Hot takes on the Democratic frontrunners
I like Yang then Pete.
Everybody else seems to been playing the politics of the past.
ABT lol
Biden says his announcement was a mistake. Believe him? Poor old Pete -how is the last name pronounced?
Heh, it looks like Buttplugg every time I see it.
ABT lol
Biden says his announcement was a mistake. Believe him? Poor old Pete -how is the last name pronounced?
A news guy spelled out the pronunciation yesterday; apparently it's
BOOT-edge-edge
Every four years, it is the same conclusion. Ignore everyone until after the Iowa primaries. Most front runners before then are either gone by then or not long afterwards.
Spending time discussing who is presidential material before the Iowa primaries has constantly been proven wasted time.
I read in a profile piece it's "Buddha-judge," though when he says it himself it sounds more like Buddha-jedge.
I was thinking Booty Gig, it never occurs to me to use a soft G......
Every four years, it is the same conclusion. Ignore everyone until after the Iowa primaries. Most front runners before then are either gone by then or not long afterwards.
Spending time discussing who is presidential material before the Iowa primaries has constantly been proven wasted time.
This way the DNC chooses for you so nothing bad happens.
This way the DNC chooses for you so nothing bad happens.
We moderates have no say on who the Dems and Reps put up.
85% of all problems are directly traceable to top moderates.
This way the DMC chooses for you
they tell us how to walk and talk?
[YOUTUBE]4B_UYYPb-Gk[/YOUTUBE]
(hey dudes, I want the clip to start at 90 seconds, but can't remember how....????)
I thought you meant how to embed start AND END codes... we can do that by putting the start and end into the link as such, and it works similarly on embeds elsewhere
G5-5cpdAvB8?start=17&end=29
[YOUTUBE]G5-5cpdAvB8?start=17&end=29[/YOUTUBE]
I tried &start=90, I didn't remember needing the end bit -or is there a different way to encode times over 1 minute?
thanks
I tried &start=90, ...
[strike]&start=90[/strike] … ?start=90
Quote this post to see it in tags in the preview window.
[YOUTUBE]4B_UYYPb-Gk?start=90[/YOUTUBE]
Joe Biden??? Really??? Are we going to pretend how he treats women is "normal"? Right . . .
Pete Buttigeig seems like the most reasonable of those democrats running.
He's likable. He's gay but doesn't seem to define his life around that fact.
I don't know if I could ever vote for a democrat but Mr. Pete's not a polarizing personality.
Buttigieg’s immigration policies are very vague — he favors a “path to citizenship.” My own view is that the only Democrat who will beat Trump next year will campaign for control of immigration, legal and undocumented, in a sane and humane way. The issue will be dominant again — because of a huge wave of migrants, many of them rural Guatemalans, who are overwhelming the border, trying to enter the U.S. at a current pace of 100,000 a month. Their ability to claim asylum under current law permits them to show up at the border, get admitted and processed by the Border Patrol, and then released into the interior, to reside here until a court date, which could come up years later. The backlog in the underfunded immigration courts is vast, with more than a million still in line for a hearing. Many of the migrants won’t show up for the court date; those who do can still resist deportation indefinitely.
What this means is that the U.S. now has an effectively open border with Mexico, and, according to the American Bar Association, the immigration system is “irredeemably dysfunctional and on the brink of collapse.” Repeating the Democratic mantra that there is no border crisis will not work for much longer. This year will see more undocumented immigrants than in any year under Obama. And the high rate of success among those trying to enter to the country now encourages more migrants to make the journey, especially given the forces of disorder and climate change that are forcing people to flee. The lesson from Europe in 2015 is that a migrant surge fuels itself, as word gets back home. And then white nationalism takes off. This year will see more undocumented immigrants than in any year under Obama.
This is the kind of quote that seems like it's cherry picking information. Why only look at the Obama years unless the author is trying to hide or skew something?
I get your overall point though, and you sound reasonable. I hate the optics of a wall though. We aren't East Germany.
Undocumented immigrants from the south follow the jobs. In 2009 when Obama took over, there had been a massive drop in money and jobs available the previous year. There were actually people leaving across that border.
This is the kind of quote that seems like it's cherry picking information. Why only look at the Obama years unless the author is trying to hide or skew something?
Maybe, but he had some positive words for Buttigeig.
I get your overall point though, and you sound reasonable.
Wow, thanks.
See TW? Reasonable. Not wacko extremist. Not in this thread anyway.
I hate the optics of a wall though. We aren't East Germany.
Optics is a good point that I'd not considered. But who would see the wall besides US border residents and naughty "migrants"?
And aside from Maddow viewers seeing endless videos of it.
Undocumented immigrants from the south follow the jobs. In 2009 when Obama took over, there had been a massive drop in money and jobs available the previous year. There were actually people leaving across that border.
So after the economy crashes we'll need ladders if there is a wall. Or ramps on the inside?
But who would see the wall besides US border residents and naughty "migrants"?
And aside from Maddow viewers seeing endless videos of it.
Everyone would know it was there, if it was built, just like everyone knew the iron curtain was there without having to go see it in person.
Intelligent Yang take from youtube essayist 1791.
[YOUTUBE]3GtM689X2IM[/YOUTUBE]
(TL;DW: Yang is transformative in a time during which we will require transformation. His ideas attract both lefty and righty audiences and demand consideration.)
I just picked up Yang's book.
Mr. Yang has some interesting ideas. Very good ideas.
Sure, if he's elected president guys like me would still end up in FEMA camps but let's hear more.
Are FEMA camps the new death panels?
That reference was used as a parody of
whacko right wing extremists™.
FEMA camps
FEMA regions map
Old conspiracy theory.
I suppose FEMA will deny the Soylent Green mills in Area 51, too.
Not if Bigfoot has anything to say about it.
Doesn't seem to be on any ticket yet, even as VP, so only time will tell.
… Repeating the Democratic mantra that there is no border crisis will not work for much longer. This year will see more undocumented immigrants than in any year under Obama.[/B] And the high rate of success among those trying to enter to the country now encourages more migrants to make the journey, especially given the forces of disorder and climate change that are forcing people to flee.
[Bold mine]
Not to worry. Corporate America is getting ready for them even if the government isn't. What could possibly go wrong (holy Blackwater Batman)
[SIZE="3"]؟[/SIZE]
[SIZE="3"]Climate Chaos Is Coming – and the Pinkertons Are Ready
[/SIZE]As they see it, global warming stands to make corporate security as high-stakes in the 21st century as it was in the 19th. ...
Now over 150 years old, having long outlived its reputation as Andrew Carnegie’s personal militia, the agency has evolved into a modern security firm. Over the last decade or so, Pinkerton began noticing a growing set of anxieties among its corporate clients about distinctly contemporary plagues — active shooters, political unrest, climate disasters — and in response began offering data-driven risk analysis, in addition to what they’re more traditionally known for. ...
… For Pinkerton, the bet is twofold: first, that there’s no real material difference between climate change and any other conflict — as the world grows more predictably dangerous, tactical know-how will simply be more in demand than ever. And second, that by adding data analytics, Pinkerton stands to compete more directly with traditional consulting firms like Deloitte, which offer pre- and postdisaster services (supply-chain monitoring, damage documentation, etc.), but which cannot, say, dispatch a helicopter full of armed guards to Guatemala in an afternoon. In theory, Pinkerton can do both — a fully militarized managerial class at corporate disposal. …
Unlike the US military, civilian organizations like this are not Constitutionally prohibited from operating within the USA. Government can provide oversight; but, it doesn't have to provide oversite...whichever it feels is in its own best interest at the time.
Mr. Clod's company has a service like that on retainer--not just for execs, but for everyone, because they're so big they have dozens of employees overseas at any given time. If you're in Japan and an earthquake hits, for example, you make the call and the helicopter comes to get you.
Mr. Clod's company has a service like that on retainer
Does it work for kidnapping?
If you can get to a phone and tell them where you are, yes. They may or may not tip off local law enforcement, I don't know. But the service is basically no questions asked, and near-immediate deployment and arrival.
Mr. Yang seems to get it.
"
Presidential candidate Andrew Yang (D) on Monday evening mocked the mainstream media for still insisting that “Russia” collusion, “racism,” and “sexism” got President Donald Trump elected and not understanding that Trump’s economic nationalism actually propelled him to the White House."
He's not a Trump defender by all means but is thinking outside the Communist Democrat narrative. He has some very interesting ideas that are not generally something that I'd support. Plus he looks like a friend of mine here in Baguio. :)
He's a
great candidate if Breitbart writes about him in a good light.
Another person agreeing with something that Bernie Sanders has been saying all along, e.g. Trump's appeal was economic populism; "Some people think that the
people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks. I don't agree..."
Love him or hate him, everything that the Democrats are doing (that has any appeal to anybody besides diehard party loyalists), is based on Bernie's 2016 platform. People say Bernie "isn't as Progressive" as he used to be-- well DUH, it's "not Progressive" anymore because EVERYBODY'S DOING IT now.
He's transformed politics. When he lost the Primary in 2016 it was like killing Obi-Wan Kenobi.
It was close enough that EVERY factor "propelled him to the White House". If someone says "it was this, not that", they're probably wrong.
Are any of these dem potentials promisin', in any way, to reduce the size & power of government on any level?
Are any of these dem potentials promisin', in any way, to reduce the size & power of government on any level?
No. That's impossible. Am I wrong?
Are any of these dem potentials promisin', in any way, to reduce the size & power of government on any level?
Progressives are intensely interested in reducing the size & power of large entities which overpower the liberty of individuals, we just disagree on what the primary threats are.
"No. That's impossible. Am I wrong?"
Nope: it was a trick question.
##
"Progressives are intensely interested in reducing the size & power of large entities which overpower the liberty of individuals"
Big business, in other words. Simple: make government stop protecting & catering to 'em. Otherwise: leave 'em be.
#
"we just disagree on what the primary threats are."
Actually, if you think on it, we aren't that far apart. You want corps and the like reduced in power and scope; so do I. Where we disagree: you want gov to regulate 'em; I want gov to stop -- as I say -- protecting & catering to 'em.
You'd monitor & micromanage 'em; I'd throw 'em into the wilderness to fend for themselves.
What we disagree on, then, is the proper role of American 'government'.
"No. That's impossible. Am I wrong?"
Nope: it was a trick question.
##
"Progressives are intensely interested in reducing the size & power of large entities which overpower the liberty of individuals"
Big business, in other words. Simple: make government stop protecting & catering to 'em. Otherwise: leave 'em be.
#
"we just disagree on what the primary threats are."
Actually, if you think on it, we aren't that far apart. You want corps and the like reduced in power and scope; so do I. Where we disagree: you want gov to regulate 'em; I want gov to stop -- as I say -- protecting & catering to 'em.
You'd monitor & micromanage 'em; I'd throw 'em into the wilderness to fend for themselves.
What we disagree on, then, is the proper role of American 'government'.
Agreed, on every point. You and I want the same things, for the same reasons. Just a different idea of what gets us there. I'd like to think that's a valuable lesson for American politics. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Many don't care, so we march toward war.
I'd throw 'em into the wilderness to fend for themselves.
Where they would dump dioxin barrels in the woods.
Seriously. How old are you? Don't you remember the pollution in the 60s and 70s? The rivers that burned? The detergent in the rivers, making a crusty brown foam? Soot covering everything? The lead in the gasoline exhaust that everyone was breathing and the crime that resulted from all that brain damage? Cars without seat belts?
The big corporations literally don't give a shit about you or me except how they can make money off of us. The big government keeps them on a leash.
"Where they would dump dioxin barrels in the woods."
Covered all this before: that's what the court is for...lay your claim, make your case, win your compensation.
#
"Seriously. How old are you?"
How stupid are you?
#
"Don't you remember...?"
What I remember is folks like yourself inflating that which should remain small and harnessed into a vast regulatory nightmare. 'One is bad, all must pay' instead of 'punish the guilty and punish the guilty only'.
#
"The big corporations literally don't give a shit about you or me except how they can make money off of us."
Exactly, and neither do the folks who are supposed to be our employees.
#
"The big government keeps them on a leash."
No, largely the big government caters to them and protects them.
"The big government keeps them on a leash."
No, largely the big government caters to them and protects them.
This is precisely what informs my politics. I can't support parties/politicians who cater to corporate interests, so consequently,
Progressives who are far to THE LEFT of the mainstream are the
ONLY politicians I can support, in good conscience.
That's what solves the problem you're describing.
And that's fine, Flint.
Me: I think the solution is in the opposite direction.
-----
Glatt, I was harsh...you're not a moron or stupid, just naive.
-----
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" F. Bastiat
We have here a diverse field of candidates, of different ethnicity, gender, orientation and race. Now, let's watch, as the intersectionally-driven media officially loses its fucking shit.
Newsweek tweeted headline:
"Pete Buttigieg has a problem with black voters, and his town hall answer on incarcerated voters shows it"
Replies: "Newsweek, did you just post wildly racist clickbait? Do you figure all blacks are criminals, and vice versa?"
Newsweek: "Well uh" (
deletes tweet)
Replies: "I think the original headline told the truth pretty well, it just told the truth about you instead of the issue."
...Newsweek tweeted headline:"Pete Buttigieg has a problem with black voters, and his town hall answer on incarcerated voters shows it"...
They seem to have forgotten for a moment that Buttigieg is a democrat.
That's the sort of crap they normally reserve for republicans. Glad they straightened that out.
It always surprises me when people don't seem to know the extent that the Left side of the political spectrum brutally cannibalizes itself on a daily basis. Progressives hate Liberals because they think they're Centrists. Far-Left factions think Progressives don't take direct enough action, and if you really want to see a group of people that cannot agree on anything, watch a group of Communists attack each others' credentials. "You haven't read the right books!" Then you have the Democratic Socialists, whom the hard Socialists think will never accomplish anything meaningful.
But, after 20 years of Fox News putting the "Socialist" label on Center-Right Liberals, the "Left" is just one big amorphous blob.
In short, if you think Democrats won't attack a Democrat, hoo boy.
Yeah, but they won't do it right: with guns.
Flint,
Could you recommend something as a reference? Online blog or something similar? Something you read online regularly? Something quick for you to post?
You have made some good points but it's still your opinion. It's counter to what I've observed. I do read things that are completely opposite of my opinion but have not seen examples as you have described.
Democrats who supported Hillary in the 2016 primary, and Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. Anything that any one of them has ever posted, anywhere; any article in any paper that's ever been written about it; anything that mentions either one of them, to this day.
Start there?
It happens all the time.
My post about Chelsea Clinton getting attacked was this escalation:
1. Rep. Omar attacked moderate Dem support of Israel
2. Chelsea lightly attacked Rep. Omar
3. Progressive students vigorously attacked Chelsea
and add:
4. Lefty pundits attacked Chelsea
or progressive students, depending on where they sat
All the time. I'll try to find more examples.
The intersectional identity politics wing is practically designed to be in a constant state of attack.
It's not just Reps vs. AOC, it's just as often Dems vs. AOC
AOC vs Biden spat "AOC group condemns 'old guard' Joe Biden as candidate of 'no we can't'"
Lieberman vs AOC vs Lieberman spat "'New party, who dis?': Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocks Joe Lieberman after he said she wasn't future"
The next POTUS candidate will split the Dems. A moderate will annoy the progressives. A progressive will annoy the moderates. The divide is palpable. The time of the reformation is at hand.
...Start there?...
All the time. I'll try to find more examples.
The intersectional identity politics wing is practically designed to be in a constant state of attack.
