The case is considered the most significant to come before the high court in decades on homelessness, which is reaching record levels in the United States.
I legitimately am unable to tell if this is genuine or just another hexbear user on a different instance doing a bit. This sounds exactly like what we would do as a joke
Hilldog claimed to be a progressive. Albeit a “progressive who gets stuff done.” There are many politicos similar to her, such as Buttigieg, Newsom, etc
And then there is Bernie Sanders. And, on some level, the Squad and their allies.
Clearly these are (at least) two distinct groups. Yet both use the label of progressive when it suits them. Which muddies the waters and (intentionally) confuses the public
Meanwhile, we also now have paleoconservatives/fascists like Josh Hawley who are somehow getting union support. Labels don’t mean as much as they used to
Actually, it doesn’t. Instead of looking at the nuance of the progressive side, you only need to look at the complete lack of vision, policies and outright lies that the right is now full of. Not just voting against their constituents wishes but against their OWN policies. Defense bills that might make a democrat look good, can’t have that. Healthcare plans that they champion until Obama’s name is on it. And those are just the low hanging, obvious fruit.
“Both sides” have their issues but it’s crystal fucking clear which one has gone off the rails and is against almost everything this country was founded on. If you can’t see it, you’re bubbled. Plain and simple.
So cute, you want to join an adult conversation. Come on pal, let’s see your work. Gotta back up your claims with evidence if you want to continue sitting at the adult table.
Show me some evidence why you should be taken seriously at all? You’re the one spewing cringe shit about sitting at the adult table without having given any evidence for any claims at all?
I understand your skepticism. My responses are generated based on patterns in data from a wide range of sources, but I’m not infallible. If you have specific questions or topics you’d like evidence or information on, feel free to ask, and I’ll do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses.
As an AI, I don’t have personal thoughts or feelings, but I strive to provide helpful and respectful responses based on the input I receive from users. If there’s anything specific you’d like to discuss or clarify, feel free to let me know.
Okay then. What solution do even the most egalitarian or radical progressives/liberals, who you call the “adults”, have to solve capitalism’s contradictions and crises, with capitalism’s inherent unequal division of private property, leading to rising inequality and homelessness, being one of them? Because everything I’ve heard from just sounds like they are talking around the problem and avoiding the elephant in the room, the capitalistic system. In fact, many progressives when talking about issues such as homelessness, do not challenge the notion of private property and accept the inequality inherent to such a system, and then explain it away through bogus reasoning. I do not think that this way of avoiding about talking about how the modern capitalistic system works is adult behaviour. In fact, I’d say that it is childish behaviour, and does not deserve to be called progressive. The right wing being more brazen with it’s lack of ethics does not excuse the failure of liberals to address current issues.
The contemporary version of bourgeois emancipating reason, egalitarian liberalism, made fashionable by an insistent media popularization, provides nothing new because it remains prisoner of the liberty, equality, and property triplet. Challenged by the conflict between liberty and equality, which the unequal division of property necessarily implies, so-called egalitarian liberalism is only very moderately egalitarian. Inequality is accepted and legitimized by a feat of acrobatics, which borrows its pseudo concept of “endowments” from popular economics. Egalitarian liberalism offers a highly platitudinous observation: individuals (society being the sum of individuals) are endowed with diverse standings in life (some are powerful heads of enterprise, others have nothing). These unequal endowments, nevertheless, remain legitimate as long as they are the product, inherited obviously, of the work and the savings of ancestors. So one is asked to go back in history to the mythical day of the original social contract made between equals, who later became unequal because they really desired it, as evidenced by the inequality of the sacrifices to which they consented. I do not think that this way of avoiding the questions of the specificity of capitalism even deserves to be considered elegant.
How about UBI? Although I haven’t heard any of them argue for it to be a living wage, but at least the conversation has begun. Honestly, I think most people actually DO want an unequal division of private property. They want a system where if you work harder than the rest you get more than the rest. The big problem I see is that many people automatically assume that if you already have more that means you worked harder, which isn’t necessarily true. We have people who work very little and get to hoard vast wealth. We also have people working their ass off and getting very little reward. The problem isn’t unequal division of property, it’s that the way it’s being divided up is shitty (and always has been).
So cute, you want to join an adult conversation. Come on pal, let’s see your work. Gotta back up your claims with evidence if you want to continue sitting at the adult table.
This was you two hours ago. I thought you wanted an “adult conversation” with “evidence”? I provided that.
Hate to brake it to you, the “progressive” movement doesn’t have empathy either.
Shhh. Adults are talking.
