Opinion Far left "Secular Talk" goes off on identity politics and corporate media

[VivaRevolution]

Progressives will 100% NOT ally with the nationalists, but the DNC and corporate media are doing their best to ensure progressive policies don't become law which will 100% guarantee we get a leader whose nationalism eclipses Trump's.

I actually think he is right. It would be more feasible to unite with the populist, nationalist right, then it is to reform the establishment left.

 

[Scheme]

I watch his videos from time to time and think he's pretty good. Definitely has a strong left leaning bias.

I generally don't like the format when a single guy or group of people are critiquing someone and nitpicking their words when they aren't there to defend themselves though. But you find that both on left and right shows. That's why Tucker is the GOAT, he will have on whoever will come to defend themselves.

 

[ferrisjso]

I actually think he is right. It would be more feasible to unite with the populist, nationalist right, then it is to reform the establishment left.

I mean you're deadset against almost all of our priorities why would we do that? Also the dislike of identity politics doesn't mean leftists aren't socially liberal just means we don't like picking candidates based on their race and gender and are against some of the trivial SJW stuff like mansplaining and finding everything offensive and the like.

 

[ferrisjso]

well he co-created the Justice Democrats whose platform AOC and many others ran on. So to call him a leading progressive isnt that much of a stretch

SJW's hijacked it and he resigned in frustration. The candidates were of great quality this time as residue of that initial push. I'm not sure the second round will be the same.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Why should old white men go away? Who in the hell are going to be the bad guys in movies then?

 

[xcvbn]

I actually think he is right. It would be more feasible to unite with the populist, nationalist right, then it is to reform the establishment left.

Yeah I can see that but nationalism can easily get out of hand to the point where we're deporting all non-white immigrants and rounding up brown citizens who dissent.

It's a dangerous line to walk.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I mean you're deadset against almost all of our priorities why would we do that? Also the dislike of identity politics doesn't mean leftists aren't socially liberal just means we don't like picking candidates based on their race and gender and are against some of the trivial SJW stuff like mansplaining and finding everything offensive and the like.

I'm an economic progressive, and a social libertarian.

Social issues are non-sense. Their is no great social injustice the government can fix.

The nationalist right and economic progressive agrees on economics.

Don't mistake the shills calling for tax breaks and deregulation, as the nationalist, populist right. They are calling for UHC right along side the Bernie Bros.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yeah I can see that but nationalism can easily get out of hand to the point where we're deporting all non-white immigrants and rounding up brown citizens who dissent.

It's a dangerous line to walk.

Maybe, but as we have seen, so is zealot tolerance.

Zealotry is the danger, not the ideology.

 

[ferrisjso]

I'm an economic progressive, and a social libertarian.

Social issues are non-sense. Their is no great social injustice the government can fix.

The nationalist right and economic progressive agrees on economics.

Don't mistake the shills calling for tax breaks and deregulation, as the nationalist, populist right. They are calling for UHC right along side the Bernie Bros.

No doubt economic issues are the priority and social issues should be left to courts(if you are referring to legislative action more inclined to agree rather than government as a whole now). Part of why we prioritize economic issues though is that we have faith that the neolibs will actually fight on social issues in many cases why too far on issues that border on not being issues at all. But there's some real ones in the fray there like police brutality, many if not a majority of America's prisoners flat out not deserving to be in prison, immigrant rights etc.

Well your even less successful at convincing your party brass to support it than ours. Your parties health care plan might have been the most evil piece of legislation proposed in the US at the federal level in maybe centuries(Jim Crow was at the state level) and say what you want about the mandate it didn't do any additional harm(mostly because the mandate didn't have teeth which is why it was constitutional).

If what you say is true and you support going back to the pre Reagan tax structure(or better yet MMT,though it's good to run a surplus or a low deficit if we can just in case), an indexed increased minimum wage(the indexed part is super important otherwise by stalling raising the minimum wage is actually decreasing it, hence how we're in the situation we're in), radical climate action and single payer, then yeah you're easier to deal with then the Democratic brass but I don't think there's a single Republican on the federal level who shares these beliefs. I don't want ot call a movement imaginary hence looking like a hypocrite for my rant before but if this movement is real where are your leaders? I don't see any of them?

Also while Bernie supporters are clearly nationalist in the sense we put America first we shy from the term because of the connotation it tends to bring about race. I'm a German/Latino who grew up in NYC when I think of America, I'm thinking of a very different looking group of people than most of the country is. There are quite a few people on the right who are anxious about the growing diversity of America and while the Nazi term gets thrown around you've got a few of those in the party(King, Miller, Bannon maybe). I'm very fearful a lot of American nationalism on the right is very racial based(white is a fake race btw, blacks are referred to by color because they don't have a choice and whites copied that model despite knowing their actual heritage) and we are still not fans of the immigration stuff and honestly I buy the MSM narrative on that not because it's the MSM narrative but because I think it's true.