It's not just Reps vs. AOC, it's just as often Dems vs. AOC
Thank you.
Nancy Pelosi calls the Green New Deal the "Green Dream, or whatever" (a big ƒuck you to AOC and Justice Democrats)
Beto makes a point to self identify as "a Capitalist" (distances himself from any variety of Solcialism, or the candidates who espouse them)
Biden says "rich people are not the problem with our country" (distances himself from any candidate who wants more progressive taxation)
About 12% of Bernie voters wound up voting for Trump last time. In a
new Emerson College poll, over 20 percent of Bernie supporters are saying they would not vote for other Democratic candidates if the senator loses the primary.
The poll also found that 21% of Sanders supporters said they would vote for Trump in the general election if Buttigieg won the primary, 26% said they would vote for Trump if Warren won the primary, 18% said they would vote for Trump if O’Rourke won the primary, and 17% said they would vote for Trump if Harris won the primary.
Bernie has a strong protectionist vibe, and has said Trump actually does not go far enough along NAFTA lines. Bernie is a nationalist who advocates for a strong US.
There is a reverse component here which is also interesting:
Oddly, 5% of Sanders supporters said they would vote for Trump if Sanders won the primary.
These are Democratic Trump voters. It appears Democratic Trump voters are most likely to be Bernie voters in the Primary.
It's called "brand insistence" --when your customers only want YOUR brand of hotdogs. If the other brand of hot dogs is all that's available, the customers will either eat hamburgers, or just leave.
nobody notices they're all just tubes of meat, almost identical
the politicians, i mean
Every time I see AOC, I think *
appellation d'origine contrôlée (AOC) and I wonder what she tastes like.
[SIZE="1"]*The French certification granted to certain French geographical indications for wines, cheeses, butters, and other agricultural products.[/SIZE]
She appears to be spicy, but is probably bitter (or just bland).
These are Democratic Trump voters. It appears Democratic Trump voters are most likely to be Bernie voters in the Primary.
An irrelevant argument is 'liberal' verses 'conservative'. This game keeps extremists in line and emotionally focused on what they are ordered to believe.
Trump or Sanders supporters; neither are moderates. Actual contest is moderate verses extremist. Of course they see less difference between Trump and Sanders. Extremists are driven by (make decisions using) emotion.
I think the long-haul contest is between 'libertarianism' and 'communitarianism', but I'm just an emotion-driven extremist, so: what do I know... :crazy:
nobody notices they're all just tubes of meat, almost identical
the politicians, i mean
You,
sir have
not lost a single fucking step.
I like Pete Buttigieg.
Me too.
Having just finished watching the first half of the second round of (almost half of) the Democratic candidates for the nomination for President... jeeeeeeze.
Honestly, sincerely, bottom of the heart, etc., etc. You could throw a dart. Three darts. Any of them that bounced into the dirt.. they're included. *Any* of them would select a better choice than Trump.
HAVING SAID THAT, and restricting my conversation to the members of the most recent debate....
Any/all/wet paper bag could execute the responsibilities of the Office of the President of the United States better than the squatter-in-residence. Sorry, my partisanship is showing. Let me tuck in my U-S-A fervor for the duration of this one post, at least.
As I said, almost half of the current crop of candidates for the nomination for the Democratic candidate for President just finished their collective turn on the CNN stage in Detroit.
TL;DR
***************
Warren / Buttigieg
2020
***************
My new bumpersticker.
Elizabeth Warren's display of actual facts and details and the NOTABLE absence of populist/racist pandering (Cf. Trump) is a breath of pure oxygen to my asphyxiated sense of democratic responsibilities. I do still have hope for America, I do still feel patriotic, I am (slightly) surprised and (inexpressibly) relieved to find the nation still *singular*, despite Trump's narcissistic spasms to the contrary.
He's loud, he's amplified, he's wrong and deafeningly and blindingly so, so, so wrong...
Tears to my eyes, from the optimism expressed by *every* *single* *one* of these people exhorting me to choose *them* to be the candidate for the Democratic Party candidate for President.
Every one stunningly overqualified compared to Trump.
But what about in the Charisma dept? We'll see.
What about in the media narrative domination department. We'll see.
These things matter in an election and much less so in governance. But of course, one must be elected before one can govern. Hmmm?
Liz kicked ass last night. Of the center right group, only Ryan seemed in touch with reality the other ones were just rolling GOP talking points which no longer hold up.
I don't know anything about Ryan except he's getting wasted on Twitter this morning for one particular interaction with Bernie:
Ryan: Bernie, you don't know that--
Bernie: I DO know that, I wrote the damn bill!
Ha!
Biden seemed more with it last night. Neither he nor Harris seemed to do all that well. CNN seemed a lot more fair than the train wreck on MSNBC. Although, at times, they seemed locked into the Joe / Kamala show, air time and their questions showed that they actually were familiar with the other candidates policy positions. Jay Inslee may have moved into a legit progressive contender slot. Yang did okay, drawing some lines between UBI and and various issues it would actually address. I thought the MLK link was well timed. He would still likely do better in the general than the primary.
Likely he'd capture the anybody but Trump vote. ;)
That's the interesting part, on reddit he seems to have a fair amount of support from Trump voters who've gone soft on Trump.
Yang called out the debate process in his closing remarks.
[YOUTUBE]aHzDeUqlGpc[/YOUTUBE]
He does better in longer formats.
[YOUTUBE]DdZstDDFJUA[/YOUTUBE]
Here's my unhelpful hot take on Andrew Yang: everyone's all, "ooh, he won't wear ties, he's hip and an independent thinker"... Bullshit. He won't wear ties because he has an insanely thick neck and would look ridiculous, assuming he could get the top button closed at all.
BigV's assessment of "who's better" is most exceedingly poor, with a nice radioactive dust of cobalt-60 sterility sprinkled on top.
Trump's trump card is he knows how an economy works -- better than the total sum of all the anti-trumpkins taken together in a dumptruckload. He knows the worth of our would-be ruling/political club class -- and sets it at its correct value, to their hourly discomfiture.
They ain't worth much, and certainly not worth what they say they are.
This pack of primarians, if I may coin a term, hasn't any idea of economics, and they are between them not worth a vote consequently. The ones that aren't fascists are fantasists.
Hey UG
This country is not the economy, stupid.
It's the people. And the people who are devoted to the ideals that inspire and sustain this country. Look to our motto, "E Pluribus Unum". We are the many; Trump is Unum.
Trump is the alpha and the omega of his universe. He is literally one. He sees everything around him in the context of himself. His narcissism makes him incapable of comprehending, much less serving the public good--even for your touted economy.
He is unfit.
I do not seek to persuade you. I would guide you and teach you by example and instruction, but any gains accrued by you must be earned by you. I can't do it for you.
Right now, you are cold iron and I will not hammer on you.
"This country is not the economy, stupid."
No, but the economy (its essential workings) is a damned good measure of liberty.
That is: does the bulk of my money go where I choose, or where technocrats tell me it should go? Can I choose how to attempt to make a buck, or am I regulated out of choice? Can I transact freely, or am I managed?
#
"It's the people. And the people who are devoted to the ideals that inspire and sustain this country."
Yeah, which ideals? Right now, there's two distinctly opposite ideals grindin' up each other: a broad *libertarianism vs a broad **communitarianism. Both lay claim to bein' foundational and both can't be right.
*the individual is sovereign
**the community is sovereign
Right now, there's two distinctly opposite ideals grindin' up each other: a broad *libertarianism vs a broad **communitarianism.
How curious that you ignore the only patriotic Americans. The moderates.
How curious that you ignore the only patriotic Americans. The moderates.
[Bold mine.]
Not necessarily so:
Everything in moderation, including moderates.
According to some, saying "Give me liberty or give me death" qualifies Patrick Henry as an extremist along with the rest of those who took up arms against the British Crown and pledged their lives, their fortune and their sacred honor for a shot at liberty and democracy.
So, one person's extremist can be another person's patriot in a diverse society. Moderates who think that theirs is the
only way are unrealistic. Those intolerant of others with ideas that differ from their own, who believe their way is the
only right way, are bigots which is truly unpatriotic.
Frankly: I don't think such creatures exist. You, for example, think of yourself as 'moderate', but you're not (no, you're just like 'me' ['cept you lie to yourself and sit on the wrong end of the spectrum]).
Patriots first learn facts. Then have a conclusion. Extremist know only because a central committee of the communist party orders them to believe the party line.
Moderates make conclusions only after learning facts. Extremists call honest fact sources "fake news". A central committee has ordered them what to believe.
Roger Ailes did that every morning. His people were told in the 8 AM meeting what the party line would be on Fox News for that day. Moderates don't waste time there.
Fox could not even maintain their "Fair and Balanced" slogan. Roger Ailes' agenda told extremist only one viewpoint. Since extremists only want to be told immediately what to preach - ie by 140 character sound bites
Extremists routinely use a tldr expression when something is more than a paragraph. Learning from multiple paragraphs is too hard. Extremists (Nazis, White Supremacists, KKK, Trump supporters) only want to be told what to parrot.
What did Fox News order us to believe? See many henry quirk posts. Parroted (sometimes word for word) from Fox, et al.
I always interpret this thread title as Hot vs The Democratic Frontrunners ....and wonder who is hot but lurking at the back of the field waiting to persuade the electorate with their 6-pack.....
as you were.
"Patriots first learn facts. Then have a conclusion. Extremist know only because a central committee of the communist party orders them to believe the party line. "
Well, that explains why some folks won't stop tryin' to ride the rotted carcass of the 'let's impeach Trump' jackass. It was a surly, uncooperative animal when alive and it's now it just lies there and stinks. The politiburo keeps kickin' at it, sayin' 'wake up!'.
Call *Marie Laveau: mebbe she can reanimate it.
*'course, she's dead too, so... :skull:
"who is hot but lurking at the back of the field waiting to persuade the electorate with their 6-pack....."
That was supposed to be Michelle, but she done said 'no how, no way!'.
Well, that explains why some folks won't stop tryin' to ride the rotted carcass of the 'let's impeach Trump' jackass.
As if Trump is an honest, ethical, informed, patriotic, or decent man. Since he is not and since his proof of everything is an insult, then he must be a good man - extremist logic. Even explains why he praised and is endorsed by the KKK, White Supremacists, Nazis, and other communist (dictator) types. All examples of extremists who find common ground in Trump promoted hate.
"As if Trump is an honest, ethical, informed, patriotic, or decent man."
He's (probably) not. As I say (have said many times): I don't care. I didn't hire him to be a saint or a role model or to maintain the status que. I hired him to be the spike in the tree, the sugar in the gas tank, the arsenic in the water supply. As long as folks like yourself are kept in near-hysteria, off-kilter by him then he can do whatever deviltry he likes.
to be the spike in the tree, the sugar in the gas tank, the arsenic in the water supply.
As an extremist, you only want to wreck shit. Did you also cheer the events in El Paso and Dayton? They also wanted to wreck shit.
"As an extremist, you only want to wreck shit."
Yes, your shit.
#
"Did you also cheer the events in El Paso and Dayton?"
I'm not anti-immigrant (like the Texas shooter) or a fan of Elizabeth Warren (like the Ohio shooter), so: no.
Yes, your shit.
Of course. An anti-America, who posts similar to Timothy McVeigh while declaring himself a patriot, would say that. Like McVeigh and a gunman in Gilroy, you only want to wreck shit. Have yet to post anything constructive in this thread.
Emotions of wacko extremists are that easily triggered - also a pun. Do you have a hate list yet? Or will Trump provide you with one?
Eventually Melania and Ivanka both told Trump to stop promoting "Send her back" hate. And so he encourages those chants for a second day. And now denies that both bluntly told him to stop. But then, that is why extremists love him. He also wants to wreck shit. It makes him popular.
"An anti-America, who posts similar to Timothy McVeigh"
Now I want a detailed analysis of McVeigh's writings contrasted with mine. You've made another (false) claim and if you can't back it up with evidence then you are -- again -- shown to be a liar.
#
"while declaring himself a patriot"
Where did i proclaim myself a patriot? Pony it up or you're a liar.
#
"Have yet to post anything constructive in this thread."
Have you? Nope.
#
"Emotions of wacko extremists are that easily triggered - also a pun"
Yes, yours are.
#
"Do you have a hate list yet?"
Don't need one: my memory suffices.
Here's my unhelpful hot take on Andrew Yang: everyone's all, "ooh, he won't wear ties, he's hip and an independent thinker"... Bullshit. He won't wear ties because he has an insanely thick neck and would look ridiculous, assuming he could get the top button closed at all.
I mean, he does look like he has a powerful neck, but.. men's dress shirts come in sizes based on two dimensions-- arm length and neck circumference.
(which are independently variable)
Sure, but there are limits. Pants come in measured lengths, too, but the 6'7" basketball player isn't going to find anything on the rack at Macy's. Andrew Yang is the LeBron of necks.
From
http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/
Television coverage of Bernie Sanders typically focuses on his presentations to large groups of people in auditoriums; that format almost of necessity requires shouting a series of brief soundbites and standard phrases.It is so refreshing to listen to this format rather than to shouting from a podium.
I know most readers of TYWKIWDBI will skip this post entirely, but I encourage everyone to at least try the first 5-10 minutes. Turn it on while you fix a lunch or do laundry. This video gives a better sense of the man and his mindset than anything else I have encountered.
Just try ten minutes. Even if you don't like him.
[YOUTUBE]2O-iLk1G_ng[/YOUTUBE]
Bernie's heart is clearly in the right place.
Meanwhile,
Biden is no Joltin' Joe.
Bernie is a resolute economic illiterate. Bernie's supporters -- even worse.
Of AOC, for another, we may describe her as actively devoted to the elimination worldwide of all economies. No mere economic illiterate she, but an active saboteuse.
The Soviet Union used to indict "wreckers," which seems generally to be some kind of economic crime. Of course, in old Sovietskii Soyuz, political incorrectness was a jailing offense.
It's easy to see an intent to be a "wrecker" in AOC's plan.
Why is Bernie an economic illiterate, he says what he wants to do and where the money will come from?
These are Democratic Trump voters. It appears Democratic Trump voters are most likely to be Bernie voters in the Primary.
One of the weirder predictors for Bernie support in the 2016 primary was counties that voted for non-Obama candidates in the 2012 primary. These are voters that have been voting for Republicans in general elections since Reagan, but remain registered Democrats. In the primaries, they file protest votes. I'd wager that a lot of the Bernie-Trump voters also voted for Clinton in 2008.
Just saw on the little TV on the elevator that Warren and Biden are in a virtual tie.
I predict Warren will get the nomination. It's early still, and odds are against my prediction, but I think she is the primary candidate to beat. Biden has the cash to do some damage, but I think he won't be successful.
I'm a Bernie supporter, and I loathe age discrimination, but I really wonder about his age. If elected, would he live out his term?
Why is Bernie an economic illiterate, he says what he wants to do and where the money will come from?
Money enough to do what he wants to do is not where he says it will come from, and more than a few people of good sense would take exception to the theft and they'd do something about it.
Run the numbers once, sift the discussion if you can't run numbers. You will cease to believe in Bernie.
I'm already there.
Virtually all of our beloved tax dollars are going to obscene corporate welfare, currently. We should have billions of dollars just "laying around" if it wasn't being funneled directly into offshore tax havens and stock buybacks. The constitution defines the government's taxation powers-- and we're doing the COLLECTING part, we just aren't using the money for the "general welfare" of the PEOPLE who are getting taxed. It's really not radical to suggest evaluating where our tax dollars are being spent.
