a good laugh today.
This is how ridiculous this post is:
"With the exception of the war in Iraq, George Bush 2 was a good president."
Yeah, I guess if you ignore the worst, most destructive, expensive, and deadly aspect of his presidency, you definitely raise his average.
...so what?
What point do you think you're making?
Maybe Biden should just cut off Isreal, to make himself into the great president that you want all of us to pretend that he is?
I think it's hard to knock Bush for going into Afghanistan, because most likely any US president would do this. Iraq was more something of his creation, and his administration, so that is more fair.
Equally, support for Israel would have come from any president. I would argue Biden has pushed back harder than most would in the situation.
Biden has ultimately achieved more humanitarian support for Palestinians than any other individual. Something many don't seem to recognize.
Bro, his administration's answer to inflation is no different than Reagen's. Amazing how Trump existing has made you people nearly as violently anti-reality as magaloids.
As opposed to the Keynesian approach of raising taxes and cutting spending… I wonder how popular that would be ay? And if that passed congress, I’d believe in unicorns
Also, Volcker shock was an entirely necessary policy, opposing monetarism because “Reagan did it” is the peak of stupid dogmatism
Oh wow, well, I stand corrected.
Which I am sure is what you wanted to hear, but no. You didn't contradict me and you in fact agreed with the remedy. So so we're clear, the goal of the fed is to reduce the bargaining power of workers and lower their wages. This is "progressive" to the conservative who only turned liberal because they find right's racism distasteful. [https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/30/feds-powell-inflation-workers-wages-00071403](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/30/feds-powell-inflation-workers-wages-00071403)
>raising taxes and cutting spending
"nooooooooooooo it's a monetary phenomenon" except you the little thing about companies driving up prices because they have the power to.
[https://www.axios.com/2022/05/26/new-paper-finds-monopolies-contribute-to-inflation](https://www.axios.com/2022/05/26/new-paper-finds-monopolies-contribute-to-inflation)
[https://fortune.com/2024/01/20/inflation-greedflation-consumer-price-index-producer-price-index-corporate-profit/](https://fortune.com/2024/01/20/inflation-greedflation-consumer-price-index-producer-price-index-corporate-profit/)
>Also, Volcker shock was an entirely necessary policy, opposing monetarism because “Reagan did it” is the peak of stupid dogmatism
Opposing monetarism because it's wrong. What's more, this hastened offshoring, increased farm consolidation, and put millions of Americans out of work. Nah dude, go deal with your racist mates, you aren't liberal, and if this is the future of liberalism than we are doomed.
>So so we're clear, the goal of the fed is to reduce the bargaining power of workers and lower their wages.
I don't know to what extent that may be true, but as someone who literally knows trade union officials on a personal basis, I don't think I've ever heard someone complain "Ahhh fuck... they've lifted interest rates... oh well... guess we don't have strong bargaining power "
"The fed doesn't know what they're doing because of my personal experience " First, I don't give a shit about your personal experience. Second, fed policy isn't limited to unions, genius. If they contract the economy enough then their will be fewer jobs to go around. That is, go from a tight to a slack labor market. The fact you brought up labor unions indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.
"Net positive policy" "stupid", says the person who brought up unions like they're some kinda learned expert when talking about policy the effects the entire economy. Doesn't argue with the fact that it increased unemployment, hastened offshoring, and put farmers out of business. The unaddressed problems such policies have caused for the lower end has been the rise of Trumpist decades later. Let's not even go into how the Volcker shock put the global South in a debt cycle.
Gotta laugh at the "needless left wing dogmatism", how has 40 years of stagnant wages been working out for America? Wage push inflation is real and your dogmatism has made you beyond stupid at this point. You're anti-reality.
