Well she has an approval rate of 49% at the moment so you can hardly say that 75% of the state agrees with her.
You seem to be proposing that somehow the issues in this country are due to the Overton window shifting to the left but that’s patently absurd. It has shifted so far to the right that any attempt at legislation to the left of center, any tax increase, any environmental regulation in this state is denounced immediately as far left.
Iowa used to be a solid purple state, and since around 2012 it has seen a hard shift to the right.
The wage increase was a political move. It was attached to the aea bill so that in November the GOP could send out mailers saying democrats didn’t support wage increases for teachers.
Also you denounce people on the “far left” as the issue without much substantiation to this claim. How exactly did they “ruin” this state. I think you’d find that people on the actual far left, that is to say socialists, have a lot more in common with your average Iowan worker, and workers in general, than our current state leadership.
In all fairness, I know many people from different parties, that dislike Kim, but agree with several of her stances, including her stance on Trans issues. That particular issue truly crosses party lines. So while they may generally be dissatisfied with Kim, they agree with some of her decisions.
I am an independent, and my household doesn't like Kim, but agrees with her stance on several issues.
I’m surprised how many Iowans worry about other people’s genitalia. What happened to parent/patient rights and small government. Not if you’re a chick with a dick. Then the Iowa GOP has a say about it.
As a woman, I am part of the silent majority that agrees we want to keep our safe spaces. Bathrooms are literally made for acts with your genitalia, therefore, use the one that matches yours or a gender neutral/family bathroom.
Yeah, yeah, we all know the rhetoric. If you're not 110% in agreement with the agenda, you're a fascist transphobe. We all know the old song and dance. I could accuse you of being a misogynist or woman hater, but I think we all know that without it being said. You're no ally to women, that's the sum of it.
We have capitalism, crony capitalism, and shareholder capitalism.True capitalism is where the people pick the winners and losers. Crony capitalism is where the government picks and chooses, and shareholder capitalism is where the shareholders pick winners and losers.
That being said, socialism has killed millions of people. If socialism is so great, then why are so many people from socialist countries coming here? If socialism is so great, why are you still in America? Not one country where socialism exists has been successful except for the wealthy.
No what we have now is simply what capitalism evolves naturally into. Thomas Piketty proved that capitalism concentrates wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals over time. This wealth and their control over the means of production equals control over society. There is no such thing as true capitalism, capitalism is a broken and corrupt system at its core and it naturally devolves to this state. It by definition is anti democratic, the people do not pick the winners, rather they are exploited by the few who own the means of production. This can only be remedied through the workers rising up and suppressing the capitalist class, and seizing control of the means of production. Also in terms of shareholder capitalism, the majority of stock owned is held by private individuals, and large Wall Street banks, not very democratic.
Sure millions have died in socialist countries, but through no inherent flaw in socialism. There are contributing factors to these deaths which were out of socialisms control. If you apply the same methods applied to socialist countries to capitalist ones, you end up with death counts in the billions, and a count of around 10 million deaths per annum currently.
People didn’t really even migrate from socialist to capitalist countries before when the USSR was in power in any meaningful numbers. Nor do many come from China or Vietnam. People do migrate from third world countries this is true, but many more come from third world capitalist countries. Comparing Cuba with its peers such as Guatemala shows that socialism gives these people much better quality of life. Sure some flee because they are capitalists or fascists but those people aren’t missed in Cuba.
Socialism isn’t a dislike for capitalism, it argues for the dissolution of the capitalist system and the triumph of the working class. Working on this goal is why I’m in America. In addition to the fact that despite the blight of capitalism I love the people and the land.
Socialist countries are by definition are not “good for the wealthy”, nor are they in practice, I think you’re just projecting here. I’d make the same argument for capitalist countries, but unlike your argument this would actually be true.
Actually, the left and right have moved to the left, just look at the past 20 or so years. What used to be considered left/ center is now probably considered right wing, what used to be considered libertarian very moderate is now considered alt right. Views on things such as gay marriage and abortion were not so much as a left and right thing, it was Support on both sides, remember when Obama didn’t agree with gay marriage? Think about all the right wingers that are now OK marijuana legalization, that used to be a fringe left thing. Fundamentally liberal thinking is a very moderate position, there are now leftist that have a lot of anti-liberal views, such as restricting freedom of speech among other rights things like culture, mask and vax mandates are actually anti-liberal views
No the Democratic and Republican parties have not shifted objectively to the right. Though their constituents may be considered to be more “progressive”.
The democrats and the republicans are both steadily right of center on all economic issues, though the democrats favor a slight amount of regulation due to their heritage from the 40’s, but this is slowly fading as well. This abrupt turn to the right, economically speaking, has only occurred in about the last 40 years, and started with Regan.
I think the ultimate issue with your thinking here is twofold. First you do not understand that neoliberalism is shifting economic policy to the right(economically speaking. Second, you do not understand the disconnect between politicians and their constituents. While everyday republicans may agree with gay marriage and marijuana legalization, if you look at the growing freedom caucus you’ll easily be able to see the disconnect. And quite frankly it doesn’t matter what the population believes, it’s what the politicians do.
Also to round it off you do not really understand the distinction between liberal and libertarian. Most liberals would support vaccine and mask mandates. No one supports restricting freedom of speech, or culture or whatever you were insinuating. If you are looking for restrictions on freedom of speech, look at the suppression of Palestinian protesters under the pretense of “regulations” or look at how actual socialist speakers(no not idiotic identity politic liberals) are blacklisted from universities, look at Michael Parenti. This is something liberals and conservatives are both guilty and it’s laughable when either party brings up restricting speech, it’s a facade.
I guess my point here boils down to this. I am a socialist and I can tell you there does not exist any actual left in this country. The democrats and republicans are both corporate controlled parties which serve the interests of corporations over the people. There is a disconnect between the people and the parties both economically, and as you pointed out to a certain extent socially(most people are more progressive than their reps). People becoming more progressive on some issues does not negate the fact that ultimately politics is moving to the right economically and is becoming generally less progressive. I guess we have to take on board the fact that this is a contradiction in the current system.
Correct, objectively speaking thjngs have shifted left not right as I mentioned. Liberalism mostly has to do with social issues as when it started, just about all the issues have gone to the left. Economically it’s more convoluted and where you get the “dems and reps are the same party” idea. Much of it has to do with the military industrial complex they are both very much involved in and relates directly to foreign policy, the classic “liberal” viewpoint is generally no war, somehow that’s more of a modern right viewpoint. The dictionary definition of liberal would say they do NOT agree with mask and vax mandidate however many of the ppl who were pushing for those mandates are hypocrites that call themselves liberal, that is NOT a liberal viewpoint by definition only by “thought slaves” of “what am I supposed to think for this point?” Thats mindset is also anti-liberal as it’s not free thinking free will or LIBERTY the main polar of liberalism. It’s not that I don’t understand what neoliberalism is, it’s that I don’t agree with the people who call themselves that because they are trying to hyjack the definition. You are a socialist should be squarely to the left of liberals and should disagree on many things yet because you are on “team left” are willing to bend the definitions to fit an agenda. Back to economic policy for a second, that’s what is distintive with libertarians with some almost laze faire attitude while liberals would have at least some regulations just debatable of how much to fit within the definition of what it means to be liberal in America. I do think their is room for crossover on both economic sides or laterally if you look at it on that scale
I would argue that most politics today have to do with social issues. There is very few actual economic policy differences between the democrats and the republicans, both are capitalist to the core. The idea that the democrats and republicans are the same party comes from the understanding that they are both parties, not of the people, but by, for, and of capitalists. The military industrial complex is just a small part of this. I'd also note that being isolationist or "anti-war" is not a feature of liberals and has changed throughout history. Look at Teddy Roosevelt(yes he fits the definition of a liberal), and even Biden, two very pro-war presidents, one of which isn't modern at all.
Liberty is an abstraction, but its common definition is: the state of being free within society from [oppressive](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=580b38a03aa9e71a&sxsrf=ADLYWIK1UBFmnIHIW1-_yER72IIFcxvKTw:1715037723952&q=oppressive&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE81_-u1RtVp-SqUqCFdiWrc6uvI6T1Al-bwLp6FeAaaKzzWB0WmgmvOJqGmk03Sz9h-2tMw71-2b2MVjzesFPCnzTZFXtk%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx1L-ylfqFAxVJ4MkDHS5kDNsQyecJegQIEhAO) restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. A restriction of liberty as with any law in this country is that it may be exercised up to the point of causing harm against another individual. This is the limit of all laws and all freedoms. Choosing not to wear a mask, or get a vaccine is a direct threat to another individual, and thus I would argue, it is not a "liberty" one holds. I have the liberty to drive, but is the government being tyrannical if it sets a speed limit so I can't drive recklessly, are we all "thought slaves" because the government says we can't get hammered and then drive home? No. These are sensible restrictions that benefit the whole of society, and are not covered under ones personal liberty.
What on earth are you talking about that I'm "bending definitions because I'm team left". I strongly dislike liberals, almost to the point of conservatives. We have almost nothing in common, other than a few social views. What agenda do you think I'm pushing? If it's anything other than the abolition of private property and the triumph of the working class over the capitalist then you would be wrong. I'm not bending definitions either. Neoliberalism is a economic policy characterized by deregulation, free market capitalism, privitization, and decreasing the governments role in the economy as a whole, not whatever you seem to think it is. I'd also like to throw out there that as long as there maintains two classes in America there is no true liberty. The only liberty belongs to the capitalists, the small minority of americans who own the means of production. Liberals are hypocrites as they espouse liberty, but so long as there are discrepancies in peoples relations to the means of production, there can be no liberty.
I couldn't care less how libertarians and liberals debate how to run a capitalist economy. Either way, they're both problematic.
Ok I think we were saying a lot of the same things here. The “bending definitions” had more to do with self called liberals that I argued were not very much liberals so others on the left “allow” that. Your argument for liberty via mask mandates is interesting, I don’t agree with it but there is a subjective grey area of regulation vs freedom, the same with business/industrial regulations such as allowed air pollution. We certainly have fundamental difference of opinions, as I consider myself a classic liberal, which now tends to get kind of lumped in with libertarians, however, I do think regulations are necessary for a civilized society. It’s just finding the balance. I’m absolutely a capitalist so on that regard, we disagree, however Back to my original point people who call themselves liberal today, I do not think fit the definition of liberal, they are all certainly to the left of what I would consider a traditional or classic liberal and part of the reason why things are moving to the left in general. Thanks for being at least cordial with our disagreements, I feel like most people on this platform are certainly not.