I would also prefer never to bloat the government Leviathan. This tends to cause, not cure, social ills.
The "general welfare of the PEOPLE" is best served by "the PEOPLE," in business interaction, without the twostepping intercession of the State. This attitude comes of refusing to be a statist, mind you.
I guess when PG&E burns down the town of Paridise CA, those customers can just express their displeasure by switching to another power company.
I guess when PG&E burns down the town of Paridise CA, those customers can just express their displeasure by switching to another power company.
:haggis:
Hey UG
This country is not the economy, stupid.
It's the people.
I put it to you that the economy is the people and the people are the economy, and the nation is the people is the economy. In human endeavors, can you actually part any of these? -- I don't think so.
And the people who are devoted to the ideals that inspire and sustain this country. Look to our motto, "E Pluribus Unum". We are the many; Trump is Unum.
Trump is the alpha and the omega of his universe. He is literally one. He sees everything around him in the context of himself. His narcissism makes him incapable of comprehending, much less serving the public good--even for your touted economy.
Events show this to be utter nonsense. as put out by the nakedly prejudiced and moronically anticapitalistic -- after all, Trump loves America, as his regrettable predecessor did not. If you aren't down with capitalism, you are not down with life or creation, but rather death and rationing. No good.
And I haven't voted for Trump. Not yet, anyway...
I do not seek to persuade you. I would guide you and teach you by example and instruction, but any gains accrued by you must be earned by you. I can't do it for you.
By example? You should be guided by mine. I am not here to steer you wrong; you should not entertain that idea. Don't degrade yourself doing that.
I guess when PG&E burns down the town of Paridise CA, those customers can just express their displeasure by switching to another power company.
When will it occur to you this is increasingly becoming an option -- especially with electricity?
I think it would be more difficult for the municipal waterworks -- at present.
He didn't even hear it go over his head, glatt. :rolleyes:
Virtually all of our beloved tax dollars are going to obscene corporate welfare, currently. We should have billions of dollars just "laying around" if it wasn't being funneled directly into offshore tax havens and stock buybacks. The constitution defines the government's taxation powers-- and we're doing the COLLECTING part, we just aren't using the money for the "general welfare" of the PEOPLE who are getting taxed. It's really not radical to suggest evaluating where our tax dollars are being spent.
There's Our Man Flint... world-class money manager, you betcha. Just ask him. But avoid carbonated beverages during his reply -- that's the painful kind of Coke snorting.
What the socialists who resent anyone actually, you know, using money management to engender, aye create wealth fall down is: their answer to it is
to centrally plan the money flow. There are people reading this post who don't understand how big an error that is. The Central Plan of course features an idea that "You're too successful, too rich," and this is the rationale for confiscating that money and alleging you're handing it over to some group you favor better.
And they won't get shit done with it, in part because if they did, you'd notice they were profiting and you'd rape the profits away. Under those circumstances, their motivation to do well sags.
Is there any benefit from central-planning anything large? Why, there is, yes. The benefit stops among the planners themselves. Particularly once they make themselves exempt from the plan; the benefit trebles and quadruples.
He didn't even hear it go over his head, glatt. :rolleyes:
How many times do you want to be wrong tonight, Bruce? Go to bed.
Oh, you just chose to ignore it. Figures.
Who has he not yet attacked - besides his god The Don.
Re: Impeachment. This is sounding completely damning. Pelosi may have no choice about impeachment. I didn't want the Trumpbase fired up for fear of this country being unable to reunite but Trump's behavior seems to have tied everyone's hands. We are fucked.
They, Democrats (i.e. commies [dupes, sympathizers, & card carriers]) should pursue it zealously: ensure another four years for my employee.
Trump appears to be the perfect combination of trolling and corruption. Believing everyone to be corrupt, his supporters will stick with their guy. This might just get the chaos Henry so badly desires. Little secret, we're more likely to get more authoritarian government left and right than some anarcho-capitalist Nirvana.
/gut response
"Trump appears to be the perfect combination of trolling and corruption."
Trolling, yeah; but where's the corruption? I keep hearin' how awful he is but nobody ponies up actual evidence.
Where's the beef?
#
"This might just get the chaos Henry so badly desires"
I've had that since '16: lovin' it.
#
"Little secret, we're more likely to get more authoritarian government left and right..."
If the Left wins, absolutely.
#
"...than some anarcho-capitalist Nirvana."
Where did I claim a nightwatchman proxyhood would be nirvana? If I haven't already said it in this place, let me say it now: life in a minarchy would be harder simply cuz a whole whack of folks who don't wanna take care of themselves would have to (or get themselves to a charity).
For me: life would be pretty much what it is now ('cept I wouldn't be considered a criminal).
and: minarchy and ancap aren't the same thing at all
Little secret, we're more likely to get more authoritarian government left and right than some anarcho-capitalist Nirvana.
It is how Hitler came to power.
Lies and insults appeal to those using the mind of a child (also called the reptilian brain).
Re: Impeachment. This is sounding completely damning. Pelosi may have no choice about impeachment. I didn't want the Trumpbase fired up for fear of this country being unable to reunite but Trump's behavior seems to have tied everyone's hands. We are fucked.
Allegations always sound completely damning. Mueller proved how easily they can fall short.
They, Democrats (i.e. commies [dupes, sympathizers, & card carriers]) should pursue it zealously: ensure another four years for my employee.
Pelosi was previously reluctant to pursue impeachment despite all of the
"completely damning" allegations circulating before. She knew an impeachment attempt could backfire. A political phone call by Trump, to the Ukrainian leader, doesn't change that: it's a red herring. What's changed is now that Pelosi has seen the presidential candidates on the national stage, she realizes that the Democratic presidential hopefuls are hopeless and she has nothing to lose by going for broke and pursuing impeachment even if it does backfire. If the House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate will kill it anyway. That puts Trump in a position to say to Pelosi -
Do you feel lucky, punk?My thinkin': with the face of the party bein' people like A. Cortez, Nancy & Adam (and others) know they're bein' left behind, know come next election they got a diminishing chance of keepin' what they got.
Impeaching Trump is a 'I got nuthin' to lose' move.
If impeachment fails: 'meh, I'm probably not gettin' rehired anyway. But -- if the planets align just right, if the gods smile down -- mebbe we might oust Trump before 20, a big feather in my cap.'
It's a 'damned for sure if we do nuthin', mebbe escaping the flames if we do sumthin'' strategy.
I think Nancy, Adam (and others) are doomed, damned, done in, & (soon to be) dumped.
I think that we are all so damaged by the culture wars that none of us, especially myself, can look at any of this rationally. We’re so caught up in old constructs of thinking about the economy, Liberty, society, etc... that our mental picture of how things are and how they’re impacting the humans are not credible. The generation of Trump, Pence, Pelosi, Biden, and Sanders need to get the hell out of the way if our country is going to be successful.
"The generation of Trump, Pence, Pelosi, Biden, and Sanders need to get the hell out of the way if our country is going to be successful."
And who will replace them?
Think carefully before answering.
And who will replace them?
Think carefully before answering.
To paraphrase the meme, "given my understanding of linear time, I'm interested to hear what the alternative is"
Folks like Andrew Yang, less about party more about people. They're out there but it will take some serious sorting on our part.
And who will replace them?
Moderates.
Yang: He's the one makin' noise about guaranteed universal income, right?
Ain't we got enough welfare already?
Yes.
No.
The appeal of Yang to me is the way he approaches our current political divide. He is very welcoming to Trump voters and acknowledges the economic forces which led to Trumps election. His policy ideas are all about using reason and science to address our problems. He is unlike the other candidates, except maybe Pete and Warren, someone who can unite the country. He has a very positive outlook on where we can be when the economy serves humanity.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
In 2016, I supported Sanders but he's losing me with his guaranteed jobs and anti-rich rhetoric.
It is my cuppa as I see in UT's graph the seeds of a total meltdown. This is "welfare" which doesn't have any of the onerous social manipulation Dems are often criticized for on the right. The idea is to divert some of the proceeds of efficiency back into the economy of middle America rather that into Silicon Valley coffers. This to me is a lot smarter than the Luddite stuff which will be forth-coming.
"The idea is to divert some of the proceeds of efficiency back into the economy of middle America rather that into Silicon Valley coffers."
Yeah, I get that. You can get mostly the same result by wreckin' state capitalism and allowing free enterprise to run wild.
We must implement UBI once we notice that automation is actually creating the described problem. Maybe 40-50 years from now.
We must implement UBI once we notice that automation is actually creating the described problem. Maybe 40-50 years from now.
problem or opportunity?
Timing is interesting. Do we start paying when retail dies or trucking or software development...
Innovation continuously puts entire industries out of business, and we like that. 50% of us worked in agriculture a century ago, now it's 2% of us. The typing pool used to take up an entire floor of a company; within a decade it was gone.
Those people did not just disappear from the work force. The thing is, automation has always created more jobs, and so we are not suffering at all from the jobs that were lost. We don't miss them. We have single digit unemployment, even after most of the mindless manual labor is outsourced to China.
Things will be radically different with another level of automation. It will probably require UBI or something like it. But, on the other hand, if there is no cost of labor, the price of many things will drop - a lot. So the problem that UBI needs to solve could be radically different by the time it's needed.
~ IMO ~
But we will notice the problem first. We should solve problems we have, not problems that aren't problems yet.
So, Yin now … Yang later. [ATTACH]68803[/ATTACH]
Those people did not just disappear from the work force. The thing is, automation has always created more jobs, and so we are not suffering at all from the jobs that were lost. We don't miss them. We have single digit unemployment, even after most of the mindless manual labor is outsourced to China.
I'm going to assume that workforce participation rates are really hard to measure but...
Here is a good explanation of the variables related to labor force participation. There are a lot of reasons for it. Reason #3 brings out automation. It's one of the variables. But half the number is structural, due to retirement.
Also it's an American graph, but we have globalization now. If automation of smaller mindless tasks is here, we are not shipping everything overseas to have half a billion Chinese people do that job.
Fourth, there is increased use of opioid medication. Almost half of the prime-age men not in the labor force take pain medication daily to treat chronic health conditions. Two-thirds of them are on prescription meds. A study by Yale professor Alan Krueger shows how this affected the LFPR. He estimates that from 1999 to 2015, 20% of the LFPR decline for these men was caused by opioid dependency.
It seems like we are not shiny happy people.
This would seem to be the statistic to watch, less the retired.
I was forced out of work, they offered me money to stay home.
I was forced out of work, they offered me money to stay home.
Expected as the Don's economic policies slowly undermine responsible economic tends instituted by Obama.
It took five years for Obama just to undo economic disasters by created by George Jr (actually Republicans who openly say deficit don't matter. An exact quote. and why we spent $3 trillion just in Iraq. And massacred 5000 American servicemen for no purpose. Dejavue Nam.).
We are still in a Obama economy. Things that make profits today were instituted four and ten years ago. But we are now seeing job losses in sectors that Trump is protecting.
Again, American Keg (its president) foolishly believed Trump's Steel tariffs would be good. Months later, he had to fire one third of his employees due to a massive loss of sales.
US Steel, a Trump protected industry, recently laid off 800 workers and closed two blast furnaces. One in IN was their largest. Again, bean counters and a communist (one whose only purpose is to advance himself) explains why jobs were and will continue to be lost.
Why? Trump supporters (wacko extremists) want to wreck shit. And say so openly here.
The Economist magazine made it obvious this week. Publication based in facts (not the emotions of a child) show a picture of people only an extremist would love. Twitterdum amd Twaddledee. People only elected because they lie so much: Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. Lies inspire extremists (adults who are emotional and are therefore still think like children).
Extremists need not be honest. They are preaching to the many who cannot bother to learn how the world really works. They so hate themselves as to even listen to what Fox News orders then to think. (Fox News openly said those people in the New Orleans Superdome and Convention Center were not denied food for three days.) Better is to be told how to think rather than burn too many calories thinking for one's self.
This recession apparently started in January. Job losses may happen today. But serious job losses are expected in four years if concepts promoted by wacko extremists are not reversed.
Stock market crashed in 1929 because economics said the economy was self destructing. Therefore jobs were lost mostly in 1933. We all are suppose to learn from history - not from Fox News and our resident wacko extremists.
I was forced out of work, they offered me money to stay home.
What year was that?
Bernie was hospitalized yesterday. Good health sir.
What year was that?
Are you suggesting to tw that something bad happened before Trump?!
:D
What year was that?
10 years ago.
Not a coincidence, then. Celebrity Apprentice had been on the air for a year at that point.
Pretty much -- accordin' to extremists -- every bad thing in the past three quarters of a century is Trumps's fault. Hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, etc.
The man is literally -- accordin' to extremists -- the Four Horsemen of he Apocalypse rolled up into one Orange bundle.
Accordin' to extremists -- every bad thing in the past three quarters of a century is fake news.
you're gettin' to be as crappy as tw
And you're getting as ridiculous as Urbane Gorilla.
The four of you can double date.
Another successful Cellar matchmaker story.
Other notable successes:
Lumberjim and Gravdigr
BigV and Dude111
Undertoad and Flint
Sexobon and …
… Uh-oh, we made need a poll. It may need to enable multiple selections. I hope it includes some women. I'll be all alone until then. :sniff:
Another successful Cellar matchmaker story.
Is polygamy legal in the cellar?
"And you're getting as ridiculous as Urbane Gorilla."
Oh, I'm way past him (or tw, for that matter): doesn't mean I'm not right.
Another successful Cellar matchmaker story.
Other notable successes:
Lumberjim and Gravdigr
BigV and Dude111
Undertoad and Flint
Sexobon and …
what
Are you suggesting to tw that something bad happened before Trump?!
:D
A conspiracy-critter like tw wouldn't
even take that suggestion.
I find the Hillary Clinton/Tulsi Gabbard bashup to be entertaining
Hillary has now seen fit to expand Russiagate to a Democratic political rival by saying she is a Russian asset.
On a podcast, instead of a journalistic interview, where there would be questions.
ZERO actual evidence presented!
This is a clumsy mistake in all ways. Suggesting Russiagate applies to a political rival makes it [strike]seem like[/strike] more obvious that Russiagate is conspiracy theory.
Suggesting it about someone who's active military personnel and a Congresswoman who is vetted for national security is nuts.
The move only empowers Gabbard, whose numbers will surely rise.
Bill was always able to use his political power with aplomb. He could sense what was needed, and how things would play out. Hillary uses it like the proverbial bull in a china shop. She's never had his particular skill.
Tulsi may be the perfect candidate to run against Trump; being a beautiful younger woman AND shrewd and very smart, she would be a target that he cannot attack in the usual ways. It would queer his game theory; this is something he's never had to deal with on a public stage. It won't happen; Tulsi is an outlier, and people will be too suspicious of her to vote for her.
But it's entertaining.
I saw the Clinton news piece on Gabbard and was flabbergasted. I think the average reader hears Clinton saying this: "Everyone who doesn't support establishment Democrats is a Russian." That's stupid and clumsy. This is why people want HRC to shut up and go away-- she's poison.
However, on a literally unrelated note.... Considering everything we know about Russia's involvement in election meddling in 2016-- such as the bombshell game-changer that our intelligence agencies found Russians directly skewing local election infrastructure to play the electoral college like a piano-- I find it odd and distressing that anyone doesn't think saying, "Russiagate is conspiracy theory," couldn't be misinterpreted as meaning, "Russia didn't interfere in our elections."
