Underlore

I have an Adri, your argument is invalid.

Category: Law

What the Objective of Criminal Justice Should Be

TL:DR

Instigative, protective, and preventative. In that order.

Reforms required:

Abolition of plea bargains. Because an investigation is an experiment and you don’t haggle over findings. At best you debate to arrive at consensus.

No parole or probation. Because either a person is sufficiently rehabilitated to reenter society or they are not. If a citizen’s rehabilitation is in question then examine them till it isn’t and act accordingly.

Abolition of prison in it’s current form. The entire prison budget and deployment should be converted into a layered system of job training, education, mental and physical healthcare, and research of every relevant type. A place where prisoners don’t serve a fixed sentence but rather are inducted into a program from which only healthy prepared citizens can “graduate.”

Prisons today serve as torture chambers to terrorize the public into obedience and to satisfy their collective sadistic whims using primarily the poor, the foreign, and the mentally ill as their victims.

Prison should resemble primarily a very comfortable example of a school combined with a mental hospital. Among the thousands of advantages to this approach is respect for the cliche “innocent until proven guilty.”

Indeed to test the veracity of the system innocent volunteers should be paid to enter as criminals to in a double blind fashion measure how accurate rehabilitation procedures are.

All employees of this system should be required to complete the program and the program should be available to any on request. The objective isn’t to separate and punish criminals but you understand and prevent crime, to rehabilitate and improve the lives of everyone involved to whatever degree is possible and to research and understand when and why it is not possible.

People beyond repair should be kept in comfortable humane isolation until they die of natural causes serving society as subjects of study to the end of preventing the formation or perpetuation of people like themselves in future.

Everything about modern prison and criminal justice is wrong or fraudulent. I’d say 90% of the people in charge of it are corrupt in some fashion either fiscally, politically, or ideologically. The CEO of the private prison, the senator that gerrymanders prisoners in his district and like to play “tough on crime”, the sadistic corrections or police officer that just wants people to hurt or control for pleasure… These are the real and common truths of our “justice” system.

See also:

Critical Differences and Why I am Alone

BLM and a Defense of Riots

detroit_race_riot_1967

In response to a conversation a friend and I had about BLM’s relationship to rioting I am writing this post as a kind of general statement of opinion.

There’s plenty to criticize people for. But blaming BLM for riots isn’t reasonable because It’s not like BLM are the Illuminati. The entire existence of BLM is a response to a lack of power. And without power there can be no responsibility.

So first we must think about what BLM is and isn’t actually capable of.

They don’t have the power to start or stop riots.

So knowing that, questions spring to mind. Should BLM denounce them, encourage them, or stay silent on them? Knowing they can’t prevent or cause them. Are riots justified?

In my view BLM is automatically an ally of any one who feels the police have become an oppressive, regressive, violent mafia. I’m not saying they think that, I’m saying anyone else who thinks that should see BLM as allies.

In terms of political strategy, if BLM were a monolithic organization, which it isn’t, I don’t think they should denounce rioting because if they did, and riots happened anyway, it would expose that weakness and set them against any elements of the community that have (perhaps rightfully) concluded that the time for peaceful response is at an end.

If you start to think of the police as an invading army, rioting becomes a rather merciful option.  I can’t help but think that if the police here acted like the police in those areas towards my community’s children a riot would be the least of their worries.

Essentially I view riots as warning shots preceding open revolt. And open revolt has to be on the table if we expect to effectively negotiate with the state. Which is what all activism is.

This is a huge part of why I think anti-gun progressives are outright foolish. It’s like starting a game of chess by asserting that violence is wrong and banning the use of pawns.

Some describe a riot as a kind of political or economic cannibalism, as burning “their own” city. But how do you define your city as opposed to your prison? It isn’t their city when their lives are ruled by people that don’t even live there. And that’s true of all of us so long as 62 people own half the planet.

If anything a riot is the burning of a company shanty town. And let’s be honest, they aren’t that destructive anyway. A few fires, a smashed car, and some rubble in the street. They aren’t a hurricane.

Mostly they are symbolic, and a great way to force the police and the press to show their true colors, which as Gandhi has shown us can be quite effective political currency.

I could see it being described as burning collaborator businesses that demonstrably don’t care about them. Business in my view rarely helps a community. First of all the vast majority of it is corporate, which means it’s parasitic and corrupting. Corporations clearly own the press and the government, that’s the root of the problem. Rioting to destroy corporate business interests in my community seems on paper like an extremely valid response.

And don’t talk to me like jobs are inherently a good thing. They aren’t.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that what BLM fights for is 100% justified. Cops keep getting cleared and acquitted for killings that are often on video. If there is no legal recourse, and the economy is completely unresponsive to both activism and political engagement, then a riot is a reasonable next step in my view.

Tell me things aren’t bad enough to justify revolt in the streets and I’ll tell you you’re not paying attention.

Even if BLM denounces rioting, I would not. Rioting is a valid compromise when trying to avoid a revolutionary civil war.

If that war happens, it will be the police who history shows declared it.

See also:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-violence-cops_us_55e77d82e4b0c818f61a9de8

If not now, when?

Dore v Seder #BernieOrBust Debate

TLDR: HRC can’t beat Trump anyway in the general. If you’re terrified of Trump, you better start busting ass right now to get Bernie the nomination.

Ok. So I’m making this because I knew watching it would piss me off and I’ll have a bunch to say about the whole thing so here it all is on one place. And yes it badly pissed me off. But the YouTube comments made me feel better.