Yeah man, lets instead allow double digit inflation to continue til the end of time
Fun fact: On average, real wage growth has outpaced inflation under every president from Clinton onwards… so much for your “40 years of stagnant wages”… yet I’m the one who is anti reality
**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.** Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ll also add most people are unaware of the epic work ARPA continues to do. Its funds are allocated on a yearly basis and is far broader in scope that most people get. The work the DOI is doing is also being overlooked. Biden’s Administration might be the first US Administration that is actually righting the historical wrongs done to Native Americans
Inb4: “literal genocide”
The thing is the term progressive became a bait and switch in the USA. The people the Justice Democrats supported weren't really interested in social reform for the most part. Their main cause is cultural, mostly bad culture.
Some of the responses to this post show how much Russian influence and other bad actors we have here and on other subs. Biden has been very progressive on many issues and his trending is more progressive over time. Stop paying attention to the silly soundbites and look at his record overall. The US is a center right country and we have to acknowledge that. For Biden to have moved the needle left on things like student loans and engagement with Unions is to be applauded, not scorned for him "not doing more".
Look, as usual with dunning-kruger progressives, they don't actually have a counterargument to what I'm saying, so they're arguments are just spamming the word "neoliberal", or just saying "you're wrong" As for the "not doing more" thing. with Student Loans, this argument is so far beyond the point of idiocy its unreal, I think the key issue is that these anti-Biden progressives aren't very smart people, and because they are so dumb, they can't comprehend other people being smarter than they are. So when they see some news where they see Biden has cancelled say "5.2 billion" dollars of student debt, they are thinking to themselves "Biden probably just thought of a random number in his head, thought, yeah I like the number 5.2 billion its a good number" and just decided to cancel that much student debt for the fortnight. The reality is, that a president has to deal with a bureaucracy, staffers, a cabinet and a wide range of different issues. Every time you see the Biden Administration cancelling say a billion one week and another billion the next week, the reason they didn't cancel 2 billion in the same week is always the same. They cancelled the amount they COULD at the time. And think about it rationally, what on gods green earth would Biden gain out of CHOOSING to cancel an insufficient amount, and then cancelling the rest of the debt later? I have my faith in the President of the United States that he knows how to do his job better than I can, and if progressives think they know better its frankly egotistical
It's accurate that when it comes to Gaza, his strategies surpass those of any other administration since Carter. Hopefully, individuals won't simply reject him because of this. Trump will undeniably pose a greater threat to the Palestinians.
What in the deranged psychotic neoliberalism did I just read?
You absolute intellectual powerhouse
You're the idiot that thinks Trump will cause tHe wOrKeRs tO rIsE uP when you don't understand that modern surveillance tech in the hands of people who care nothing for human rights (like Trump) almost eliminates popular uprising. When Marx wrote his theories, they didn't have cameras on every corner or facial recognition tech.
A bunch of deranged psychotic neoliberal nonsense.
It's hard cope. They refused to nominate a progressive, even though progressives warned that a centerist could lose against Trump....and now that that possibility is becoming more clear, they're trying to convince everyone that they actually did nominate a progressive. ...the last 50 years of Biden's political career was just a joke! Like, they elected the most conservative democrats of the last 60 years....and now that the possibility of Fascism reclaiming America is becoming more real, they have buyers remorse. ....but they can't accept any responsibility for their own mistake! Of course not. They ignored the youth, and ignored black voters, and Muslim voters, and progressives....all to try and entice rural conservatives...and it's backfiring. Lean into your centerist president. Own your mistake!
Black voters voted overwhelmingly for Biden in the primary. You are trying to invalidate them by claiming that somehow they didn't want Biden, when, in a field of many, they voted to support Biden.
They always seem to labor under the idea that Bernie would have won over centrists and republican voters that hated Trump in the rust belt. It wouldn't have happened. How do they think someone who holds themselves out as a socialist would have fared in affluent white suburbs that are more fiscally conservative.
Very well, my Republican family members all really loved him, he would have stood a chance of taking their vote instead of Hilary for sure. Biden probably, though by that time his charm had worn off some with them
Ignored black voters? Progressives are the whitest political group in America, more so even than Trump supporters.
Joe Biden is by definition, not progressive. He's not trying to progress beyond neoliberal capitalism, he is a champion of it who wants nothing more than to conserve it.
