Resistance Intimidating Trump Supporters

[warmonger1981]

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Politics are bias and blind.

[Neoteny]

Funny how that works.

[thegreekdog]

It's a shame that you think of young people who feel that their economic outlook, franchise, and personal and community safety are compromised to the point where they feel the need to take to the street to effect political action are "a bunch of over-privileged ass clowns" and not Ben Shapiro or Mitch fucking McConnell. You're close to getting it, I think, but just can't see past your own personal bank account, maybe? You make overtures toward lower class solidarity, but write off what centuries of political action have demonstrated to be effective for bottom-up political change as "part of growing up." I dunno, man. Seems pretty shortsighted if we're talking optics here.

I mean, this is a great post and all that. But their economic outlook, franchise, personal, and community safety are not compromised. Like at all. Like not even a little bit. Like this is the best it has ever been... for everyone. Seriously.

[Neoteny]

I mean, this is a great post and all that. But their economic outlook, franchise, personal, and community safety are not compromised. Like at all. Like not even a little bit. Like this is the best it has ever been... for everyone. Seriously.

Spoken like a proper boomer. How out of touch can one person be?

[thegreekdog]

I mean, this is a great post and all that. But their economic outlook, franchise, personal, and community safety are not compromised. Like at all. Like not even a little bit. Like this is the best it has ever been... for everyone. Seriously.

Spoken like a proper boomer. How out of touch can one person be?

What topic would you like to cover? Let's start with the economy.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bern ... r-two-ago/

The bottom line: According to this metric, Americans enjoy a high level of economic welfare relative to most other countries, and the level of Americans’ well-being has continued to improve over the past few decades despite the severe disruptions of the financial crisis and its aftermath. However, the rate of improvement has slowed noticeably in recent years, consistent with the growing sense of dissatisfaction evident in polls and politics.

How about homicide rates?

https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/hom ... -1950-2014

2011 - 4.7
2012 - 4.7
2013 - 4.5
2014 - 4.5

High was 10.2 in 1980.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... -2017.html

For the first time in U.S. history, 90 percent of the population age 25 and older have completed high school. This is according to new Educational Attainment data released today from the U.S. Census Bureau.

[warmonger1981]

Always like a man who can bring stats and statistics to an argument.

[thegreekdog]

Always like a man who can bring stats and statistics to an argument.

Some anecdotal evidence: These kids today have iphones, Twitter, Snapchat, the thing with the pictures, virtually limitless television watching capabilities, access to jobs that care about things like personal health and time off.

[Neoteny]

What topic would you like to cover? Let's start with the economy.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bern ... r-two-ago/

The bottom line: According to this metric, Americans enjoy a high level of economic welfare relative to most other countries, and the level of Americans’ well-being has continued to improve over the past few decades despite the severe disruptions of the financial crisis and its aftermath. However, the rate of improvement has slowed noticeably in recent years, consistent with the growing sense of dissatisfaction evident in polls and politics.

Your own quote shows the lie of what you're trying to prove. Even a ghoul like Ben Bernanke recognizes that the trend is reversing with this metric.

This measure confirms that life in America is good, compared to other countries and to the country’s own past, and is still improving. But there has been a significant slowdown in the pace of improvement that requires attention from policymakers.

People are feeling that and responding to it. It might not be a downward trend yet, but at the rate we're going this hard brake will turn into a reverse. And that was under a centrist neoliberal president. Those stats only cover until 2015, before Republicans regained control of the government and increased the rate of funneling money upward and away from your average working class person. Has anyone applied that measure to a recent time frame? You know, after antifa was something that wasn't only talked about in Seattle and Portland. I did a quick Google and didn't find much.

How about homicide rates?

https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/hom ... -1950-2014

2011 - 4.7
2012 - 4.7
2013 - 4.5
2014 - 4.5

High was 10.2 in 1980.

