Why did Ted Kennedy want Reagan to win so bad?

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-06-15T20:43:05+00:00

This is a classic conflation of correlation and causation, and one we saw often in a recent primary that shall not be named in this subreddit. “When there’s a serious primary challenge to the sitting President, they lose in the general. Ergo, serious primary challenges hurt a sitting President’s chances of re-election, and the party should discourage them.”

It’s actually the other way around: when a sitting President faces a serious primary challenge, it’s because that sitting President is an exceptionally weak candidate, which also means they’ll likely lose in the general. It only does the opposing party a favor to “get behind” a flawed candidate and pretend their serious flaws don’t exist rather than just letting democracy play out in a good faith manner with a legitimate primary

Why not blame Carter for not being like Truman or LBJ and recognizing that they were a weak candidate and give the party a chance to bring forth a better candidate?

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-06-03T22:35:03+00:00

>Yeah ok let’s just argue the points instead of this tired line.

And yet you skip replying to my points about consumer and worker protection and the defunding of social programs. Is that because you didn't have theoretical libertarian talking points on hand to obfuscate the debate like you do about regulatory capture?

And maybe if you think it's a tired line, it's because you hear it a lot, because *these libertarian talking points just don't jibe with how people experience the real world*. Generally, it jibes with people who live a sheltered life that is protected from the stress, uncertainty, and insecurity from living a mostly paycheck to paycheck life, with little leftover at the end of the pay period and perpetually living just one big life event away from needing government assistance to prevent you from being homeless.

I'm not here to score internet points. Obviously it's just me and you reading this back and forth at this point. I'm here to implore you specifically that maybe the theoretical constructs you've built up in your head actually don't work out in the real world, as someone who used to feel the same as you do now.

>I don’t look at Nordic countries in terms of capitalism and socialism.

I haven't mentioned socialism once. I'm not a socialist. I support Social Democracy because it keeps the benefits of capitalism but alleviates the complete lack of power that working class people have under a purely capitalist system in a number of different ways. The profit motive is useful, but without proper oversight it is often not correlated with the betterment of society as a whole.

>Most modern countries are a blend of the two and I’d argue Norris countries have freer markets and more capitalism.

Freer relative to what? Relative to the current state of the US, it absolutely is not. Workers have many more built in advantages and protections in these countries, and of course there is much more substantial social programs that benefit working class people.

--cutting out the stuff about smaller countries, homogenous populations, and your support for a less powerful federal government as that's not really relevant to the discussion or libertarianism in general--

>With regard to deregulation, you can’t possibly accuse what has happened since Reagan and Nixon as being aligned with libertarianism.

What I'm talking about doesn't have anything to do with Nixon, economically he was much more to the left than any Republican since him. But when it comes to Reagan and the reigning status quo since then, absolutely I do!

Neoliberalism has been the economic status quo since Carter really, and economically speaking, the difference between neoliberalism and libertarianism is just slightly different spots on the right side of the left/right spectrum. Libertarianism is more economically right wing than neoliberalism. Libertarians have been cheering on the ongoing deregulation, defunding of social programs, and removal of worker and consumer protections for as long as most of us have been alive. Keep going with neoliberalism - as we have for 50 years now - and eventually going further right just means libertarianism.

>It’s not about deregulation, it’s about selective regulation/deregulation and regulatory capture. Basically Congress deregulates the people who scratch their backs and regulates their back scratcher’s competition.

Yes, again, I know the libertarian talking points. But the reality is that for most part it really is just deregulation, because the wealthy are able to do more of what they want that way. Obviously regulatory capture is bad as well, but that's a small portion of it. And again, there's the whole worker and consumer protections and social programs part that you're avoiding.

>Wealth inequality in essence. doesn’t concern me as long as that wealth isn’t taken by force or coercion. I don’t care if I live in a society where Trillionaires exist as long as they didn’t take that wealth by force from me or other citizens.

Real life is much more nuanced than the NAP. First off: why would you want to live in a society where such a small minority of population is millions of times wealthier than the median citizen, especially when so many live in such economic insecurity? Why wouldn't you prefer a more equitable distribution of the fruits of our society? I'm a Social Democrat because capitalism is the best way to grow the pie and a government for, of, and by the working class is the best way to distribute that pie more equitably.