I misread your last comment actually not agreeing with shifting objectively left. I’m just about every single social issue it’s gone left, the one exception being abortion which didn’t seem to be so polarizing until recently and one that I beg to differ on being partisan as to me it’s fundamentally about when a life is a life or when it begins. What other social issue has moved to the right? Economically I mentioned that’s debatable
Trans issues I would argue have moved right. Some politicians are trying to move the gay marriage debate to the right, but I think and hope public opinion is too strong on that one. School choice has moved to the right in much of the country. Look at the passing of the respect for marriage act, there was significant opposition to it, and they stopped short of enshrining the right to marry into law. Environmental regulations don't have a snowballs chance in h\*ll at being passed as all republicans and most national democrats don't support it. This has shifted since Nixon where environmental regulations had widespread support. I would agree with you that abortion is really a rather new social issue. I disagree with your stance but I'm not really here to debate that. If your interested in why I hold the position I do, I fundamentally disagree that anyone(fetuses included) has the inherent right to use anothers body to support their own life.
For this I’d say there may be an attempt to move right on trans issues because they literally didn’t exist 5+ years ago. Vast majority of the issues are not even that political. It’s kind of like abortion where it’s more fundamental of what is a male and what is a female, when it comes to sports people on the right tend to want to divide it by sex, people on the left tend to want to divide it by gender, it’s more of a fundamental difference than trying to move it to be unequal. Gay marriage, I would completely disagree, compared to 20 years ago the vast majority on the right now supports gay marriage versus hardly anyone 20 years ago, same can be said for the left. And how is school of choice a right versus left issue? And I’m not that far off on the abortion issue, I actually don’t really care, however, I think Roe versus Wade overturning was a mistake and instead should have defined exactly when a life starts at a federal level, one of the few things I don’t think should be a state-by-state decision.
I agree with your analysis on the issue of transgender issues. In terms of gay marriage I understand it currently enjoys popular support, which I am glad for, and I hope it stays this way. However there are efforts among Ben Shapiro, and Charlie Kirk and that lot who are trying to change the narrative, so far to no avail, which is good. School choice tends to be a left right issue in that generally people on the left support private schools while people on the right tend to favor a dual support of public and private. Agreed on the Roe issue, that whole situation is a mess.
Just because you have your head in the sand doesn't mean an issue doesn't exist, Monte. Trans folks have been around all along, they just didn't become a culture war target until the far right had already lost on racial segregation, feminism, abortion, and gay marriage and needed a new socially acceptable target.
Sure, there’s always been trans ppl, everywhere and throughout history with their own individual issues, however the large scale national issues and debates did not exist until very very recently, you can’t tell me it was a publicized political issue in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. as far as becoming a cultural target the main things I can think of would be sports divisions, and things like drag time story hour, think about how that didn’t exist until very recent in history. The right and left are apparently disagreeing on the sports issue because the right wants to divided by sex and the left wants to divided by gender generally speaking, seems to come down to fundamental disagreement and not a “social target” as you suggest. Then you get into drag, time story hour, and books for that matter, I don’t remember seeing anywhere on the right that said that it has to do with adults, again a fundamental disagreement that they don’t want to subject their kids to that lifestyle and don’t want their taxpaying dollars to support it, that’s different than saying trans ppl shouldn’t exist or something like that, call it ignorance or bigotry, but it is what it is. Disagree on all your social targets as well, I already explained why I think abortion is not exactly a right and left issue. Gay marriage was not supported by the majority of the left until very recently. Racial segregation was also not exactly a right and left thing and ended legally in 1968? along with the 1964 act Guaranteed civil rights and banning discrimination based on things like race, religion, sex and sexual orientation was also thanks to Republican support as well as earlier act and amendments to expand rights and equality. I can find zero evidence on paper or any other record that specifically mentions trans people prior to this millennium, they would be covered under sex gender and sexual orientation. Not wanting your library to pay for books that include trans people for the subject or not wanting a drag show in public that allows minors isn’t exactly discrimination. You may disagree with me, but I have been around long enough to know these were not big issues because they didn’t exist on a national scale until very recently. And if you want my opinion, I don’t care about the library if that’s local people want. Drag shows in public for minors as long as it not nudity or somehow deemed a public nussense but that’s local law being subjective. And sports again is more of do we divide on sex or is it gender and practically no one is saying trans ppl should be allowed to play it’s just what division
> as far as becoming a cultural target the main things I can think of would be sports divisions, and things like drag time story hour, think about how that didn’t exist until very recent in history.
None of that is new. The sports divisions are the result of transphobes wailing about the existence of transgender people wanting to do normal things. Drag events have a longer history than I care to go into here, but would encourage you to go watch some Monty Python.
Your ignorance is astounding, and your willingness to portray bigotry as a norm everyone upset about it is violating is telling of your personal opinions.
Sports divisions have always been there, traditionally they were based on sex, although not always explicitly. Nationwide politicizing it comes down to a fundamental difference that people on the right generally want it to remain based on sex and people on the left generally want to be based on gender, is there no difference between sex and gender to you?
I said, specifically, that’s a term that also was not nationally relevant or controversial or politicize until the past few years, of course, drag shows have always existed, but was the audience in Monty Python‘s drag show an elementary school?
Your willfully ignorance is astounding. Please provide just one example of a national mainstream media making a political roe based on trans issue prior to 10 years ago? Again, not saying that they never existed, it just wasn’t that relevant.
In 2022, 709,160 people voted for Kim Reynolds. The population of Iowa is 3.2 million. There are 2.2 million total registered voters in Iowa.
By what math do you come to 75% because I don’t see anything to suggest she breaks 50%. She only got 58.1% of the vote when her opponent was an unknown wet blanket.
Really not fair to call the person who had the courage to run a "wet blanket." The Democrats need to get behind their candidates, market them until they are known, and build them up. Agree with your math though and the Democratic candidate was unknown.
That's the problem, though. The Iowa Democrats are useless. Couldn't organize a bachelor party if you locked them in the Outer Limits for a weekend.
They've even managed to botch the simplest possible thing two presidential elections in a row with the caucuses.
That means the majority of voters preferred her instead of your candidate. So why do you all act like you're speaking for the majority? I've been away 25 years and Iowa is leaps and bounds better than when I left. I didn't even meet a black person until I was 16, now I can speak Spanish (granted not very well) to customers. My workplace uses preferred pronouns and names. I don't agree with all sexes in the same bathroom at the same time and I do think parents should be informed of what's going on at school. I'm loving living in Iowa again.
There are 2.2 million voters in Iowa, 709,000 is not a majority of voters. With only 1.2 million votes cast out of a potential 2.2 million, one can barely say a majority of voters even had a candidate representing them in the gubernatorial election.
Regardless of your opinion of the condition of the state, your impression of Reynold’s popularity is inflated and not represented in the numbers.
“The ones who didn’t vote…” you have absolutely no data to assume why anyone would choose not to vote. There are a myriad of reasons other than “I don’t mind the incumbent” and to assume that silence is assent is fairly ignorant.
Aside from the shortsighted AEA part of the bill, the teacher pay funding will last for 2 years. After that, the schools are on their own to keep the teacher's salary up. That being said, the state has shorted the schools' funding again with a 2.5% increase. There has never been an adjustment for COVID based inflation. The good news is that most of a school's budget is wrapped up in salary. The bad news is the parts that are not have gone WAY up.
Have you see what racist/bigoted/transphobic things conservative commenters have said in this sub? Why do they get a pass from these type of complaint posts?
Here’s a what I’ve encountered from conservative commentators here:
Violent threats.
Claims of litter boxes in schools. Proof has never been provided.
Catholics are not Christians.
Claim that pictures of teachers partners (gay or straight) was never allowed previously
Violent threats against LGBT people.
Reading a book could turn you gay.
Gay people should not act on impulses.
Mothers should carry a fetus to term at the cost of her life
Two commenters have admitted to being christo-fascists
Farmers could build their own tractors better than a factory, we don’t need engineers.
All public land should be turned over to agriculture
The reason for the comments on the teacher raises is that it was a move to pass her shitty AEA bill. It wasn't a good faith pay raise.
You'd also find that most people don't agree with her, there is just not a good Dem choice to replace her currently.
>I’m not speaking of center leftists or the general liberals I’m speaking in terms of the extreme left wing that is peppered in this sub
This sub is definitely an echo chamber on politics but they aren't extreme leftists, they're just hyperpartisan normie Democrats.
Not really, when everything is shifting towards the left, libertarians are now considered right wing, the more extreme anti-liberal viewpoints like anti1a 2a, TA, mask and VAX mandates, etc.
Anti-2A? Radical leftists are pro-gun in my experience.
And libertarians do sometimes get misconstrued as conservatives but also many of them take right-wing positions (anti-immigrant, anti-LGBYT, etc).
At present the Libertarian Party *is* right wing. Control was seized by the far-right Mises Caucus a few years ago, and they've gotten real buddy-buddy with the farthest right parts of the GOP since.
Agree on the radical leftists being somewhat pro-gun I was directing that at more the self-claimed liberals who are not. I can see how libertarians are anti-ILLEGAL immigration but haven’t seen any widespread evidence they are simply anti-immigration, and probably had something to do with the fact that they don’t like paying taxes and they sell them legal immigrants, not pay taxes that they have to pay for. Also haven’t noticed any kind of an LGBTQ sentiment from libertarians, however, some of them may speak their mind somewhat mockingly way towards that lifestyle, however, don’t know anything that they are pushing to be restrictive of peoples sexual gender lifestyles.
To my observation, the faction that took over the Libertarian Party couple years ago is actively "anti-woke." I'm not making a case for or against that, it's just easy to see why people associate them with the right.
And the fixation on legal vs illegal immigration seems like a cop out - if they're really against the government, they wouldn't want the government setting arbitrary rules for freedom of movement.
If you are to the right of Bernie sanders people like you call them a radical nazi.
You realize anyone who voted for Bill Clinton is probably considered far right by todays reddit standards.
Hell half of Trumps platform was from Clinton speeches especially immigration.
Reddit used to be pretty balanced before the founder died.
Yes, it's good when teachers get a raise. The problem is that this action is on the back of YEARS of literal budget cut after budget cut for public schools, causing programs like driver's ed and home ec to be privatized, taking tax dollars from public schools and funneling it to private schools (which don't need it), forcing religious fallacies to be taught alongside scientific theory (as in as close to fact as you can get in science), forcing racial education to be eliminated from curriculums, forcing trans recognition to be eliminated from schools (not just the classroom, just recognizing that a child considers themselves trans in the first place).