These are true, non-conspiracy facts: Russia interfered in our election. Russia wanted Trump to win, and they succeeded. Trump asked Russia to damage his opponents, and they did. Russia is STILL interfering with our politics, our intelligence agencies GUARANTEE they will interfere in upcoming elections, and Trump is STILL asking foreign powers to interfere in our elections. Nobody actually disagrees with any of these component pieces. So what's the conspiracy?
My theory is that Bill said Tulsi would look good in a blue dress and Hillary lost it.
My theory is that Bill said Tulsi would look good in a blue dress and Hillary lost it.
Nothing there matters until after Iowa. It will all be forgotten.
Tw, you should probably be sitting down for this:
Tulsi must be a conundrum for you. She wasn't officer material, then she was; but, only because she got a degree in business administration. Officer material with a degree in business! :eek:
"Russians directly skewing local election infrastructure to play the electoral college like a pian"
I know I asked about this before, and I know someone answered the question, but I done forget, so -- someone -- help a guy out...
How exactly did the Ruskies muck around with the election, election process, or the electoral college?
Read all about it-- here's
522 references to
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; for starters here's the
2017 analysis issued by the Director of National Intelligence. And I'm sure you heard that the FBI found that "Russian interference" was "sweeping and systematic" and
indicted twenty-six Russian citizens and three Russian organizations? I don't know which part of this you didn't hear about, it's been pretty big in the news for like three years.
How did they do it, like exactly what methods?
I'm pretty sure the intelligence community doesn't announce specific details of national security, but
here are a couple of main areas to give you a rough idea.
sumthin' like...
The Ruskies interfered with the election, election process, and the electoral college by...
1:
2:
3:
4:
I don't need the details, just the basics.
She wasn't officer material, then she was; but, only because she got a degree in business administration. Officer material with a degree in business! :eek:
Again you only read what you want to read to spin misinformation and fables. A business school degree does not necessarily mean one thinks like a business school graduate. But so many, who make stupid decisions based in business school myths and lies, are business school graduates. It explains disasters such as Flint MI's water and the murder of seven Challenger astronauts.
Only a tiny relationship exists between officer material and a business school degree. That also obvious when one read what was written and not what one wants to see.
Japanese even define why one may get an MBA. To learn how to 'Made Being in American'. To learn how that person may think and then understand why that person does so many stupid things.
.
One thing that remains irresponsible is a wacko extremist denying what every patriot knows - and that anti-Americans deny. The Russians clearly interfered in American elections. They got the president they wanted. Extremist even deny that clear and obvious reality.
Russia has never made more strides as they have in the past three years. So many successes in the past three years because a scumbag, that anti-Americans love, did it for them. Russians did not fire a shot to get Americans to surrender. To surrender so quickly that their half eaten meals were still sitting on tables. Only an anti-American (the extremist who are believes in the KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists) would love this scumbag. And post insults to prove only anti-Americans are right (yes a pun).
How curious. He uses hate and insults, just like a KKK, Nazi, or White Supremacist, to justify extremism and intentional lies.
sumthin' like...
The Ruskies interfered with the election, election process, and the electoral college by...
1:
2:
3:
4:
I don't need the details, just the basics.
Again you only read what you want to read to spin misinformation and fables. A business school degree does not necessarily mean one thinks like a business school graduate. But so many, who make stupid decisions based in business school myths and lies, are business school graduates. It explains disasters such as Flint MI's water and the murder of seven Challenger astronauts.
Only a tiny relationship exists between officer material and a business school degree. That also obvious when one read what was written and not what one wants to see.
Japanese even define why one may get an MBA. To learn how to 'Made Being in American'. To learn how that person may think and then understand why that person does so many stupid things.
.
One thing that remains irresponsible is a wacko extremist denying what every patriot knows - and that anti-Americans deny. The Russians clearly interfered in American elections. They got the president they wanted. Extremist even deny that clear and obvious reality.
Russia has never made more strides as they have in the past three years. So many successes in the past three years because a scumbag, that anti-Americans love, did it for them. Russians did not fire a shot to get Americans to surrender. To surrender so quickly that their half eaten meals were still sitting on tables. Only an anti-American (the extremist who are believes in the KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists) would love this scumbag. And post insults to prove only anti-Americans are right (yes a pun).
How curious. He uses hate and insults, just like a KKK, Nazi, or White Supremacist, to justify extremism and intentional lies.
Well that answer says nothing. And completely ignores relevant and different details in each case.
1. Trolled on Facebook
2. Bought divisive ads on Facebook
3. Published fake news on RT, often forwarded on Facebook
4. Cyber-stole and published Hillary Clinton/John Podesta/DNC emails
4a. Cyber-stole Republican emails but didn't publish them
5. Cyber-stole information about registered voters
UT note: this is information you can legally buy, or even get for free. In 1996 I asked for, and received, my county's voter database just by telling them that I was an officer of a political party in the county. (I was, but I didn't have to prove it.)
6. Funneled money into pro-Trump PACs
IIRC NY Times story showed they had an interest in hacking into voting machines in all 50 states; story found that the state they were most likely to be able to affect was Illinois, but did not have any evidence that they actually did affect anything. (And Hillary won Illinois, and was always going to, so why bother?)
The conspiracy theory is in the unproven bits. The top unproven bit is collusion, but people even go on to say Russia is managing Trump's press statements, or Russia might cut off American electricity during a cold snap in the winter, or Russia has a tape of Trump getting peed on which is why he's under their control. People take the puzzling evidence they have and build a narrative around it.
But it's true: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It is well-proven.
Russia has a tape of Trump getting peed on
This is the dramatized version the public has settled on, but IIRC the actual allegation from the dossier was that he told the prostitutes to pee on the
bed as a crude joke because the Obamas had slept on it. It wasn't really sexual, just gross. They have plenty of money-stuff with which to control Trump, IMHO, and too much of his sexual stuff is already public for it to be viable blackmail material.
Meanwhile, another day has passed and there is still no evidence given of Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian asset.
But it's true: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It is well-proven.
It's worth noting-- Russia
successfully interfered in the 2016 election.
The goals they took steps to accomplish were achieved, and we are now living in that world.
And it continues. When their bots support a candidate (maybe?), someone will say, "Russian Asset!" and they've succeeding in making us argue about it.
1. Trolled on Facebook
So: how many in-forum got took?
#
2. Bought divisive ads on Facebook
So: how many in-forum got took?
#
3. Published fake news on RT, often forwarded on Facebook
What's RT? And: how many in-forum got took?
#
4. Cyber-stole and published Hillary Clinton/John Podesta/DNC emails
Unlike all the FB stuff (I don't do FB) I read a bunch of the DNC stuff on wikileaks. Not sure how accurate info counts as interference, but: okay.
So: how many in-forum got took?
#
4a. Cyber-stole Republican emails but didn't publish them
How do we know they had Repub stuff? And: mebbe the Repub stuff had nuthin' incriminatin' in them?
#
5. Cyber-stole information about registered voters
And used it how?
#
6. Funneled money into pro-Trump PACs
We know this how?
#
"The conspiracy theory is in the unproven bits."
As always.
#
"The top unproven bit is collusion,"
Not only unproven but disproven, or are we to doubt Mueller?
#
"But it's true: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It is well-proven."
Seems to me: what's proven is the Ruskies tried to interfere, not that they were successful.
No, it isn't a given cuz they mebbe got what they wanted that they were successful.
Again: how many in-forum got took?
I'm bettin' not a one.
So: what makes you folks immune to monkeyshine?
I'm thinkin' most folks, most of the time, are no more gullible than any of you.
Meanwhile, another day has passed and there is still no evidence given of Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian asset.
I read an interesting thing a couple days ago (lost the link unfortunately) about how we need to stop using the word "asset" because it conveys a level of conspiracy that is too nefarious; but we also should acknowledge that Russia
uses people for their own gain with or without those people's express agreement. The Russia/Tulsi
connection is that Russian media is gratuitously fawning over her (from
NBC News all the way back in February):
Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government... All three sites celebrated Gabbard's announcement, defended her positions on Russia and her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and attacked those who have suggested she is a pawn for Moscow... Gabbard was mentioned on the three sites about twice as often as two of the best known Democratic possibilities for 2020, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, each with 10 stories... Gabbard's most controversial position and the one where she's most in line with Russian interests is on Syria. She's accused the U.S. of pushing a policy of "regime change" wars and in January 2017, she met with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria on what she called a "fact-finding mission"... In articles on the Russian sites, Gabbard is described as a "rebel," who is "straight-talking" and a "heroic" candidate who will "shake up" the establishment... Besides her views on Syria, she responded to reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election by saying the U.S. had interfered in foreign elections too.
None of which says she's an asset, just the candidate whose foreign policy views (for whatever reason) are most aligned with Russia's. That being said, Gabbard doesn't help herself with crap like this:
Erika Tsuji, a spokeswoman for Gabbard, said it as "ridiculous" to suggest the Russians supported her candidacy.
I think the more realistic analysis is that Russia largely wants to sow seeds of division and chaos in American politics, and this (like supporting Jill Stein in 2016) is just one more way to do that.
Within a few days of Gabbard announcing her presidential bid, DisInfo 2018, part of the cybersecurity firm New Knowledge, found that three of the top 15 URLs shared by the 800 social media accounts affiliated with known and suspected Russian propaganda operations directed at U.S. citizens were about Gabbard.
Analysts at New Knowledge, the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities in the 2016 election, told NBC News they've spotted "chatter" related to Gabbard in anonymous online message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing troll campaigns. The chatter discussed Gabbard's usefulness.
It's worth noting-- Russia successfully interfered in the 2016 election.
The goals they took steps to accomplish were achieved, and we are now living in that world.
Unproven is that they influenced many votes. We examined the Facebook campaign here. It was pretty weak; and most of it didn't even focus on politics, it was more about divisive issues.
More importantly, Russia was one operation trying to influence the election - amongst *hundreds* of operations. The Wikipedia article says they got $30M to the NRA to run pro-Trump messaging. But that's just $30 Million out of $1.4 Billion spent by PACs to try to influence the election.
As such, victory alone is not proof of anything. The DNC are more effective influencers (and they arguably kept Gabbard out of the previous debate)
I think the more realistic analysis is that Russia largely wants to sow seeds of division and chaos in American politics, and this (like supporting Jill Stein in 2016) is just one more way to do that.
This seems likely. But Hillary can just make that allegation in full, instead of being coy about it and offering nothing. Its accuracy would well be damning, in all the right directions. Instead she has made it into a game. "Figure out who I'm talking about and why it might be relevant."
By not doing that, Hillary is elevating the seeds of division and chaos. Why does their primary target of 2016 play right into their hands?
I think Tushi Gabbard has a nice asset which more than only the Russians can appreciate.
Probably something just got lost in translation ...
имеет хороший актив - has a nice asset
[COLOR="White"]...........[/COLOR]хороший актив - is a nice asset
This seems likely. But Hillary can just make that allegation in full, instead of being coy about it and offering nothing. Its accuracy would well be damning, in all the right directions. Instead she has made it into a game. "Figure out who I'm talking about and why it might be relevant."
By not doing that, Hillary is elevating the seeds of division and chaos. Why does their primary target of 2016 play right into their hands?
Didn't we ask Hillary to go away? She is playing to her own base for reasons only clear to herself. I guess she's trying to dump the guilt..? Tulsi has a legitimate POV which ideally would be discussed. She stands opposite the Neo-cons, making her only as extreme as the folks this country was comfortable supporting after 9/11. I think she'd go too far but I like that someone is at least talking about our place in the world.
Didn't we ask Hillary to go away?
Like she gives a flip. She wants
her job. She's been denied twice. Heads need to roll. And they will when she wins in 20.
Hillary is apparently a Russian asset.
Unproven is that they influenced many votes. We examined the Facebook campaign here. It was pretty weak; and most of it didn't even focus on politics, it was more about divisive issues.
More importantly, Russia was one operation trying to influence the election - amongst *hundreds* of operations. The Wikipedia article says they got $30M to the NRA to run pro-Trump messaging. But that's just $30 Million out of $1.4 Billion spent by PACs to try to influence the election.
As such, victory alone is not proof of anything. The DNC are more effective influencers (and they arguably kept Gabbard out of the previous debate)
The big kicker for me is the RNC emails which were definitely hacked, but never leaked. Folks are being blackmailed, the only question is who and for how much (obviously not money.)
I'd lay any amount of money on Lindsey Graham being compromised, for example. Dude was railing against Trump in some of the strongest terms out there, both before AND after he was elected. Then he takes a one-on-one golf game alone with Trump, and since then he's been licking the guy's balls 24/7.
Not what I needed to visualize over lunch
"The big kicker for me is the RNC emails which were definitely hacked, but never leaked. Folks are being blackmailed, the only question is who and for how much (obviously not money.)"
1: We know the Repub accounts were hacked how?
2: If hacked, we know the Repub accounts had dirt in 'em how?
3: If there was dirt, we know blackmail is happenin' how?
#
"I'd lay any amount of money on Lindsey Graham being compromised, for example. Dude was railing against Trump in some of the strongest terms out there, both before AND after he was elected. Then he takes a one-on-one golf game alone with Trump, and since then he's been licking the guy's balls 24/7."
Seems to me Graham got his balls after Mccain kicked. I think Johnny had dirt on Lindsey, dirt he took to his grave freein' Graham up to go where he preferred instead of where directed.
1: We know the Repub accounts were hacked how?
via the Wiki article
On January 10, 2017, FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russia succeeded in "collecting some information from Republican-affiliated targets but did not leak it to the public". In earlier statements, an FBI official stated Russian attempts to access the RNC server were unsuccessful, or had reportedly told the RNC chair that their servers were secure, but that email accounts of individual Republicans (including Colin Powell) were breached. (Over 200 emails from Colin Powell were posted on the website DC Leaks.) One state Republican Party (Illinois) may have had some of its email accounts hacked.
So: RNC servers weren't accessed but individual accounts were. Seems to me: them accounts musta been clean (or Maddow and O'Donnell would told us all about it).
So: #1 is answered (:thumbsup: UT), and #'s 2 and 3 sorta answered.
All that's left is: was LG bein' blackmailed about his homosexuality by JM or is he bein' blackmailed about his homosexuality by the Ruskies?
Unproven is that they influenced many votes. We examined the Facebook campaign here. It was pretty weak; and most of it didn't even focus on politics, it was more about divisive issues.
I have a very different view about this. Divisive issues are the biggest problem in our society-- divisiveness is ruining our politics, our civil society, and our lives. I know you don't disagree with this. Our political system is gridlocked by two corrupt entities, and people won't vote them out-- because of divisive, "scare issues." This is the primary method of controlling politics in America-- if you manipulate the divisiveness, you manipulate the whole machine.
I would argue that, in general, the ONLY factor that influences votes is divisive issues.
And, specifically, a way that votes are influenced? By getting people (for example, on the Left) to argue among themselves, and not be able to form a coalition to challenge authoritarianism. In 2016, this was by fueling a contentious Primary--it was contentious on it's own, but the Bots made sure we never stopped fighting about it. In 2019, it's people arguing about Gabbard on Facebook--this is happening today, right now. If "the Left" is having arguments started by Russian bots (on Facebook RIGHT NOW), they end up, for example, voting for Jill Stein (2016) which is what HRC--I assume-- was talking about, albeit in the stupidest way possible. Apparently she never heard "don't feed the trolls"
Take a look at the ads, here's a decent gallery of them
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/10/russian-facebook-ads-house-intelligence-full-list/
bold is mine:
Among the Russian-bought ads, event-based posts became fairly frequent in 2016. The day after the election, an event called for an anti-Trump rally in Union Square even as another ad called for Trump supporters to rally outside Trump tower. In another instance, the ads promoted both a pro-Beyoncé and anti-Beyoncé event in New York City.