Telling the net Sam is full of shit is not new information to them. Yay for being on the right side of history.

It’s interesting though how much time this debate cost me. What Sam cost me. I hope the day I spent writing this is worth a day doing what I do on twitter. I’ll never know which was more helpful.

As you likely already know, I’m wildly pro #BernieOrBust http://underlore.com/bernie-or-bust/

Before the debate even begins I knew what one of the problems was going to be. Narrow focus. Sam is a minutia type guy. He’ll zoom in on tiny little regions, fight in those regions as if they are totally isolated and then move to another tiny region. That will be a recurring theme.

His core argument is SCOTUS appointments. But I shred that argument later. Long story short, SCOTUS isn’t an emperor any more than POTUS is.

So here we go.

0:00

Right away Jimmy sets himself up for a bit of a stumble. He talks about what HRC says like it matters. That’s a large and bad concession to make. The entire debate imo should center around actions not words. Mainly because HRC doesn’t mean anything she says.

2:48

Again, error. Speaking like influencing HRC’s rhetoric is influencing the party in any actual way is wrong because again nothing she says matters. We know FOR A FACT what choices she’ll make when it comes time to actually make or influence policy. She is functionally a neocon. Period. I don’t care about one word that comes out of her mouth.

4:05

See? Right away, Seder jumps into he said she said about Clinton as if her talking points matter, as if what she says matters, and Jimmy can’t refute it yet because he just gave up that ground.

4:58

Seder aiming his microscope at minutia. Yeah, Sanders wasn’t focused on process first because he hadn’t seen the cheating yet. (#ExitPollGate/#AZPrimary/#NYPrimary/etc) But what’s it matter to the big picture which happened first? It doesn’t. This is fantasy football meets daily grind for these people. (Cenk/Kyle/Sam) and all the other #UniteBlue (DINO?) cowards.

5:12

Lessig is completely irrelevant. He did it for ego and he didn’t do his homework on Bernie and he was trying to pull a Nader. I’m glad they didn’t let him in the debates. He’d have hung on splitting Bernie’s vote. I’ll always be grateful to Martin for dropping out for that reason. That man has my respect.

5:18

Sam is playing the hipster here imo. He’s only bringing up Lessig because virtually no one knows who he is in this context and wants to drop the name and show everyone how informed he is. It’s a rhetorical/ego thing, not a logic thing. And as I said the whole topic is irrelevant starting at 4:58.

5:40

Jimmy Dore deploys his biggest weapon, the fact that he’s allowed to turn everything into a joke. It’s like a rhetorical tactical nuke. And now everything Sam said between 4:58 and 5:40 becomes moot. Well done 🙂 He didn’t use this tool much further on, but that’s probably because to Jimmy this isn’t a laughing matter.

6:23

Bernie doing all the wrong things in terms of crafted presentation signals his authenticity. It screams disregard for appearance. In this context, the wrong thing is the right thing. That’s why everyone loves his hair. We love a guy who does not give a fuck.

7:08

Jimmy should not downplay Bernie’s chances and he shouldn’t hedge about “the movement” because that just goes back to rhetorical influence. If they steal the nom from Bernie this shit isn’t going to matter because HRC will just spend the next 8 years quietly making it literally impossible for anyone like Sanders to ever get that close again. This is the last progressive running for POTUS in the USA. If Bernie “loses” to her cheating, all future ones will be all talk and neolibs, or sacrificial lambs for RNC/neolib candidates to feast on.

7:45

No. Active HRC supporters lost the ignorance card months ago. No more doubt benefit for them. Now they are simply DINOs and RWNJs. They know exactly what they are voting for. The nullification theory is nice, but it’s not the case. Though it’s possible that argument will spread just because it’s impossible to disprove.

8:52

Blaming the DNC for HRC is backwards thinking because she owns the DNC. If anything we should blame the Clintons for our piss poor crop of “democrats” in all other regions of government.

9:10

Really Sam? You think HRC has a great resume!? Are you on bath salts? As a senator her biggest accomplishment was naming a post office, and voting and stumping for the Iraq war using Bush’s exact script. As sec state she gave birth to Isis with her monstrosity in libya, and made everything she touched comprehensively worse.

Her resume is “great” for a neocon. We whine about Trump’s racist blather but when it comes to actually exterminating minorities on this planet HRC has at least a high 5 digit kill count. Seven if you include the Iraq war, which she stumped for.

9:21

Not clear Sam?? Only because you won’t pull your head out of your ass. She’s a monster. She is a literal war monger and pathological liar. #WhichHillary

11:39

Yes. Exactly. All the pro Bernie anti Hillary corruption and election fraud talk means exactly zip if the DNC knows ultimately you’ll do as you’re told. At the end of the day, if they know they can take your vote for granted, they will. Period.

In a way, because of this, I hate non #BernieOrBust #FeelTheBern types even worse than Hillary supporters because at least the HRC crowd isn’t pretending to be something they ultimately won’t be when it matters.

13:03

Yes. Neolibs = neocons + abortion. Well said.

13:19

Yes. Excellent point. We vote for people because we can’t vote for policy directly. The idea is to vote policy through people. It makes absolutely zero sense to vote in an election against your own interests. Tactical voting is a failure of the system, not a part of it.