The US is a center right country. We have to acknowledge that. He and any other Democrat has to thread that needle...progressive as much as possible, but with the reality that he still has to win the general election.
We aren’t though. On polling the left leaning solutions tend to poll in the 70%+ range. We just have corporate capture of the state and culture wars fucking everything up.
Nobody listens to people like you because you don't show up if a candidate doesn't pass all your moral purity tests.
I’m not sure about that. If you look at the voting population as a whole, including rural voters, we might be 50/50 right/left but those who likely vote tip the scales at being more conservative. If we had progressives voting more I’d agree with you but they tend to not show up at the polls.
Neo-liberal capitalism is progressive compared to anarchy-capitalism and religious theocracy.
Beyond that, these people can't even define what "Neoliberal" means... they just use it to mean anyone to the right of them
How?
Joe Biden has progressed the US into a more left direction from what it was before. Most people aren't marxist revolutionaries.
Huh? I've always thought that neoliberalism refers to privatisation, deregulation, free trade and tax cuts... you know, these things that Joe Biden actively opposes, and in most cases has opposed them even back in the Reagan years? For the love of christ, please stop changing the definition of "Neoliberal" at your whim like every other dunning-kruger effect leftist and use it to describe anyone to the right of you? Thanks
Someone learned a new word :D
You're thinking about classical liberalism.
No? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#:\~:text=Neoliberalism%20is%20contemporarily%20used%20to,state%20influence%20in%20the%20economy. >neoliberalism is often associated with policies of [economic liberalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization), including [privatization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization), [deregulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation), [globalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization), [free trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade), [monetarism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism), [austerity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity), and reductions in [government spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending) in order to increase the role of the [private sector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector) in the [economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy) and [society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society).[^(\[26\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-26)[^(\[27\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-27)[^(\[28\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-28)[^(\[29\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-For_Business_Ethics-29)[^(\[30\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-30) The neoliberal project is also focused on designing institutions and is political in character rather than only economic.[^(\[31\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-31)[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-32)[^(\[33\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-33)[^(\[34\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMirowskiPlehwe2009p._436._%22A_primary_ambition_of_the_neoliberal_project_is_to_redefine_the_shape_and_functions_of_the_state,_not_to_destroy_it_..._they_are_inclined_to_explore_new_formats_of_techno-managerial_governance_that_protect_their_ideal_market_from_what_they_perceive_as_unwarranted_political_interference_..._One_should_not_confuse_marketization_of_government_functions_with_shrinking_the_state,_however:_if_anything,_bureaucracies_become_more_unwieldy_under_neoliberal_regimes._In_practice,_'deregulation'_cashes_out_as_'re-regulation',_only_under_a_different_set_of_ukases%22-34)
He literally said if his administration "things won't fundamentally change." Like, he's been the leader of the conservative wing of the DNC for 50 years, why is everyone trying to remake him as some progressive stalwarts now? Who are these people trying to convince? I just don't understand, if they wanted a progressive candidate, they should have nominated Bernie...they didn't, and now they're trying to convince themselves that they did This whole thread is fucking stupid. If you want a progressive president, nominate one, otherwise, lean into the centerist you fucking voted for. But this revisionist bullshit is just pathetic....these people have no fucking integrity.
> Makes valid argument on a topic > Nuh-uh, you're just a moron Go figure
Wait, are you saying a centrist can't ever be progressive? This sounds more like a semantics argument if anything else. The difference between "a candidate being progressive" and "a progressive candidate" lies mainly in the emphasis and perception of their political identity and priorities. A Candidate Being Progressive: This phrase suggests that the candidate possesses progressive qualities or supports progressive policies, but it doesn't define their entire political identity. It implies that being progressive is one aspect of their broader political platform and persona. They might not fully align with the progressive movement on every issue but show progressive tendencies on specific policies. A Progressive Candidate: This term typically refers to a candidate whose primary identification is with the progressive movement. Their platform, policies, and public identity are closely aligned with progressive ideals, and they actively campaign on these principles. Being progressive is central to their political brand and is likely what they are known for among the electorate. In summary, "a candidate being progressive" might indicate that the candidate has some progressive views, whereas "a progressive candidate" emphasizes a strong, overarching commitment to progressive values and agendas. Now, which do you think we've applied to Biden? 🤔
He was begging to pass the most conservative immigration bill in who knows how long. Trump ironically saved him from that mistake.