Ah yes, the classic concern of "am I going to be murdered by antifa supersoldiers/Obama death panels/MS13/Chicago youth in the near future" that the geriatric foxnews base regularly fills their depends over as a metric for "community security" as opposed to issues like job security, housing, over-policing (by admittedly murderous people supposedly protecting us), healthcare, and food access. Sure, getting murdered might be your only concern, but the rest of us have other aspects of our communities that are more important than the specters of street thugs.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/educational-attainment-2017.html

For the first time in U.S. history, 90 percent of the population age 25 and older have completed high school. This is according to new Educational Attainment data released today from the U.S. Census Bureau.

There is certainly no threat to the social democratic institution of public primary and secondary education. No concerns for that at all.

Always like a man who can bring stats and statistics to an argument.

Some anecdotal evidence: These kids today have iphones, Twitter, Snapchat, the thing with the pictures, virtually limitless television watching capabilities,

I refuse to believe you are younger than 75.

access to jobs that care about things like personal health and time off.

This makes me feel a little better. It demonstrates you're either willfully contrarian or completely out of touch with today's economy. Your recent posts make me lean toward the latter.

[thegreekdog]

What topic would you like to cover? Let's start with the economy.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bern ... r-two-ago/

The bottom line: According to this metric, Americans enjoy a high level of economic welfare relative to most other countries, and the level of Americans’ well-being has continued to improve over the past few decades despite the severe disruptions of the financial crisis and its aftermath. However, the rate of improvement has slowed noticeably in recent years, consistent with the growing sense of dissatisfaction evident in polls and politics.

Your own quote shows the lie of what you're trying to prove. Even a ghoul like Ben Bernanke recognizes that the trend is reversing with this metric.

This measure confirms that life in America is good, compared to other countries and to the country’s own past, and is still improving. But there has been a significant slowdown in the pace of improvement that requires attention from policymakers.

People are feeling that and responding to it. It might not be a downward trend yet, but at the rate we're going this hard brake will turn into a reverse. And that was under a centrist neoliberal president. Those stats only cover until 2015, before Republicans regained control of the government and increased the rate of funneling money upward and away from your average working class person. Has anyone applied that measure to a recent time frame? You know, after antifa was something that wasn't only talked about in Seattle and Portland. I did a quick Google and didn't find much.

How about homicide rates?

https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/hom ... -1950-2014

2011 - 4.7
2012 - 4.7
2013 - 4.5
2014 - 4.5

High was 10.2 in 1980.

Ah yes, the classic concern of "am I going to be murdered by antifa supersoldiers/Obama death panels/MS13/Chicago youth in the near future" that the geriatric foxnews base regularly fills their depends over as a metric for "community security" as opposed to issues like job security, housing, over-policing (by admittedly murderous people supposedly protecting us), healthcare, and food access. Sure, getting murdered might be your only concern, but the rest of us have other aspects of our communities that are more important than the specters of street thugs.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/educational-attainment-2017.html

For the first time in U.S. history, 90 percent of the population age 25 and older have completed high school. This is according to new Educational Attainment data released today from the U.S. Census Bureau.

There is certainly no threat to the social democratic institution of public primary and secondary education. No concerns for that at all.

Always like a man who can bring stats and statistics to an argument.

Some anecdotal evidence: These kids today have iphones, Twitter, Snapchat, the thing with the pictures, virtually limitless television watching capabilities,

I refuse to believe you are younger than 75.

access to jobs that care about things like personal health and time off.

This makes me feel a little better. It demonstrates you're either willfully contrarian or completely out of touch with today's economy. Your recent posts make me lean toward the latter.

So tl;dr: "Data schmata. Things feel like they're bad so they must be bad. But even if they aren't bad, they're getting worse! You'll see! We need socialism now! Before it gets too good!"

[Neoteny]

I addressed your first source as not supporting your thesis, your second as barely relevant to the nature of the concern, and the last as an active target of the Trump administration. If that's not addressing the data, I don't know what is. Have fun worrying about being murdered, I guess?

[thegreekdog]

I addressed your first source as not supporting your thesis, your second as barely relevant to the nature of the concern, and the last as an active target of the Trump administration. If that's not addressing the data, I don't know what is. Have fun worrying about being murdered, I guess?