Getting ready for 2020, 3 years 364 days in advance? I think divisiveness was/is a goal all its own.
Russian bots (on Facebook RIGHT NOW)
I was just accused of being one on Twitter!
Thing I don't get is wouldn't it be more effective to hire actual people to postd? That way if responders call them a bot, they can tell them to sick their metallic dick. (Actually that's not what I did, but only because I thought of it too late.)
Every American intelligence agency says Russians and their bots are still targeting the weakest among us: adults who still think like children. But a Buzzfeed soundbyte says it is not happening. So Buzzfeed must be right.
"to sick their metallic dick" only says something informative to those who are easily manipulated by propaganda, soundbytes, hearsay, and bots. Objective is to target / manipulate the emotional (reptilian) brains. That is what soundbyte reasoning targets using emotion and easily believed lies - an adult's reptilian brain.
Since someone said those bots do not exist, then all American intelligence agencies must be wrong. Reality - the reason Saddam had WMDs: soundbytes said so without even one fact or number to justify it. Facts and soundbytes said he could not. More facts even said why the lie was created. But that means using the brain that reasons; and ignoring the brain that only makes decisions from hype and other emotions.
Those bots target adults who still think like children. We see some here. They post insults (even today) rather than honesty, facts, and numbers. They are the target. So easily manipulated as to even vote for The Don. Not only are Russians still active with propaganda. But so many in America even deny how easily that emotional propaganda so influences them.
mr roboto sez, domo arigato!
Since someone said those bots do not exist, then all American intelligence agencies must be wrong. Reality - the reason Saddam had WMDs: soundbytes said so without even one fact or number to justify it.
The American intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs.
You've come full circle, now, you just don't realize it.
The American intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs.
No they did not. Did you hear what the intelligence agencies were saying repeatedly? No. To this day, you still believe that lie. As clearly and repeatedly demonstrated in the Cellar back in 2003.
Where was Cheney getting this stuff? American intelligence agencies were constantly scrambling. They could not find any evidence for myths that we now know Cheney invented. That, sir, is irrefutable fact even back then. It was posted here in the Cellar back in 2003 constantly. Because you kept repeating those Cheney lies.
Intelligence community is again doing same with so many Trump lies.
Cheney was taking raw data and inventing 'ghouls hiding to kill us all'. Because Cheney said the intelligence community was not seeing 'his' truth. So only Cheney could properly analyze raw data - to see through lies he accused the intelligence community of creating. Why did he call them wrong? The entire intelligence community was not reporting what only Cheney knew. And what UT was told to believe.
Saddam never had or even intended to have WMDs that could attack America. We invaded Iraq because he had weapons that could attack America - the lie.
Liars were so corrupt as to even out CIA agent Valerie Plame because Ambassador Wilson clearly exposed another Cheney lie.
Even Hardball was a liar. German intelligence kept saying so. But that honest fact contradicted Cheney lies.
Shock and Awe was created because liars (such as Hardball) were believed - because that is what Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al wanted to believe. Facts be damned. An expression constantly referenced here in 2003 - because the intelligence community was not saying what Cheney was saying.
The entire WMD thing was a lie that extremists believed because it satisfied their emotions. And was not reported by the intelligence community. UT simply and constantly listened to propaganda.
So biased as to put up pictures of the three National News broadcasters as monkeys doing "No see, no speak, no hear". A mockery by UT because truths they were reporting contradicted UT's biases and unjustified beliefs.
Special Forces captured a trailer. Biological material was found inside that trailer. So Cheney declared it was a portable biological weapons trailer. It was a weather trailer. To create hydrogen for balloons, they used river water that contained had biological debris. Cheney, et al did not care what that river bacteria was. That was enough for wackos to relabel that weather trailer as a biological weapons factory.
UT believed that lie and all others - because some only believe what they want to believe - due to political biases. Another fact stated with the always required reasons why.
UT could not bother to first learn all facts before just knowing Saddam had WMDs. He even denied what George Jr finally admitted. Saddam did not have those WMDs. Intelligence community said it was only a weather trailer. But extremists - who eventually caused the unnecessary death of 5000 American servicemen, intentionally ignored facts.
He even mocked the news anchors from NBC, ABC, and CBS because they (we now know) were accurately reporting the facts.
Cherry picking. It works with people who only see what they want to see. And those are also called Trump voters. Shame on you UT for still denying obvious reasons why you were so wrong. You openly endorsed lies that got 5000 America servicemen uselessly killed.
How ironic. The scumbag president was only ten minute away from doing same in Iran. And our wackos even think that was OK. It is called 'wag the dog'. It is called contempt for the American serviceman.
What the intelligence community was saying was ignored because a political bias wanted to believe a lie. It is called cherry picking. It is routine when extremists invent lies - such as a Caravan approaching the American border to kill us all. Such lies work on extremists who know only from their childish brain and resulting emotions. Even Hitler demonstrated the technique 90 years ago. It works on those who only want to hear what their emotions say.
An irrefutable fact. The scumbag president has surrendered in the Middle East - all but endorsing what will be classic ethnic cleansing. UT will not criticize that president created disaster. Since admitting to that surrender would contradict right wing bias that he did not have over 20 years ago.
You're kind of losing it compadre
Did y'all know tw is a hunt and peck typist?
you big fat friggin' LIAR
#
I'm a *hunt & peckist: ain't no crime in that.
*on the SM 9 or a comp keyboard I poke with index fingers and space with my right thumb; on this Ipad I use my right index finger for everything
Cuz he knows he and his done 'lost'.
You're kind of losing it compadre
So you still cannot dispute any of it. And do what you did back in 2003. Play ostrich.
Feather me this UT. Why do you now condone posters who only post insults? You once banned people for doing that. You do not even issue a warning.
I've allowed you to personally insult me for two decades.
Do you need a warning?
Tw couldn't get on Nixon's list, Dubya's list; or, Trump's list; so, now he's slumming.
Tw couldn't get on Nixon's list, Dubya's list; or, Trump's list; so, now he's slumming.
<g>
My hot takes on the dem frontrunners:
Biden: Biden is, I think, running only because he believes that he can beat Trump and nobody else can, and these are not normal times in which you can just wait for the opposition to be done and go home. That being said, his ideas are old and have no bearing on the current economy. On the top economic issue (health care), his position is "everything is fine."
Warren: Warren is basically the Cordell Hull of the modern era. She's as fascinating as watching paint dry, but she's reliable.
Sanders: I am not sure where this man thinks he is. I think he thinks he's at a student rally in 1968. I would still vote for him over Trump, but I would vote for any of the candidates over Trump. I will add that I do like some of the "out there" planks he brought that have now become party policy.
Buttigieg: This man sold his own minority group out for a chicken sandwich. NEXT.
Others:
Harris & Klobuchar: These two are suicide bunting for Warren.
Bloomberg: A bastard and a spoiler. There is no sane reason to jump into the contest after the debates.
Tulsi Gabbard: 2020's Jill Stein.
Booker: Who?
Tulsi got 6% in the latest poll, thanks Hillary!
Tulsi got 6% in the latest poll, thanks Hillary!
Latest poll has her at 2%. Her 15 minutes are over.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/Pete has quite a ground game in Iowa apparently. Biden and Bernie are too old unless Trump is the other option. Warren isn't exactly youthful but not decrepit. I'm just gonna mention Yang because he's likeable which is a new thing in a politician.
Pete has quite a ground game in Iowa apparently. Biden and Bernie are too old unless Trump is the other option. Warren isn't exactly youthful but not decrepit. I'm just gonna mention Yang because he's likeable which is a new thing in a politician.
Yang seems to have no problem taking money from Richard Spencer's people. He also took some special time out to kiss Andy Ngo's ass.
I don't even consider him a candidate.
Ugh. I know that the nation needs someone who will reach across the culture divide, but... this ain't it, chief.
So understanding what is happening to Rust Belt whites makes Mr Yang a white nationalist, I would suggest that's how Hillary lost PA and Michigan.
Andy Ngo is not "what is happening to Rust Belt" ???
Read posts #205, #206, and #207 in order.
I have no idea who Andy Ngo is. I was responding to the Richard Spencer smear.
So Andy Ngo turns out to be a right-wing Journalist who was beaten by the Antifa. I guess I'm with Yang and Biden on this. I oppose political violence.
Ngo is, at minimum, a massive shit-stirrer. He goes to events and tries to get people to hit him in self-defense, then edits out the part where he attacked them first.
Gotcha. I wasn't familiar.
I have no idea who Andy Ngo is. I was responding to the Richard Spencer smear.
Ngo is basically Spencer with better manners.
And it's not a smear. Yang found out the proudboys and other Spencer fans were sending him money (the reason they were doing that was pretty funny, "the system is fucked for Upstanding White Folks, so we may as well get our $1000"), and he had absolutely no problem with it.
And once you let the poo get on you, it doesn't come off.
So Andy Ngo turns out to be a right-wing Journalist who was beaten by the Antifa. I guess I'm with Yang and Biden on this. I oppose political violence.
I am in favor of political violence when it is appropriate.
But Ngo wasn't a victim. He intentionally orchestrated that event, and then lied about his injuries.
There are very bad people in the US who plan intentional acts of political violence. They identify their victims and share their information online. They plan and carry out acts of violence to intimidate those with different political beliefs.
Andy Ngo is one of those people. He is involved with identifying the targets, planning the violence, organizing the attacks, and yes, he is there when it happens. And yes, sometimes he stands too close to the violence which he himself is complicit in organizing.
Andy Ngo deals in half-truths, deceptively edited videos, and irresistibly worldview-confirming narratives. If you have reason to believe his "See! I told you so!" message, it's just so delicious.
There are very bad people in the US who plan intentional acts of political violence. They identify their victims and share their information online. They plan and carry out acts of violence to intimidate those with different political beliefs.
Andy Ngo is one of those people. He is involved with identifying the targets, planning the violence, organizing the attacks, and yes, he is there when it happens. And yes, sometimes he stands too close to the violence which he himself is complicit in organizing.
Andy Ngo deals in half-truths, deceptively edited videos, and irresistibly worldview-confirming narratives. If you have reason to believe his "See! I told you so!" message, it's just so delicious.
This is one of those things where neither side is going to agree with the other. I share your opinion of Ngo, but nothing you or I say will bring Undertoad to our side of the table, nor could he convince me to come to his side of the table.
This is where America is right now. It's the political reality that we exist in, and a political reality is still reality.
I agree.
There is a subjective area.
I would suggest, though, that when someone (and I'm not saying anyone here) takes a position that requires you to believe, "Snopes is lying!" or "Wikipedia is lying!" it doesn't help us come together on a common set of facts.
I agree.
There is a subjective area.
I would suggest, though, that when someone (and I'm not saying anyone here) takes a position that requires you to believe, "Snopes is lying!" or "Wikipedia is lying!" it doesn't help us come together on a common set of facts.
And THAT is the hilariously unforeseen end result of the information era. We have gone beyond misinformation to some ridiculous meta level of misinformation
about misinformation, where nobody can find common ground, because all opposing sources of information have been labeled "garbage" by the people in the opposing tribe.
This isn't the future I was promised. Nobody, not even Philip K Dick, could have foreseen this sideshow.
I'm not in any tribe. I don't even vote
I'm not in any tribe. I don't even vote
If so, you are the only person I have ever met who isn't, to one degree or another.
UT isn't in a tribe; because, he IS a tribe … a Tribe of One!
Be all that you can be, UT.
I'm currently a 0,-3 on the
political compass (0 left-right, -3 authoritarian/libertarian)
My tribe is called heterodoxy
Still a lefty libertarian
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03
I would suggest, though, that when someone (and I'm not saying anyone here) takes a position that requires you to believe, "Snopes is lying!" or "Wikipedia is lying!" it doesn't help us come together on a common set of facts.
Jordan Hall's Situational Analyses* tease out what is happening: far larger than politics, it's partly a battle between how sense-making will happen into the future. It's between a "blue church" which represents the sense-making of institutions, and a "red faith" which represents the sense-making of "decentralized collective intelligence".
The institutions usually get things right, but are subject to failure. One example of how institutions failed was in the Covington Catholic kids incident, where the actual video proved out that the institutional narrative was mostly wrong. The institutional narrative was boxed in and accepted the first, edited video at its face.
In the case of Andy Ngo, I have followed a bit of both - the
Portland Mercury, which presented the institutional narrative; and two sense-making videos out of the decentralized intelligence, which analyze the Ngo controversy. One from each side: the progressive David Pakman video dragging Ngo, and the Sargon of Akkad video "Andy Ngo Did Nothing Wrong" which addresses the Pakman video directly. I realize it's fruitless to suggest anyone else take this on; I'm just saying, I did; and there's my due diligence, if it counts for anything... not trying to prove anything
~ And as always, I could easily be wrong... I often am ~
*somehow i am too busy to link but not busy enough not to write all this shit
"blue church" = institutional ?
"red faith" = decentralized ?
I think the colors are reversed. If red means what red means, red has lost the culture war and is pissed about it. There isn't an "institution" of "Hollywood elites" and "activist judges" it's literally the decentralized opinions of the majority of individual Americans. For example, we collectively, de-centrally oppose racism despite the institution of racism still existing.
I wish he'd just taken the "colors" out of this.
I am not prepared to take Sargon of Akkad seriously.
I'm a Larry Elder fan; I'm not prepared to take "institutional racism" seriously.
The Left, in its perennial battle to divide and then rule, thinks too much about, and assigns too much weight to, ah... complexion. This thinking is superstition in action.
The Left, and the properly-called illiberals, will never be liberated from race-based thinking and its attendant foibles until they cease to think about ... complexion... at all.
If you hold your breath waiting for that, you'll have an interesting bluish color-problem. "Are you bluish? You look bluish..."
It's not just institutions, it's "sense-making institutions", the sources that tell us what is happening and what the narrative is.
Let's do this, then. Here's a fair question.
IMO, the losers are the ones who inflict the violence in this scenario. That's my position and it's also the position of rule of law.
So under what conditions, in America, is it acceptable to strike an unarmed diminutive Asian guy standing on the side of the street filming you?
But Ngo wasn't a victim. He intentionally orchestrated that event
Please tell us how. He wasn't being provocative... unarmed, non-threatening, not saying a word, not doing anything, just filming them. Do you figure they are allowed to strike him because they didn't like what he showed on his videos, or what he said about them? Be honest.
and then lied about his injuries.
The people using weapons, striking him, causing him to bleed, be taken to the hospital, held overnight, these are all facts. Most of them are on videos that I've personally watched in order to verify what's going on.
That's actually enough for me. I don't need him to have a brain hemorrhage to identify the losers in this scenario, but please, if you know he
lied about having a hemorrhage, let us know how you know.
Let's do this, then. Here's a fair question.
IMO, the losers are the ones who inflict the violence in this scenario. That's my position and it's also the position of rule of law.
So under what conditions, in America, is it acceptable to strike an unarmed diminutive Asian guy standing on the side of the street filming you?
Please tell us how. He wasn't being provocative... unarmed, non-threatening, not saying a word, not doing anything, just filming them. Do you figure they are allowed to strike him because they didn't like what he showed on his videos, or what he said about them? Be honest.