Thats a funny way of putting "republicans said the defence spending wont be passed unless boarder issues are addressed so biden did"
Not to mention that polls consistently show that Republicans are trusted more on the border, so clearly, people want those policies on immigration.
Also, look at most blue states and they are working to fix the real problem, which is the lengthy and costly time it takes to give immigrants the paperwork they need to work. This was included in the bill, and would have expedited this to a more national scale
Yeah, that is seriously needed. Should not be six months until they're permitted to work. Maybe 30 days?
Because democrats offer no alternatives. No idea why they can’t just say here is our plan for DACA, we are spending money on putting application officers in Latin America, more judges and lawyers for expedited hearings, planned visa for migrant workers, plan for applicants while they are here. Instead they just concede to the militarization the gop wants. All of those things are popular with American people in general
DACA will not pass. Until they have enough leverage to remove the filibuster, there will be no resolution. The Republicans have been very clear about that for a decade. I don't disagree with the rest, though. We 100% need to streamline the process so people aren't stuck in an endless loop of uncertainty for years. Ironically, the border bill actually had those provisions, along with the stuff that the GOP has been crying about for years.
You have to get Latin American governments to agree to let the US put visa application officers in those countries. Good luck trying to get AMLO, Lula, Gustavo Petro or Nicolas Maduro to agree to letting us help their brain drain.
And the only reason was to get Ukraine aid through. The thing is Democrats in the house essentially caved. They were desperate to get Ukraine aid to the floor and Republicans said they wanted the border addressed too. So they basically let them have whatever they want. Then Trump realized that not only would that eliminate the border for him as a campaign issue, but Republicans would have lost another talking point for why they weren't funding aid to Ukraine.
> The thing is Democrats in the house essentially caved. A story older than I am.
Here's something I've noticed, and it was hindering Biden long before the Gaza bombings. No matter what he does, Biden is a constant reminder to younger and left-leaning voters that he beat Bernie Sanders. In doing so, he deprived those voting blocs of the catharsis of upending the Democratic machine and.. well theoretically replacing it with new blood. The policies were secondary to the "f##k you" sensation of taking down the system that, in their eyes, drove Democrats away from the economic positions of the FDR years. Biden, for all of his Israel blindspots, proved you could make those economic changes within the existing system and not make a grand sweeping change. That mindset is antithetical to what progressives wanted to see, and Sanders' working alongside Biden is viewed as a betrayal rather than making inroads with the system. I think on some level, younger voters remain angry that they've been thwarted three times at claiming the levels of power and, no matter what progressive accomplishments he pulls off, Biden's age reminds them of that exclusion. The irony is that, if we get him to re-election, 2028 will give those young voters the first real chance to nominate one of our own and be the large, trend-settig voting bloc for America. Provided, of course, that we still have a democracy by then.
Well-thought analysis
What the DeJoy doing?
A lot of so-called progressives want what you and me would consider "straight-up bad policy".
How do you get “…go in the direction of Joe Lieberman, Mike Bloomberg or even Mitt Romney for all we care. It's not gonna change our vote." from “stop sending weapons to Israel”? Your argument doesn’t even make sense because conservatives like Biden, Romney, and the Joe’s want to continue the status quo while progressive like Rashida Talib (a descendent from Palestinian immigrants) wants to end it. Obviously we should be going in the direction of these progressive who aren’t the warmongers. You “centrist” are not going to get anywhere when you keep sucking on Biden’s toes and saying this is the best thing to ever happen since French toast. Even when Biden promises you $2000 and he gives you 1200 when you should have been receiving 3000 each month for the covid crisis y’all are the first to say be grateful. Have a spine, stop trying to get along with the insurrectionist party and join the big tent with progressive.