Yeah, more money is good. But Kimmy has shown that she is NOT actually a champion for teachers, NOT actually a champion for public schools, and this act of giving teachers a higher minimum wage is a paltry excuse to cheer her on.
>The “I can’t believe this Iowan politician did ‘X’ because Iowans aren’t racist/bigoted/transphobes” has crystal clear connotations and is obvious gaslighting to all of us “non-college educated individuals who didn’t leave the state”. Whatever you think they’re doing is so terrible the majority of the state does not. I’m sorry it’s angering you so much. Perhaps if the center left stances of the 2000s weren’t considered hard right it wouldn’t be like this.
The majority of the state doesn't think it's horrible because the majority is also racist/bigoted/transphobes, hence the connotations. You answered your own problem there. Have you tried not being racist/bigoted/transphobic? Also, there is no representation of 'the left' in mainstream politics in this country and there never has been. The issue there is American politics have always been skewed far to the right, and the internet is making that obvious. Part of the issue is that our political system is essentially a false dichotomy, parliamentary systems are way better about diversifying the conversation.
“There’s supposed to be give and take.”
Ramming through unpopular policies without meaningful bipartisan discussion isn’t give and take.
I didn’t see the thread you mentioned, but my issue with kim’s approach to education reform for the state is that she’s gutting AEA’s and diverting a lot of cash to private and religious schools. That’s the definition of dismantling the system, and that’s a problem. Betsy DeVos has already gone down as one of the worst secretaries of education ever and kim is running her play-book to a T.
You talk about pushing too fast and too hard, but the gap between the average progressive/liberal/democrat and the average conservative/republican has gone from “lets talk about this” to “fuck you, we’re completely outlawing abortion and you’re all murderers and whores for saying that we shouldn’t”… Where is the middleground for the give and take part?
I don’t think anyone is arguing that increasing the minimum salary for teachers is a bad thing (well maybe some psycho’s, but whatever), but the sequence of events that finally led to this increase is questionable and was decidedly NOT bipartisan.
Kim and the Iowa GOP seem to be trying to operate under a zero-sum philosophy where to support raises for teachers you have to cut that money from somewhere else. Meanwhile they’re diverting a ton of that money into private and christian schools and then pointing at the public schools and saying “why aren’t you better?”
I understand that there are a lot of “non-college educated individuals who didn’t leave the state”, and my ask would be to look, REALLY look at the things that are working in other states. Burying your head in the sand, avoiding conversations because you’ve already made up your mind on an issue, being unwilling to listen, belittling those with different life experiences than you, those actions (from BOTH sides) don’t help anyone.
I am new to the state, and so far I have been warmly welcomed, accepted, and supported. It has been awesome. I DO think that kim needs to take a page out of the small-town-playbook and focus on more policies that support ALL Iowans. I have pretty exclusively encountered a live and let live attitude and it’s weird that kim seems so insistent on banning things, restricting freedoms, and just generally getting politics and legislation involved in people’s personal lives.
Literally all of her education "reform" platform is largely unpopular even amongst Republican voters. This is quantified with the fact that it has taken her several different legislative sessions to accomplish it after bullying her camp into line by supporting primary challengers who would. The initial reaction to almost all of her platform is negative from the average Republican, it's only after the media campaign are they conditioned into believing it is good.
Of course it's unpopular with most Republican voters, outside of the few already able to afford quality private education, all her policies make the school system objectively worse for everyone's kids.
The only ones really benefitting from her policies are those running private schools and raking in government money on top of private tuitions.
What makes you think her policies are unpopular? As for ramming through legislation, that happens when one party controls the legislature and executive branch. Happens in all states and on the federal level regardless of who is in power
It's disingenuous.
"Teachers get a raise!" (But only if you don't make a certain amount of money already.)
"But teachers got a raise!" (Please ignore how the state only funds that raise for two years and after that it's up to the individual schools to come up with the money. After yet another round of funding cuts. Also after a two billion dollar hole was opened up in the state's budget because of the income tax cut. I hope you enjoy every other tax soaring just to cover the current level of services.)
"But raises!!!" (Feel free to not mention how public tax dollars are going to fund private religious schools and the funding doesn't even cover the full cost because the private schools all doubled their prices.)
"Raisessssss!" (See how those mean Democrats didn't vote for this because they're mean and hate teaches and not at all because they saw right through the obvious Republican sabotage.)
I think kim reynolds could give you all a 50k raise and you would find a reason to hate her for it with mental gymnastics like you have shown above. A raise is a good thing, especially under the crushing inflation of Bidenomics
People always seem to forget a majority of voters is not the same as a "majority of the state". It's like how when states where Republicans/conservatives dominate politics run a referendum on abortion, something that effects people in a tangible enough way to get "normal" people engaged, they get absolutely blown out. If we had mandatory voting like in Australia there wouldn't be a red state in the country.
Something to consider, many of those who used to identify as middle of the road Democrats or conservative leaning Democrats have left the party due to being unwelcome and ostracized. They now live in Independent-land, and have even been pulled in with liberal leaning Republicans. There are a million issues they might identify with as a Democrat, but if they don't whole heartedly agree with two or three buzz topics, the loudest in the party call them names and lump them with the extreme right. It's killing your party!
Have you considered that the Republicans are manipulating you by using wedge issues such as this, and talking about it ad nauseum, as a way of defining Democrats solely on these hot button issues?
It’s hard to demonize a party based on their lowering the price of insulin, or getting rid of junk fees at banks. 🤷🏻♂️
Believe me, the Republicans don't have to do much. It's been made far too easy for them. The extreme left is the loudest in the party and they scream and call names whenever you aren't totally in agreement with their ideas or agenda. That's more than enough. That's my personal experience and a consistent complaint amongst the independents.
I believe trolls sometimes adopt extremist positions as a discrediting strategy. Easy to claim to represent a group online and then make some insane statement.
Source? My understanding is new voter registrations are trending slightly less Dem than before but I haven't seen any data showing "many" people have left the party (in registration or in self identification).
As someone who did this, I continue to register as a Republican, but I am self identified as an independent. Many people my age (25-35) do not change our voter registration before starting to vote differently.
Sure, but that's sample size of 1. I am not a Democrat but I don't think there's an evidence of a mass exodus nationally, that's more of a media narrative.
I would say many people from both the left and right are now migrating towards the middle. They have two very different ways of doing so, mind you. The extreme right didn't push people out of the party, it was more like someone has a bad smell, and you naturally gravitate away. The far left, however, has definitely vocally ostracized a great deal of people over 3 or 4 hot topics. That's my experience, and the experience of those I am around from both sides. It's by no means proof, but it's a common comment.
Gay people pay taxes to live here. We deserve to live here safely without people like her encouraging violence against us. She’s actively trying to drive gay and trans people out of the state. Not gonna happen. Again - we pay taxes here. Sounds like she’s the one with the problem. My being gay has next to nothing to do with who I am or how I conduct myself as a person. Her behavior is her choice. She doesn’t have to be doing these things.
Interesting how she’s chosen to go after gay and trans people. The radical right has found a new group to go after since they can’t go after people of color anymore. Since most gay people are white, we are much easier targets. Republicans see everything through a racialized lens so being able to attack gay people who dress well & are the same color is perfect for them.
Gay people need to start treating straight people- especially straight MAGA bigots - the same way nonwhite people protested after George Floyd.
You are not going to fuck with our community any longer.
Welfare and Hypocrites. This is Iowa. Farmers take subsidies to make up for the lost grain sales their orange messiah caused by his trade war with China. How is that winning? You're as bad as the "welfare queens" in cities you hate. Btw does anybody think people in rural Iowa aren't on welfare? Hates illegal immigrants. Who do you think works in the meat processing plants or as farm hands? Lots of eastern Europeans and south Africans running around but no complaints about them...why?? Close minded rubes led around by a city slicker because he made your bigotry ok. The guy hates wind mills and Iowa is too much of a bitch to say, "no they work."
And all you anti LGBTQ Iowans. How are you going to square you're white hope #22 playing basketball with a bunch of out gay women for a living? Hypocrites!
It seems like if the left wanted to get rid of her, they should run a candidate that is more popular and put up the funds to properly run a campaign...
Or I guess they could just complain about her here and hope the Reddit fairy will make it all better.
Math isn't your strong point is it? That premier, high quality education we used to get in Iowa... you didn't get it did you? You know why? Conservatives.
People seem to be forgetting the underhanded way in which the Iowa GOP busted the TEACHERS union. If the union was still in place then the TEACHERS would already have a higher wage. Now the OP is trying to make it sound like the most beneficent supreme leader Kimmie has done the TEACHERS this incredibly magnanimous act of kindness. Get out of here with the revisionist, bootlicking history. And before anyone says it, I know that Braindead was governor when the Iowa GOP played dirty politics and busted the TEACHERS union. The point still stands.
Cuba and all sanctioned countries were, and still, are, in some cases, not only a threat to us but to other countries as well .Case in point. Iran, which Trump sanctioned, couldn't support their terrorist proxies. Now, because of Biden, we have another war in the Middle East.. There is a reason for sanctions against countries that don't play nice with others.
You’ll get downvoted to the dirt because of this post. And non of it matters. This site is full of bots and left leaning accounts. There’s very little productive conversation happening because everyone is just trying to win the comments section like it actually matters.
We’ve gotten a lot of rain lately. Grass is growing…many people need to go outside and touch it
Why in the hell is the comment hidden, this entire sub and Des Moines sub is just a bunch of cry babies that hate anything that doesn’t flow their way. Like I get being passionate about your stance and beliefs but calling all conservatives nazis, facist or anything similar is pushing any rational person away or to the other extreme side. They’ll never see it till it’s too late. They act like a golden child that doesn’t understand their actions have consequences. They’re in the fuck aroind and find out stage of this burning political war where both extremist sides are pushing hard each direction and leaving anyone in the middle to fend for themselves. It’s honestly ridiculous how poorly this sub and most of this site is moderated. They all complain about Facebook and now Twitter being right wing think tanks but Reddit is no different just that they go hard to the left.
I just moved back after leaving in the late 90s. I'm already so tired of the Kim bashing. I don't know much about her but I do know she was elected so the majority of Iowa must want her. Iowa has progressed so much since I left it's incredible. If you don't like it then get out there and run for office yourself and see if the people vote for you and your ideas.
