5 ms·

Trump is a symptom of a deeper cultural problem for which we are all participants. Take him out too viciously and the entire country would implode forever. Our

Trump is a symptom of a deeper cultural problem for which we are all participants. Take him out too viciously and the entire country would implode forever. Our chance is to address the problem directly by economic relief for rural poor (among others) so that the symptom resolves.

louwrentius 6y ago
Exactly, Trump is an outcome, a symptom of a deeper, more systemic cultural problem within the US. It's not only him, look at the entire GOP, and what forces are at play to keep these people in place. The people currently in charge are there to protect historic interests/positions and they know they will lose them forever in a fair election. Because most of the country has moved on culturally.
- frockington1 6y ago
  The cultural lines with the two parties seem to be changing. Back in early 00's, I remember the conservatives were saying you can't say ______ because God forbids it. Now it seems to be liberals saying you can't say _______ because it offends XYZ. I don't know why this is happening but it is kind of strange to see as censorship and silencing has never been a popular position
  - epistasis 6y ago
    Liberals have always said "you can't say X" for all sorts of things, not as a matter law, but because they don't want people to be assholes. The term "PC" was invented a looong time ago for this. The only thing that's changed is that people are pretending that it's new and unprecedented, as a way to garner more outrage.
eli_gottlieb 6y ago
We can kill two birds with one stone: let's onshore a productive non-virtual, "building shit" economy, and use geographical anti-concentration laws to ensure areas outside the professional-class urban centers get a slice of the pie.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  “geographical anti-concentration laws” Any examples of this in practice?
  - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
    https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and... >What, then, is the missing piece? A major factor that has not received sufficient attention is the role of public policy. Throughout most of the country’s history, American government at all levels has pursued policies designed to preserve local control of businesses and to check the tendency of a few dominant cities to monopolize power over the rest of the country. These efforts moved to the federal level beginning in the late nineteenth century and reached a climax of enforcement in the 1960s and ’70s. Yet starting shortly thereafter, each of these policy levers were flipped, one after the other, in the opposite direction, usually in the guise of “deregulation.” Understanding this history, largely forgotten in our own time, is essential to turning the problem of inequality around. ... >Sometimes referred to by its supporters as “the Magna Carta of Small Business,” Robinson-Patman prevented the formation of chain stores even remotely approaching the scale and power of today’s Walmart or Amazon by cracking down on such practices as selling items below cost (a practice known as “loss leading”). The legislation also prohibited the chains from using their market power to extract price concessions from their suppliers, Similarly, the Miller-Tydings Act, enacted by Congress in 1937, put a floor on retail discounting, thereby ensuring that large chains headquartered in distant cities didn’t come to dominate the economies of local communities. This did not prevent innovation in retailing, such as the emergence of brand-spanking-new supermarkets to replace small-scale butcher shops and green grocers. But into the 1960s, these and similar laws would ensure that no supermarket chain would control more than about 7 percent of any local market.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      Thank you.
- throwafellow 6y ago
oblongx 6y ago
This escalated quickly, murdering elected leaders...c'mon guys wtf.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  im explicitly calling for a peaceful solution that allows everyone a way to move forward together, but read whatever strawman you'd like

louwrentius 6y ago

Exactly, Trump is an outcome, a symptom of a deeper, more systemic cultural problem within the US. It's not only him, look at the entire GOP, and what forces are at play to keep these people in place. The people currently in charge are there to protect historic interests/positions and they know they will lose them forever in a fair election. Because most of the country has moved on culturally.

frockington1 6y ago
The cultural lines with the two parties seem to be changing. Back in early 00's, I remember the conservatives were saying you can't say ______ because God forbids it. Now it seems to be liberals saying you can't say _______ because it offends XYZ. I don't know why this is happening but it is kind of strange to see as censorship and silencing has never been a popular position
- epistasis 6y ago
  Liberals have always said "you can't say X" for all sorts of things, not as a matter law, but because they don't want people to be assholes. The term "PC" was invented a looong time ago for this. The only thing that's changed is that people are pretending that it's new and unprecedented, as a way to garner more outrage.

eli_gottlieb 6y ago

We can kill two birds with one stone: let's onshore a productive non-virtual, "building shit" economy, and use geographical anti-concentration laws to ensure areas outside the professional-class urban centers get a slice of the pie.

germinalphrase 6y ago
“geographical anti-concentration laws” Any examples of this in practice?
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago
  https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and... >What, then, is the missing piece? A major factor that has not received sufficient attention is the role of public policy. Throughout most of the country’s history, American government at all levels has pursued policies designed to preserve local control of businesses and to check the tendency of a few dominant cities to monopolize power over the rest of the country. These efforts moved to the federal level beginning in the late nineteenth century and reached a climax of enforcement in the 1960s and ’70s. Yet starting shortly thereafter, each of these policy levers were flipped, one after the other, in the opposite direction, usually in the guise of “deregulation.” Understanding this history, largely forgotten in our own time, is essential to turning the problem of inequality around. ... >Sometimes referred to by its supporters as “the Magna Carta of Small Business,” Robinson-Patman prevented the formation of chain stores even remotely approaching the scale and power of today’s Walmart or Amazon by cracking down on such practices as selling items below cost (a practice known as “loss leading”). The legislation also prohibited the chains from using their market power to extract price concessions from their suppliers, Similarly, the Miller-Tydings Act, enacted by Congress in 1937, put a floor on retail discounting, thereby ensuring that large chains headquartered in distant cities didn’t come to dominate the economies of local communities. This did not prevent innovation in retailing, such as the emergence of brand-spanking-new supermarkets to replace small-scale butcher shops and green grocers. But into the 1960s, these and similar laws would ensure that no supermarket chain would control more than about 7 percent of any local market.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    Thank you.
throwafellow 6y ago

oblongx 6y ago

This escalated quickly, murdering elected leaders...c'mon guys wtf.

kingkawn 6y ago
im explicitly calling for a peaceful solution that allows everyone a way to move forward together, but read whatever strawman you'd like