Yes. Yes it is.
World's youngest billionaire and she's going to be the banner child for class warfare.

Let this headline sink in for a second:
As opioid overdoses exact a higher price, communities ponder who should be saved

Just another instance of "Die faster, plebs!".

There's a reason we call it class warfare...

I picked out this singular point of yours, because it seems like a very common issue getting worse over time.

The professional class has been rather successful at pushing a definition of "progressive" that is in line with their own interests. It's now mostly restricted to social issues, with SJW being the fringe element of it. Economic issues? Gone. Welfare issues? Gone. Foreign policy issues? Gone.

If you look at it that way, Obama has been good to the managerial class, the credentialed class, the professional class, the Silicon Valley types, the affluent liberals, everyone who was already profitting from the neoliberal status-quo. The rest, not so much. The opiod epidemic in the US, born out of mass despair, combined with your excuse of a healthcare system, is class warfare, plain and simple. "Die faster" is the message coming from not just the establishment, but also the professional class, aimed at the plebs, the servant class, the deplorables, the white trash, everyone not inside their bubble.

I've had more success in discussions by making it clear from the get-go that social victories mean very little when you are too poor to enjoy any of them. Your progressive issues mean nothing to me if you still insist on neoliberal economic policies that are a tool of class warfare against the poor.

It's as clear as day in France this days. The liberal intelligentsia calls you scum if you don't support Macron, the darling of the elite, who is liberal on social issues, but a hardcore neoliberal on economic issues. A spokesperson of the Melenchon campaign described his policies as "the Uberization of society", something in clear opposition of what the left stands for.

Describing my views as left rather than progressive or liberal has also helped in these discussions.

I don't like his delivery but I like the message at the end. The perception people have of suicide in the US is crazy. It's a health issue and the US has shitty mental health services and a poor understanding of mental health issues... Just throw some powerful drugs on it and it will go away (and make me rich in the process)! On top of that, the US economy is depressing the hell out of a greater number of people, a lot of people after being out of work for a while or not having enough money will just choose to go. So, it's a political issue as well due to the class warfare that has been waged in the US especially since the 80's.

But to add some flame to it - sometimes I wonder if some of the people I know who chose to end it early - made a wise decision just to end it; maybe they thought it through to the nth degree and it was a solid choice - and the remaining mourning people are just selfish "no, you must live in this temporary fucked up little world with ME!!" or "don't remind me that I'm going to die too!" lol

Hadn't seen it, nor read about it. Corbyn seems to be getting more comfortable taking the floor, which is great.

However, all those recent mentions of sound finance and balanced budgets worry me. Just last week, McDonnell made a whole assortment of statements that sound awfully deficit hawkish. "Iron discipline", "economic credibility" -- that's the language of people who use market/economic constraints as a disguise for policies that can often be described as plain old class warfare.

Looking at their economic advisers, it sounds like Wren-Lewis rather than Stiglitz or Mazzucato.

There are depressingly few journalists who call Osbourne out on his permanent-surplus horseshit....

While we're on the subject, the rhetoric from the left flank of Syriza against austerity seems to be shifting from failed policy to tool of class warfare. Or maybe it's just getting reported more prominently.

The IMF, and Lagarde especially, is also receiving more heat by the day for letting themselves get dragged into this troika business by Strauss-Kahn.

Yet in all this, there still isn't anyone willing to pull the trigger.

They all try to appease the mighty gods of the economy, with austerity chosen as their way of showing penance.

Please read again...and write again, reading what you write before submitting. I can't follow your first paragraph. What little I can understand completely ignores what I wrote and makes stuff up to argue against.

I didn't say atheists have a monopoly on morality, I said morality doesn't come from religions, and atheists are more moral than religious people. I gave clear statistics about criminal behavior to prove my point.
EDIT:It seems you are saying if it's not religious in origin, the only thing left is political affiliation!? OMFG! That's so wrong I don't know where to start, I hope I just misunderstand you.
Reading/writing comprehension matters.
read my last paragraph in the post above...you exhibit those symptoms.

The answer to all your demographic questions, the religious group.
Religious 'morality' allows for murder, rape, and slavery of the non devout, and so is more responsible for the decline, and for many of the schisms in society.
You watch too much fox news, liberals don't 'control all major media and schools'. "Conservatives" (which are not conservative, they want to be more 'progressive' than liberals by "going back" to a time that never existed) never shut up pushing their insane, debunked ideas day and night. Their morality supports slavery and rape and wage disparity so disastrous that it may lead to class warfare. (how you treat the least of your brethren...etc.)
(EDIT: also investigate the saying 'eat the rich'-Jean-Jacques Rousseau )

More abortions for Christians than atheists, they can't be seen haveing out of wedlock children and many can't use birth control.
Abstinence only sex-ed actually promotes pre-marital sex (if you look at the results).
Christians have more adulterous affairs... for entertainment, and more divorce too.
Religious 'morality' is all 'morality decided by self'. (You don't stone non Christians or people who work on Sunday, do you? If not, you absolutely don't take your morality from the bible.)
Religion totally enslaves the poor.