But yeah if that paragraph is true we can have an interesting conversation here I guess. But you have to be well aware Trump and the Republican Party have not only done the exxact opposite of what you say the movement supports there hasn't been the noisy resistance to it you see in the Democratic Party. Far more likely to see MAGA people accept Trump's lines about trickle down helping the economy and the health plan being an improvement. I'm happy that you got rid of the mandate and left the rest of ObamaCare untocuhed. I also know that positive outcome was an accident and says nothing about Trump's and co's lack of effort to pass TrumpCare.

 

[VivaRevolution]

No doubt economic issues are the priority and social issues should be left to courts(if you are referring to legislative action more inclined to agree rather than government as a whole now). Part of why we prioritize economic issues though is that we have faith that the neolibs will actually fight on social issues in many cases why too far on issues that border on not being issues at all. But there's some real ones in the fray there like police brutality, many if not a majority of America's prisoners flat out not deserving to be in prison, immigrant rights etc.

Well your even less successful at convincing your party brass to support it than ours. Your parties health care plan might have been the most evil piece of legislation proposed in the US at the federal level in maybe centuries(Jim Crow was at the state level) and say what you want about the mandate it didn't do any additional harm(mostly because the mandate didn't have teeth which is why it was constitutional).

If what you say is true and you support going back to the pre Reagan tax structure(or better yet MMT,though it's good to run a surplus or a low deficit if we can just in case), an indexed increased minimum wage(the indexed part is super important otherwise by stalling raising the minimum wage is actually decreasing it, hence how we're in the situation we're in), radical climate action and single payer, then yeah you're easier to deal with then the Democratic brass but I don't think there's a single Republican on the federal level who shares these beliefs. I don't want ot call a movement imaginary hence looking like a hypocrite for my rant before but if this movement is real where are your leaders? I don't see any of them?

Also while Bernie supporters are clearly nationalist in the sense we put America first we shy from the term because of the connotation it tends to bring about race. I'm a German/Latino who grew up in NYC when I think of America, I'm thinking of a very different looking group of people than most of the country is. There are quite a few people on the right who are anxious about the growing diversity of America and while the Nazi term gets thrown around you've got a few of those in the party(King, Miller, Bannon maybe). I'm very fearful a lot of American nationalism on the right is very racial based(white is a fake race btw, blacks are referred to by color because they don't have a choice and whites copied that model despite knowing their actual heritage) and we are still not fans of the immigration stuff and honestly I buy the MSM narrative on that not because it's the MSM narrative but because I think it's true.

But yeah if that paragraph is true we can have an interesting conversation here I guess. But you have to be well aware Trump and the Republican Party have not only done the exxact opposite of what you say the movement supports there hasn't been the noisy resistance to it you see in the Democratic Party. Far more likely to see MAGA people accept Trump's lines about trickle down helping the economy and the health plan being an improvement. I'm happy that you got rid of the mandate and left the rest of ObamaCare untocuhed. I also know that positive outcome was an accident and says nothing about Trump's and co's lack of effort to pass TrumpCare.

FYI, I was a Bernie supporter when he was at 2% in 2015.

He is going to win btw. I think the real question is in if he can build the people power he will need to actually change anything.

 

[Slick_36]

The far left is going even farther left. The new young exciting candidates the Democrats to them are secularist, anti-Christian, socialist, communists like Ocasio Cortez. She looks like she got her ideas straight from Karl Marx. And they make a socialist like Bernie not look near as bad as he really is.

I just got to ask, what ideas did she get from Karl Marx? Not that I disagree, I'm just interested in what you know about either him or her.

 

[deviake]

Kyle goes off on corporate media here. Identity politics are often seen as synonymous with the left. "Secular Talk' (Kyle) who has half a BILLION views and is an emerging leader of the progressive party is seen here standing up against identity politics with some FIRE.

Bernie happens to be the target in this case (as predicted by progressive political commentator across the board) for smearing by corporate media looking towards the primaries.

The left is seen as the purveyors of identity politics and I know there are some on the left who stoop to this but here is IMO a leading commentator from the left roundly condemned all of it.

Here a woman democrat says "I am sick of old white dudes, just go away"

The funny part to me is when he mentions that Bernie has the best voting record on women's issues of anyone in the senate, something this woman doesn't seem to know or care about. You can't touch Bernie on social justice issues, he was ahead of his time on everything. The only big knock on him is his foreign policy.

Such a bizarre argument to say "historically this country has been run by white men". Oh really, you're telling me the president has been the same race that was 85-90% of the population until like 10 minutes ago?

Edited for brevity.