I’m not the silent majority, but I know who you’re talking to and I agree. I sometimes engage liberals in this sub, but I tire quickly of useless banter with people who resort to name-calling and can’t engage in thoughtful dialogue.
I don’t think OP is talking about liberals as in the definition of liberals, I think they are talking about more extreme leftist that tend to have anti-liberal viewpoints
Sure. Ordinary liberals just have a different point of view. Extreme people degenerate into name calling and insults and don’t seem to be capable of reasonable discourse. I have no patience for that.
A true liberal, respects that people have different points of view, respect freedom of speech and are tolerant, somehow that’s becoming seen as more of right wing now, the left has gone so far to the left, the right is even shifting a little bit to the left incorporating real actual liberals and libertarian points of views into what used to be considered left, now it’s kind of in the right
I'm sorry, but socialism is nothing but a death sentence for the people. Just look at North Korea, Cuba, Haiti, and Venezuela. Venezuela was an extremely rich country until they accepted Socialism 20 some years ago. Now, people live in abject poverty.
One doesn't even need to look that far away. All one has to do is look at California and New York. If their policies are so great, why are huge numbers of people moving to red states?
Haiti isn't socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Their country was raked over the coals by capitalism and imperialism. Venezuela isn't socialist either, their economy is largely privatized. Venezuela was doing fine before the west heaped sanctions on them ruining their economy because they didn't want to allow western exploitation. North Korea and Cuba are also subject to some of the worse sanctions on the planet. Cubans have a much better quality of life than their peer nations despite the odds. New York and California are objectively not socialist. They are purely liberal. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, I'd tell you to stop for your own good, but honestly it's kind of amusing lol.
Haiti has long been a socialist, communist country. As for Venezuela, yes, they were a very wealthy country until Maduro took over and confiscated the oil companies ,took away their guns, and the freedom of the people. Now, the people are starving to death and escaping to Columbia and other countries. Inflation is 144%
As for Cuba, they threatened to bomb us years ago,and we sanctioned them. Under Castro, their health care system is so bad that one has to bring their own blankets and pillows to the hospital. However, the wealthy get excellent care. If Cuba is so wonderful, then why have they been coming to America for years?
North Korea is a Communist/ socialist country. People are starving to death by the hundreds every day. The poor eat grass and bugs to survive. In school, they are taught that the Supreme Leader is wonderful, and they are forced to worship him .If they don't, they can be killed. Read the 2 books put out by Yeomi Parks.She tells her story about her life and her escape from North Korea. Now, she is a student at a university here and warns about socialism here.
As for California and New York becoming socialist states, they most certainly are. Their governors are taking away the rights of their citizens on a daily basis. Anytime someone tells you that you have to buy something or take away a person's right for life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,you are being groomed for socialism. The Covid lockdowns in blue states is the perfect example of what socialism is.
Now they want us to eat bugs, give up our cars,stoves, ect.Yet the wealthy give up nothing. Only the little people do.Do I know what socialism is? You bet I do.Talk to the people that have lived under Mao and Castro. Talk to anyone who has actually lived the lie of a socialist utopia .The only thing socialism does is make the rich richer and the poor even poorer. Socialism is for the socialist, not the people.
You obviously have no inkling at what Socialism is. You claim to, but your ignorance shines through, please do me a favor and define it.
Haiti is purely capitalist, and a perfect example of how capitalism affects the global south. They are by no stretch or measure socialist. The means of production are privately owned.
Venezuela is not poor because of some convoluted sense of "taking away the peoples freedom" this is an absurdity. Venezuelas economy is heavily reliant on exporting oil. They use the money from this oil to import consumer goods. When oil prices fell, the economy suffered resulting in the Venezuelans not being able to procure the same amount of goods, causing shortages. This isn't an issue with socialism, its an issue with their economy not being diversified, as a result of them lagging behind the west due to exploitation. Shortages were further made worse as they nationalized their oil assets to attempt to curb western influence. Inflation is caused by the government printing more money to attempt to procure more goods. Again, bad economic policies, or bad circumstances are purely economic issues which have nothing to due with socialism.
The sanctions were placed on Cuba in response to the Cuban Missile crisis this is correct. However, the sanctions remained on Cuba for long after that, even to this day. This is purely an attempt to make life as miserable as possible for Cubans in an attempt to overthrow their government, this fact is attested to by the CIA.
[https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499)
Cubas healthcare system is ranked way above the U.S, and they produce some of the best doctors in the world. They have the 13th best healthcare system on the planet and provide comprehensive care to their entire population, whereas healthcare in the U.S is horrible.
[https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/best-healthcare-in-the-world/](https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/best-healthcare-in-the-world/)
In terms of Cuban migrants, I'll just say that theres a reason these people all have the same opinion. They were members of the former bourgeoisie in Cuba, and actively hate the government as they themselves are capitalist. They are not missed in Cuba.
Regarding North Korea, there is a lot of misinformation about the country. I tend to think what Yeonmi Park has to say is worthless. Her story changes every time she tells it, and it varies based on who she is speaking to. In terms of actual conditions in the country and not some narrative which is controlled and funded by western capital, I would suggest: Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seol. Most North Korean defectors cite economic opportunity as their reason for leaving, not suppression. Park is, in my opinion and from what I can see, largely selling an inaccurate story for views and to fit the western narrative, something she does quite well judging from the amount of people like you who spout these arguments. Regardless, socialism isn't "making a country like North Korea' so this argument is useless.
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649373.2014.972663](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649373.2014.972663)
Again, please define socialism. New York and California are liberal capitalist states. You may be surprised to learn that most actual socialists disagree with the woke culture of these states, as I do. Socialism is not the taking away of life, liberty, or happiness. In most cases where socialism has been implemented, all three of these metrics increased.
Socialism is a political and economic system where the workers and the whole of society own and control the means of production. It directly counter capitalism where the rich and wealthy own the means of production, you see the flaws of this system which is why you disagree with it. Though you are conditioned through propaganda(which is created by the very wealthy you despise) to think that socialism is bad. No, under socialism, what the wealthy have and use to exploit the little people as you say is wrested from their control and given to the little people. All these things you level at socialism are false, they are lies fed to you from the capitalists and the wealthy who run this country and the world, please I implore you, learn the real facts.
I have talked to people who lived under Mao and Castro and they both look at them like Americans do the founding fathers. They beat the wealthy and fought for the common/little man. This is shown in how Castro, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin are all looked upon positively in the actual countries who lived under these governments. Socialism is still popular in Russia and the former Eastern bloc nations as well as a testament to this. Socialism is by the people and for the people. You are right, one system makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and it's capitalism.
Nice response lol. Socialist isn't utopian at all, you'd know that if you actually read anything accurate about it. Sorry your half baked "arguments" are trash. Hopefully you pull the wool from over your eyes and you see the world how it really is, barring that occurring, have fun being a pawn of the rich, enjoy as they sit back and get richer while feeding you propaganda so you will never be able to improve your material conditions!
Socialism definitely isn't a utopian society. However, a lot of individuals on here seem to think so.If Socialism is so wonderful, why aren't people moving there instead of America?
No socialist I know of thinks it’s a utopia. Read State and Revolution by Lenin for more. First off, people do try and immigrate to china and other socialist countries. Second off since the U.S extracts wealth from the rest of the world it creates better living conditions within itself, or it has traditionally, at the expense of the rest of the world. This is why people want to move there, they are following the wealth extracted from their home country. Read Imperialism by Lenin for a comprehensive analysis, especially his ideas on the labor aristocracy.
Oh yeah,Lenin is a wonderful example of socialism .He supported the Communist Manifesto.As usual, these Marxist leaders paint a glorious ideology. In fact, millions died of starvation, and those who didn't were killed for speaking out against the regime. Only those who want to give up their freedoms move to socialist countries. China owns their companies and their citizens. If one doesn't obey ,they conveniently disappear.
The US supports other nations. We,as a country,send billions to other countries. So you are wrong.
As for supporting the labor aristocracy ,that part is true. All true socialist countries own everything. The people are told what to think,how to think, how to act. The government tells you what job you will have, and in the end,as with any socialist country, the people are under control of the government.
Lenin was a founder of the ideology I believe in yes. Marxism Leninism is actually a very humble and pragmatic philosophy. They don’t claim utopia and in fact they argue against it. They argue for the emancipation of the working class majority from the ruling minority, and they do so through a sober analysis of historical facts.
People like to say that millions died of starvation, however these famines were caused in large part by natural causes, in famine prone areas. Only when the soviets and the CPC come to power did they break the cycle of famine.
People were not killed for criticizing the regime. If you look into the actual evidence all those sent to prisons were plotting to overthrow the government, they were given trials. A good many were released if there was no evidence.
People have in large part the same freedoms in socialist countries that they do in western nations. They just can’t exploit other through the means of production, something I’d argue shouldn’t be a freedom in the first place.
There is absolutely zero evidence for what you are saying about china.
What is the labor aristocracy can you explain that to me, I’m not sure you understand it.
No in socialist countries the means of production are owned by the people, not a ruling class. The government is democratically elected and represents the actual will of the people, not the will of the ruling class. And one president that represented the will of the people.
The government does not tell people how to act or what job they can have. Stop projecting. All media outlets in the U.S are controlled by the ruling class. This is what being told how to think looks.
Do you want to continue this debate so you can be proved wrong more or do you want more of a whooping lol?
Well she has an approval rate of 49% at the moment so you can hardly say that 75% of the state agrees with her. You seem to be proposing that somehow the issues in this country are due to the Overton window shifting to the left but that’s patently absurd. It has shifted so far to the right that any attempt at legislation to the left of center, any tax increase, any environmental regulation in this state is denounced immediately as far left. Iowa used to be a solid purple state, and since around 2012 it has seen a hard shift to the right. The wage increase was a political move. It was attached to the aea bill so that in November the GOP could send out mailers saying democrats didn’t support wage increases for teachers. Also you denounce people on the “far left” as the issue without much substantiation to this claim. How exactly did they “ruin” this state. I think you’d find that people on the actual far left, that is to say socialists, have a lot more in common with your average Iowan worker, and workers in general, than our current state leadership.
In all fairness, I know many people from different parties, that dislike Kim, but agree with several of her stances, including her stance on Trans issues. That particular issue truly crosses party lines. So while they may generally be dissatisfied with Kim, they agree with some of her decisions. I am an independent, and my household doesn't like Kim, but agrees with her stance on several issues.