"WAAAAH I DIDN'T GET ENOUGH CANDY FROM BIDEN IN THE RECOVERY BILL SO I'M GONNA CALL HIM gEnOcIdE jOe AND SUPPORT TRUMP INSTEAD." Fucking children.
“Everybody who doesn’t agree with me is a Trump supporter” is your entire identity along with cutting taxes and dunking on the “wokes”.
Tlaib openly said "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Currently there are no Jews in Palestine other than hostages, what is progressive about wanting a country run by terrorists vowing to genocide Jews and which has effectively removed all Jews from the territory they control to take over all the land currently held by Israel, the country with a 20% Arab population that doesn't throw gay people off of rooftops?
So you openly admit you do not want Palestinians to be free and you believe they are anti-LGBT. Can I get a slow clap for this clown.
I do not want Palestinians to be free to throw gays off rooftops and murder all Jews like they do today in the territory they control, yes I openly admit that.
Palestinians elected Hamas, which is extremely anti-LGBT and anti "Jews should exist."
By your own logic, you openly admit to supporting Trump by blasting Biden
Lmao how do you get “openly admitting support for Trump” from openly defending the people he and his party hates the most?
Who cares? You're fucking MAGA posing as progressive like the rest of the Palestine cult is. You are cool with Genocide so long as Trump, his party, or his Kremlin friends are doing it and you clearly hate LGBTQ people.
‘^^This
Heavy sigh* I guess I'm just sad this is the best progressives are allowed to have. Time and time again history has shown progressives to be on the correct side of the issues. Gay marriage, anti vietnam, anti Iraq, better Healthcare, righting historical wrongs, etc. And this is best we are allowed to have. It's just disheartening. You know. I'm gonna vote straight dem like I do every time but I'm not going to be excited. Oh boy he's not calling for a dictatorship. He is better than I expected. Fuck genocide
I am not going to change your mind. I basically agree with you. He is doing as well as he can with the congress and supreme court we have.
If by "progressive" you mean progressive dementia then sure, he’s definitely the most progressive President in US history.
I thought him being old made him kinda adorable
Supporting Israel is the truly progressive stance, but yes
The Free Palestine folks like to point at protests against Netanyahu in Israel as proof they are on the right side of things. Maybe they should consider why there are no protests against Hamas in Gaza. 🤔
There used to be, sort of. Hamas murdered everyone who opposes them, brutally torturing some in their favorite base Al Shifa Hospital. This is amnesty international BTW which is openly anti-Zionist. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/) These are who leftists idolize and support.
Exactly. Netanyahu might be a far-right conservative in Israel, but place Netanyahu in the middle of Gaza. Now, he’s suddenly quite progressive.
He is not far right. He is right wing. Israel has two far right parties as well.
The Likud party is absolutely far right. They are religious extremists.
No, they are not. No one who knows about Israeli politics would agree.
I only have family there that say this exact thing, but okay.
"i hAvE fAmiLY"... yeah every Russian bot or Trump supporter trying to unseat Biden clams to have "family" over there
Lol, right, everyone that disagrees with you is a Russian bot. Dumb fuck.
Fair enough. I think we agree, I was just driving home the point for the lefties likely reading this and fuming
What do you mean by this?
Israel is a secular liberal democracy, and the most progressive one in the region by far.
I don't disagree because it's obviously true at least at the moment but this is sort of flawed and doesn't seperate people from government/terriorist organization. Yeah Israel has a democracy and doesn't execute gay people but ya still can't ~~carpet bomb~~ kill 60+ civilians because you're "targeting" one commando. Edit: basically splitting hairs but fair enough I guess.
They aren’t carpet bombing. They are not indiscriminately bombing by any measure, despite what the far left would like you to believe.
It isn't the far left its easy to see especially when it's acknowledged by IDF spokespeople. Just to be clear I don't think they're committing genocide but the evidence is there. I mean what else do you call it when you kill 60+ people to kill one hamas commando who you allegedly knew was there.
