that wealth redistribution question is pretty lit tho
love to frame "we should vote to redistribute wealth" as inherently undemocratic
In fact... are any of these undemocratic? Or just anti document worship? Cause as we all know the most democratic rules are the ones that were handed down by aristocrats 250 years ago and are essentially unchangeable by democratic means
Some of the phrasing is extremely sus. The last one in particular: "to protect the feelings and safety of marginalized groups"
🎼 One 🎶 Of 🎵 These 🎶 Things 🎵
🎼 Is 🎶 Not 🎵 Like 🎶 The 🎵 Other 🎶
Yeah that seemed like obvious manipulation to me as well. If you're going to conflate them both that's already a mistake. To put safety second is obvious de prioritization and most people will then subconsciously think primarily of 'feelings' in that question's context.
Also, yes. I think that I have more of a right to a pleasant day than some ill-mannered cousinfucker has a right to be a douchebag.
After the revolution, being disrespectful will get you the gulag.
Policies with years of genocidal history behind them are obviously the most democratic
lumping discriminatory and offensive together
lumping feelings and safety together
oh yeah, its editorializing time
All wealth above a certain limit should be redistributed to address income inequality
Donald Trump Voters: 39%
That’s what freaked the shit out of the Republican establishment in 2016 about Trump, it wasn’t him being uncouth, it was him idly saying “yeah we should hike the taxes on hedge fund managers” and getting zero flack from his base for it. It was threatening to reveal that rank and file Republicans aren’t “no new tax” hardliners, they just don’t want their taxes to go up.
Did trump even increase any taxes? I thought his accomplishment was that he lowered it for “everyone.” And the result being the average joe got an extra $50 while millionaires and billionaires got to keep hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars
No that was just campaign trail rhetoric. The irony in Trump is that for all his anti-establishment, drain the swamp bluster, he tends to parrot and go along with those around him are saying. So once he was in office, he got surrounded by careerist Republicans and his policies ended up being mostly Republican boilerplate, except for his erratic protectionist trade policies.
might be misremembering but wasn't his campaign rhetoric "we're gonna do trickle down economics and cut taxes for the rich?"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-trump-hedgefunds-idUSKCN0QS0P120150823
Overall, you’re correct, more trickle down. But trickle down sprinkled with some “these crony capitalists are going to pay their fair share” which was a departure from the Tax Club for Growth mantra.
fuck free speech all my homies hate free speech
53% of Dems platform fascists
69% of Dems want an n-word pass
If a plurality of a population wants something, and that thing happens, that's... actual democracy.
Liberals (and yes this includes Republicans) have purposely twisted the word democratic to mean something closer to "system where individual rights are upheld even at the expense of the majority." That's not democracy. That's just describing... liberal capitalism? Or something. Basically, what the US has. Although that liberal part is wearing very thin.
In an actual democracy if a majority agrees that land should all be redistributed with an aim towards equal distribution, then it is not undemocratic to do so. In fact it's... it's literally... democratic. I feel like my brain is melting because this is so obvious. It might be anti-individual liberty/freedom. Ok. But that wasn't the premise. It wasn't "how many Americans are open to authoritarian means to achieve certain goals" or whatever.
But that opens another can the pollsters, likely, don't want opened.
They'd have to acknowledge that the US is already employing authoritarian methods to control society.
They'd have to acknowledge that not all authoritarianism is "bad" but rather depends on a person's viewpoint. Like, I'd be perfectly fine with an authority figure personally slapping Elon Musk and taking all his assets.
That's a fantasy though.
The reality is authorities do that already... to the least powerful people in societies. In the US that ends up being non-wealthy, non-white people.
So if they ask the question "would you like to see authoritarian measures used against the wealthy, especially those who exploit the most, and have their assets and wealth confiscated and redistributed?" Well. People might like that question. So don't ask it!
system where individual rights are upheld even at the expense of the majority
Considering that many "rights" are only available in a meaningful way to the wealthy, I think we should just call it aristocracy.
I love the potential of the American people.
All wealth above a certain limit should be redistributed
This is a wealth cap, not an income cap. It warms my shriveled little heart to see huge numbers of people approving actual wealth redistribution. You also get anomalously high results like this if you poll things like "should slaughterhouses be banned" (e: direct survey results) . Of course it's because most Americans don't know anything about politics and have incoherent views. But we could learn.
Literally all the constitution says is that burgers get to own guns and form a militia. Nothing more. If you were to follow it without any dumbass interpretation, it would just look like Switzerland. The mental gymnastics that have been performed to even allow shit like concealed carrying is the equivalent of interpreting “speedy trial” as a drag race in the court parking lot.
Trump voters are off by like an insignificant amount for most of these too. But according to democrats, he’s a communist KGB Putin agent. So once again, Trump vs Biden is just communist infighting
That part of the Constitution was also written at a time when we were still debating on if we were going to have a standing military. The original wording allowed for those state militia to be called up to national service if the fed needed them. Slave-owning members of the Constitutional Convention who represented the South rejected this idea that the federal government could call up their militias because it would leave their states with no one to protect them from slave uprisings. These militias collaborated with the Southern Slave Patrols.
That corporate diversity thing is just 👏 more 👏 diverse 👏 oppressors, aka what an American liberal believes a "far left" position is. Might as well ask if there should be more minority cops.
: "You really think rude people should be treated like second-class citizens instead of racial minorities!? why do you hate muh yeehaw freedom burger?"
Here is some fun math and reframing for you:
The popular vote in 2020 fell like this:
Knowing these proportions we can work out the likely total proportion of potential voters who support these ideas.
(DemsResponse% * DemsPopVote%) + (RepsResponse% * RepsPopVote%)
tbf there is a massive non-voting populace, but who knows what they think
43% of Trump voters being for racial quotas is a headscratcher.
They perceive that whites are discriminated against, lmao
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to The Labour Community.
Take any slop posts to the slop trough
Main is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.