If that man is actively conspiring with the people who are out to hurt people, then he is just as guilty and I have no moral issue with it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/journalist-andy-ngo-out-at-quillette-after-controversial-video-surfaces
The Portland Mercury published video on Monday that appears to show him watching the right-wing group Patriot Prayer making plans for a violent clash at a bar, which he did not report or try to stop. The website published a story from "Ben," a pseudonym, who spent two years undercover with Patriot Prayer. Some of the people involved in the brawl now face felony riot charges.
The people using weapons, striking him, causing him to bleed, be taken to the hospital, held overnight, these are all facts. Most of them are on videos that I've personally watched in order to verify what's going on.
I am not disputing the order of events.
That's actually enough for me. I don't need him to have a brain hemorrhage to identify the losers in this scenario, but please, if you know he lied about having a hemorrhage, let us know how you know.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/
But it wasn’t until Ngo was attacked at the June rally that he truly ascended to the ranks of right-wing media shit-stirrer. “Attacked by antifa. Bleeding. They stole my camera equipment. No police until after. waiting for ambulance . If you have evidence Of attack please help,” he tweeted, later adding that he had been diagnosed at the ER with a brain hemorrhage and that antifa had thrown quick-dry cement milkshakes at him. (This claim was later debunked.) Footage also surfaced on Twitter of Ngo at the rally, being doused with a milkshake and silly string, and getting punched by an antifascist protester.
Link to debunking is provided in the text of the RS article.
It's not just institutions, it's "sense-making institutions", the sources that tell us what is happening and what the narrative is.
And it's blue. Because red doesn't have a narrative. It's just honest, hard-workin' truck drivers using their goddang common sense.
The conspiratorial allegations stem from a single unnamed source via the Portland Mercury story; and his video showing Ngo, walking up on the opposing element, and kind of listening in on a conversation where the side discussed where they expected a fight.
This is supposed to prove he was not reporting on the other side. But it was well understood that both sides expected a fight. It's in their mission statements as they approach the event. Ngo went to film actual violence. Any good reporter would listen in to where the shit would go down and then position himself to film that.
But, even then - all this new narrative came out three months after the attack. During the attack, Ngo was just a guy hated by Antifa for filming them and writing about them. And during the attack on video, he wasn't with Patriot Prayer; nobody defended him; he was hit from all sides, and nobody actually helped him much after the attack.
Not debunked here is the information that he had a brain hemorrhage. Debunked is the information that quick dry cement was used. The source was the Portland Police Department. At the time Ngo spoke about that, the police were still looking for information about it. The next day it was generally not found to be the case.
Does Ngo have a bias. Probably - his parents met at a Communist prison camp, so he may notice a mob of Communists becoming violent, and decide that's in his interest to report on. I won't fault him for it.
At least, he should not get beaten up for it.
In this instance, the "sense-making institutions" are the Portland Mercury, the Washington Examiner, and Rolling Stone. The "distributed sense-making non-institutions" are everyone on social media examining the raw video in detail and teasing out additional details and discussing the story.
Distributed sense-making non-institution is what is happening right here right now. You may find that the institutions are not blue and the non-institutions are not red. That's fine, and it's easy to find red institutions as well. But there is a disparity going on and it's interesting to see.
so we're the "red" part, and the newspapers are the "blue" part?
Isn't this just the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate?
Do a majority of individual Americans support some kind of common-sense gun regulation reform because a "blue" media institution is beaming that message into the hive-mind, or because they individually don't want their kids to die in a pool of blood in their algebra classroom?
Trick question-- "red" and "blue" individuals BOTH want gun reform. Red INSTITUTIONS do not. Red INSTITUTIONS don't believe in climate change. Red INSTITUTIONS want tax cuts for the obscenely rich. These are just the low-hanging fruit. If you can name a couple of "blue" ones, does it constitute a disparity?
Isn't this just the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate?
Do a majority of individual Americans support some kind of common-sense gun regulation reform because a "blue" media institution is beaming that message into the hive-mind, or because they individually don't want their kids to die in a pool of blood in their algebra classroom?
Trick question-- "red" and "blue" individuals BOTH want gun reform. Red INSTITUTIONS do not. Red INSTITUTIONS don't believe in climate change. Red INSTITUTIONS want tax cuts for the obscenely rich. These are just the low-hanging fruit. If you can name a couple of "blue" ones, does it constitute a disparity?
This is an excellent point. I am neither a dem (except in self-defense, at this particular point in time) nor a republican by nature. I am one of those mixed-market semi-socialist types.
I just have an innate hatred of fascists, probably as a result of being knee high to my great uncles when they talked about the war.
As such, I am perfectly content with the disconnect inherent in believing in the rule of law AND believing in hitting low-rent Nazis with bricks until all the badness leaks out of them.
And I didn't need prompting from the media to be that way. It is my natural, knee-jerk reaction to bastards holding Tiki torches and chanting "The Jews will not replace us."
"Red" cheerleaders want us to believe that "blue" ideas are part of an institution, exactly because this is the opposite of the truth. "Red" has lost the culture war with INDIVIDUAL Americans. The "free-thinking maverick" narrative is just intellectual cosplay. Up there with the "I'm not allowed to say this" clowns.
FFS. Here's Jordan Hall's piece where he describes the Blue Church. I can't do it near justice.
These are the core concepts to understand [strike]the Blue Church[/strike].
corrected: how *human civilization* works
WHY IS IT B L U E ? ? ?
...
it solves the problem of 20th Century social complexity through the use of mass media to generate manageable social coherence.
[SIZE="4"]WHY IS IT B L U E ? ? ?[/SIZE]
As it turns out, this fact played an important role in precisely how the Blue Church came to be, why it ended up allied with the Democratic Establishment and why it chose the particular content of the Faith. More on that in the next post perhaps.
PERHAPS !!! maybe not though
If you feel like you are in a position to help the small group of people who are gathering around trying to at least begin to ask the right questions, drop me a line.
:::galaxy-brain virtue signalling intensifies:::
"Is your intellectual power level 'over 9,000' but people at parties keep saying 'stop bothering me' and 'I have a boyfriend' ? Join our *super special group* of intellectually gifted God-men. It's like MENSA but without an entrance exam!"
smarter than me is all i know
welp. I guess that is the key measure lol
And anyway, Ngo's claim wasn't that his injuries were from quikrete milkshakes.
Ngo's claim was that his injuries were from fiberglass-reinforced tactical combat gloves.
It will be up to everyone to look at his skull bleeding from multiple locations to work out for yourselves whether that's true.
You could also watch the footage from the previous rally a few months earlier, where he was sprayed directly in the eyes and face with bear repellant.
None of the propagators of this violence have been charged or ever arrested.
Now apparently being against this sort of thing puts me on the "other side". :eyeroll: Appalling.
This is why I don't vote: I see the game y'all are enjoying so well, and I think it's the most horrible and dangerous thing I've ever seen in this culture. I will not be a direct part of that.
Well, whatever you do, don't think your opinions keep you safe from this violence visiting your house. That's not how the mob works. It only takes one person in the mob to turn on you, and the fiberglass-reinforced tactical combat gloves will be on your skull.
Your only defense, and you should be engaging that defense right now, is to be against the use of fiberglass-reinforced tactical combat gloves. Or plain old dairy milkshakes. Or ANY sort of violence. First and foremost. Don't make your first priority working out how somehow it's okay. It's not okay.
Join my tribe. In my tribe we love everyone. Especially our enemies.
He was just filming them. It's not okay.
If you want to make it about sides, both "sides" brought stuff to shoot the other side. One side brought a camera.
If you want violent revolution, seriously, GFYS.
[YOUTUBE]uqbB9veVOQE[/YOUTUBE]
This is why I don't vote: I see the game y'all are enjoying so well, and I think it's the most horrible and dangerous thing I've ever seen in this culture. I will not be a direct part of that.
And this helps how?
When they came for the journalists I did nothing... you know the rest.
Treating all opposition as "they" is the far far far bigger problem.
Yeah, I'll buy that, it makes dialog impossible.
But going to the polling place and standing outside singing Kumbaya is better than nothing.
If you don't vote they win, doesn't matter which they.
I think your position shows the advantage of living large which won't be changed by the outcome. We wring our hands and quiver with predictions of the end of civilization as we know it, when in truth we vote and go home to the same life regardless of who wins. Damn few are affected in the short term by the results, and short term is the concern of most Americans.
Would you stay home from the poll if one of the candidates swore to take away Katkeeper's Social Security and medicare?
Outcome won't change things: precisely;
And it's funny: no candidate would ever suggest touching Social Security and Medicare... in the time I've watched, they remain pretty untouched... but every election season I've paid attention to, the sides work out how to suggest the other side will fuck them up. It's all about the sides!
True, but the threat that people might vote keeps so much money moving and so many people employed it's good for the economy.
I know SS and Medicare are always a football but both them and us know the shitstorm that would result by fucking with either.
That's why I worded that to be a definite threat to Mom so would likely prompt you to action.
But today it doesn't matter, only your birthday matters, and you'll probably get laid tonight too. Woo Woo!
Sorry. Yes, if a candidate actually threatened either I would be motivated to actually vote against them.
… Ngo's claim was that his injuries were from fiberglass-reinforced tactical combat gloves.
It will be up to everyone to look at his skull bleeding from multiple locations to work out for yourselves whether that's true.
You could also watch the footage from the previous rally a few months earlier, where he was sprayed directly in the eyes and face with bear repellant.
Really! He couldn't wear a sports helmet and surplus gas mask while filming? These things are cheap and they work. I thought everyone knew that violent actors can infiltrate peaceful demonstrations to further their personal agendas. You make this guy sound stupid.
He was just filming them. It's not okay.
Sigh... Here is other footage from Andy Ngo himself, from before the fight started. In the first clip, starting around 2:24, the right wing folks he's hanging out with say they're trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing so that they don't accidentally pepper spray themselves. "Ha ha, that would suck," says Ngo. "I think... it's blowing that way."
In the second clip, starting at 3:41, he asks his compatriots, "And how long until Gibson gets here, and we have, like, some more numbers?" There's some crosstalk, and then another guy says, "Who's the guy with the weapon here? Me!" "That is some rad shit!," replies Ngo.
[YOUTUBE]MMe6EgVaGh8[/YOUTUBE]
Fighting is bad. Injuries are bad. Weapons are bad. But Andy Ngo does not believe these things, and he is not on "your" side when it comes to nonviolence.
None of the propagators of this violence have been charged or ever arrested.
Yes, they have. Three antifa folks were arrested in the Portland clash; Gage Halupowski plead guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison, James Stocks plead guilty and was sentenced to a year probation, and Maria DeHart plead not guilty and her trial is pending.
If you want violent revolution, seriously, GFYS.
I totally agree.
But we need Andy Ngo to be good, so that Antifa and everything they stand for is bad and we never have to talk about it again.
Here is other footage from Andy Ngo himself, from before the fight started. In the first clip, starting around 2:24, the right wing folks he's hanging out with say they're trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing so that they don't accidentally pepper spray themselves. "Ha ha, that would suck," says Ngo. "I think... it's blowing that way."
In the second clip, starting at 3:41, he asks his compatriots, "And how long until Gibson gets here, and we have, like, some more numbers?" There's some crosstalk, and then another guy says, "Who's the guy with the weapon here? Me!" "That is some rad shit!," replies Ngo.
No. The man filming, and saying what you say Andy Ngo said, is not Andy Ngo. Andy Ngo is the guy on his phone at the beginning of the clip.
The guy filming and speaking is an Antifa infiltrator of the right-wing group. He's the source for the Portland Mercury story.
The claim is that Andy Ngo overheard this discussion and didn't report it.
In the longer unedited video, it's pretty clear that Andy Ngo is *near* them a good bit of time. There's nothing in particular that makes it seem that he's *with* them. He's not directly involved in any discussions. You might say it's damning enough that he's near them for a good bit of time. He wasn't near them when he got attacked.
I am puzzled by the implication that antifa is an organization. It's not, at least not more than at a strictly local level. It's a set of beliefs. A motivation, rather than a group.
Treating all opposition as "they" is the far far far bigger problem.
There are people who WANT a free republic and a libertarian social order, and there are those like Adam Schiff (D-CA) and James Comey, who DO NOT. These are people who have altogether forgotten the law. They palpably want us to forget the law too.
One is the enemy. Not labeled. Self-made, self-appointed. Also probably did not do well in high-school civics.
There are people who WANT a free republic and a libertarian social order, and there are those like Adam Schiff (D-CA) and James Comey, who DO NOT. These are people who have altogether forgotten the law. They palpably want us to forget the law too.
One is the enemy. Not labeled. Self-made, self-appointed. Also probably did not do well in high-school civics.
The idea that this country is based on libertarianism was answered, by many of the same people that wrote the articles of confederation and the subsequent constitution, with the response to Shay's Rebellion.
You need to brush up on what libertarianism really is -- and consider that pure anything social theories do not sustain in actual societies. They perish of exposure to life and necessity -- apparently I need to remind you that I understand this. Puritans became Congregationalists within three generations, and so forth.
Off the top of my head, there was the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, and one of these (which one was it?) generated about three bloody noses total. The other one didn't.
It's a mild affray when *all* the casualties can say, "Ow. Quit it."
You need to brush up on what libertarianism really is -- and consider that pure anything social theories do not sustain in actual societies. They perish of exposure to life and necessity -- apparently I need to remind you that I understand this. Puritans became Congregationalists within three generations, and so forth.
Off the top of my head, there was the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, and one of these (which one was it?) generated about three bloody noses total. The other one didn't.
It's a mild affray when *all* the casualties can say, "Ow. Quit it."
Shay's rebellion had, IIRC, 2 fatalities. But the point was made all the same.
And as for the whiskey rebellion, I think there was a single fatality.
But again, the point was driven home. Within the bounds of the constitution, the government is not libertarian in nature and has never been so.
At the moment, it is nowhere near it. Not even in the same area code. Pretty sure you agree with me, but for entirely different reasons.
Ah, there's your problem, then. You thought I said "government." Not so. I said "society." A distinction between the two is legitimate to make.
Ah, there's your problem, then. You thought I said "government." Not so. I said "society." A distinction between the two is legitimate to make.
If it took a couple of hundred years to get to the point where Black folks can be hired and Gay folks can walk the streets without being killed, then I'd argue that any libertarianism involved has been for one select group. By which I mean straight white males.
For the most part, things are better, but I can obviously not speak for toddlers in cages.
Our society is by nature an oligarchy.
I am puzzled by the implication that antifa is an organization. It's not, at least not more than at a strictly local level. It's a set of beliefs. A motivation, rather than a group.
That's odd,
why isn't there an official group?
That's odd, why isn't there an official group?
They voted against it at the convention.
And as for the whiskey rebellion, I think there was a single fatality.
It almost burned down the entire town of Pittsburgh. I believe whiskey was used to smooth those savage beasts.
That's odd, why isn't there an official group?
I would guess it's set up in cells. Making it the sort of organization the right would immediately assume is Communist influenced so they can automatically punch them in the street. They are the equal and opposite of the fascist groups which can punched without remorse from the left. We, chimp nation, are in trouble if we can't stand peacefully against extremists.
I would guess it's set up in cells. M
It's not even that.
Kamala Harris is winnowed out, and this Libertarian says "Damned good riddance."
I'm hoping Biden is winnowed out next. His shitty insistence that Hunter didn't do anything illegal completely ignores that his son gets a free ticket for being his son. Trump would crush him in a general election despite being profoundly more corrupt.