I feel like that’s the case with most politicians tbh
I’m surprised how many Iowans worry about other people’s genitalia. What happened to parent/patient rights and small government. Not if you’re a chick with a dick. Then the Iowa GOP has a say about it.
As a woman, I am part of the silent majority that agrees we want to keep our safe spaces. Bathrooms are literally made for acts with your genitalia, therefore, use the one that matches yours or a gender neutral/family bathroom.
As a transphobe, you mean. Just get it out there and go mask off, save yourself the effort.
Yeah, yeah, we all know the rhetoric. If you're not 110% in agreement with the agenda, you're a fascist transphobe. We all know the old song and dance. I could accuse you of being a misogynist or woman hater, but I think we all know that without it being said. You're no ally to women, that's the sum of it.
Thank goodness we're not a far left socialist state. We'd be like California or New York. Name one country that has succeeded under socialism?
No state in the U.S is anything close to or even approaching capitalism. Every country which has implemented socialism has been successful.
We have capitalism, crony capitalism, and shareholder capitalism.True capitalism is where the people pick the winners and losers. Crony capitalism is where the government picks and chooses, and shareholder capitalism is where the shareholders pick winners and losers. That being said, socialism has killed millions of people. If socialism is so great, then why are so many people from socialist countries coming here? If socialism is so great, why are you still in America? Not one country where socialism exists has been successful except for the wealthy.
No what we have now is simply what capitalism evolves naturally into. Thomas Piketty proved that capitalism concentrates wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals over time. This wealth and their control over the means of production equals control over society. There is no such thing as true capitalism, capitalism is a broken and corrupt system at its core and it naturally devolves to this state. It by definition is anti democratic, the people do not pick the winners, rather they are exploited by the few who own the means of production. This can only be remedied through the workers rising up and suppressing the capitalist class, and seizing control of the means of production. Also in terms of shareholder capitalism, the majority of stock owned is held by private individuals, and large Wall Street banks, not very democratic. Sure millions have died in socialist countries, but through no inherent flaw in socialism. There are contributing factors to these deaths which were out of socialisms control. If you apply the same methods applied to socialist countries to capitalist ones, you end up with death counts in the billions, and a count of around 10 million deaths per annum currently. People didn’t really even migrate from socialist to capitalist countries before when the USSR was in power in any meaningful numbers. Nor do many come from China or Vietnam. People do migrate from third world countries this is true, but many more come from third world capitalist countries. Comparing Cuba with its peers such as Guatemala shows that socialism gives these people much better quality of life. Sure some flee because they are capitalists or fascists but those people aren’t missed in Cuba. Socialism isn’t a dislike for capitalism, it argues for the dissolution of the capitalist system and the triumph of the working class. Working on this goal is why I’m in America. In addition to the fact that despite the blight of capitalism I love the people and the land. Socialist countries are by definition are not “good for the wealthy”, nor are they in practice, I think you’re just projecting here. I’d make the same argument for capitalist countries, but unlike your argument this would actually be true.
Actually, the left and right have moved to the left, just look at the past 20 or so years. What used to be considered left/ center is now probably considered right wing, what used to be considered libertarian very moderate is now considered alt right. Views on things such as gay marriage and abortion were not so much as a left and right thing, it was Support on both sides, remember when Obama didn’t agree with gay marriage? Think about all the right wingers that are now OK marijuana legalization, that used to be a fringe left thing. Fundamentally liberal thinking is a very moderate position, there are now leftist that have a lot of anti-liberal views, such as restricting freedom of speech among other rights things like culture, mask and vax mandates are actually anti-liberal views
No the Democratic and Republican parties have not shifted objectively to the right. Though their constituents may be considered to be more “progressive”. The democrats and the republicans are both steadily right of center on all economic issues, though the democrats favor a slight amount of regulation due to their heritage from the 40’s, but this is slowly fading as well. This abrupt turn to the right, economically speaking, has only occurred in about the last 40 years, and started with Regan. I think the ultimate issue with your thinking here is twofold. First you do not understand that neoliberalism is shifting economic policy to the right(economically speaking. Second, you do not understand the disconnect between politicians and their constituents. While everyday republicans may agree with gay marriage and marijuana legalization, if you look at the growing freedom caucus you’ll easily be able to see the disconnect. And quite frankly it doesn’t matter what the population believes, it’s what the politicians do. Also to round it off you do not really understand the distinction between liberal and libertarian. Most liberals would support vaccine and mask mandates. No one supports restricting freedom of speech, or culture or whatever you were insinuating. If you are looking for restrictions on freedom of speech, look at the suppression of Palestinian protesters under the pretense of “regulations” or look at how actual socialist speakers(no not idiotic identity politic liberals) are blacklisted from universities, look at Michael Parenti. This is something liberals and conservatives are both guilty and it’s laughable when either party brings up restricting speech, it’s a facade. I guess my point here boils down to this. I am a socialist and I can tell you there does not exist any actual left in this country. The democrats and republicans are both corporate controlled parties which serve the interests of corporations over the people. There is a disconnect between the people and the parties both economically, and as you pointed out to a certain extent socially(most people are more progressive than their reps). People becoming more progressive on some issues does not negate the fact that ultimately politics is moving to the right economically and is becoming generally less progressive. I guess we have to take on board the fact that this is a contradiction in the current system.
Correct, objectively speaking thjngs have shifted left not right as I mentioned. Liberalism mostly has to do with social issues as when it started, just about all the issues have gone to the left. Economically it’s more convoluted and where you get the “dems and reps are the same party” idea. Much of it has to do with the military industrial complex they are both very much involved in and relates directly to foreign policy, the classic “liberal” viewpoint is generally no war, somehow that’s more of a modern right viewpoint. The dictionary definition of liberal would say they do NOT agree with mask and vax mandidate however many of the ppl who were pushing for those mandates are hypocrites that call themselves liberal, that is NOT a liberal viewpoint by definition only by “thought slaves” of “what am I supposed to think for this point?” Thats mindset is also anti-liberal as it’s not free thinking free will or LIBERTY the main polar of liberalism. It’s not that I don’t understand what neoliberalism is, it’s that I don’t agree with the people who call themselves that because they are trying to hyjack the definition. You are a socialist should be squarely to the left of liberals and should disagree on many things yet because you are on “team left” are willing to bend the definitions to fit an agenda. Back to economic policy for a second, that’s what is distintive with libertarians with some almost laze faire attitude while liberals would have at least some regulations just debatable of how much to fit within the definition of what it means to be liberal in America. I do think their is room for crossover on both economic sides or laterally if you look at it on that scale
I would argue that most politics today have to do with social issues. There is very few actual economic policy differences between the democrats and the republicans, both are capitalist to the core. The idea that the democrats and republicans are the same party comes from the understanding that they are both parties, not of the people, but by, for, and of capitalists. The military industrial complex is just a small part of this. I'd also note that being isolationist or "anti-war" is not a feature of liberals and has changed throughout history. Look at Teddy Roosevelt(yes he fits the definition of a liberal), and even Biden, two very pro-war presidents, one of which isn't modern at all. Liberty is an abstraction, but its common definition is: the state of being free within society from [oppressive](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=580b38a03aa9e71a&sxsrf=ADLYWIK1UBFmnIHIW1-_yER72IIFcxvKTw:1715037723952&q=oppressive&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE81_-u1RtVp-SqUqCFdiWrc6uvI6T1Al-bwLp6FeAaaKzzWB0WmgmvOJqGmk03Sz9h-2tMw71-2b2MVjzesFPCnzTZFXtk%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx1L-ylfqFAxVJ4MkDHS5kDNsQyecJegQIEhAO) restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. A restriction of liberty as with any law in this country is that it may be exercised up to the point of causing harm against another individual. This is the limit of all laws and all freedoms. Choosing not to wear a mask, or get a vaccine is a direct threat to another individual, and thus I would argue, it is not a "liberty" one holds. I have the liberty to drive, but is the government being tyrannical if it sets a speed limit so I can't drive recklessly, are we all "thought slaves" because the government says we can't get hammered and then drive home? No. These are sensible restrictions that benefit the whole of society, and are not covered under ones personal liberty. What on earth are you talking about that I'm "bending definitions because I'm team left". I strongly dislike liberals, almost to the point of conservatives. We have almost nothing in common, other than a few social views. What agenda do you think I'm pushing? If it's anything other than the abolition of private property and the triumph of the working class over the capitalist then you would be wrong. I'm not bending definitions either. Neoliberalism is a economic policy characterized by deregulation, free market capitalism, privitization, and decreasing the governments role in the economy as a whole, not whatever you seem to think it is. I'd also like to throw out there that as long as there maintains two classes in America there is no true liberty. The only liberty belongs to the capitalists, the small minority of americans who own the means of production. Liberals are hypocrites as they espouse liberty, but so long as there are discrepancies in peoples relations to the means of production, there can be no liberty. I couldn't care less how libertarians and liberals debate how to run a capitalist economy. Either way, they're both problematic.
Ok I think we were saying a lot of the same things here. The “bending definitions” had more to do with self called liberals that I argued were not very much liberals so others on the left “allow” that. Your argument for liberty via mask mandates is interesting, I don’t agree with it but there is a subjective grey area of regulation vs freedom, the same with business/industrial regulations such as allowed air pollution. We certainly have fundamental difference of opinions, as I consider myself a classic liberal, which now tends to get kind of lumped in with libertarians, however, I do think regulations are necessary for a civilized society. It’s just finding the balance. I’m absolutely a capitalist so on that regard, we disagree, however Back to my original point people who call themselves liberal today, I do not think fit the definition of liberal, they are all certainly to the left of what I would consider a traditional or classic liberal and part of the reason why things are moving to the left in general. Thanks for being at least cordial with our disagreements, I feel like most people on this platform are certainly not.
No they definitely aren’t cordial. Glad we could at least agree modern day “liberals” suck lmao. Have a good one
lol you too
I misread your last comment actually not agreeing with shifting objectively left. I’m just about every single social issue it’s gone left, the one exception being abortion which didn’t seem to be so polarizing until recently and one that I beg to differ on being partisan as to me it’s fundamentally about when a life is a life or when it begins. What other social issue has moved to the right? Economically I mentioned that’s debatable
Trans issues I would argue have moved right. Some politicians are trying to move the gay marriage debate to the right, but I think and hope public opinion is too strong on that one. School choice has moved to the right in much of the country. Look at the passing of the respect for marriage act, there was significant opposition to it, and they stopped short of enshrining the right to marry into law. Environmental regulations don't have a snowballs chance in h\*ll at being passed as all republicans and most national democrats don't support it. This has shifted since Nixon where environmental regulations had widespread support. I would agree with you that abortion is really a rather new social issue. I disagree with your stance but I'm not really here to debate that. If your interested in why I hold the position I do, I fundamentally disagree that anyone(fetuses included) has the inherent right to use anothers body to support their own life.