This woman is ridiculous, obviously, and she should have gotten smoke for that bullshit, but do you really think this country has only been run by white dudes (Obama obviously being the exception) solely because they are the majority of its population?

 

[deviake]

its cute hearing Americans refer to Kyle as "far left"..... he's a moderate progressive by European standards. He's a good political commentator though, always tries to approach any topic objectively.

Wanting healthcare is "far left" in the US, lol

 

[ferrisjso]

FYI, I was a Bernie supporter when he was at 2% in 2015.

He is going to win btw. I think the real question is in if he can build the people power he will need to actually change anything.

I wish I shared your enthusiasm. In 2016 he would have easily beaten Trump almost anyone would have. In 2020 unless Trump uniquely pisses off the American electorate large he will be very hard to beat.

The most stable tradition in American politics is supporting an incumbent unless the world literally fell apart(world is falling apart cause of climate but no one sees that). In one on one matchups the incumbent has lost four times two of those four times were after the then largest recessions in US history 1840 and 1932 the other two were in 1888 and 1892, one election immediately predating another huge recession and the fourth one being a case where the incumbet won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. The elected incumbent winning reelection is the most sure bet in US politics unless a major third party bid jumps in and plays spoiler(major). Every single Vice President who won their party's nomination also won the Presidency except Gerald Ford who had never been elected VP himself, was dealing with the aftermath of the Watergate thing and still almost won.

This is about as stable a trend as you can imagine and if I take my personal biases out of it I'm terrified to admit I am quite pessimistic.

Of course if Trump fucks up in Hoover like fashion(recessions are random one can happen in the next 18 months, think the main bubbles in the economy are bound to go off in the 2020's but maybe I'm being a pessimist) then the answer to your question is , yes, yes he probably can get enough support to do something. That's how we got the New Deal. However if the Dem establishment manages to steal the nomination even if they have the power they will do nothing with it, case in point 2008 where one jackass from Florida(his career just died) and a stupid cancer tumor conspired to kill the public option. Look at this Pay Go vote this was a ONE party vote to set up rules and the Dems got THREE out of over 200 house members(AOC, Tulsi and this guy from Cali). Sure a few more probably got some concessions for that, there's a few i'm shocked voted for it but it's still telling. Even if Dems do get on board for policy they've also conceded that the national debt is an issue and despite having been far more responsible with it, are going to(in the case of Pelosi willingly) not do their own stuff because it costs too much money which if MMT is true is just a big fat lie.

 

[ferrisjso]

Wanting healthcare is "far left" in the US, lol

I know it's an embarrassment. That argument with that guy before pissed me off so much, pretending like the mandate was such a good thing, yeah if a guy dies cause he can't afford his fucking deductible you can tell him on his death bed his bill would have went up like 10% faster(I'm inserting a random number I do not have the actual number on me) if there was no mandate. They'll be so so touched by the sheer kindness of their bills bankrupting them one month later!

 

[Fronk]

The left hates identity politics. It's often used as a disguise to cover candidates lack of left of center policy. Hillary for example focused her campaign on being a woman and tried hard to ignore her actual policy's and proposals.

The establishment doesn't seem to understand Obama was a great campaigner who had some great proposals. Him being the first AA president was a bonus and also a huge deal for our country. Not every single "first" is going to have the same impact nor is a "first" going to overshadow a terrible candidate who doesn't share the electorate's values.

This can't be stressed enough. Most actual left-wingers are tired of having weak "wins" on social issues take precedence over actual economical reform. Take gay marriage for example, it's just inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Not to say you should fight it's implementation but when gay marriage becomes the key issue that can make or break a candidate, instead of progressive stances on actual economical policies then you know there is a rot in the system. It's much easier to fight for the right of gay people to get married than fight corporate encroachment, fight for a fair taxation and closing corporate tax loop holes or ACTUAL healthcare reforms. The powers that be are really cheering this on, couldn't have a better outcome. I mean even Bernie was hounded because he wasn't "progressive" enough and all his "cis white bernie bros" supporters that shouldn't be interested in fair policies but instead should be making transsexuals right to whatever be the key issue of his presidential run.

 

[ferrisjso]

I just got to ask, what ideas did she get from Karl Marx? Not that I disagree, I'm just interested in what you know about either him or her.

She didn't. People don't know what Socialism is. Marxists also lost the term Socialism a while back and are sore about it so they are happy to reinforce conservative prejudice.

Almost every Socialist Party in the world hasn't been Marxist in a century they've been the major parties of major western nations(not just Scandanavia like France, Germany UK etc) and are reformist. The German socialists even put down a Marxist revolution. Tony Blair was the leader of a formerly Marxist party and is technically a Socialist a term that predated Marxism and should post date it as well. The left party in most western nations is the Socialist or Labor Party here that never developed cause our parties weren't based on ideology until recently and Democrat and Republican were closer to heritage than to ideology, if your parents were Dems you were a Dem and you could believe anything from the far right to the far left and you would find a lot of the people in the party who'd be with you.