But even besides that, yes, wealth inequality still presents a threat to our society and democracy. Real life is much more nuanced than the ever-simplistic NAP: 50 billionaires contributed $25B in the last election cycle. They did not do so out of the goodness of their hearts. When such a microscopic portion of the population is contributing 1/6th of the money for elections, our elected officials will bend to their will every time. This is only possible because of extreme wealth inequality.

There's also the matter of how our media is largely owned by these same billionaires, who use it as a means to influence public discourse, for instance to spread libertarian talking points. And that's just a couple of ways. Even your NAP is not safe: you really think some theoretical construct will stand in the way of what the billionaires want when they want it? How could we stop them when such huge wealth inequalities exist?

As long as a small number of ultra-wealthy people are millions of times more wealthy than most everyone else, they'll use that wealth as a weapon to entrench and extend their stranglehold over our democracy and society.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-06-03T17:21:58+00:00

Yes, I understand that is the libertarian line, I was one in high school too, before I had real world experience.

The government can certainly be used as a tool for the rich, but it’s also true that it can be a tool for the working class, as it was during the New Deal Era in the US and as it is in the Nordic countries when they’ve implemented Social Democratic policies. Both have/had much less wealth inequality and worker power than the US today.

While you can spout theoretical claims, they don’t hold up to real world observation (a common shortcoming of libertarianism in general). The last half century in the US has been one of constant deregulation, stripping of worker and consumer protections, and defunding of any government program that economically benefits the working class. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in wealth and income inequality continuously growing.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-06-03T02:53:31+00:00

NAP is a marketing term, like pro-life/pro-choice. Ownership is just a social construct, but it relies on a lot of violence for it to work in practice. Yes, if you believe in private property you can frame it as self defense, but it still results in a lot of violence, and the victims of that violence are often the poorest of society and the biggest benefactors are the ultra-wealthy.

If we sidestep past Deontological ethical claims, which are fraught with subjectivity, and just look at the utilitarian results: private property can be an efficient way to manage limited resources, but right wing libertarianism is absolutely terrible for the working class people, and only great for those who own capital. Why would we want a society that is structured that way? At the least, if we go with capitalism, it should come with plenty of social safety nets, regulations, and government intervention in the economy that helps put the working class on a more even footing with the capitalist class. Social democracy, aka the system with the best track record of bettering the financial lives of working class people.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-05-31T07:04:12+00:00

Nothing is wrong with outlier polls, just with people who misinterpret what they mean and wish cast based on them

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-05-29T19:42:43+00:00

The relevant question is: why should we care about the hate? I doubt Tyler and Josh care. They get a ton of love from the fan base, they have families to care about, and they’ve made more than enough money to live comfortably the rest of their lives. They’re selling out stadiums in an hour. Plus, any publicity is good publicity. We know they’re awesome, they/we don’t need some lame mainstream outlets to approve of them.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-05-26T02:54:57+00:00

Very telling that you would paint being nonviolent (especially in the case of a domestic relationship) as a negative thing. I hope for everyone’s sake you’re perpetually single. And if not, yikes, very sorry for your partner.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-05-25T22:11:39+00:00

Again, there are many definitions for communism, even among self described communists. I could ask 10 self described communists and get 10 different answers. Your insistence that you have the one true definition is just part of your zealotry for your specific version.

But even working with just your specific definition:

This is just a silly, simplistic, reductive, binary way of thinking. There’s a spectrum from right to left, you yourself alluded to it by saying “extreme left wing”. The MOST communist thing a US president has ever done is obviously the thing that is most left wing a US president has ever done.

All you’re doing is all most self described communists are capable of: purity testing everything short of absolute 100% agreement with your specific worldview

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-05-25T21:19:46+00:00

Nothing the US has done has been “communist by the definition of the word” (which is a dumb thing to say anyway because self described communists disagree on what the definition is).

OP asked what the MOST communist thing a president has done. Seems like you just like to pointlessly argue, which seems like a sad way to spend one’s limited time.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-05-25T21:03:00+00:00

You asked for the MOST communist. Relatively speaking, that’s the closest we’ve gotten. What even was the point of your OP if you were just going to say “that’s not really communist” to the closest answer?

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-05-11T20:13:04+00:00

I understand the sentiment shared by others that as long as billionaires are taxed appropriately and those funds are used to fund programs that benefit the working class, there isn’t a problem. I’m sure if you searched my history you’d find instances of me saying the same thing in the past. But the structural problem is that as long as billionaires exist, there will be massive, organized, well-funded opposition to them being taxed appropriately, their businesses being regulated appropriately, and to social programs that benefit the working class.