We also know that Putin handles oligarchs with ease. He plays Trump like a balalaika. I suspect Bloomberg would be a simple guy to control as well.
Trump would crush him in a general election despite being profoundly more corrupt.
Absolutely. If Biden is nominated, and Trump hasn't resigned and/or been removed, Trump will win a second term.
I'm still with Mayor Pete.
I've stopped predicting politics in the era of Trump. I have no fucking clue what other people are thinking.
But I would point out that Virginia swung blue this last election and it's a fairly decent predictor of the country.
I've stopped predicting politics in the era of Trump.
I keep thinking how hard/impossible it will be for a lot of Republican politicians to dissociate themselves from Trump, if he should become political poison. Because of the way he demands loyalty, they're irrevocably attached to him.
And now, he's under scrutiny for something that we all know he's guilty of. Republicans will either stick by his side-- knowing that he's guilty, or go against him-- which means a complete, career-ending ostracization. But the Republicans are too invested to go against him, now. So that means, either he faces consequences--and they face consequences for being associated with him, or he doesn't, and... [this part I can't figure out]. What happens when you can do anything and nothing happens? It's, like a political singularity.
I keep thinking how hard/impossible it will be for a lot of Republican politicians to dissociate themselves from Trump,
A direct quote from a top Congressional Republican (forgot which one):
Trump IS the Republican Party.
Depends on what your definition of IS, is.
Depends on what your definition of IS, is.
Among factors cited (by others) is a large exodus of moderates from reelection and the Republican party.
I'm hoping Biden is winnowed out next. His shitty insistence that Hunter didn't do anything illegal completely ignores that his son gets a free ticket for being his son. Trump would crush him in a general election despite being profoundly more corrupt.
We also know that Putin handles oligarchs with ease. He plays Trump like a balalaika. I suspect Bloomberg would be a simple guy to control as well.
Biden exists right now to take the heat.
In
that, he is doing just fine.
I keep thinking how hard/impossible it will be for a lot of Republican politicians to dissociate themselves from Trump, if he should become political poison. Because of the way he demands loyalty, they're irrevocably attached to him.
Exactly this. This is what they signed up for.
This Washington Examiner piece notes that Biden was an enormous hypocrite in the 80s - as were all politicians in the 80s, and also, the 90s, 00s, 10s, and will be next decade.
But in the 80s, Biden was a huge drug warrior, actually
helped write some of the harshest drug war legislation; including the legislation to appoint a drug csar, increase mandatory minimum sentences, and to treat crack more harshly than powder cocaine... legislation which, in the long run, wound up actually starting the modern idea of justice reform!
But, in 1988, the first year Biden ran for President, Hunter Biden was arrested for drugs and, through a program, had his record expunged. Biden was obsessed with very harsh "drug war" policies-- this came back into our minds recently when he said that pot might be a gateway drug, it just needs to be "studied" more. Guess why we haven't studied it?
I think it was a piece on The Young Turks where they examined how much he was an "architect" of the drug war, and poured his energy into pushing for it. That's a lot of incarceration.
He simply hasn't kept up. Most people really do stop learning much in their dotage, present company excepted.
present company excepted.
Same here. :D:angel:
Large numbers of prosecutors have gone through this same mindset changes. In the 80s, most in power associated marijuana with heroine. Since then, large numbers of prosecutors (and lawmakers) have reassessed their attitude.
One noteworthy exception was Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Other prosecutors noted him as a fair and reasonable prosecutor. But also note he just could not accept the reassessment that so many others had switched to.
This Biden example is simply consistent with attitude changes by most in law enforcement.
maybe this will color the next election a little.
Not really a front-runner, obviously, but Julian Castro dropped out today.
Elizabeth Warren is a big fat serial liar. She lied about her heritage, she lied about why she was canned from her teaching position, and she is now lying about the Bernie meeting. This is only my guess and my opinion.
Elizabeth Warren is a big fat serial liar. She lied about her heritage, she lied about why she was canned from her teaching position, and she is now lying about the Bernie meeting. This is only my guess and my opinion.
You cannot run for the office of the president without being a gigantic Goddamn liar.
It's part of the job description.
That's a horrible thing to say. :mg:
Everyone knows it's true, but a horrible thing to say.;)
That's a horrible thing to say. :mg:
Everyone knows it's true, but a horrible thing to say.;)
Hey, if the president has to be dishonest, it is left to us to be honest.
I mean, seriously, what kind of person wants to be president? You basically have to give up integrity and anything resembling dignity, just to be in charge of a perpetually fucked up mess that cannot be fixed.
That takes amorality, dishonestly, and a certain level of stupidity.
Good pension plan, great fringe benefits, and for the first lady those secret service guys are kind of hunky.
Good pension plan, great fringe benefits, and for the first lady those secret service guys are kind of hunky.
I get the first two just being corporate swine. I have the better deal.
If ads served up to me on social media mean anything, this is a race between Trump and Bloomberg, and Bloomberg is going to win. By a landslide.
Isn't he the nut who limited the size of soft drinks people could buy in NYC? :eyebrow:
ETA: Meh, I've seen pictures of his daughters. If Ivanka stays, Trump still gets the dirty old man vote.
[COLOR="White"].
.
.[/COLOR]
If ads served up to me on social media mean anything, this is a race between Trump and Bloomberg, and Bloomberg is going to win. By a landslide.
Nope. It's gonna be Bernie...and he'll lose.
Elizabeth Warren is a big fat serial liar. She lied about her heritage,
Trump states multiple lies far more egregious and daily. If criticizing anybody for lying (if honest), then your every post criticizes The Don. A benchmark for corrupt lying.
He lies so often that any discussion of liars must always discuss the worst - The Don.
Nobody cares what her heritage is - except wacko extremists - who also lied about a birthing movement. And knew they were lying. Why do you not apologize for that lie?
Nothing matters until after Iowa. History repeatedly demonstrates it.
It matters, it just doesn't reveal itself until after Iowa. :haha:
Nope. It's gonna be Bernie...and he'll lose.
Right now the momentum seems to be with Bernie. He could lose if he completely alienates the middle and young people don't turnout. I think he'd win unless voter suppression is super effective.
You guys aren't getting all the Bloomberg ads? Maybe it's because I'm in Virginia. It's remarkable how many. And he's not even officially a candidate yet.
Whatever he's doing, it's not in Texas. But we almost never get political ads of any kind here, and I'm not on Facebook.
I'm not sure Bloomberg gets how fed up America is with rich guys from NYC.
He hit the football games over the weekend, but I'm not sure tv is a great place to reach folks anymore. He'll reach the older boomers there I guess.
Right now the momentum seems to be with Bernie. He could lose if he completely alienates the middle and young people don't turnout. I think he'd win unless voter suppression is super effective.
You mean
he'll win if enough dead people can be persuaded to vote, yeah?
I'm not sure Bloomberg gets how fed up America is with rich guys from NYC.
Why are rich guys from WA (Bill Gates) admired? America should be tired of rich guys who even encourage KKK, White Supremacists and Nazis. Who inspire hate and derision. Its not rich guys.
Who does Fox News interview after the murder of Soleimani? The many guys who lied about Saddam's WMDs and who openly endorsed torture.
Unfortunately American has a large militaristic mentality inspired by bigger guns, hate of anyone who is productive, innovative, or different, and a need to '
wreck shit'. Fox News (the real fake news) openly promotes this hatred and derision. Only some rich guys get support by endorsing and encouraging extremists. Using same techniques pioneered by Hitler. No reason to paint all with the same brush.
I love this thread Clodfobble.
I have been loathe to engage it however. I just finished watching the debate among the Democratic contenders... I'm exhausted.
Please. God.
Never Trump.
I'll vote for Log before I do anything to perpetuate/facilitate/enable/capitulate to another minute the reign of Trump.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]-fQGPZTECYs[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
God Help Us.
^Even in a thread about Democrats, Trump steals the show.^
It's not just what he does, it's who he is and how he got to be where he is now. Thanks for the perpetuation/facilitation/enabling/capitulation.
I'm already done with this election cycle. Pete really wanted to watch last night but finally admitted defeat a few minutes in and watched Nova. At their best politicians can inspire like Kennedy or Reagan. Uplifting is not in the playbook this cycle when we need it the most.
Even in a thread about Democrats, Trump steals the show.
It's a Chinese finger trap where everyone is stuck and they are all pulling as hard as they possibly can.
Pulling has worked every time before, so.
With this group of Dems, their playbook is like a war without a defined goal (other than to displace some individual in power). People are sick of that. They don't want engagements that serve only the political realm. They want a goal that serves the people. Trump said MAGA and gave Americans a goal for everyone. The end trumps the means.
There are certainly better ways of going about it. Dems just aren't astute enough to take advantage of that unifying message by taking it to the next level - MADA (Make America Dignified Again). It's obvious from the current crop of contenders and infighting in the Democratic party that they don't have what it takes to do that anymore than Trump.
Democrats don't have a unifying vision. All they have is political correctness. That drives apathy. The Republican party isn't much better. Trump's eclectic style; however, keeps people engaged. The Dems are failing to put forth a candidate who can commandeer that; so, they're falling by the wayside.
The end trumps the means.
I put that in there just for you. ;)
David Frum tweeted
"Most Americans are satisfied with most things in the country except the character of the president.
This is not a time for socialist revolution . It's a time for ethical renewal."
Precisely; but as you say, the left's current idea of ethical renewal is stuck in identity, which is what got T elected the first time, so whaddya gonna do? Both sides need a sea change to get out of the trap.
Time for a new party, the Cellar Party, we'll straighten those fuckers out. ;)
Time for a new party, the Cellar Party, we'll straighten those fuckers out. ;)
You just let me arrange the debates. I'll have this shit fixed
proper.
Time for a new party, the Cellar Party, we'll straighten those fuckers out. ;)
We'll be known as the type-righter party.
Our opponents will have a monkey on their backs.
We'll send political correctness to Coventry
Our headquarters will be called the User CP!
Smokin' Joe was supposed to be the guy, but he's diminished, so: no, Joe.
Bernie should be the guy but the Old Guard ain't ready for a full-blown embrace of communism, er, socialism, so: no, Bernie
Petey was supposed to fall away like the rest but, right now, he looks to be the only thing the Dems got, so: go, Petey!
Am I wrong?
Smokin' Joe was supposed to be the guy, but he's diminished, so: no, Joe.
Bernie should be the guy but the Old Guard ain't ready for a full-blown embrace of communism, er, socialism, so: no, Bernie
Petey was supposed to fall away like the rest but, right now, he looks to be the only thing the Dems got, so: go, Petey!
Am I wrong?
I'm okay with Warren, Sanders, or Buttigieg, in that order. Joe can go home.
Yang's out. I don't see a unifier left on the Democrat side, gonna be a bumpy ride. Oh well, back to Independent.
They gave him the Bernie 2016 treatment.
Hot take Neutral Evil Bloomburg: A victory by the left wing oligarch will create at least as big a back-lash as Trumpy. I believe he can be as shitty as Trump during an election cycle which likely suppresses independent turn-out.
Left wing? He's running because he doesn't want Bernie or Warren to raise his taxes, and didn't think Biden was doing well enough against them.
Hmm.
I'm going to need to start thinking about these guys. Super Tuesday is in about two weeks.
Biden tanking in Iowa really messed things up for the DNC.. no wonder they tried to sit on those results. After the first two primaries, polling shows Bernie went up by double digits at the same time Biden dropped by that amount--they literally swapped places. Total nightmare scenario for the establishment.
And now the mass foot-shooting begins. The guy who is their front runner, who has massive popularity and unlimited fundraising, is actually winning, but they can't stop trying to smear him. "He will be horrible and ruin America and he's a Communist and there will be public executions and brownshirts!" they cry, in a total palms-sweating panic.
About the guy who is winning. :smack:
Biden tanking in Iowa really messed things up for the DNC.. no wonder they tried to sit on those results. After the first two primaries, polling shows Bernie went up by double digits at the same time Biden dropped by that amount--they literally swapped places. Total nightmare scenario for the establishment.
And now the mass foot-shooting begins. The guy who is their front runner, who has massive popularity and unlimited fundraising, is actually winning, but they can't stop trying to smear him. "He will be horrible and ruin America and he's a Communist and there will be public executions and brownshirts!" they cry, in a total palms-sweating panic.
About the guy who is winning. :smack:
Like I say:
the Old Guard ain't ready for a full-blown embrace of communism, er, socialism, so: no, Bernie.
Like I say: the Old Guard ain't ready for a full-blown embrace of communism, er, socialism, so: no, Bernie.
Here's the problem, though. He is projected to win EVERY STATE except two on Super Tuesday. Including Texas and California. He WILL be the candidate. They might not "like it" but short of having him ASSASSINATED, he WILL be the candidate.
So, how long do they go on, rat-ƒucking their own guy??
Saying, "He'll lose, like McGovern" is saying that DEMOCRATS will lose.
So, how long do they go on, rat-ƒucking their own guy??
I would ask the same thing of the Bernie or Bust crowd from 2016.
I don't know anyone, not one single person, who didn't vote for Clinton after voting Bernie in the Primary. Bernie himself rallied for HRC. He was gracious, he never went negative. It's time to stop the fairy tales. It's like Democrats WANT to lose.
I don't know anyone, not one single person, who didn't vote for Clinton after voting Bernie in the Primary. Bernie himself rallied for HRC. He was gracious, he never went negative. It's time to stop the fairy tales. It's like Democrats WANT to lose.
6% of Sanders voters either stayed home or voted for Trump.
The fact that you personally didn't know any isn't evidence.
You know there's an election THIS year, right?
Are you going to write-in HRC to get revenge on those gosh-darned Bernie Bros? :litebulb:
You have to recognize Hillary's strategy. She's using reverse psychology by berating Bernie Sanders, figuring that all those who voted for Trump to spite her last time around will vote for Bernie to spite her this time around. That way she gets rid of Trump and the Dems get back in power to toss her a bone. Evil genius.
Might as well use their hate for a good purpose, I suppose.
It won't work. The Dems aren't astute enough to reassure people that they won't let Hillary back into government; so, Trump will get the votes to make sure she doesn't.
If Hillary kicks the bucket before the election though, that'll be a game changer.
You know there's an election THIS year, right?
Are you going to write-in HRC to get revenge on those gosh-darned Bernie Bros? :litebulb:
What? No. I will be voting against Trump. Nominate anyone. Nominate a ham sandwich, I will vote for it over Trump. Hell, I would even vote for myself over Trump, and there is nobody on this Earth that wants me in the oval office.
What? No. I will be voting against Trump. Nominate anyone. Nominate a ham sandwich, I will vote for it over Trump. Hell, I would even vote for myself over Trump, and there is nobody on this Earth that wants me in the oval office.
Why?
Seriously, why?
Specifically, why?
Why?
Seriously, why?
Specifically, why?
Because he's a two bit, low-rent fascist who has done more damage to our system than any other president.
And when I say "fascist", I mean "fascist", not "someone I don't like."
Because he's a two bit, low-rent fascist who has done more damage to our system than any other president.
And when I say "fascist", I mean "fascist", not "someone I don't like."
What damage, specifically?
What damage, specifically?
You mean, aside from trashing the military for his stupid wall, making toddler gulags an actual thing, installing lobbyists as the heads of their opposing agencies, ripping up our alliances, trashing the cattle industry by backing out of the TPP, and using the government as his personal cash cow?
and then the 2nd month...
Henry, as I understand your position you want hands off businesses, no government regulations.