I'm not sure how they address data in your world, but in my world (I guess the baby boomer world) most people address data with more data. You didn't provide that. My first source does support my thesis, it just also says that the improvement is slowing and that there is room for improvement. The second data point is just an example of something that has improved. I have no idea what you mean on your third point... that the Trump administration is trying to make sure kids don't graduate? I haven't seen that policy piece.

Of course there is room for improvement and we should always be trying to improve. But shrill yelling by overprivileged 20-somethings that act like their in the early teens, constant counterarguments to any criticism of "you're racist" or "I need my safe space" and the obsession with feelings over data, not to mention the movement towards socialism are silly things that should be treated as silly things.

[mookiemcgee]

Always like a man who can bring stats and statistics to an argument.

Some anecdotal evidence: These kids today have iphones, Twitter, Snapchat, the thing with the pictures, virtually limitless television watching capabilities, access to jobs that care about things like personal health and time off.

Time off? I dare you to show me a stat saying people have more time off now than in say the 50-60's.

[Symmetry]

I addressed your first source as not supporting your thesis, your second as barely relevant to the nature of the concern, and the last as an active target of the Trump administration. If that's not addressing the data, I don't know what is. Have fun worrying about being murdered, I guess?

I'm not sure how they address data in your world, but in my world (I guess the baby boomer world) most people address data with more data. You didn't provide that. My first source does support my thesis, it just also says that the improvement is slowing and that there is room for improvement. The second data point is just an example of something that has improved. I have no idea what you mean on your third point... that the Trump administration is trying to make sure kids don't graduate? I haven't seen that policy piece.

Of course there is room for improvement and we should always be trying to improve. But shrill yelling by overprivileged 20-somethings that act like their in the early teens, constant counterarguments to any criticism of "you're racist" or "I need my safe space" and the obsession with feelings over data, not to mention the movement towards socialism are silly things that should be treated as silly things.

Careful Neo, TGD has entered stage 1 of his trolling- his "You can't read" state. The problem with his argument is, for TGD, not that it's wrong, but that you didn't reply to it correctly.

[Neoteny]

I'm not sure how they address data in your world, but in my world (I guess the baby boomer world) most people address data with more data. You didn't provide that. My first source does support my thesis, it just also says that the improvement is slowing and that there is room for improvement. The second data point is just an example of something that has improved. I have no idea what you mean on your third point... that the Trump administration is trying to make sure kids don't graduate? I haven't seen that policy piece.

I'm not rejecting your data. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt by analyzing it and critiquing the conclusions you're coming to. That's how you address data. There's no such thing as counter data or whatever you think should be happening. Data is data. Some tools for analyzing it can be misapplied or misinterpreted, but I'm just responding to how you presented the data. It's not really supporting your stance here.

I'm surprised you haven't heard any criticism of the Trump Administration's education wing. What with your broad reading and attention to media. Real shocker.

Of course there is room for improvement and we should always be trying to improve. But shrill yelling by overprivileged 20-somethings that act like their in the early teens, constant counterarguments to any criticism of "you're racist" or "I need my safe space" and the obsession with feelings over data, not to mention the movement towards socialism are silly things that should be treated as silly things.

Lol ok grandpa. Maybe just keep the volume down while the rest of us try to improve our lives.

[Neoteny]

Careful Neo, TGD has entered stage 1 of his trolling- his "You can't read" state. The problem with his argument is, for TGD, not that it's wrong, but that you didn't reply to it correctly.

All he really cares about is the discourse. It allows him to carry on not caring about people's concerns because they're "too shrill" or respond to his racism with cries of "racist."

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure how they address data in your world, but in my world (I guess the baby boomer world) most people address data with more data. You didn't provide that. My first source does support my thesis, it just also says that the improvement is slowing and that there is room for improvement. The second data point is just an example of something that has improved. I have no idea what you mean on your third point... that the Trump administration is trying to make sure kids don't graduate? I haven't seen that policy piece.

I'm not rejecting your data. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt by analyzing it and critiquing the conclusions you're coming to. That's how you address data. There's no such thing as counter data or whatever you think should be happening. Data is data. Some tools for analyzing it can be misapplied or misinterpreted, but I'm just responding to how you presented the data. It's not really supporting your stance here.