 

[ferrisjso]

This can't be stressed enough. Most actual left-wingers are tired of having weak "wins" on social issues take precedence over actual economical reform. Take gay marriage for example, it's just inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Not to say you should fight it's implementation but when gay marriage becomes the key issue that can make or break a candidate, instead of progressive stances on actual economical policies then you know there is a rot in the system. It's much easier to fight for the right of gay people to get married than fight corporate encroachment, fight for a fair taxation and closing corporate tax loop holes or ACTUAL healthcare reforms. The powers that be are really cheering this on, couldn't have a better outcome. I mean even Bernie was hounded because he wasn't "progressive" enough and all his "cis white bernie bros" supporters that shouldn't be interested in fair policies but instead should be making transsexuals right to whatever be the key issue of his presidential run.

Exactly I always ask what is the vested economic interest against an issue? With gay marriage it's a few conservative billionaires who will die and whose peers will have for example gay family members and be overwhelmed. Corporate interests though given for profit shareholder capitalism are near immortal vested interests that will always be there.

Only reason the rich are going to act on climate change regardless of the fossil fuel industries(likely too late) is because they are forced too and don't have a choice.

Yeah they use that trick of making every issue left v right and then saying yes to social litmus tests but noooo to economic ones. Look at how they've bulldozed Tulsi saying she's attacked by the left when the left is actually almost entirely behind her if Bernie stays out. Media can define left though based on an imaginary spectrum they made up for social issues though.

 

[Slick_36]

She didn't. People don't know what Socialism is. Marxists also lost the term Socialism a while back and are sore about it so they are happy to reinforce conservative prejudice.

Almost every Socialist Party in the world hasn't been Marxist in a century they've been the major parties of major western nations(not just Scandanavia like France, Germany UK etc) and are reformist. The German socialists even put down a Marxist revolution. Tony Blair was the leader of a formerly Marxist party and is technically a Socialist a term that predated Marxism and should post date it as well. The left party in most western nations is the Socialist or Labor Party here that never developed cause our parties weren't based on ideology until recently and Democrat and Republican were closer to heritage than to ideology, if your parents were Dems you were a Dem and you could believe anything from the far right to the far left and you would find a lot of the people in the party who'd be with you.

I didn't ask for an intelligent response, I asked for Rip to elaborate on his statement. Thank you anyways though, I'd give a better response but I'm waiting for Rip's post before I do that.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I wish I shared your enthusiasm. In 2016 he would have easily beaten Trump almost anyone would have. In 2020 unless Trump uniquely pisses off the American electorate large he will be very hard to beat.

The most stable tradition in American politics is supporting an incumbent unless the world literally fell apart(world is falling apart cause of climate but no one sees that). In one on one matchups the incumbent has lost four times two of those four times were after the then largest recessions in US history 1840 and 1932 the other two were in 1888 and 1892, one election immediately predating another huge recession and the fourth one being a case where the incumbet won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. The elected incumbent winning reelection is the most sure bet in US politics unless a major third party bid jumps in and plays spoiler(major). Every single Vice President who won their party's nomination also won the Presidency except Gerald Ford who had never been elected VP himself, was dealing with the aftermath of the Watergate thing and still almost won.

This is about as stable a trend as you can imagine and if I take my personal biases out of it I'm terrified to admit I am quite pessimistic.

Of course if Trump fucks up in Hoover like fashion(recessions are random one can happen in the next 18 months, think the main bubbles in the economy are bound to go off in the 2020's but maybe I'm being a pessimist) then the answer to your question is , yes, yes he probably can get enough support to do something. That's how we got the New Deal. However if the Dem establishment manages to steal the nomination even if they have the power they will do nothing with it, case in point 2008 where one jackass from Florida(his career just died) and a stupid cancer tumor conspired to kill the public option. Look at this Pay Go vote this was a ONE party vote to set up rules and the Dems got THREE out of over 200 house members(AOC, Tulsi and this guy from Cali). Sure a few more probably got some concessions for that, there's a few i'm shocked voted for it but it's still telling. Even if Dems do get on board for policy they've also conceded that the national debt is an issue and despite having been far more responsible with it, are going to(in the case of Pelosi willingly) not do their own stuff because it costs too much money which if MMT is true is just a big fat lie.

I disagree strongly. The fact that Trump is president is evidence that past trends are irrelavent.

What we are seeing is the failing of both political parties. Control of the government will swing back and forth, until people actually are willing to vote 3rd party, or until the parties reform.