14:08

Jimmy ends the debate for all rational people right here. Trump will not have the DNC cloak to protect his right wing madness. Plus he’ll have the RNC/white/male cloak to get leftist stuff done. It’ll be the exact opposite of Obama. We might actually slide left under Trump for many of the same reasons we’ve slid right under Obama.

HRC on the other hand will be able to get away with virtually everything, being ignored by the left and financed by the right.

Sam looks confused. How dim is this guy? His whole premise is tactically voting and then doesn’t understand that the votes were cast grudgingly. Just because someone wins an election doesn’t mean they get the support of their voters, especially in our system. What a slave brain. Guy expects extorted grudging votes to be given gleefully and with genuine support because that’s how his mind works. Guy has gone into internal appeasement mode full time.

If Trump is elected he will be opposed by the entire democratic base, half the republican base, two thirds of independents. Virtually all of the women, all of the minorities, and at least two thirds of the young. Everything he does will be news like it is right now and it will be wildly opposed whenever it’s insane.

 

0:00

Sam pretending he doesn’t know neoliberalism exists. Assuming voters equal supporters. Whatever pal.

2:06

Out with the microscope again. Oh they lost the senate and not the house. The point is that they were losing for the first time like ever and it terrified them. To understand why: adamcurtisfilms.blogspot.com

2:20

Yes yes let’s debate tie color percentages in march of 82. So tired of the microscope.

3:15

Drop some more names Sam. Maybe someday you’ll get to the point. Sidenote: That’s why I never watched his videos. Him and HR goodman have this same problem. They make huge rambly noise filled videos. Both are pathologically averse to getting to the point.

4:22

Finally, getting to the point. Finally recovered from his involuntary minutia senate v house correction.

4:54

Could you say “uh” a few hundred more times? I guess I can’t handle 2 milliseconds of silence and he can’t handle Jimmy having a turn to speak. Win/win. Amirite?

5:11

Bernie did not fail to get the AA/latino vote. They were virtually all crammed into the front half of the southern fried primary. And also badly disenfranchised by voter suppression laws while at the same time being hilariously misinformed by the MSM. On top of all the closed primary absurd deadlines party suppression.

You can’t rig an entire system to both suppress the minority vote, and crush insurgent candidates and then blame the candidate when they lose.

5:22

Sam’s whole theory that Bernie is tapping into something new is wrong. What changed was that he was the first real reformer to run on the democratic ticket since Carter. End of discussion. That’s the only thing that really changed.

Obama won in 08 expressly because we’ve been waiting for that and that’s what he promised.

Others could have run but they weren’t from the inside or refused to drop their egos (Nader/Greens) long enough to actually have a chance. Or of course they were cheated out of it at some earlier stage.

6:05

Are you ever gonna let Jimmy talk? Anyway. No Obama preemptively surrendered on the single payer option. He’s a neocon also. He’s just as Jimmy said, pro abortion DINO. Understand, Obamacare wasn’t an effort to save the healthcare system, it was an effort to save the insurance industry.

7:05

Yes! Exactly. Obama was dead weight on healthcare. He’s a democrat In, Name, Only.

8:10

Yea break out that microscope. God I hate this guy. He’s so hellbent on gutting his own influence. It’s pathetic. Why even talk about national policy if you want to think so narrow and specifically? Go be on some city council where the microscope is the right tool for the job.

This goes to the whole problem with democracy.

8:25

Sam’s head is stuck in his microscope so he apparently doesn’t remember that healthcare was and is a mess because Americans could look at the whole rest of the fucking planet and see a better way and we were tired of literally sacrificing our children on the altar of insurance profits.

Jimmy’s right. It was placate us, or face the pitchforks. Sadly we got swindled. Obama bailed out the insurance industry by throwing the DNC cloak over the Heritage foundation’s plan while simultaneously throwing the public option under the bus.

Sam can’t step back and realize that at the time it didn’t matter what the republicans didn’t want because the majority was awake and screaming for once. The Establishment had two choices, fix it to our satisfaction sufficiently to douse the torches, or face joblessness after the next election because you literally picked your insurance donors over our fucking children.

See also: Hillary Care

9:07

Yeah. It’s called tactical voting you sanctimonious shill. If you weren’t such a robot you’d understand that people have this thing where they can do something they hate to avoid something worse, which is funny that you don’t understand because that’s the entire point of you cowards voting for HRC. Or hell, maybe it isn’t. Maybe you’re just a DINO too. Too much fame too much money.

9:21

“I’m definitely open…” he says while not shutting up long enough for his guest to answer a question. Also trying to drag Jimmy down into microscope land. “mechanically” “walk me through” etc.

9:27

Changing topic before Jimmy gets to answer.

10:01

Sam finally shuts up. But Jimmy is flustered because it’s clear that Sam is going to not let him talk if he pauses for even one second. And I’m sick of that tone like it’s absurd to think that people will vote one way and act another in a system and party utterly dependent on tactical voting.

People will vote green, and write in Bernie, or not vote at all, and then do what they do policy by policy, issue by issue.

There are two layers of politics in this country. Electoral politics and activism.

Trump can win and still be opposed by the majority. Why are we even having to explain this when the entire premise of #UniteBlue is tactical voting against your own interests!

Tellingyourself

It’s ironic. #UniteBlue says vote the candidate you hate to prevent something worse from happening. And the fact is, that’s exactly what #BernieOrBust is doing, only we don’t define “worse” based on party labels. And we can think past the upcoming election.