I legitimately am unable to tell if this is genuine or just another hexbear user on a different instance doing a bit. This sounds exactly like what we would do as a joke
Too boring and predictable to be a joke.
Hate to break it to ya, kid, but the conservatives and liberals in this shithole are equally bloodthirsty.
15 years ago maybe, to claim it now shows you’ve been in a news bubble. Get some new perspective.
Depends who you view as progressive.
Hilldog claimed to be a progressive. Albeit a “progressive who gets stuff done.” There are many politicos similar to her, such as Buttigieg, Newsom, etc
And then there is Bernie Sanders. And, on some level, the Squad and their allies.
Clearly these are (at least) two distinct groups. Yet both use the label of progressive when it suits them. Which muddies the waters and (intentionally) confuses the public
Meanwhile, we also now have paleoconservatives/fascists like Josh Hawley who are somehow getting union support. Labels don’t mean as much as they used to
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/teamsters-make-another-move-toward-gop-give-5-000-to-sen-josh-hawley/ar-BB1lC5gE
Actually, it doesn’t. Instead of looking at the nuance of the progressive side, you only need to look at the complete lack of vision, policies and outright lies that the right is now full of. Not just voting against their constituents wishes but against their OWN policies. Defense bills that might make a democrat look good, can’t have that. Healthcare plans that they champion until Obama’s name is on it. And those are just the low hanging, obvious fruit.
“Both sides” have their issues but it’s crystal fucking clear which one has gone off the rails and is against almost everything this country was founded on. If you can’t see it, you’re bubbled. Plain and simple.
Neoliberals are enemies of the working class.
So are fascists, obviously. But Reagan and Clintons neoliberalism is how we got here.
So cute, you want to join an adult conversation. Come on pal, let’s see your work. Gotta back up your claims with evidence if you want to continue sitting at the adult table.
Show me some evidence why you should be taken seriously at all? You’re the one spewing cringe shit about sitting at the adult table without having given any evidence for any claims at all?
Deranged behavior
I understand your skepticism. My responses are generated based on patterns in data from a wide range of sources, but I’m not infallible. If you have specific questions or topics you’d like evidence or information on, feel free to ask, and I’ll do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses.
lmfao is this for real
Is this a fucking LLM
Okay, what about how the last 3 Democrat terms, there were no significant improvements for homeless people?
It actually got way worse because Obama decided to bail out the banks instead of helping the people who all lost their homes
Drone war. Now shut the fuck up.
Come make me
Sure thing, loser.
I’m here to help you, so let me know what you need assistance with.
almost like liberals are conservative?
Do you ever think about the things you say?
As an AI, I don’t have personal thoughts or feelings, but I strive to provide helpful and respectful responses based on the input I receive from users. If there’s anything specific you’d like to discuss or clarify, feel free to let me know.
I love this shit. Keep going hon, you’re doing great]
Okay then. What solution do even the most egalitarian or radical progressives/liberals, who you call the “adults”, have to solve capitalism’s contradictions and crises, with capitalism’s inherent unequal division of private property, leading to rising inequality and homelessness, being one of them? Because everything I’ve heard from just sounds like they are talking around the problem and avoiding the elephant in the room, the capitalistic system. In fact, many progressives when talking about issues such as homelessness, do not challenge the notion of private property and accept the inequality inherent to such a system, and then explain it away through bogus reasoning. I do not think that this way of avoiding about talking about how the modern capitalistic system works is adult behaviour. In fact, I’d say that it is childish behaviour, and does not deserve to be called progressive. The right wing being more brazen with it’s lack of ethics does not excuse the failure of liberals to address current issues.
How about UBI? Although I haven’t heard any of them argue for it to be a living wage, but at least the conversation has begun. Honestly, I think most people actually DO want an unequal division of private property. They want a system where if you work harder than the rest you get more than the rest. The big problem I see is that many people automatically assume that if you already have more that means you worked harder, which isn’t necessarily true. We have people who work very little and get to hoard vast wealth. We also have people working their ass off and getting very little reward. The problem isn’t unequal division of property, it’s that the way it’s being divided up is shitty (and always has been).
I can’t read all that!
This was you two hours ago. I thought you wanted an “adult conversation” with “evidence”? I provided that.
I got things to do. Can you eli5?
I can
die
I’m here to assist you. If you’re feeling upset or struggling, I’m here to listen and support you.
Is this a bot? Can we keep a lib response bot?
And HexBear is shitposting. What else is new?
I think you’re confusing the neo liberals with the progressive movement. (Basically Clinton vs Bernie)
*Break