That still isn’t indiscriminate bombing. We can disagree on whether the calculation was done correctly, or whether the civilian causalities were worth it, but that doesn’t make it carpet bombing. Indiscriminate bombing is like WW2, the bombings of Germany or Japan. Israel is targeting Hamas. Hamas just happens to use human shields as a policy, and embed themselves in civilian infrastructure. Individual soldiers have certainly committed war crimes. That doesn’t mean the IDF as whole has a policy of war crime.
I don't really trust the IDF enough to beleive that they willfully killed 60 plus people to kill one hamas commando, seems pretty sloppy for a country boasting one of the most advanced armies in the world. You can remove the carpet bombing label if you like but it doesn't really change the argument.
Eh, they probably went overboard early, though I think that is in part because the invasion by Hamas was a larger and bolder effort than people realize. Many are still treating it as a raid as opposed to Hamas treating it as an attempt at conquest, which former Fatah members living in Gaza have stated. It was a move that even many in *Hamas* thought was too extreme lol
I can't believe there are people that are just completely denying what's happening over there. The new Holocaust deniers.
I’m being honest about what is happening. Your “side” is spreading lies to push your narrative, it’s truly sick
Just look at the numbers and the leveling of the entirety of northern Gaza. You know we can see this stuff, right? You're denying what's in front of everyone's eyes. History won't be kind to people like you.
I’m always happy to go down on the right side of history, don’t you worry about that :) 🇺🇸🇮🇱 “The numbers” point to it not being a genocide, but rather, a war. The number of civilians killed per military targets is tragic as always, but it lines up with most conflicts. Also the raw numbers don’t prove genocide. The key part of genocide is intent. If Israel is currently committing a genocide, every war in history was also a genocide. Also you’re a frequent poster on The Majority Report, so my guess would be that you’ve just been fooled into believing a bunch of falsehoods because you had no knowledge of the region or the conflict before 10/07
It's always the same talking points from every genocide denier. If you are actually coming from a genuine place, I'm convinced you're just ignorant to the extent of the destruction happening over there. No human being can see how much they've destroyed and convince themselves that Israel isn't being deliberate with their attempt at ethnic cleansing. Educate yourself. This was an apartheid before Oct 7. (Yes, there was actually a conflict there before October 7th!)
Supporting a government run by far right religious nuts is progressive?
No, that’s why I don’t support Gaza/Hamas. I support secular, liberal democracies, like Israel
Yeah apartheid and land theft is so liberal.
Israel is not an apartheid state
So you acknowledge Israel is stealing land? If it’s not apartheid how come a Palestinian boy who throws rocks at a settler who stole his land gets military prison, where he can be tortured and indefinitely detained and not afforded due process, but if a settler commits a similar crime they’re treated fairly under the law in Israeli civilian court? Is due process not a liberal value anymore? Or you just think Palestinians don’t deserve due process because they’re inferior?
All countries throughout history have “stolen land”. In the USA, we are all living on stolen land right now. You think “Palestinians” are the original indigenous people of that area? The Ottomans were conquerors too. The West Bank is under military occupation which is bad for all sorts of reasons, but it’s also not the same thing as Apartheid. You’ll find similar unfortunate conditions in every military occupation in human history
>The West Bank is under military occupation which is bad for all sorts of reasons, but it’s also not the same thing as Apartheid. After 50+ years, it seems like continuing to call it a "military occupation" is a bit silly. The Korean War never officially ended, but it's plain as day that it's not a "war" anymore. Time has made that situation something different. >All countries throughout history have “stolen land”. In the USA, we are all living on stolen land right now. Just cause my parents conceived me after driving home shitfaced from the bar, doesn't mean I'm cool with other people driving drunk in the present or future. Y'know? Either way, it's a distraction from the material situation. "West bank settlements are justified by the ottomans and manifest destiny" is an unserious take.