I'm surprised you haven't heard any criticism of the Trump Administration's education wing. What with your broad reading and attention to media. Real shocker.

Of course there is room for improvement and we should always be trying to improve. But shrill yelling by overprivileged 20-somethings that act like their in the early teens, constant counterarguments to any criticism of "you're racist" or "I need my safe space" and the obsession with feelings over data, not to mention the movement towards socialism are silly things that should be treated as silly things.

Lol ok grandpa. Maybe just keep the volume down while the rest of us try to improve our lives.

No, no, go ahead and improve. Just don't act like everything is horrible because it's really not.

I've heard lots of criticism of the Trump education administration (many of which are valid in my mind) but nothing about graduation rates from high school.

I'm not saying your comments on the data are wrong; I'm saying the level of discourse has coarsened and become much less reasonable for no discernable reason given that things have gotten consistently better. And there is room for improvement, but not socialist revolution.

Careful Neo, TGD has entered stage 1 of his trolling- his "You can't read" state. The problem with his argument is, for TGD, not that it's wrong, but that you didn't reply to it correctly.

All he really cares about is the discourse. It allows him to carry on not caring about people's concerns because they're "too shrill" or respond to his racism with cries of "racist."

Correct. I like the discourse (just like Symmetry). I do try to help (financially and volunteering), but have not joined any protests in a while.

[Neoteny]

No, no, go ahead and improve. Just don't act like everything is horrible because it's really not.

I've heard lots of criticism of the Trump education administration (many of which are valid in my mind) but nothing about graduation rates from high school.

I'm not saying your comments on the data are wrong; I'm saying the level of discourse has coarsened and become much less reasonable for no discernable reason given that things have gotten consistently better. And there is room for improvement, but not socialist revolution.

Let me try to be clear: just because you can't discern a reason doesn't mean there isn't a reason. And if you are relying on economists to discern the reason instead of the people themselves, then you're an idiot.

The main comment I have on the data that I haven't bothered to try to force into your rock-hard grey matter yet, but is relevant now, is that it's an economist's attempt to enumerate economic welfare as opposed to median income or GDP, which is fine for economists, but a really fucking stupid way to consider the causes of social unrest. You could use those numbers to ignore things you don't like to hear (what you're referring to as "coursened discourse), or intelligently use them as a piece of the puzzle to try to find out what is happening, but it's actually really easy to just ask the people who are upset. If you don't like it, you don't like it. If you don't agree you don't agree. But to pretend you have a finger on the pulse of the economic welfare of America because you read an article by Ben Bernanke is humiliating hubris.

"Everything is fine because the numbers tell me everything is fine," is what sunk the Democrats in 2016. Here's hoping your reactionary ideology goes down in even bigger flames. I don't expect to convince you that these protests aren't all middle class college kids (got any data on that bucko?) since that seems to be a central tenet of your worldview, but ignore the concerns of the lower (and middle) class at your own peril. People don't take to the streets because they're spoiled children. Spoiled children stay in and read the Times and tut.

[thegreekdog]

No, no, go ahead and improve. Just don't act like everything is horrible because it's really not.

I've heard lots of criticism of the Trump education administration (many of which are valid in my mind) but nothing about graduation rates from high school.

I'm not saying your comments on the data are wrong; I'm saying the level of discourse has coarsened and become much less reasonable for no discernable reason given that things have gotten consistently better. And there is room for improvement, but not socialist revolution.

Let me try to be clear: just because you can't discern a reason doesn't mean there isn't a reason. And if you are relying on economists to discern the reason instead of the people themselves, then you're an idiot.

The main comment I have on the data that I haven't bothered to try to force into your rock-hard grey matter yet, but is relevant now, is that it's an economist's attempt to enumerate economic welfare as opposed to median income or GDP, which is fine for economists, but a really fucking stupid way to consider the causes of social unrest. You could use those numbers to ignore things you don't like to hear (what you're referring to as "coursened discourse), or intelligently use them as a piece of the puzzle to try to find out what is happening, but it's actually really easy to just ask the people who are upset. If you don't like it, you don't like it. If you don't agree you don't agree. But to pretend you have a finger on the pulse of the economic welfare of America because you read an article by Ben Bernanke is humiliating hubris.