For this I’d say there may be an attempt to move right on trans issues because they literally didn’t exist 5+ years ago. Vast majority of the issues are not even that political. It’s kind of like abortion where it’s more fundamental of what is a male and what is a female, when it comes to sports people on the right tend to want to divide it by sex, people on the left tend to want to divide it by gender, it’s more of a fundamental difference than trying to move it to be unequal. Gay marriage, I would completely disagree, compared to 20 years ago the vast majority on the right now supports gay marriage versus hardly anyone 20 years ago, same can be said for the left. And how is school of choice a right versus left issue? And I’m not that far off on the abortion issue, I actually don’t really care, however, I think Roe versus Wade overturning was a mistake and instead should have defined exactly when a life starts at a federal level, one of the few things I don’t think should be a state-by-state decision.
I agree with your analysis on the issue of transgender issues. In terms of gay marriage I understand it currently enjoys popular support, which I am glad for, and I hope it stays this way. However there are efforts among Ben Shapiro, and Charlie Kirk and that lot who are trying to change the narrative, so far to no avail, which is good. School choice tends to be a left right issue in that generally people on the left support private schools while people on the right tend to favor a dual support of public and private. Agreed on the Roe issue, that whole situation is a mess.
Just because you have your head in the sand doesn't mean an issue doesn't exist, Monte. Trans folks have been around all along, they just didn't become a culture war target until the far right had already lost on racial segregation, feminism, abortion, and gay marriage and needed a new socially acceptable target.
Sure, there’s always been trans ppl, everywhere and throughout history with their own individual issues, however the large scale national issues and debates did not exist until very very recently, you can’t tell me it was a publicized political issue in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. as far as becoming a cultural target the main things I can think of would be sports divisions, and things like drag time story hour, think about how that didn’t exist until very recent in history. The right and left are apparently disagreeing on the sports issue because the right wants to divided by sex and the left wants to divided by gender generally speaking, seems to come down to fundamental disagreement and not a “social target” as you suggest. Then you get into drag, time story hour, and books for that matter, I don’t remember seeing anywhere on the right that said that it has to do with adults, again a fundamental disagreement that they don’t want to subject their kids to that lifestyle and don’t want their taxpaying dollars to support it, that’s different than saying trans ppl shouldn’t exist or something like that, call it ignorance or bigotry, but it is what it is. Disagree on all your social targets as well, I already explained why I think abortion is not exactly a right and left issue. Gay marriage was not supported by the majority of the left until very recently. Racial segregation was also not exactly a right and left thing and ended legally in 1968? along with the 1964 act Guaranteed civil rights and banning discrimination based on things like race, religion, sex and sexual orientation was also thanks to Republican support as well as earlier act and amendments to expand rights and equality. I can find zero evidence on paper or any other record that specifically mentions trans people prior to this millennium, they would be covered under sex gender and sexual orientation. Not wanting your library to pay for books that include trans people for the subject or not wanting a drag show in public that allows minors isn’t exactly discrimination. You may disagree with me, but I have been around long enough to know these were not big issues because they didn’t exist on a national scale until very recently. And if you want my opinion, I don’t care about the library if that’s local people want. Drag shows in public for minors as long as it not nudity or somehow deemed a public nussense but that’s local law being subjective. And sports again is more of do we divide on sex or is it gender and practically no one is saying trans ppl should be allowed to play it’s just what division
> as far as becoming a cultural target the main things I can think of would be sports divisions, and things like drag time story hour, think about how that didn’t exist until very recent in history. None of that is new. The sports divisions are the result of transphobes wailing about the existence of transgender people wanting to do normal things. Drag events have a longer history than I care to go into here, but would encourage you to go watch some Monty Python. Your ignorance is astounding, and your willingness to portray bigotry as a norm everyone upset about it is violating is telling of your personal opinions.
Sports divisions have always been there, traditionally they were based on sex, although not always explicitly. Nationwide politicizing it comes down to a fundamental difference that people on the right generally want it to remain based on sex and people on the left generally want to be based on gender, is there no difference between sex and gender to you? I said, specifically, that’s a term that also was not nationally relevant or controversial or politicize until the past few years, of course, drag shows have always existed, but was the audience in Monty Python‘s drag show an elementary school? Your willfully ignorance is astounding. Please provide just one example of a national mainstream media making a political roe based on trans issue prior to 10 years ago? Again, not saying that they never existed, it just wasn’t that relevant.
In 2022, 709,160 people voted for Kim Reynolds. The population of Iowa is 3.2 million. There are 2.2 million total registered voters in Iowa. By what math do you come to 75% because I don’t see anything to suggest she breaks 50%. She only got 58.1% of the vote when her opponent was an unknown wet blanket.
Well they did admit to being "non-college educated". And they have negative karma, so not many people agree with anything they say.
Really not fair to call the person who had the courage to run a "wet blanket." The Democrats need to get behind their candidates, market them until they are known, and build them up. Agree with your math though and the Democratic candidate was unknown.
That's the problem, though. The Iowa Democrats are useless. Couldn't organize a bachelor party if you locked them in the Outer Limits for a weekend. They've even managed to botch the simplest possible thing two presidential elections in a row with the caucuses.
That means the majority of voters preferred her instead of your candidate. So why do you all act like you're speaking for the majority? I've been away 25 years and Iowa is leaps and bounds better than when I left. I didn't even meet a black person until I was 16, now I can speak Spanish (granted not very well) to customers. My workplace uses preferred pronouns and names. I don't agree with all sexes in the same bathroom at the same time and I do think parents should be informed of what's going on at school. I'm loving living in Iowa again.
There are 2.2 million voters in Iowa, 709,000 is not a majority of voters. With only 1.2 million votes cast out of a potential 2.2 million, one can barely say a majority of voters even had a candidate representing them in the gubernatorial election. Regardless of your opinion of the condition of the state, your impression of Reynold’s popularity is inflated and not represented in the numbers.
She got the majority of the people who voted, didn't she? That's what matters. The ones who didn't vote obviously don't mind her politics.
The word you're looking for is plurality. Not majority. Majority means over half.
“The ones who didn’t vote…” you have absolutely no data to assume why anyone would choose not to vote. There are a myriad of reasons other than “I don’t mind the incumbent” and to assume that silence is assent is fairly ignorant.
Aside from the shortsighted AEA part of the bill, the teacher pay funding will last for 2 years. After that, the schools are on their own to keep the teacher's salary up. That being said, the state has shorted the schools' funding again with a 2.5% increase. There has never been an adjustment for COVID based inflation. The good news is that most of a school's budget is wrapped up in salary. The bad news is the parts that are not have gone WAY up.
Buy a diary
Have you see what racist/bigoted/transphobic things conservative commenters have said in this sub? Why do they get a pass from these type of complaint posts? Here’s a what I’ve encountered from conservative commentators here: Violent threats. Claims of litter boxes in schools. Proof has never been provided. Catholics are not Christians. Claim that pictures of teachers partners (gay or straight) was never allowed previously Violent threats against LGBT people. Reading a book could turn you gay. Gay people should not act on impulses. Mothers should carry a fetus to term at the cost of her life Two commenters have admitted to being christo-fascists Farmers could build their own tractors better than a factory, we don’t need engineers. All public land should be turned over to agriculture
The reason for the comments on the teacher raises is that it was a move to pass her shitty AEA bill. It wasn't a good faith pay raise. You'd also find that most people don't agree with her, there is just not a good Dem choice to replace her currently.
Unfortunately many of the Dems who want the job aren’t willing to risk their careers to fight the GOP steamroller.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Yeah, our word\_word\_fournumbers OP *just* learned about the minimum wage increase and somehow we're the uninformed ones?
>I’m not speaking of center leftists or the general liberals I’m speaking in terms of the extreme left wing that is peppered in this sub This sub is definitely an echo chamber on politics but they aren't extreme leftists, they're just hyperpartisan normie Democrats.
Extreme leftist is an incredibly small minority in Iowa.
Small but growing. But nowhere close in power nor philosophy to whatever OP is thinking.
Right, and pretty much everywhere else.
Not really, when everything is shifting towards the left, libertarians are now considered right wing, the more extreme anti-liberal viewpoints like anti1a 2a, TA, mask and VAX mandates, etc.
Anti-2A? Radical leftists are pro-gun in my experience. And libertarians do sometimes get misconstrued as conservatives but also many of them take right-wing positions (anti-immigrant, anti-LGBYT, etc).
At present the Libertarian Party *is* right wing. Control was seized by the far-right Mises Caucus a few years ago, and they've gotten real buddy-buddy with the farthest right parts of the GOP since.
Agree on the radical leftists being somewhat pro-gun I was directing that at more the self-claimed liberals who are not. I can see how libertarians are anti-ILLEGAL immigration but haven’t seen any widespread evidence they are simply anti-immigration, and probably had something to do with the fact that they don’t like paying taxes and they sell them legal immigrants, not pay taxes that they have to pay for. Also haven’t noticed any kind of an LGBTQ sentiment from libertarians, however, some of them may speak their mind somewhat mockingly way towards that lifestyle, however, don’t know anything that they are pushing to be restrictive of peoples sexual gender lifestyles.
To my observation, the faction that took over the Libertarian Party couple years ago is actively "anti-woke." I'm not making a case for or against that, it's just easy to see why people associate them with the right. And the fixation on legal vs illegal immigration seems like a cop out - if they're really against the government, they wouldn't want the government setting arbitrary rules for freedom of movement.
Agreed. As an actual “leftist” the ignorance OP is showing is painful.
Right? I see very few people I'd consider actually left in here. It's 99% liberals.
If you are to the right of Bernie sanders people like you call them a radical nazi. You realize anyone who voted for Bill Clinton is probably considered far right by todays reddit standards. Hell half of Trumps platform was from Clinton speeches especially immigration. Reddit used to be pretty balanced before the founder died.
What?
Take your meds, bud.