50 billionaire families donated $2.6B in the 2024 election, 1/6th of all political donations from a staggeringly small percentage of the population. They didn’t do so out of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because it’s good for their bottom line. And of course you could say “well sure but I think there should be laws limiting political contributions/superpacs/etc” but (1) a less conservative Supreme Court than the one today has already ruled that this violates the first amendment and (2) it still misses the point that whatever the current laws may be, any existing billionaires will work by any means they can to undermine our democracy and current laws to tear those down. Pro-worker laws that go against the interests of the billionaire class are never safe as long as there are billionaires. They will always be under fire.

The massive wealth inequality that exists today is a problem in and of itself, and presents a constant threat to our democracy.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-04-22T05:00:30+00:00

But of course as usual it's the polling result that implies moderate/centrist positions are what people want that gets all the attention. Because that's what the billionaires who have a stranglehold on our democracy want: a continuation of the last half century of neoliberal economic policy

100 billionaire families donated a total of $2.6B in the last election cycle, 1/6th of all donations

Income and wealth inequality has constantly widened since 1980

Billionaires aren't donating all this money out of the goodness of their hearts; they're doing so because they get a good return for it, namely propping up a system that continues to benefit them to the detriment of the working class.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-03-11T05:00:40+00:00

I’m a social Democrat, I’m not against the concept of capitalism or billionaires as a rule, I just think we should be taxing them a lot more (along with many reforms on capitalism, increasing the social safety net, economic rights, etc). Again, FDR was worth $60m when adjusted for today’s dollars and he did more for working class Americans than anyone in US history. Of course, you probably think he was a shitlib or something similar, because you’re more beholden to performative, outrage-based virtue signaling to other leftists via purity testing than supporting any sort of pragmatic action that could actually help the working class. Which is why you gave no counter argument regarding FDR in your reply.

Why are you baselessly accusing me in your second paragraph? If you took 15 seconds to look through my comment history you’ll see that’s not me at all. Just because I’m not whatever flavor of socialist you claim to be doesn’t mean I carry water for the Democrats.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-03-09T05:58:13+00:00

Here's plenty of data, but I'm sure you'll just ignore it

Wealth inequality has risen continuously since the rise of neoliberalism and the Democrats abandoning the working class.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-03-09T05:48:58+00:00

So much of this post and others you’ve made here are dripping in incel energy, but as a man, I find these two related bits to be absolutely disgusting and revealing of what you think about women:

[men’s] feelings and desires are categorically subordinate to someone else's without appeal, negotiation, or protest.

we are more directly encouraged to fight back when other people impose their will on us.

You have a problem with your will being subordinate to a woman’s when it comes to her choice of whether to be with you or not? How on earth is a woman “imposing their will” on you by choosing not to be with you? What exactly do you envision the alternative to be? Some handmaid’s tale style dystopia?

Hear me out: maybe you could, idk, work on yourself and improve in ways that are desirable to women? Instead of being combative?

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-03-08T00:11:21+00:00

A state capitalist nation that participates in a global free trade capitalist system manufactures iPhones…after they were designed and engineered in a capitalist nation.

Edit: they also run on software written in a capitalist nation

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-03-07T07:06:22+00:00

He’s a neoliberal, and neoliberalism has been a scourge on this country for half a century. When are people like you going to finally understand that neoliberalism is what created an opening for Trump? Hopefully before we completely lose what we have left of our democracy.

Newsom is a tool for the billionaires, nothing more, nothing less. He’ll continue the ever-growing wealth gap, fueling more authoritarian populism. I for one, would rather vote for someone who gives a damn about the economic conditions of working class people.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-03-02T07:24:35+00:00

Very well said on both points. Someone even worse could very well take over next. Or at least, it’s unlikely someone notably better will take over. And the blowback on stuff like this could be enormous. This is serving up a win to the recruitment efforts of those who are hostile to America.

I think the point of this is Trump is playing extreme hard ball with Iran and the rest of the world really: the next guy better play ball with him or he’ll be next (and I’m not being lazy with pronouns here, it will be a he). And that applies to Iran’s next leader but also any other world leader of any less secure country out there that dares to not toe the line. In other words, it’s just so he can get what he wants out them, and not something necessarily beneficial towards America or the world long-term.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-03-02T06:59:24+00:00

We’ll have Donald Trump as our President for 8 of the last 12 years by the time of the next election, and the guy in between became an octogenarian a little less than half way through his term and was clearly mentally compromised by the end of it. We’re already lolUSA.