11:45

Hey Sam, if you’re gonna have a guest and ask them a question, how about you let them answer it? If you just wanna monologue, make a video. Oh right, no one would watch it. That’s why you’re having Jimmy here. Basically no one cares what you have to say otherwise.

13:21

SCOTUS? Really? Have you seen Obama’s pick? Are you aware that HRC is further right than Obama? Do you still not understand that simply because she’s wearing the DNC cloak whoever she picks will be assumed to be good by the bulk of the democratic base? But ANYONE Trump picks will get instant inspection and radical opposition?

I’m tired of Sam pretending party label has no impact on popular reaction when he defines victory almost exclusively by party label! It’s hair tearingly awful.

Sad fact: If HRC was running as a republican on the exact same platform she’d lose virtually all her supporters, including Sam.

13:57

And again, the microscope. SCOTUS picks aren’t emperors either. We can undo any damage they do if we control the executive and congress. That’s how checks and balances work, and we need to take them both anyway. That’s the whole point of the political revolution.

14:36

Have you seen this election? Again. #ExitPollGate You think HRC gives a flying eff about the voting rights act? Every time there is election failure and mass disenfranchisement, she wins. She’s not going to pick anyone for SCOTUS that will allow Bernie 2.0.

15:06

Yay look at all this neat stuff under my microscope! /facepalm

16:20

If you have to scream how huge the issue is, it’s probably not all that huge frankly. Nothing the SCOTUS does can’t be undone with additional legislation. Again, microscope guy thinks that his current field of vision is the entire world. Did you not notice citizen united? Society can react and respond to SCOTUS rulings.

Your buddy Cenk is all the time talking about the power of a constitutional amendment.

Quit acting like a lousy SCOTUS is the end of the world. We’ve been there for like a decade already. Scalia could have lived another 30 years. So what?

16:41

Sam’s entire argument is based on an HRC that doesn’t exist. He is calling her a democratic president. But the whole problem is SHE ISN’T A DEMOCRAT! What the eff will it take for you people to understand that?

Bernie or Bust

17:04

Yeah let’s aim the microscope at her appointments. Now aim it at Bush’s appointments. Can you even see a difference? No, because there isn’t one. You’re telling me I’m supposed accept a one party system because one half of it is worse than the other half.

No. It’s gone too far already.

No Farther

I am not sacrificing progressivism in America to avoid a republican president. No. Not gonna do it.

0:23

The point isn’t HRC’s appointments being better or worse than Trump. The point is killing neoliberalism so we can at some point stop picking between evils! WTF is wrong with you people?

1:28

If we can’t rely on democrats they why are you willing to saw your feet off to avoid a republican president? Why do you keep assuming HRC isn’t every bit functionally a republican?

######

2:29

Sam is basically Cenk. Only with a different branch. He thinks SCOTUS is an emperor. He keeps assuming the SCOTUS operates in a vacuum and isn’t subject to the checks and balances system.

If he really believes that, then what’s the point of voting in the first place? I guess in his mind we’re a double republic. We pick the people who pick the people who pick the policy now.

No.

2:45

So if Trump appointed Hitler 19 times, eventually we’d just get tired of saying no? That’s a specious assumption. Jimmy is right.

We only have to fight Trump’s picks for 4 years. You honestly think he’ll get a second term? No. Not unless he swings left HARD.

Which ironically is more likely coming from him than HRC and is all the more reason to not fear-vote for HRC as if Trump is Emperor Satan.

3:18

The look on Sam’s face when Jimmy said it’s easy to stand up is priceless because right there you see the cowardice that defines that man. Standing up is the last thing he’s capable of. He’s a whipped dog. A blue dog?

5:06

Sam completely misreads the direction of demographics in this country. Did he miss Bernie getting like 70% of the youth vote? What happens to young people? They get older. They are the future of this country and 70% of them are democratic socialists now.

Again… HRC can’t beat Trump anyway in the general. If you’re terrified of Trump, you better start working right now to get Bernie the nomination.

5:40

Oh god oh god I’m losing, let’s aim my microscope somewhere else. Evade evade!

6:42

Sam is confusing can’t with won’t. HRC and neolibs won’t fight for us, but they will fight Trump because they don’t have a choice. End of debate.

8:01

Sam is so hung up on partisan identity politics that he misses that it’s not “Obama’s” TPP, it’s their same donor’s TPP. Their money men will pick up the phone and tell them to “compromise” and vote in favor of the TPP and bang, we’re stuck with it. They might even get a cherry on top as a reward from neolibs for suddenly “working with” them.

All the obstructionism blamed on Obama hate is theater. The obstructionism itself is the point. Do you not remember starve the beast? The moment something they want looks like it’s coming, obviously they’ll pass it.

8:11

That is exactly the point. Trump will be inept. HRC on the other hand is a pathological liar as well, only she’s good at it, at least relative to Trump, plus she has that all important DNC cloak of invisibility. Pay no attention to the neocon behind the curtain.

If Trump signed the TPP it would 100% chance die in congress.

8:53

Yes it did, but also Obama wasn’t running against Bernie Sanders he was running AS Bernie Sanders. (Sam actually denies this later which is mind blowing in its absurdity.)

It doesn’t matter what we got, the point is what we were trying to get. If we on the other hand pick HRC over Sanders, you can say goodbye to ever seeing a real progressive in the white house ever again. Ever. Trump HAS to beat her to discredit neoliberalism so that we can run someone like Bernie in 2020 with a united front and a reformed party cleared of these neoliberal saboteurs.