"Everything is fine because the numbers tell me everything is fine," is what sunk the Democrats in 2016. Here's hoping your reactionary ideology goes down in even bigger flames. I don't expect to convince you that these protests aren't all middle class college kids (got any data on that bucko?) since that seems to be a central tenet of your worldview, but ignore the concerns of the lower (and middle) class at your own peril. People don't take to the streets because they're spoiled children. Spoiled children stay in and read the Times and tut.

I'm not sure political polling and economic data can be equated in the "everything is fine" category especially given the inherent (I suppose) trouble with polling data. The best polling data around (fivethirtyeight) was wrong (just least wrong) about the 2016 presidential election.

In any event, I've spent some time discussing why people shouldn't be upset, but why are people upset? What specifically are they upset about? The second part of that question (which I might as well ask now) - If they are upset about X, what data exists to show that X is bad (or is bad enough to "take to the streets")?

[Symmetry]

No, no, go ahead and improve. Just don't act like everything is horrible because it's really not.

I've heard lots of criticism of the Trump education administration (many of which are valid in my mind) but nothing about graduation rates from high school.

I'm not saying your comments on the data are wrong; I'm saying the level of discourse has coarsened and become much less reasonable for no discernable reason given that things have gotten consistently better. And there is room for improvement, but not socialist revolution.

Let me try to be clear: just because you can't discern a reason doesn't mean there isn't a reason. And if you are relying on economists to discern the reason instead of the people themselves, then you're an idiot.

The main comment I have on the data that I haven't bothered to try to force into your rock-hard grey matter yet, but is relevant now, is that it's an economist's attempt to enumerate economic welfare as opposed to median income or GDP, which is fine for economists, but a really fucking stupid way to consider the causes of social unrest. You could use those numbers to ignore things you don't like to hear (what you're referring to as "coursened discourse), or intelligently use them as a piece of the puzzle to try to find out what is happening, but it's actually really easy to just ask the people who are upset. If you don't like it, you don't like it. If you don't agree you don't agree. But to pretend you have a finger on the pulse of the economic welfare of America because you read an article by Ben Bernanke is humiliating hubris.

"Everything is fine because the numbers tell me everything is fine," is what sunk the Democrats in 2016. Here's hoping your reactionary ideology goes down in even bigger flames. I don't expect to convince you that these protests aren't all middle class college kids (got any data on that bucko?) since that seems to be a central tenet of your worldview, but ignore the concerns of the lower (and middle) class at your own peril. People don't take to the streets because they're spoiled children. Spoiled children stay in and read the Times and tut.

I'm not sure political polling and economic data can be equated in the "everything is fine" category especially given the inherent (I suppose) trouble with polling data. The best polling data around (fivethirtyeight) was wrong (just least wrong) about the 2016 presidential election.

In any event, I've spent some time discussing why people shouldn't be upset, but why are people upset? What specifically are they upset about? The second part of that question (which I might as well ask now) - If they are upset about X, what data exists to show that X is bad (or is bad enough to "take to the streets")?

Hmm, have you ever protested anything TGD? Taken part in a march, for example?

[thegreekdog]

Hmm, have you ever protested anything TGD? Taken part in a march, for example?

Yes.

[Neoteny]

In any event, I've spent some time discussing why people shouldn't be upset, but why are people upset? What specifically are they upset about? The second part of that question (which I might as well ask now) - If they are upset about X, what data exists to show that X is bad (or is bad enough to "take to the streets")?

Depends on the person. Economic pressures are common motivators. When you look at data which says things like "Americans are better off than they have ever been," and use that to suggest that nobody is poorly off enough to get involved in street-level action, you're being pretty dishonest. Over-policing is an issue, which is a nice way of saying "cops are murdering and incarcerating a lot of minorities." You mentioned earlier being sympathetic to the cause of BLM. What is the data you saw that led you to believe cops are, in many cases, using excessive force against black people? What figure convinced you that this is an issue worth supporting? Do you see what I'm getting at here? BLM is easy because it made its case with videos of black people being shot in the back. You saw injustice and felt something. And that's ok. That's how activism is supposed to work.