Any other fallacies you need me to destroy?

I want to support a lot of what these guys are saying. But I think they are fundamentally wrong.

First. Although racism is alive and well in Class warfare, it's still not Black Vs White. It's Money Vs. the Poor.

Second. "Get out there and vote" is a Fallacy. You will never win anything when the game is already stacked against you on both sides.
What they need to do is get involved in the system. Create their leaders, stand behind them and further their own agenda.

I would hope their agenda is equality and not just them on top on others on the bottom. But that is is how the system works. You need to be involved in the process.

There are two HUGE roadblocks that have been built in these people's way. First. Education. You need to be smart in the ways of Politics. You need the highest education to go up against the leaders in power.

How do you get higher education? You need money. These people, such as the people of Detroit, have been pushed down into poverty. They need money for two things. The education of their leaders and their youth. And they need Money to challenge the position of power -- the system has slowly been transformed into a system that sides with money. Money to run in politics, money to buy off other politicians.

Without money and education, they have no power to effect change.
Without money and education, WE have no power to effect change.

And that's how the leaders in democratic countries stay in power. They've engineered the system in their favor.

In the US, there are only two Parties. and they are both as corrupt as each other. So it's a no-win, never-win scenario.

At least in Canada we can have and create new parties and as long as they have the support, they have to be taken seriously.

videosift is committing class warfare!

An interesting response.

I hadn't realized that the life of black people in the South isn't universally known. It is such a stain on our history, such a cruel example of the Honors English theme of "man's inhumanity to man."

For me, that article wasn't about class warfare and voting rights. It was a portrait of fear overcome, and taught me some details about what it meant to be black in the deep South (you have to walk in A LINE when you meet a white person on the sidewalk???!!!)

Whenever I begin to think about this article, I start to tear up.

Which is interesting to me -- that that wasn't your take-away. Which means to me our shame isn't as internationally known as I thought. I think. Or maybe not. Whatever

This has been going on in certain cities of Orange County for some time now.

Class warfare never ended, white flight and rich Chinese and Middle Eastern U.S. citizens just keep leap frogging each other into new territory. Class warfare does not have a color boundary, only money.

one might ask what sort of crowd would be sitting in front of a posh Boston hotel watching the end of the marathon...and consider the possibility that an episode of class warfare has just occurred.

Obama lies all the time, all politicians do, oh wait I forgot to drink my liberal kool aid where the rich and the republicans are all these evil people and Obama is the Messiah who can do no wrong. Yeah go back to your class warfare and spending other people's money.

Obama compromised significantly on the final state of the Affordable Care Act. If he hadn't, we'd have had the single payer public option that would have actually forced real competition into a market dominated by private insurers colluding with each other to fix prices.

It wasn't a compromise, it is a trojan horse for the single payer system. The architect of Obamacare admitted that publicly:



The reason he changed it is because his plan was too radical even for a democratically controlled congress to vote for. Also, the original point is that he didn't negotiate with the republicans at all.

He's only the most polarizing president in history because he's the first black one. Were he a white guy named Steve Smith he'd be the most conservative democrat to ever hold office.

You think he's polarizing because everyone is racist? Do you seriously believe that? I think he is polarizing because he actively works to divide people across political, economic and racial lines. From his extensive class warfare rhetoric, to comments from his mouthpieces like "theyre gonna put y’all back in chains", Obama has worked supremely hard to divide the country.

Again I ask you, if your party holds the majority, and the minority simply refuses to compromise or meet with you on ANY issue, then what else can your party do?

I don't have a party; I'm an independent. And are you trying to tell me that President Obama tried to negotiate with the republicans and was holding out an olive branch to them in those first two years but they wouldn't listen so he had no choice but to act unilaterally? Do you also have a bridge you want to sell me?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^RFlagg:
I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...

I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.

THIS! We don't care, if you're a progressive you have no illusions about Obama, you shouldn't have before the election, and if you did you definitely don't now. I know it's stupid but I want Romney to win, maybe that'll teach them they can't Fuck Around with promising shit and not delivering.


Well, not so much. I'm not yet willing to burn down the barn just because it has some rats. Romney would be a disaster...for everyone who makes less than several hundred thousand a year. I rather suspect that a Romney administration would lead to the class warfare turning violent, as he appears to be so utterly one-sided.