9:40

HRC IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE! If we let HRC masquerade as a progressive we will never get an actual one ever again.

10:15

Microscopes AND cowardice this time.

Sam is a RWNJ. I realize this now. Dude is like Cenk.

Plan B is keep fighting like we have spines. Just because surrender always works doesn’t mean it’s a good plan A.

10:35

Dude, Bush is not Trump.

Bush is a garden variety idiot right winger. No one was 100% seriously comparing Bush to Hitler. It’s so funny. You’re so terrified of what Trump might be you’ll vote Cheney/Kissinger 2016 to avoid it, and yet pretend blindness to the polarising get out the opposition vote power of a candidate your camp is literally calling Hitler. Well which is it? He’s not so bad, or he’s barbarians at the gate? It can’t be both.

10:48

Sam seems blissfully unaware of the implosion the right wing is facing now because of Trump. How nice for him.

11:35

Yes, if the choice is between a neoliberal who stole the nomination from a progressive, and a republican, we should pick the republican so that we can get the progressive we should have picked last time.

If we show that we’ll be good little doggies and vote on command when whapped with the newspaper we can say goodbye to ever getting anything other than the newspaper.

This isn’t hard to understand.

 

12:25

Because the leftist base like you won’t fight for anything because they will think they’ve already won. It’s exactly like how Obama gets a pass on all the neocon crap that he does, like solidify the bush tax cuts. Because HRC wears the DNC cloak she can get away quite literally with murder. Just as Obama did.

13:37

Dead on. The reason crap is so broken is because no one is willing to endure short term hardship for long term gain. Again and again they have learned that we’ll just keep voting lesser of two evils lesser of two evils lesser of two evils until finally we’ve forgotten what good even looks like.

It’s time to stand up, be willing to take a punch, and say NO MORE!

13:54

The hell it does. Trump has single handedly gutted the republican party. Are you high? Did you just call Trump establishment? Really? Apparently the RNC wasn’t informed. They threw like 15 candidates at him. He crushed them, all.

16:20

Sam still thinks what she says matters. That’s just insane. We know what she’ll do. Whatever her donors want. End of debate.

Trump doesn’t even have donors in that sense. He’s the only wild card left if it’s down to HRC v Trump.

16:27

His party won’t let him? The one that just did everything they could think of to stop him from being the nominee and failed hilariously? His party that has zero financial control over him? The same congress you think would be powerless to stop lousy SCOTUS appointments? XD

Doublethink is an art form in some brains. Guy just don’t have the mental ram to hold the whole picture in memory at the same time do you. That’s why he microscopes. He can’t think of the whole big picture all at once.

18:16

This. We’ll never see a progressive as an option if we keep kissing fear’s ring.

18:39

Dude wants precedent during the debate of an unprecedented situation. That’s climate change denier level sophistry. “Well can you show me precedent of global warming killing off humanity? I didn’t think so. HOAX!”

This is basic logic. Which would you rather have, an enemy at the gate or a traitor in your midst? A sword on your shield or a dagger in your back?

Do I really have to explain how a turn coat is more lethal than an enemy general? What planet do you live on Sam?

20:13

Sam wants a nice safe comfortable well known well researched easy path to pulling the dagger out. Well, at this point, there isn’t one. That bridge is burnt. The DNC burnt it with the cheating. #ExitPollGate and all the rest. We either stand now or get used to kneeling forever. Sam is clearly already there. He no doubt has a boot taste preference at this point.

21:04

Voting Cheney/Kissinger 2016 is not “moving the ball forward” it’s by definition voting DINO on the grounds that republicans are worse. Which means that for all future time all they gotta do is stay further right than the DNC and they win either way.

It’s like trying to win tug of war by dropping the rope. As opposed to suddenly giving slack and then yanking hard while they are off balance.

Sam is cool with a one party country just so long as that party doesn’t screw us quite as hard as it could be screwing us. O.o

21:20

Let’s roll out the hyperbole. For Cenk it’s “I’ve been to too many holocaust museums” and for Sam it’s 30-40 years of slightly more right wing SCOTUS.

1:41

Pedantry to the rescue!

Sam demands a 200 year study and citation and global consensus. Because logic isn’t good enough for a YouTube debate.

2:32

Are you high? If they get rid of the filibuster they are screwed forever the next time they are in the minority.

2:46

It’s easier for democrats to drum up opposition, among democrats to oppose republicans, than it is for democrats to drum up opposition among democrats, to oppose democrats. Do I really have to explain why that is? Tell me, which is harder, shooting your enemy in the leg or shooting your friend in the leg?

Would you rather be shooting at enemies or friends? Which is harder?

3:55

This is SO pathetic. Sam thinks “fighting” HRC is getting her to lie more like a lefty. Sam is convinced that simply calling yourself a democrat MAKES you a democrat.

Besides, that theory is shot already. Obama got elected sounding like Bernie. Turns out he’s as neocon as HRC. How easy was it for us to pull him left? Apparently not very since it didn’t happen. The man literally kills American citizens and endorses child labor to make Nike more money. And the left can’t get him to budge.

4:10

It ain’t about pulling Trump to the left either you ring licking sycophant. Quit looking for boots to polish you pathetic little toady. It’s about replacing these people and crushing everything they do until we get the replacement.

Christ you’re allergic to courage aren’t you.

