Workers, Blacks, And Hispanics Should Form Their Own Political Party

This is the key.

 

Not if they take the Asian approach. Asians loathe Progressivism, and don't much care for guns or libertarianism either.

 

Used to be the left. Remember that? Remember when the left cared about such things?

 

You don't get to tell Asians what they do or do not loathe. The ones that do get politically active almost always become far left-wingers.

 

Well actually, I can tell you what the majority of Asians (in the west) think about politics, and it's exactly what I said. They don't like Progressivism or Libertarianism. And very few are far lefties. Just the misfits.

 

I am not so sure if what I am talking about is the old left, although I would say that the old left of Democrats like Lyndon Johnson was certainly more sensitive and responsive to the needs of these groups.

I understand your point about race, and believe me I grappled with that briefly. However, when I think about it, these groups have been disproportionately affected by policy that has been implemented that adversely affects their interests. Therefore, at least in my humble opinion, there is a need for blacks and Hispanics to understand that if these changes continue, conditions for them will only get worse and worse. That should give them some impetus to band together in this way.

What is your opinion of that?

 

Well here in America the Progressive Party is the Democrat Party and Asians vote about 70% for that party.

 

That has been a while ago. I was a boy.

 

They seem to be doing as well in the Democratic party party as high-income workers and whites are in the GOP. The Democrats are corrupt as hell like the GOP, don't get me wrong, but bases of both parties have been conned for too long. You don't like that the Democrats haven't pushed for single payer healthcare even when they had the chance? I don't like that the GOP constantly passes faux tax cuts without actually cutting spending, therefore merely kicking the increasingly heavy ball down the road. This is not something unique to minority issues.

Get used to it, that's representative democracy. One option will always be open to the wealthy in a free society (one which respects freedom of speech) - they can simply resolve to run independent political ads for whatever candidate proposes the cartel, barriers to market entry, direct subsidies, etc they want. The tit for tat in this case is impossible to prove. The candidate who supports a corrupt society will always be advocated for more strongly by those who choose to benefit.

This would massively benefit the GOP, if it wasn't that so much of the barriers to market entry side of that coin is a DNC smash hit favorite. Direct subsidies are bipartisan with differences over who gets the free cash, cartels are bipartisan across the board. Then there's the massive incentive for legislators to take from the few who have a lot of property and give to the many who have a lot of votes.

It's always an imperfect system, which is why it should be decentralised to whatever extent possible. 1873. New Hampshire. That's democracy, not this 700,000:1 representation central government that exists today.

Unions are MASSIVELY corrupt in the sense you're talking about.

Look at the top campaign contributors: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php The SEIU is the 5th biggest donor of anyone. Of the top 10 biggest donors, 5 of them are unions, teachers groups, or environmental advocacy organisations giving exclusively to Democrats.

The Union's tit for tat is just as simple as Pfizer's:

They group workers into a collective bargaining unit. Of course, they know that if the market is free, individual workers will undercut the Union, so they need a cartel in labor. They go to politicians, committees, and run vast political advocacy campaigns. The politicians want votes. The Unions want a cartel. So the Unions take a cut from each employee and give it toward maintaining their cartel, thereby allowing them to get more funding to even further cement their place. It's an exchange. You can't stop it happening, you can only push it underground by prohibiting politicians from receiving campaign donations.

The 9th biggest contributor to the 2016 election, the American Federation of Teachers, would be lobbying rather strongly for greater spending on education, to the point of spending $33 million on it.



The idea that minorities have been destroyed by a constantly declining expenditure on education is inane. Education spending is constantly increasing and has been for 80 years.

Think about how profoundly stupid that statement is - the taxpayers have only given $1,000,000,000,000 per year towards education. Those horrible people. What oppression.

Those who want government off their backs have far less of a voice than unions and schools. The rich want collusion, not laissez-faire.

I agree emphatically.

 

I don't get why you think "workers, blacks and Hispanics" would have identical agendas to place them in the same political party? Where do their interests align?

 

Yeah there's a great solution: more identity politics.

So unions are now minority only and apparently there are laws that oppress blacks and hispanics.

What is the name of the law that restricts their funding for education.

 

Any policy affecting the interests of 'blacks and hispanics' is long gone. All are equal today, and can take the opportunities presented by free education (and libraries, and national parks, and good health care, etc etc), or not - as they see fit. They have exactly the same access to all of these boons as do poor white folk.

I would always keep it to material circumstances, and not give even a pico-particle of focus to ethnicity. We spent half of the 20thC fighting that stuff, and for a while we had it almost perfect. Why go backwards?

 

You sound like the dixicrats who believed there needs to be a party for white Christians.

 

Exactly. There's simply 'workers' and everyone else.

 

that's because Asian Americans have a harder work ethic and better culture than the groups progressive democrats pander to.

progressives pander to women, blacks, and latinos because they are large in number and easily manipulated by identity politics.

 

Unions? They were crushed.

 

By "workers" he means "white people"

 

How about you get all of your minority welfare groups together and let them form their own party.

They can be called the parasite party.

 

Can you provide a link to support the notion that one trillion dollars a year has been spent by taxpayers on education?

 

Well I suppose I can understand why some would like for them to think that their interests do not align. Having said that, their issues align in terms of better education, affordable health care, protection for workers, and support for the establishment of micro businesses.

 

I think the notion that all are equal today is rather naive as there is still quite a bit of discrimination that takes place against both blacks and Hispanics. For example, the issue of racial profiling by police is something that is of concern to both groups.

 

They have exactly the same access to all of those things as everyone does. There haven't been any institutional blocks to such things in decades.

 

No I don't. And quite frankly you were not around when that was taking place in the US. I was and remember how it was. Your post reveals your ignorance. The crucial difference is that dixiecrats were motivated by racial hatred of blacks in particular. What I am proposing is not something motivated by racism, but rather by things that are of mutual interests of those groups.

 

what does residual personal (not institutionalised) discrimination have to do with it? who lets bigots stop them having a good life?

as for police profiling, if the shoe fits. they don't build profiles on whims.

edited to add: we are all equal today. we are, however, different in we what choose to do with that equality. look at Asians in America, for egs. Not white, yet surpassing whites in terms of finances and education. does this mean whites are suffering from inequality?

 

He asked a question about all of the groups that I mentioned. I answered him.