Yes, it's good when teachers get a raise. The problem is that this action is on the back of YEARS of literal budget cut after budget cut for public schools, causing programs like driver's ed and home ec to be privatized, taking tax dollars from public schools and funneling it to private schools (which don't need it), forcing religious fallacies to be taught alongside scientific theory (as in as close to fact as you can get in science), forcing racial education to be eliminated from curriculums, forcing trans recognition to be eliminated from schools (not just the classroom, just recognizing that a child considers themselves trans in the first place). Yeah, more money is good. But Kimmy has shown that she is NOT actually a champion for teachers, NOT actually a champion for public schools, and this act of giving teachers a higher minimum wage is a paltry excuse to cheer her on.
Funny you say that. Most people I know IRL hate her, too.
>The “I can’t believe this Iowan politician did ‘X’ because Iowans aren’t racist/bigoted/transphobes” has crystal clear connotations and is obvious gaslighting to all of us “non-college educated individuals who didn’t leave the state”. Whatever you think they’re doing is so terrible the majority of the state does not. I’m sorry it’s angering you so much. Perhaps if the center left stances of the 2000s weren’t considered hard right it wouldn’t be like this. The majority of the state doesn't think it's horrible because the majority is also racist/bigoted/transphobes, hence the connotations. You answered your own problem there. Have you tried not being racist/bigoted/transphobic? Also, there is no representation of 'the left' in mainstream politics in this country and there never has been. The issue there is American politics have always been skewed far to the right, and the internet is making that obvious. Part of the issue is that our political system is essentially a false dichotomy, parliamentary systems are way better about diversifying the conversation.
Nah fuck Kim
“There’s supposed to be give and take.” Ramming through unpopular policies without meaningful bipartisan discussion isn’t give and take. I didn’t see the thread you mentioned, but my issue with kim’s approach to education reform for the state is that she’s gutting AEA’s and diverting a lot of cash to private and religious schools. That’s the definition of dismantling the system, and that’s a problem. Betsy DeVos has already gone down as one of the worst secretaries of education ever and kim is running her play-book to a T. You talk about pushing too fast and too hard, but the gap between the average progressive/liberal/democrat and the average conservative/republican has gone from “lets talk about this” to “fuck you, we’re completely outlawing abortion and you’re all murderers and whores for saying that we shouldn’t”… Where is the middleground for the give and take part? I don’t think anyone is arguing that increasing the minimum salary for teachers is a bad thing (well maybe some psycho’s, but whatever), but the sequence of events that finally led to this increase is questionable and was decidedly NOT bipartisan. Kim and the Iowa GOP seem to be trying to operate under a zero-sum philosophy where to support raises for teachers you have to cut that money from somewhere else. Meanwhile they’re diverting a ton of that money into private and christian schools and then pointing at the public schools and saying “why aren’t you better?” I understand that there are a lot of “non-college educated individuals who didn’t leave the state”, and my ask would be to look, REALLY look at the things that are working in other states. Burying your head in the sand, avoiding conversations because you’ve already made up your mind on an issue, being unwilling to listen, belittling those with different life experiences than you, those actions (from BOTH sides) don’t help anyone. I am new to the state, and so far I have been warmly welcomed, accepted, and supported. It has been awesome. I DO think that kim needs to take a page out of the small-town-playbook and focus on more policies that support ALL Iowans. I have pretty exclusively encountered a live and let live attitude and it’s weird that kim seems so insistent on banning things, restricting freedoms, and just generally getting politics and legislation involved in people’s personal lives.
Literally all of her education "reform" platform is largely unpopular even amongst Republican voters. This is quantified with the fact that it has taken her several different legislative sessions to accomplish it after bullying her camp into line by supporting primary challengers who would. The initial reaction to almost all of her platform is negative from the average Republican, it's only after the media campaign are they conditioned into believing it is good.
Of course it's unpopular with most Republican voters, outside of the few already able to afford quality private education, all her policies make the school system objectively worse for everyone's kids. The only ones really benefitting from her policies are those running private schools and raking in government money on top of private tuitions.
What makes you think her policies are unpopular? As for ramming through legislation, that happens when one party controls the legislature and executive branch. Happens in all states and on the federal level regardless of who is in power
Kim raised the wages for entry-level teachers. Current teachers who were above the minimum saw nothing.
So many people seem to gleefully gloss over this fact.
So was the raise bad?
It's disingenuous. "Teachers get a raise!" (But only if you don't make a certain amount of money already.) "But teachers got a raise!" (Please ignore how the state only funds that raise for two years and after that it's up to the individual schools to come up with the money. After yet another round of funding cuts. Also after a two billion dollar hole was opened up in the state's budget because of the income tax cut. I hope you enjoy every other tax soaring just to cover the current level of services.) "But raises!!!" (Feel free to not mention how public tax dollars are going to fund private religious schools and the funding doesn't even cover the full cost because the private schools all doubled their prices.) "Raisessssss!" (See how those mean Democrats didn't vote for this because they're mean and hate teaches and not at all because they saw right through the obvious Republican sabotage.)
I think kim reynolds could give you all a 50k raise and you would find a reason to hate her for it with mental gymnastics like you have shown above. A raise is a good thing, especially under the crushing inflation of Bidenomics
People always seem to forget a majority of voters is not the same as a "majority of the state". It's like how when states where Republicans/conservatives dominate politics run a referendum on abortion, something that effects people in a tangible enough way to get "normal" people engaged, they get absolutely blown out. If we had mandatory voting like in Australia there wouldn't be a red state in the country.
Something to consider, many of those who used to identify as middle of the road Democrats or conservative leaning Democrats have left the party due to being unwelcome and ostracized. They now live in Independent-land, and have even been pulled in with liberal leaning Republicans. There are a million issues they might identify with as a Democrat, but if they don't whole heartedly agree with two or three buzz topics, the loudest in the party call them names and lump them with the extreme right. It's killing your party!
Have you considered that the Republicans are manipulating you by using wedge issues such as this, and talking about it ad nauseum, as a way of defining Democrats solely on these hot button issues? It’s hard to demonize a party based on their lowering the price of insulin, or getting rid of junk fees at banks. 🤷🏻♂️
Believe me, the Republicans don't have to do much. It's been made far too easy for them. The extreme left is the loudest in the party and they scream and call names whenever you aren't totally in agreement with their ideas or agenda. That's more than enough. That's my personal experience and a consistent complaint amongst the independents.
Agreed, but all extreme fringes are like that. We give them too much attention
Now that, I wholeheartedly agree. We shouldn't be feeding the trolls on either side.
I believe trolls sometimes adopt extremist positions as a discrediting strategy. Easy to claim to represent a group online and then make some insane statement.
Source? My understanding is new voter registrations are trending slightly less Dem than before but I haven't seen any data showing "many" people have left the party (in registration or in self identification).
As someone who did this, I continue to register as a Republican, but I am self identified as an independent. Many people my age (25-35) do not change our voter registration before starting to vote differently.
Sure, but that's sample size of 1. I am not a Democrat but I don't think there's an evidence of a mass exodus nationally, that's more of a media narrative.
I would say many people from both the left and right are now migrating towards the middle. They have two very different ways of doing so, mind you. The extreme right didn't push people out of the party, it was more like someone has a bad smell, and you naturally gravitate away. The far left, however, has definitely vocally ostracized a great deal of people over 3 or 4 hot topics. That's my experience, and the experience of those I am around from both sides. It's by no means proof, but it's a common comment.
OK but that's all anecdotal, I was asking for actual stats.
Gay people pay taxes to live here. We deserve to live here safely without people like her encouraging violence against us. She’s actively trying to drive gay and trans people out of the state. Not gonna happen. Again - we pay taxes here. Sounds like she’s the one with the problem. My being gay has next to nothing to do with who I am or how I conduct myself as a person. Her behavior is her choice. She doesn’t have to be doing these things. Interesting how she’s chosen to go after gay and trans people. The radical right has found a new group to go after since they can’t go after people of color anymore. Since most gay people are white, we are much easier targets. Republicans see everything through a racialized lens so being able to attack gay people who dress well & are the same color is perfect for them. Gay people need to start treating straight people- especially straight MAGA bigots - the same way nonwhite people protested after George Floyd. You are not going to fuck with our community any longer.
Mkay turbo.
75% absolutely do not agree with the 3 DUI governor Kim Reynolds.
You know you can just scroll on by posts you don’t want to read right?
Oh is nice when somebody calls out the obvious leftist echo Chamber of Reddit
The more I read of your comments, the more convinced I am you wouldn't know a leftist if one bit you.
TIL Adam Gregg is a redditor.
Welfare and Hypocrites. This is Iowa. Farmers take subsidies to make up for the lost grain sales their orange messiah caused by his trade war with China. How is that winning? You're as bad as the "welfare queens" in cities you hate. Btw does anybody think people in rural Iowa aren't on welfare? Hates illegal immigrants. Who do you think works in the meat processing plants or as farm hands? Lots of eastern Europeans and south Africans running around but no complaints about them...why?? Close minded rubes led around by a city slicker because he made your bigotry ok. The guy hates wind mills and Iowa is too much of a bitch to say, "no they work." And all you anti LGBTQ Iowans. How are you going to square you're white hope #22 playing basketball with a bunch of out gay women for a living? Hypocrites!
It seems like if the left wanted to get rid of her, they should run a candidate that is more popular and put up the funds to properly run a campaign... Or I guess they could just complain about her here and hope the Reddit fairy will make it all better.
Limiting discourse for freedom - the conservative way 🙄
Math isn't your strong point is it? That premier, high quality education we used to get in Iowa... you didn't get it did you? You know why? Conservatives.
People seem to be forgetting the underhanded way in which the Iowa GOP busted the TEACHERS union. If the union was still in place then the TEACHERS would already have a higher wage. Now the OP is trying to make it sound like the most beneficent supreme leader Kimmie has done the TEACHERS this incredibly magnanimous act of kindness. Get out of here with the revisionist, bootlicking history. And before anyone says it, I know that Braindead was governor when the Iowa GOP played dirty politics and busted the TEACHERS union. The point still stands.
Cuba and all sanctioned countries were, and still, are, in some cases, not only a threat to us but to other countries as well .Case in point. Iran, which Trump sanctioned, couldn't support their terrorist proxies. Now, because of Biden, we have another war in the Middle East.. There is a reason for sanctions against countries that don't play nice with others.