4:34

No, Trump is not a neoliberal. He’s a republican. And HRC is a neoliberal. Which is a fancy word for DINO. That’s just Jimmy getting tired of being badgered.

4:56

But they will fight against Trump because he evicerated their party. Republican voters have made voting against their interests an artform.

5:09

Where’s the evidence!? Did you miss the last 8 years of Goldman Sachs rule? What protects Obama from left wing hatred? What got him reelected? Lesser of two evils, and the cloak of the DNC membership. The evidence is him getting away with TPP, whistleblower crackdowns, drone strikes, not closing gitmo, endless war, banking free pass, and on and on and on. All because spineless people like you think D = better than R no matter what.

6:14

Sam’s just completely full of it. I refuse to believe he doesn’t understand the mechanism of neoliberal DNC cover. Does he just not understand what propelled the Clintons to power?

Cft69S3XIAEtBRc

Bull.

Closet RWNJ. Like the rest of HRCs base.

7:23

That’s it? After decades of neoliberalism, that’s your trophy case of achievement? Sounds to me like “it could be worse” lesser of two evils tactical voting simply made things worse at the end of the day. You mean giving up doesn’t work? Shocker. Bottomline question: Are things net positive or net negative under your approach? Net negative, obviously. What you are “doing” (which is to say, not doing) isn’t working.

7:30

1. What HRC say means NOTHING. 2. Lesser of two evils voting didn’t influence the color of her lies, Bernie Sanders did. Because her thought controllers realized that we are not bluffing.

7:39

You could go “on and on” taking credit for stuff #BernieOrBust has done. Yes, you could. But it wouldn’t mean anything.

8:00

Sam can’t let Jimmy speak for more than 20 seconds without interrupting him.

8:15

More deeply deeply pathetic trophies. Toys found in cereal boxes on balance. And that’s the basis of your whole strategy?

8:22

Obama care was a bailout of the insurance industry. We’d have had single payer now but for Obama’s (neolib) stabbing us in the back.

8:50

Sam is rewriting history. He thinks Healthcare reform was a unilateral political thing. Like Obama and company just decided to fight one day for health care. No dude, we got sick of feeding our kids into the for-profit wood chipper of health insurance. And we’re still sick of it, we just got divided by ppl like Sam on whether or not the insurance company bailout was a solution or not just because it briefly slowed the slide to the right.

9:50

Sam lives in fantasy football land where what a politician says is all that matters.

10:15

That’s the core of the issue. Sam here is either a liar or he’s wildly ignorant. I say liar, because I’m decent at poker, but whatever. We’ll say he’s just an innocent moron.

10:27

Yes it would be better if we get a right winger in office because then we’d actually fight unified and effectively instead of DEBATING EACH OTHER ON WHETHER OR NOT A FIGHT IS NEEDED! WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!?

10:47

Yess yess you smarmy git. What do you think “yes we can” and “change” meant??

12:02

Yes, that’s indisputable. We voted for FDR and we got Bill Clinton 2.0. Watch his address. Tell me he’s not talking the Sanders talk.

WTF is Sam saying? That we were voting for just a little change? Yes we can… Compromise? No dude. Wake the eff up.

12:26

Exactly. He beat HRC the same way Sanders would be beating HRC if not for the southern fried primary and straight up election fraud. #ExtiPollGate

12:54

Again, exactly, either you think we need revolution or your don’t. Sam is clearly comfy.

13:05

Sam crying loser tears because he can’t put the revolution under his microscope and understand it. Dude is the narrowest thinker I’ve seen in this context. He’s trying to be the Chomsky of YouTube. Let’s just drill down to the most meaningless tiniest detail and live there for a year.

“And welcome folks to our 99 part series on the price of yams in ecuador and how that relates to the the economic theory prevalent in the last quarter of 1992, because I think that’s just SUPER important.”

14:59

OMFG I’m tired of Sam taking all the credit for good stuff and blaming all the bad stuff on us.

The whole reason over half the country doesn’t vote is because they recognize that voting neolib v republican is utterly pointless!

CfvJnpRUYAMSLnb

The whole reason the right controls what it does is because neoliberalism isn’t working!

17:06

Sam denies that having a neoliberal in the mix splits the left but look at what we’re doing. Having a debate between leftists over whether or not our enemy is our enemy. If the election was between Trump and Trump. We wouldn’t be having a discussion. But because it’s Trump and HRC we are, ONLY ONLY because she’s labeled a democrat. End of debate.

17:38

That’s what you call letting Jimmy have the last word? Such a petulant child. Yes yes Sammy, it’s YOUR show, you win. /head pats.

600 Words on Why You Should #FeelTheBern

2016-02-11_141359600 Words on Why You Should #FeelTheBern

http://voteforbernie.org/

Objection!

Response.

Free Stuff Doesn’t Grow on Trees!

Every dollar in Bernie Sanders’s proposals is matched by a corresponding dollar raised in revenue — it’s all accounted for.

For example, the $75 billion/year College For All plan will be paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation, while the $100 billion/year Rebuild America Act will be paid for by taxing corporate offshore income.

Socialists will ban private property!

Bernie Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC socialist. He believes that our current economic system isn’t doing enough for poor and middle-class Americans and that democratic change is needed to create a more fair and just America.

But this isn’t radical or scary! Many of the programs instituted by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson that we take for granted today — such as Medicare, the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, and Social Security — can be considered socialist programs.

He’ll tax us all into homelessness!