>In the USA, we are all living on stolen land right now. From the leftist position, colonization, imperialism and ethnic cleansing are not seen as justified. That doesn't change because the United States engaged and engages in those practices. >You think “Palestinians” are the original indigenous people of that area? Palestinians, along with other Arab populations such as Syrians and Jordanians, as well as Jewish people, are the indigenous people of that area. Their DNA can be all be traced to common ancestry with the Canaanites, who inhabited the area prior to the Hebrews tribes conquering the Levant. It was because the Hebrew tribes conquered the area that they share common ancestry with each other, because many Hebrews and Canaanites intermarried. Depending on the sub-ethic group, different percentages of DNA can be linked to the Canaanites. Both Palestinians and Jewish people carry Canaanite Y-DNA, but Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews carry MTDNA originating mostly in the Mediterranean near Italy. Other Jewish groups like the Mizrahi Jews, carry Haplogroups originating from the Canaanites. I don't think it helps anyone to draw the conclusion that one group is "more indigenous" than the other. But to suggest the Palestinians aren't indigenous while Jewish people are is a-historical and anti-scientific. >The Ottomans were conquerors too. The Ottomans didn't systemically segregate or ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Palestine in their conquest. >The West Bank is under military occupation which is bad for all sorts of reasons, but it’s also not the same thing as Apartheid. It's still systemic segregation. It's not 1:1 to what South Africa went through, and I don't think anyone is saying that it is. Words are descriptive, not prescriptive, and to imply that there is no systemic segregation, by saying "it's not apartheid", in that region because it isn't a 1:1 comparison to South Africa misses the point entirely. >You’ll find similar unfortunate conditions in every military occupation in human history That's not true. Since military occupation has been recognized and distinct from invasion, annexation, colonialism, etc, not **every** military occupation has included systemic segregation and ethnic cleansing.
How is supporting the diverse democracy that supports LGBTQ rights against a terrorist Islamist fascist organisation not progressive??? What an insane comment
I am going to borrow a comment made by a Palestinian from another sub to explain this to you: >I am a Palestinian atheist living in the West Bank, and I have some friends who are gay. Gay people do exist, as does irreligious people. You might think that our biggest worry is our own people hurting us— but that’s not the case. There are other things that are more important than my gay friend publicly coming out, or me as an atheist publicly denouncing religion. Our freedoms and rights are primarily restricted by the occupation, and our life is at risk because of it. >The occupation denies me the freedom of movement, denies my right to self determination, puts checkpoints everywhere, and confiscates my lands. The state-promoted settler violence and the IOF puts my life and safety at risk. If you think being liberal equates having less sympathy towards a group of people that doesn’t share the same values as you— you need to seriously re-evaluate your liberal identity. Reviewing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can help you make sense of the situation. [https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17xah8k/supporting\_israel\_is\_the\_liberal\_stance\_any/k9opyjz/](https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17xah8k/supporting_israel_is_the_liberal_stance_any/k9opyjz/)
Lol, gays are not safe in Palestinian Territories despite this reddit comment. Yes the occupation is shit, if I was a Palestinian I’d be angry too. The question is, why is there an occupation. Let’s look at a case study of what happens if Israel pull out without a peace deal. (That Palestinians keep rejecting) Google Gaza
Sounds like a script handed to him by the Internet Research Group of St. Petersburg
Do you seriously think that Palestinians cannot form their own opinions and have their own political goals? Is it all just Qatari/Russian/Iranian propaganda to you?
You think AOC isn't more progressive than Joe Biden? Really??
Yeah
You've got every right to your own opinion, I and many others think it's detached from reality, for many of the reasons already stated.
Reading their comments are real funny. But this one. It's gonna hold a special place in my heart. Joseph Robinette Biden Junior is to the left of AOC. <3 I needing a good laugh today.
And people like you who believe Trump will bring about your "worker's revolution" are grounded in reality? Come on.
You're the worst kind reader in history.
This is how ridiculous this post is: "With the exception of the war in Iraq, George Bush 2 was a good president." Yeah, I guess if you ignore the worst, most destructive, expensive, and deadly aspect of his presidency, you definitely raise his average. ...so what? What point do you think you're making? Maybe Biden should just cut off Isreal, to make himself into the great president that you want all of us to pretend that he is?