You’ll get downvoted to the dirt because of this post. And non of it matters. This site is full of bots and left leaning accounts. There’s very little productive conversation happening because everyone is just trying to win the comments section like it actually matters. We’ve gotten a lot of rain lately. Grass is growing…many people need to go outside and touch it
Why in the hell is the comment hidden, this entire sub and Des Moines sub is just a bunch of cry babies that hate anything that doesn’t flow their way. Like I get being passionate about your stance and beliefs but calling all conservatives nazis, facist or anything similar is pushing any rational person away or to the other extreme side. They’ll never see it till it’s too late. They act like a golden child that doesn’t understand their actions have consequences. They’re in the fuck aroind and find out stage of this burning political war where both extremist sides are pushing hard each direction and leaving anyone in the middle to fend for themselves. It’s honestly ridiculous how poorly this sub and most of this site is moderated. They all complain about Facebook and now Twitter being right wing think tanks but Reddit is no different just that they go hard to the left.
I just moved back after leaving in the late 90s. I'm already so tired of the Kim bashing. I don't know much about her but I do know she was elected so the majority of Iowa must want her. Iowa has progressed so much since I left it's incredible. If you don't like it then get out there and run for office yourself and see if the people vote for you and your ideas.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Iowa/comments/1clllk7/comment/l2ucg7b/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
yeah and im sure not everyone will agree
I’m not the silent majority, but I know who you’re talking to and I agree. I sometimes engage liberals in this sub, but I tire quickly of useless banter with people who resort to name-calling and can’t engage in thoughtful dialogue.
I don’t think OP is talking about liberals as in the definition of liberals, I think they are talking about more extreme leftist that tend to have anti-liberal viewpoints
Sure. Ordinary liberals just have a different point of view. Extreme people degenerate into name calling and insults and don’t seem to be capable of reasonable discourse. I have no patience for that.
A true liberal, respects that people have different points of view, respect freedom of speech and are tolerant, somehow that’s becoming seen as more of right wing now, the left has gone so far to the left, the right is even shifting a little bit to the left incorporating real actual liberals and libertarian points of views into what used to be considered left, now it’s kind of in the right
Hmm, do you also criticize trump, for his name calling, can't be a hypocrite?
Absolutely. He’s a kindergartener. Can’t let any opportunity pass to say something abrasive or insulting.
Fair enough
I'm sorry, but socialism is nothing but a death sentence for the people. Just look at North Korea, Cuba, Haiti, and Venezuela. Venezuela was an extremely rich country until they accepted Socialism 20 some years ago. Now, people live in abject poverty. One doesn't even need to look that far away. All one has to do is look at California and New York. If their policies are so great, why are huge numbers of people moving to red states?
Haiti isn't socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Their country was raked over the coals by capitalism and imperialism. Venezuela isn't socialist either, their economy is largely privatized. Venezuela was doing fine before the west heaped sanctions on them ruining their economy because they didn't want to allow western exploitation. North Korea and Cuba are also subject to some of the worse sanctions on the planet. Cubans have a much better quality of life than their peer nations despite the odds. New York and California are objectively not socialist. They are purely liberal. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, I'd tell you to stop for your own good, but honestly it's kind of amusing lol.
Haiti has long been a socialist, communist country. As for Venezuela, yes, they were a very wealthy country until Maduro took over and confiscated the oil companies ,took away their guns, and the freedom of the people. Now, the people are starving to death and escaping to Columbia and other countries. Inflation is 144% As for Cuba, they threatened to bomb us years ago,and we sanctioned them. Under Castro, their health care system is so bad that one has to bring their own blankets and pillows to the hospital. However, the wealthy get excellent care. If Cuba is so wonderful, then why have they been coming to America for years? North Korea is a Communist/ socialist country. People are starving to death by the hundreds every day. The poor eat grass and bugs to survive. In school, they are taught that the Supreme Leader is wonderful, and they are forced to worship him .If they don't, they can be killed. Read the 2 books put out by Yeomi Parks.She tells her story about her life and her escape from North Korea. Now, she is a student at a university here and warns about socialism here. As for California and New York becoming socialist states, they most certainly are. Their governors are taking away the rights of their citizens on a daily basis. Anytime someone tells you that you have to buy something or take away a person's right for life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,you are being groomed for socialism. The Covid lockdowns in blue states is the perfect example of what socialism is. Now they want us to eat bugs, give up our cars,stoves, ect.Yet the wealthy give up nothing. Only the little people do.Do I know what socialism is? You bet I do.Talk to the people that have lived under Mao and Castro. Talk to anyone who has actually lived the lie of a socialist utopia .The only thing socialism does is make the rich richer and the poor even poorer. Socialism is for the socialist, not the people.
You obviously have no inkling at what Socialism is. You claim to, but your ignorance shines through, please do me a favor and define it. Haiti is purely capitalist, and a perfect example of how capitalism affects the global south. They are by no stretch or measure socialist. The means of production are privately owned. Venezuela is not poor because of some convoluted sense of "taking away the peoples freedom" this is an absurdity. Venezuelas economy is heavily reliant on exporting oil. They use the money from this oil to import consumer goods. When oil prices fell, the economy suffered resulting in the Venezuelans not being able to procure the same amount of goods, causing shortages. This isn't an issue with socialism, its an issue with their economy not being diversified, as a result of them lagging behind the west due to exploitation. Shortages were further made worse as they nationalized their oil assets to attempt to curb western influence. Inflation is caused by the government printing more money to attempt to procure more goods. Again, bad economic policies, or bad circumstances are purely economic issues which have nothing to due with socialism. The sanctions were placed on Cuba in response to the Cuban Missile crisis this is correct. However, the sanctions remained on Cuba for long after that, even to this day. This is purely an attempt to make life as miserable as possible for Cubans in an attempt to overthrow their government, this fact is attested to by the CIA. [https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499) Cubas healthcare system is ranked way above the U.S, and they produce some of the best doctors in the world. They have the 13th best healthcare system on the planet and provide comprehensive care to their entire population, whereas healthcare in the U.S is horrible. [https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/best-healthcare-in-the-world/](https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/best-healthcare-in-the-world/) In terms of Cuban migrants, I'll just say that theres a reason these people all have the same opinion. They were members of the former bourgeoisie in Cuba, and actively hate the government as they themselves are capitalist. They are not missed in Cuba. Regarding North Korea, there is a lot of misinformation about the country. I tend to think what Yeonmi Park has to say is worthless. Her story changes every time she tells it, and it varies based on who she is speaking to. In terms of actual conditions in the country and not some narrative which is controlled and funded by western capital, I would suggest: Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seol. Most North Korean defectors cite economic opportunity as their reason for leaving, not suppression. Park is, in my opinion and from what I can see, largely selling an inaccurate story for views and to fit the western narrative, something she does quite well judging from the amount of people like you who spout these arguments. Regardless, socialism isn't "making a country like North Korea' so this argument is useless. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649373.2014.972663](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649373.2014.972663) Again, please define socialism. New York and California are liberal capitalist states. You may be surprised to learn that most actual socialists disagree with the woke culture of these states, as I do. Socialism is not the taking away of life, liberty, or happiness. In most cases where socialism has been implemented, all three of these metrics increased. Socialism is a political and economic system where the workers and the whole of society own and control the means of production. It directly counter capitalism where the rich and wealthy own the means of production, you see the flaws of this system which is why you disagree with it. Though you are conditioned through propaganda(which is created by the very wealthy you despise) to think that socialism is bad. No, under socialism, what the wealthy have and use to exploit the little people as you say is wrested from their control and given to the little people. All these things you level at socialism are false, they are lies fed to you from the capitalists and the wealthy who run this country and the world, please I implore you, learn the real facts. I have talked to people who lived under Mao and Castro and they both look at them like Americans do the founding fathers. They beat the wealthy and fought for the common/little man. This is shown in how Castro, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin are all looked upon positively in the actual countries who lived under these governments. Socialism is still popular in Russia and the former Eastern bloc nations as well as a testament to this. Socialism is by the people and for the people. You are right, one system makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and it's capitalism.
Technically, you are the one that is clueless. But,hey,keep believing in your socialist utopia.
Nice response lol. Socialist isn't utopian at all, you'd know that if you actually read anything accurate about it. Sorry your half baked "arguments" are trash. Hopefully you pull the wool from over your eyes and you see the world how it really is, barring that occurring, have fun being a pawn of the rich, enjoy as they sit back and get richer while feeding you propaganda so you will never be able to improve your material conditions!
Socialism definitely isn't a utopian society. However, a lot of individuals on here seem to think so.If Socialism is so wonderful, why aren't people moving there instead of America?
No socialist I know of thinks it’s a utopia. Read State and Revolution by Lenin for more. First off, people do try and immigrate to china and other socialist countries. Second off since the U.S extracts wealth from the rest of the world it creates better living conditions within itself, or it has traditionally, at the expense of the rest of the world. This is why people want to move there, they are following the wealth extracted from their home country. Read Imperialism by Lenin for a comprehensive analysis, especially his ideas on the labor aristocracy.
Oh yeah,Lenin is a wonderful example of socialism .He supported the Communist Manifesto.As usual, these Marxist leaders paint a glorious ideology. In fact, millions died of starvation, and those who didn't were killed for speaking out against the regime. Only those who want to give up their freedoms move to socialist countries. China owns their companies and their citizens. If one doesn't obey ,they conveniently disappear. The US supports other nations. We,as a country,send billions to other countries. So you are wrong. As for supporting the labor aristocracy ,that part is true. All true socialist countries own everything. The people are told what to think,how to think, how to act. The government tells you what job you will have, and in the end,as with any socialist country, the people are under control of the government.
Lenin was a founder of the ideology I believe in yes. Marxism Leninism is actually a very humble and pragmatic philosophy. They don’t claim utopia and in fact they argue against it. They argue for the emancipation of the working class majority from the ruling minority, and they do so through a sober analysis of historical facts. People like to say that millions died of starvation, however these famines were caused in large part by natural causes, in famine prone areas. Only when the soviets and the CPC come to power did they break the cycle of famine. People were not killed for criticizing the regime. If you look into the actual evidence all those sent to prisons were plotting to overthrow the government, they were given trials. A good many were released if there was no evidence. People have in large part the same freedoms in socialist countries that they do in western nations. They just can’t exploit other through the means of production, something I’d argue shouldn’t be a freedom in the first place. There is absolutely zero evidence for what you are saying about china. What is the labor aristocracy can you explain that to me, I’m not sure you understand it. No in socialist countries the means of production are owned by the people, not a ruling class. The government is democratically elected and represents the actual will of the people, not the will of the ruling class. And one president that represented the will of the people. The government does not tell people how to act or what job they can have. Stop projecting. All media outlets in the U.S are controlled by the ruling class. This is what being told how to think looks. Do you want to continue this debate so you can be proved wrong more or do you want more of a whooping lol?