If you’re one of the 1.5% of Americans making more than $231,450 a year, your marginal tax rate will go up slightly — money you earn above $231,450 will be taxed at 37% instead of 33%.

If you’re one of the 0.6% of Americans making more than $500,000 a year, your marginal rate will go up from 39.6% to 43%. Above $2,000,000 the rate will be 48%, and above $10,000,000 the rate will be 52%. These are tax increases that will only affect the very, very wealthy.

On the other hand, the vast majority of Americans will see significant savings when factoring in tax and healthcare changes under Bernie’s plans.

He’d never win vs the republicans!

Bernie has a better chance in the general election than Hillary would have:

Bernie performs better than Hillary does in all hypothetical match-ups against Republicans in poll after poll (2.4% better against Trump, 4.6% better against Cruz, and 1.5% better against Rubio, on average).

Bernie significantly outperforms Hillary in surveys of independent voters, and with 30-40% of Americans identifying as independents, they will play the deciding role in the general election.

And Bernie has a big lead in favorability, with a +10% net favorability rating among all Americans, compared to Hillary’s -10% net favorability rating. No presidential candidate has ever won with a negative favorability rating.

Republican controlled congress won’t let him do anything!

Bernie is actually well-known for his ability to compromise to get things done without sacrificing his values. In the House, he was known as the Amendment King, and passed more amendments, addressing exclusively progressive goals, than any other legislator, by forging cross-party coalitions.

He has earned respect from Republicans ranging from John McCain to the ultra-conservative Jim Inhofe. If any Democratic president can reach across the aisle to work with a stubborn Republican Congress, it’s Bernie Sanders.

See Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6hbwp0RUAI
(Bernie Sanders’ Realistic Plan to Confront and Defeat Obstructionism in Congress)

He wants to cancel Obamacare!

Bernie wants to expand health care coverage, not get rid of it!

Obamacare has made things a lot better, but it’s only a step in the right direction: Americans are still paying more for healthcare than any other country, and more than 10% of us still don’t have health insurance.

Bernie’s Medicare-for-all proposal will do just what it says — provide coverage for every American citizen, while saving the average American family $2000—$4000 per year.

But Hillary is Better!

Not really:
https://medium.com/@Lookingforrobyn/when-you-ask-me-to-vote-for-hillary-174becdb5ccc

==== ==== ==== ====
For original source of text and links with citation check out:
http://ilikeberniebut.com/

For more information on where he stands on other issues check out:
http://feelthebern.org/

Other links:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-bernie-sanders/462720/

UBI as a Compromise on Reparations for Slavery

Update: MLK agrees with me. I obviously had no idea or that would have been the core of my argument.

Update: Just imagine what a UBI would do in this context:

http://www.thenation.com/article/new-jim-crow/

Original Essay: On the subject of reparations, I have something to say that I haven’t heard anyone else say.

Context.
1. Assume that people of color are oppressed to this day because of the damage done by slavery.
2. Assume the point of reparations is to address that early damage.
3. Assume that others profited and continue to profit unfairly from that oppression.

Ok. So, you want to address this in an economic way that’s fair and viable and ethical.

I think a progressive tax and a UBI (unconditional basic income) accomplishes that goal. And it has the added bonus of not being by definition racist in the way that affirmative actions are. This seems counter intuitive but here follow along for a second. After all if it’s not a special effort made in favor of a specific race how can it qualify as reparations? In the same way that a given policy can disproportionately impact a given race without having to expressly specify a race anywhere within it. The same way a flat tax disproportionately hurts the poor despite being by definition totally even mathematically.

A UBI provided baseline income would have diminishing improvement effect as you climb the economic ladder. Hedge fund guys are not even going to notice the tiny bump in income their UBI check would provide, thus the fairness price paid in letting rich white guys collect the same reparations check as descendants of slaves, is offset by the fact that by the very virtue of being rich, there is no effective improvement to their lives.

Also it will be offset by the fact that on balance they’ll be paying way more then they are getting expressly because they are overly wealthy.

This means a UBI by definition is a smart bomb for poverty. It self selects and self adjusts its impact by the very metric we all agree on is the metric of most relevance: degree of poverty.

A UBI check to a homeless man is literally life changing. So to of anyone else economically crushed for any reason, including damage done by systemic racism of the present or the past. The more damage done, the more a UBI will help. Automatically and instantly the people most aided are those most currently crushed. And as they rise, the help done diminishes until they reach a point of economic sufficiency where they begin paying into the system instead of extracting from it.

The more oppressed a group actually is, the more the UBI helps them over others who don’t need it. No bureaucracy required. No debate over who gets what is needed. No one decides.

The only debate is how much to give, and at what rate to tax. That’s all. Two figures.

The other end of the spectrum is the progressive tax to pay for it. In this context a progressive tax is as much a smart bomb as the UBI is. It has the opposite effect as you go up the economic ladder. The more advantage you are granted for any reason up to and including profits from systemic racism, past or present, the more the progressive tax will take from you, and the more you can afford to have taken from you without impacting your actual quality of life.

See here for my primary post about the UBI:

http://underlore.com/one-possible-solution/

Inspired by this video:

Black Voters and Bernie Sanders

TL/DR: Bernie won’t actually have a problem with AA/minority voters on the days of vote. The media is just saying that over and over hoping to make it true.

Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote – The Nation

Bernie will have the black vote when it matters and here’s why.