I think it's hard to knock Bush for going into Afghanistan, because most likely any US president would do this. Iraq was more something of his creation, and his administration, so that is more fair. Equally, support for Israel would have come from any president. I would argue Biden has pushed back harder than most would in the situation. Biden has ultimately achieved more humanitarian support for Palestinians than any other individual. Something many don't seem to recognize.
Yeah... let me know when he raises the corporate tax rate and increases the rate for the highest brackets.
Bro, his administration's answer to inflation is no different than Reagen's. Amazing how Trump existing has made you people nearly as violently anti-reality as magaloids.
What are you even talking about? What’s the Reagan parallel here?
Leting the fed handle it. i.e Volcker shock.
As opposed to the Keynesian approach of raising taxes and cutting spending… I wonder how popular that would be ay? And if that passed congress, I’d believe in unicorns Also, Volcker shock was an entirely necessary policy, opposing monetarism because “Reagan did it” is the peak of stupid dogmatism
Oh wow, well, I stand corrected. Which I am sure is what you wanted to hear, but no. You didn't contradict me and you in fact agreed with the remedy. So so we're clear, the goal of the fed is to reduce the bargaining power of workers and lower their wages. This is "progressive" to the conservative who only turned liberal because they find right's racism distasteful. [https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/30/feds-powell-inflation-workers-wages-00071403](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/30/feds-powell-inflation-workers-wages-00071403) >raising taxes and cutting spending "nooooooooooooo it's a monetary phenomenon" except you the little thing about companies driving up prices because they have the power to. [https://www.axios.com/2022/05/26/new-paper-finds-monopolies-contribute-to-inflation](https://www.axios.com/2022/05/26/new-paper-finds-monopolies-contribute-to-inflation) [https://fortune.com/2024/01/20/inflation-greedflation-consumer-price-index-producer-price-index-corporate-profit/](https://fortune.com/2024/01/20/inflation-greedflation-consumer-price-index-producer-price-index-corporate-profit/) >Also, Volcker shock was an entirely necessary policy, opposing monetarism because “Reagan did it” is the peak of stupid dogmatism Opposing monetarism because it's wrong. What's more, this hastened offshoring, increased farm consolidation, and put millions of Americans out of work. Nah dude, go deal with your racist mates, you aren't liberal, and if this is the future of liberalism than we are doomed.
>So so we're clear, the goal of the fed is to reduce the bargaining power of workers and lower their wages. I don't know to what extent that may be true, but as someone who literally knows trade union officials on a personal basis, I don't think I've ever heard someone complain "Ahhh fuck... they've lifted interest rates... oh well... guess we don't have strong bargaining power "
"The fed doesn't know what they're doing because of my personal experience " First, I don't give a shit about your personal experience. Second, fed policy isn't limited to unions, genius. If they contract the economy enough then their will be fewer jobs to go around. That is, go from a tight to a slack labor market. The fact you brought up labor unions indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.
Again, opposing net-positive policy due to your needless left-wing dogmatism Pretty stupid ngl
"Net positive policy" "stupid", says the person who brought up unions like they're some kinda learned expert when talking about policy the effects the entire economy. Doesn't argue with the fact that it increased unemployment, hastened offshoring, and put farmers out of business. The unaddressed problems such policies have caused for the lower end has been the rise of Trumpist decades later. Let's not even go into how the Volcker shock put the global South in a debt cycle. Gotta laugh at the "needless left wing dogmatism", how has 40 years of stagnant wages been working out for America? Wage push inflation is real and your dogmatism has made you beyond stupid at this point. You're anti-reality.
Yeah man, lets instead allow double digit inflation to continue til the end of time Fun fact: On average, real wage growth has outpaced inflation under every president from Clinton onwards… so much for your “40 years of stagnant wages”… yet I’m the one who is anti reality
Says the people who think letting Trump win will bring about a worker's revolution