And when you look at antifa, you see, say, the stereotypical young person with $50000 in college loans who couldn't find a job and think something along the lines of "they did that to themself" (which is, not unironically, the same thing people say about black people being shot in the back), or "that kid got too many participation trophies," or whatever other boomer trope you want. And therefore you allow yourself to not feel that sense of injustice; indeed, I bet you think they deserve it. You can back that all up with any data you want, but that's the divide here; you think our economic system is just, or at least more just than the alternative, and therefore anything that comes from it is just the way it is. So you can look at median gdp or whatever and say everything's fine without an ounce of care for the margins. Or maybe you tithe at your church. That's surely enough, right?

All of that paragraph of course ignores all the minorities that show up to antifa protests with other concerns regarding their actual lives. But it's easy to pick out the white girl with dreads and make fun of her instead of actually addressing people's concerns. Especially when you have the laziness to point to a Bernanke article and the murder rate and say "See? Everything is actually great already." That was essentially Hillary's response to Trump, and that was clearly inaccurate.

All this is not to say the data is bad. The data is useful. But I'm not interested in some sort of data battle. Leave that adenoidal bickering to the debate club nerds like Ben Shapiro. I was struck by how much I saw my old ways of arguing on here in your demands for data. So I'm not innocent here. I was all about the discourse until it has demonstrated its failure over the last three presidencies. Maybe the last four. The key we sometimes miss is the data is interpreted, and that interpretation is subject to our biases. I'm a scientist, so that data obsession comes honestly. What's your excuse?

[thegreekdog]

What is the data you saw that led you to believe cops are, in many cases, using excessive force against black people? What figure convinced you that this is an issue worth supporting? Do you see what I'm getting at here? BLM is easy because it made its case with videos of black people being shot in the back. You saw injustice and felt something. And that's ok. That's how activism is supposed to work.

There are a lot of reasons why I support BLM, some of which have to do with data (or at least facts) and some of which have to deal with personal experience. I would venture to say the majority of my support stems from the lack of justice associated with police brutality (i.e. these cases do not go to trial and the offending police are rarely punished in proportion to their crimes) and the lack of any type of improvement or even admission of wrongdoing.

you think our economic system is just, or at least more just than the alternative,

It's too facile to say "I think our economic system is more just than the alternative." It is as much just as the alternative; or at least it's more just than the alternatives that have been provided. Socialism has resulted in some pretty unhealthy economies and incredibly poor societies and citizens. That is the alternative being provided and it is not only not as just as our current system, it is more unjust. Further, and this is kind of the crux of the data vs. non-data idea, the positions put forward by those sympathetic to these issues are "free healthcare" and "free education" and "living wage" without much thought to how to back those ideas up. So again, while those alternatives (free healthcare, free education, free wages) seem great, they are largely unrealistic and, if implemented, could find the United States going the way of say, Venezuela. And perhaps the US won't go that way but the data and the facts don't seem to suggest that.

I can run for president and offer free everything and get elected (that's how Trump won - "I'll get you your high-paying jobs back") but it's not how things work (and it's not how things have ever worked or will ever work; Star Trek notwithstanding).

all the minorities that show up to antifa protests

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement.

Especially when you have the laziness to point to a Bernanke article and the murder rate and say "See? Everything is actually great already." That was essentially Hillary's response to Trump, and that was clearly inaccurate.

Again; my point is not "let's keep everything the way it is." Everything is great, but it can also get better. My response to helping things get better is not to implement socialist policies or to listen to Antifa or the white girl with the dreadlocks. And the Democrats are starting to listen to these people.

I was all about the discourse until it has demonstrated its failure over the last three presidencies. Maybe the last four. The key we sometimes miss is the data is interpreted, and that interpretation is subject to our biases. I'm a scientist, so that data obsession comes honestly. What's your excuse?