I know no one wants to talk about this really for fear of being misconstrued as implying that blacks as a voting block are ignorant. However, the root of Bernie’s problem with the black electorate at this stage is ironically a consequence of everything he’s trying to fight.

Blacks and most others frankly at this point haven’t on average looked into who to vote for yet because they know it’ll be a trivial decision to make and because they on average are too busy or disenfranchised to engage in what is at its point essentially the politico version of fantasy football.

At this point the election is a first world problem for the majority of those 61% of people that didn’t vote last time. For the moment, and only for the moment, most people have more pressing matters to attend to.

Not having the time to inform yourself of the reality of your choice in an upcoming vote is by definition a bigger problem the more disenfranchised your group is because then you have bigger and more real problems to deal with day to day expressly because of systemic racism or other forms of oppression.

When you are worried for example about being shot by the local police walking down the block to buy groceries, assuming you can even afford them, you’re not going to have a lot of time or inclination at first to wiki Bernie vs Clinton and their voting records. This does not make you stupid, it makes you human.

Sure it might be unwise as a group to disengage, but individually (and here is the critical part) this early, it’s essentially a waste of time. But again, be honest, this really isn’t as complicated an nuanced as the media (both mainstream and alternative) how long would it take anyone browsing to decide which is the candidate for them? We all want to sound smart, but really a choice like this takes no more than 30 minutes of searching.

There’s also the general impact of austerity measures especially in republican states on political awareness. Schools generally are in third world shape in this country and they only get worse in oppressed communities. But again, that doesn’t matter much in this specific context because of the internet and the penetration of smart phones into every level of society.

All this is in my opinion why there is this perception that Bernie isn’t doing well among minorities, blacks in particular. It’s ultimately an illusion.

This will all change the moment the primary begins because he’ll win Iowa and New Hampshire and the news will be forced to name him and the busier more distracted of the black electorate will, by virtue of it no longer being a first world problem, will inform themselves on their upcoming choice.

And when they quickly find that their choice is between a woman who accepts money from the private prison lobby and says whatever she thinks is expedient at the time, or a man who walked with King and was arrested fighting for the civil rights movement, who has not deviated from his message of equality and true progressivism in decades, they’ll make the intelligent, self serving, and compassionate choice.

See, the thing about low information voting is about the price in time of acquiring that information. The opportunity cost is the deciding factor here. As the day of the primary gets closer and closer in each state, a moment will be taken by each person who isn’t totally disconnected or prohibited from participation even indirectly, to confirm or deny what they already believe, and they’ll find Bernie’s revolution waiting for them, instead of SSDD not worth the wait inline come election day.

The issue of who to vote for in the primary will for each person stop being a waste of precious time. It then stops being a trivial day to day hobby horse race, and it starts being something real that matters today. And that only means millions of people discovering Bernie and coming to #FeelTheBern

I believe that essentially all it takes to turn the average black Hillary supporter into a Bernie Sanders’ supporter is 30 minutes on a smart phone and an open mind. Call me sappy or naive but I’m pretty sure open minds and smart phones are still ubiquitous in this country, no matter what the news tells us.

Also, primary voters are by definition more engaged than general election only voters, and engaged voters Google who they are voting for. Any progressive that shows up has a great chance of being behind Bernie than any of these polls can predict. Unless they are online, and the online polls show a landslide coming because there are no spoiler effects in play. It’s perfectly safe to vote Bernie. Indeed, given his performance (compared to Hillary) vs Trump and the other republicans, he’s the safer vote.

This election is defined by populism. That will include the dismissal of the main stream media by the electorate. The same anti establishment populism that caused this race to boil down to Trump vs Sanders also is present vs the six company news machine we all know by now has been lying to us for decades.

Mark my words, Bernie is essentially going to sweep the primaries barring outright election rigging.

Update: 2016-02-23 0517 AM

CboHFfQWIAIsK0q.jpg large

I’m not afraid of being called a racist as a result of my efforts to point out the value of Bernie’s candidacy to minority voters primary because I’m not a racist by any rational definition.

I’ve realized that the scolding by the neoliberal set for whites to get out of the race issue is a slick way to perpetuate the divide.

If a particular person hates me for defending their interests, that’s their right. I’m not doing it to earn praise. I’m doing it because it’s the right thing to do.

It’s not about them, it’s about me 🙂

I’m not going to preemptively give up in a misguided effort to avoid offending someone. This is the Internet. Just existing offends some people heh.

Now obviously I realize that blacks can and should be able to vote for whomever they please.
You’ll notice Bernie isn’t black. I’m not saying blacks should vote Sanders because they are black, I’m saying they should vote Sanders because his policies will disproportionately help the AA community.

He’s an even better idea for the AA community than he is for the country at large (and that is really saying something) and people voting against their own interests undermine the core argument for democracy.

If people can’t be trusted to make a superior (as defined by whatever objective metric you like) decision then they shouldn’t have decision making authority. That’s why we don’t vote on matters of science. Because we know taking a poll wouldn’t be a good way of making that type of decision.

Blacks in particular (but also to a lesser extent the electorate generally) voting against their own interests in this election when the choice is between an advocate of mass incarceration, a literal fascist, and someone who marched with MLK and was a civil rights pioneer, would be rather strong evidence that democracy might generally not objectively be a good idea after all.

I mean really, what more do you want? If you don’t have a scenario in mind that falsifies democracy then you’re a fanatic.

Underlore © 2013