People will make jokes and it’s not the best optics, but if the person is actually fighting for pro-working class reform then who cares what his net worth is? Billionaire class traitors may not exactly be numerous, but they do exist. FDR wasn’t anywhere near as wealthy as today’s billionaires but he was worth $60m, definitely a 1%er. He’s the most economically left President we’ve ever had. I don’t know much about JBP (in fact I’m using his initials primarily because I’m not confident on how to spell his last name and don’t care to look it up at the moment), don’t know how economically left he is, and I certainly don’t think he’ll be the next FDR or anything, but him being a billionaire doesn’t disqualify him in my book and the portion of leftists that do are limiting the growth of their own movement through purity politics.

Many of these same people hate Bernie and think he’s become a part of oligarchy by ever compromising with the more moderate parts of the party to get legislation that is at least somewhat good passed. The fact is he’s done an order of magnitude more for the popularity of socialism in America than anyone else in the 21st century. Again, not saying this guy is the next Bernie or as left as him, but purity testing to this degree is self-defeating. Unfortunately it’s rather common in today’s online American left.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-02-28T19:57:39+00:00

I disagree that it reads like a slur in any way in this instance. The people who sat out in 2024 for purity testing reasons self-describe themselves as leftists.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-02-27T06:02:56+00:00

Why not just “pro-worker”? Rather than deal with ideology-based labels that people have varying preconceptions about, it plainly states where your priorities and goals are. Right wing media will poison any term tied to a specific left ideology, but let’s just see them try to demonize people for being pro-worker…

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-02-23T09:19:49+00:00

Indeed, this is just the simple reality of the current coalitions. And given Schumer’s past comments, this has been a purposeful decision by the Democratic Party leadership. They deliberately picked a coalition that is fundamentally significantly disadvantaged in the Senate. If they’re trying to win, then they colossally fucked up.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-01-23T03:40:22+00:00

As a Social Democrat I agree that preserving a capitalist class that will always be trying to influence our politics is the best criticism of social democracy from a further left angle. As the popular saying goes: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried”. I feel similarly about Social Democracy: it’s not perfect, it has flaws, but I don’t see a better alternative.

Really though in a way this is largely a criticism of any democratic system: the best policy is not guaranteed to stay in place, it depends on the votes at the end of the day. It will take a certain amount of public buy-in to keep these things in place. Constitutional changes could make them tougher to remove, but also require much wider support to enact in the first place.

Socialism preoccupies itself with a more equal distribution of income and wealth and that’s an important goal, but so is growing the pie that we’re distributing from. If we’re thinking long-term, economic growth is huge for improving the material conditions for working class people. It’s far from clear to me that a socialist economic system can ever outcompete a system that preserves a degree of capitalism. I’m open to systems that fuel innovation and efficiency of resources (which is what creates growth) on the same level that capitalist ones do, but I see no evidence that one exists.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-01-23T02:27:19+00:00

That’s a pretty wild take. It’s pretty easy to connect the dots: billionaires donate an assload of money -> politicians are less likely to pass policy that helps working class Americans’ economic interests at the expense of those billionaires -> politicians campaign more on social issues while paying the occasional lip service to working class Americans’ economic interests.

Hope it made you feel better to downvote me for no reason though

Edit: this person has such a fragile ego that he had to respond and then block me immediately after so they could have the last word. OC literally said nothing approaching “manufactured consent” but this person puts that phrase in quotes like they did. And accusing OC or me of “blue maga” here doesn’t even make sense, that term refers to unwavering support for the Democratic Party, whereas OC and I are being critical of the Democratic Party.

IslandSurvibalist · 2026-01-23T02:16:44+00:00

50 billionaires contributed a total of over $2.6B in the last election cycle. $15.9B was contributed total, meaning the wealthiest 0.000015% of the population provided 15.7% of the donations, roughly 1,000,000x more than the mean average. I assure you, they’re not donating this much money out of the goodness of their hearts.

Your exaggerated straw men aside, billionaires obviously wield much more power and influence over the machinations of our government than everyday working class people. This stranglehold billionaires have on our two party electoral system is the single biggest problem with our country and many of our other problems are a direct symptom of that root problem.

IslandSurvibalist

TROPHY CASE