Perhaps the failure of the discourse is not because of data-driven discourse. Perhaps, instead, it's the lack of data driven discourse that's the failure. Trump is a great example of the failure of data, qualifications, intelligence, and whatever else. Trump is a populist. The Democrats that will run in 2020 are not populists, but they will run like populists. Populism is bad.

[Neoteny]

It's too facile to say "I think our economic system is more just than the alternative." It is as much just as the alternative; or at least it's more just than the alternatives that have been provided. Socialism has resulted in some pretty unhealthy economies and incredibly poor societies and citizens. That is the alternative being provided and it is not only not as just as our current system, it is more unjust. Further, and this is kind of the crux of the data vs. non-data idea, the positions put forward by those sympathetic to these issues are "free healthcare" and "free education" and "living wage" without much thought to how to back those ideas up. So again, while those alternatives (free healthcare, free education, free wages) seem great, they are largely unrealistic and, if implemented, could find the United States going the way of say, Venezuela. And perhaps the US won't go that way but the data and the facts don't seem to suggest that.

I can run for president and offer free everything and get elected (that's how Trump won - "I'll get you your high-paying jobs back") but it's not how things work (and it's not how things have ever worked or will ever work; Star Trek notwithstanding).

Capitalism has resulted in as many or more unhealthy economies and societies and citizens. If you don't think capital is not a major fuel, if not main cause, of conflagration in the middle east, Africa, south America (including the arguably not socialist Venezuela [I won't be pedantic over whether Venezuela is actually socialist with you, because I'm already seeing what's going on here]), and elsewhere, you aren't paying attention. Nevermind that free Healthcare and education is working just fine in social democracies across the world. Nevermind that places like Cuba have successful "free" healthcare systems despite being embargoed by the most economically domineering and militaristic country on the planet. Nevermind that every attempt at leftist economics is militarily and economically undermined by established capital (read: the entire history of Central and South America). Please, tell me more about what capitalism has done for Haiti. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Yemen, for that matter.

And none of this touches on how sick the US system is. How many people have to turn to gofundme for healthcare?

But sure, socialism is less just. Because empowering the lower class is somehow less just to those who have all they need and more.

all the minorities that show up to antifa protests

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement.

Of course you aren't.

Again; my point is not "let's keep everything the way it is." Everything is great, but it can also get better. My response to helping things get better is not to implement socialist policies or to listen to Antifa or the white girl with the dreadlocks. And the Democrats are starting to listen to these people.

They will if they want to start winning elections again. Responding to your base is how you motivate your voters. It's how you build support. That's why Trump won. But I don't really expect you to be the sort of person to listen to antifa or any other working class movement. I'm honestly shocked you have time for BLM, because every position you hold is tonguing the treads of the wealthy and powerful.

Perhaps the failure of the discourse is not because of data-driven discourse. Perhaps, instead, it's the lack of data driven discourse that's the failure. Trump is a great example of the failure of data, qualifications, intelligence, and whatever else. Trump is a populist. The Democrats that will run in 2020 are not populists, but they will run like populists. Populism is bad.

What sort of shithead dislikes populism? Oh, right, people interested in sucking the capital out of the populace. Sure, populism can be misused in the service of the elites, which is pretty much the Republican platform. Calling Trump some sort of subversion or failure of the system is silly. This has been the level of discourse for decades. Trump is just saying the quiet parts loud.

God, libertarians are garbage.

[spurgistan]

Populism by itself is just letting the will of the general public take precedence over national elites, there's nothing inherantly wrong with that. Beyond the barely dogwhistled racism, a lot of Trump's appeal is in his rhetoric about keeping industrial jobs here, and having a domestic industrial sector is good for plenty of reasons. The problem is that he's incompetent, and the actual Republican leadership doesn't care about his trade agenda, which makes an actual trade policy basically impossible. The TPP was pretty bad for environmental and labor protection, and making it better was a populist idea that had a lot of merits politically and policywise. But again, the problem is Trump is incompetent and can't get Ryan or McConnell to give a shit after he signs their tax cuts and gives them their abortion banning judges.