Here's what happens with no regulations and this is in warm & fuzzy Canada, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't be the same or worse here.
No regulations."trashing the military for his stupid wall"
How much did my employee divert? How badly did soldiers get stung?
#
"making toddler gulags an actual thing"
When exactly did cagin' illegal aliens start?
#
"installing lobbyists as the heads of their opposing agencies"
Surely, my employee is not the first to scratch backs?
#
"ripping up our alliances"
Takin' care of nations that can fend for themselves isn't 'alliance', it's 'babysitting'.
#
"trashing the cattle industry by backing out of the TPP"
Don't know nuthin' about the cattle industry. Me, I favor individual contract and treaty (individual to individual) not blanket affairs.
#
"using the government as his personal cash cow"
My employee is raidin' the coffers? I want his orange head on a stick! Help a brother out and lay some specifics on me.
"Henry, as I understand your position you want hands off businesses, no government regulations."
Yep, in a free nation, with minimal watchmen proxies, with self-reliant and -directing citizens.
Today, in a controlled nation, with a monstrous government, with a largely domesticated citizenry: nope.
My employee is raidin' the coffers? I want his orange head on a stick! Help a brother out and lay some specifics on me.
We could start with his financial interest in the steel that's going into the wall.
Or just the fact that he deliberately billets his secret service and occasional military members in his hotels and charges book.
I mean, if you're okay with corruption, I can see how none of this would bother you.
"
Surely, my employee is not the first to scratch backs?
Okay. So these aren't actually principles, just he's "your employee."
:neutral:
We could start with his financial interest in the steel that's going into the wall.
Or just the fact that he deliberately billets his secret service and occasional military members in his hotels and charges book.
I mean, if you're okay with corruption, I can see how none of this would bother you.
As I say, as long as he's doin' what I hired him to do, I don't care about the rest.
More broadly: in my experience, folks only get their knickers in a twist about corruption when it's the other tribe's corruption.
Okay. So these aren't actually principles, just he's "your employee."
:neutral:
My principles are paramount in this: I believe I own myself. I believe I have the right to self-defend. The
gov is my enemy: it'll kill me or leash me. Trump is a jagged broken beer bottle for me to hold up to the
whore's throat.
Trump, as I say, is an instrument.
My principles are paramount in this: I believe I own myself. I believe I have the right to self-defend. The gov is my enemy: it'll kill me or leash me. Trump is a jagged broken beer bottle for me to hold up to the whore's throat.
Trump, as I say, is an instrument.
So, using fascism as a means to secure freedom.
That's certainly one for the books.
So, using fascism as a means to secure freedom.
That's certainly one for the books.
Is this...
Definition of fascism
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality
— J. W. Aldridge
...happening?
Where? I'm not seein' it. I, personally, am not experiencin' it (and, I don't think you are either).
Henry, as someone who believes in letting other people do their thing, I assume you must be in favor of very loose immigration policies?
Henry, as someone who believes in letting other people do their thing, I assume you must be in favor of very loose immigration policies?
Yep, in a free nation, with minimal watchmen proxies, with self-reliant and -directing citizens.
Come: take cafe of yourself.
Today, in a controlled nation, with a monstrous government, with a largely domesticated citizenry: nope.
Stay where you are: I don't wanna pay for you.
Is this...
Definition of fascism
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality
— J. W. Aldridge
...happening?
Where? I'm not seein' it. I, personally, am not experiencin' it (and, I don't think you are either).
If you don't see it coming up to speed, you are simply not wanting to see it.
If you don't see it coming up to speed, you are simply not wanting to see it.
mebbe
could be, though, it just ain't happenin'
If you don't see it coming up to speed, you are simply not wanting to see it.
mebbe
could be, though, it just ain't happenin'
I'm watching the judiciary, if they fail to show independence we've got real trouble. There is no doubt in my mind that Trump has authoritarian tendencies, the resiliency of the rest of government would seem to be the question.
Do you have doubt that the Legislative Republicans are all in on authoritarian Trump?
I'm watching the judiciary, if they fail to show independence we've got real trouble. There is no doubt in my mind that Trump has authoritarian tendencies, the resiliency of the rest of government would seem to be the question.
That's a slippery standard, and far too easy to view through a partisan lens.
Me: I'm not worried about judicial independence. I'm watchin' how, over the long haul, the courts move to bolster gov or deplete gov.
Do you have doubt that the Legislative Republicans are all in on authoritarian Trump?
All in on Trump? Sure seems that way.
It's his supposed
fascism/authoritarianism that's on the table.
As I say: I ain't seein' it. And if I, more sensitive to infringements on liberty than most, ain't seein' it, then it probably ain't happenin'.
He can't even get buy-in from the departments he actually controls as part of the Executive branch. The intelligence community is dead-set against him. Fed agencies are all hoping Congress continues to give them the budget they want instead of the budget he asks for. Trump has not gotten his way on much of that stuff.
Y'all are describing the standard partisanship of our age as Fascism, it's almost like y'all have made the label meaningless over decades of manic hyperbole. You should really save the word for when you actually need it.
Here's some of that "free market" goodness.
https://apnews.com/1689fa48a2e177d1f397b95ff0cb97db?fbclid=IwAR1wcIz-UDGDiQppIMW6ktkqEXsNhXd9FCpVrijCqS_YCBh-BumS1kYy53o
yeah, just like most of Bruce's links (the ones he pokes me with), yours ain't about free-enterprise or -markets, not as I reckon them
by definition, if gov is involved as anything other than arbiter of last resort, it ain't
freeHe can't even get buy-in from the departments he actually controls as part of the Executive branch. The intelligence community is dead-set against him. Fed agencies are all hoping Congress continues to give them the budget they want instead of the budget he asks for. Trump has not gotten his way on much of that stuff.
Y'all are describing the standard partisanship of our age as Fascism, it's almost like y'all have made the label meaningless over decades of manic hyperbole. You should really save the word for when you actually need it.
:thumbsup:
yeah, just like most of Bruce's links (the ones he pokes me with), yours ain't about free-enterprise or -markets, not as I reckon them
by definition, if gov is involved as anything other than arbiter of last resort, it ain't free
There is no such thing as a free market. It's not even possible as described, because if it was, no other system could prevent or supplant it because market forces would prevent that interference.
It's a fairy tale, no different in its connection to reality as "true communism in our lifetime."
He can't even get buy-in from the departments he actually controls as part of the Executive branch. The intelligence community is dead-set against him. Fed agencies are all hoping Congress continues to give them the budget they want instead of the budget he asks for. Trump has not gotten his way on much of that stuff.
Y'all are describing the standard partisanship of our age as Fascism, it's almost like y'all have made the label meaningless over decades of manic hyperbole. You should really save the word for when you actually need it.
Just because he isn't good at it doesn't mean he isn't fascist.
Examples:
Wanting to prosecute anyone that said anything bad about him during the impeachment.
Using the "trusted traveler" system as a club to beat New York with, for the purpose of making them stop investigating his taxes. Also defunding bomb-sniffing dogs at ports of entry in NYC for the same reason.
Interfering in the trials and sentencing of his cronies.
Sending "elite" ICE agents to sanctuary cities, which might almost be normal except for the armored vehicles part.
Using the US government to fund his hotels and other personal businesses.
I can go on, if you like.
What you have are good examples of poor leadership, overreach, and corruption. And that's what you should call them, because it would strengthen your argument.
Wanting to prosecute? A real fascist, you wouldn't have to base that example on assumed intentions, you'd just see them being prosecuted. Making them stop investigating his taxes? The media wouldn't have to reach hard to turn this example into a quid pro quo; a real fascist would just make it illegal to investigate his taxes.
And so on. You wouldn't have guesses, and oppositional media working overtime to frame things. Your first go-to example wouldn't be he "wanted" to do something. It would be, he DID something.
Both sides engage in this kind of overstatement; is Bernie's proposal to tax investment transactions SoCiAlIsM? Or just another form of taxation?
There is no such thing as a free market.
Every time I take a job for a client, find what he's lookin' for, and get paid, it's a free market exchange, so: you're wrong.
It's not even possible as described, because if it was, no other system could prevent or supplant it because market forces would prevent that interference.
That's the dumbest assessment I've heard today. An unrestricted transaction (the foundation for a free market) can be pooched the minute the guy with a big(ger) stick noses his way in.
It would be nice if a free market was the kind of superman you describe, but it's not. It's just people transactin' freely.
What you have are good examples of poor leadership, overreach, and corruption. And that's what you should call them, because it would strengthen your argument.
Wanting to prosecute? A real fascist, you wouldn't have to base that example on assumed intentions, you'd just see them being prosecuted. Making them stop investigating his taxes? The media wouldn't have to reach hard to turn this example into a quid pro quo; a real fascist would just make it illegal to investigate his taxes.
And so on. You wouldn't have guesses, and oppositional media working overtime to frame things. Your first go-to example wouldn't be he "wanted" to do something. It would be, he DID something.
Both sides engage in this kind of overstatement; is Bernie's proposal to tax investment transactions SoCiAlIsM? Or just another form of taxation?
:thumbsup:
Free Market
Oxford
noun
an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
Investopedia
The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. ... Free markets are characterized by a spontaneous and decentralized order of arrangements through which individuals make economic decisions.
In a free market economy, the law of supply and demand, rather than a central government, regulates production and labor. ... For example, while the U.S. allows companies to set prices, and workers negotiate wages, the government establishes parameters, such as minimum wages and antitrust laws, that must be followed.
They both are involved in determining the price and production of goods and services. On one hand, capitalism is focused on the creation of wealth and ownership of capital and factors of production, whereas a free market system is focused on the exchange of wealth, or goods and services.
WIKI
In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.
How is Joe-small-business going to fight Faceless-megacorp using privilege-monopoly-scarcity without the government?
Sue them? You'd be destitute before their lawyers ink dried.
Fair and impartial Judge? Who chooses him/her? Who pays him/her?
Your utopian vision of free market is doomed from the start without the government clout.
How is Joe-small-business going to fight Faceless-megacorp using privilege-monopoly-scarcity without the government?
Currently, this joe-small business (me) ain't havin' that problem. When I do, I'll figure it out then.
Your utopian vision of free market is doomed from the start without the government clout.
No, my sensible notions of free enterpise will work well if the rest of you pussies stop runnin' to big brother every time you get the sniffles. You need it, so it's there; stop needing it, watch it shrink.
As for mega corps: they only last as long as big gov lasts. You want 'corp' de-powered? De-power 'gov'.
Again: nuthin' I suggest will work as things are now (in a controlled nation, with a monstrous government, with a largely domesticated citizenry).
This: a free nation, with minimal watchmen proxies, with self-reliant and -directing citizens is where free enterprise, free markets work.
But we'll never have that...cuz of pussies...cuz of you.
What you have are good examples of poor leadership, overreach, and corruption. And that's what you should call them, because it would strengthen your argument.
Wanting to prosecute? A real fascist, you wouldn't have to base that example on assumed intentions, you'd just see them being prosecuted. Making them stop investigating his taxes? The media wouldn't have to reach hard to turn this example into a quid pro quo; a real fascist would just make it illegal to investigate his taxes.
And so on. You wouldn't have guesses, and oppositional media working overtime to frame things. Your first go-to example wouldn't be he "wanted" to do something. It would be, he DID something.
Both sides engage in this kind of overstatement; is Bernie's proposal to tax investment transactions SoCiAlIsM? Or just another form of taxation?
1. You are acting as if fascism occurs the way a light switch operates. Trump is in fact trying to make it defacto illegal to investigate him. Also, the fact that he is not as successful at being a fascist doesn't mean he isn't actually a fascist.
2. Call it what it is. Sanders is in fact a socialist of the Scandinavian school. Trump is a wannabe autocrat.
Mebbre so (but probably not). Still not the same as bein' the out & out fascist you keep sayin' he is.
Out & out? You mean successful? Trump, try as he might, is not successful at being a fascist, in business, or getting the most votes.
Wanting to prosecute? A real fascist, you wouldn't have to base that example on assumed intentions, you'd just see them being prosecuted. Making them stop investigating his taxes? The media wouldn't have to reach hard to turn this example into a quid pro quo; a real fascist would just make it illegal to investigate his taxes.
A real fascist
running a fascist government would do those things. A fascist trying to create a fascist government would denounce anyone preventing him from doing those things, fire people who interfered, when he could, and pressure people who he couldn't yet fire into resigning. And the primary criteria for their replacements in both cases would be personal loyalty to him.
A real fascist running a fascist government would do those things. A fascist trying to create a fascist government would denounce anyone preventing him from doing those things, fire people who interfered, when he could, and pressure people who he couldn't yet fire into resigning. And the primary criteria for their replacements in both cases would be personal loyalty to him.
This is what I was trying to say, and you did a better job of it.
Out & out? You mean successful? Trump, try as he might, is not successful at being a fascist, in business, or getting the most votes.
I don't see the fascism (ain't nobody crapped in my hat),
You wish you were as
lousy a businessman, and he won the electoral (which ought to be revised, not dumped).
And: if America sucks so damn much, why is the big O tryin' so hard to take credit for the results of Trump's first term?
A real fascist running a fascist government would do those things. A fascist trying to create a fascist government would denounce anyone preventing him from doing those things, fire people who interfered, when he could, and pressure people who he couldn't yet fire into resigning. And the primary criteria for their replacements in both cases would be personal loyalty to him.
Mebbe.
Another interpretation: a prez, tryin' to do the job he was hired to, facin' an array of opposition, might just fight back, exercisin' the powers of his office to cut dead weight; to excise folks unwilling to implement policy; to remove active dissenters from his employ; and to ensure he has 'wingmen'.
You see wanna-be fascism; I see common sense.
And: if America sucks so damn much, why is the big O tryin' so hard to take credit for the results of Trump's first term?
Take credit? He pointed out that his second term (let alone his first) had more improvement than Trump's term.
I hate to put Obama and Fred Trump in the same analogy, but Trump was born on third base in both cases, and is claiming he hit a home run.
Take credit? He pointed out that his second term (let alone his first) had more improvement than Trump's term.
I hate to put Obama and Fred Trump in the same analogy, but Trump was born on third base in both cases, and is claiming he hit a home run.
This guy...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-takes-credit-for-the-economic-boom-and-trump-attacks-him-for-it-heres-why-theyre-both-wrong-2020-02-19
...sez both are fulla shit.
This guy...
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/8/the-truth-about-the-trump-economic-boom/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA
...gives Trump credit.
And other propagandists (the usual suspects) lean toward Barry.
Pick your poison.
To the extent that presidents affect the numbers in question, Obama got better numbers. (Compared to what they started with)
A real fascist running a fascist government would do those things. A fascist trying to create a fascist government would denounce anyone preventing him from doing those things, fire people who interfered, when he could, and pressure people who he couldn't yet fire into resigning. And the primary criteria for their replacements in both cases would be personal loyalty to him.
A narcissist just being a narcissist would act in exactly the same way. (Source: I worked for one)
I agree, except for the word "just", and the implication that this refutes or dilutes fascism.
(ain't nobody crapped in my hat)
Haven't gotten down to your level yet, wait till he's got a buddy or donor in your business and area, you'll be gone overnight.
You wish you were as lousy a businessman
That motherfucker put so many small businessmen around here out of business by hiring them and not paying them, saying sue me. I know 2 of them. He should be castrated for the lives of honest working people he's ruined.
A real fascist running a fascist government would do those things. A fascist trying to create a fascist government would denounce anyone preventing him from doing those things, fire people who interfered, when he could, and pressure people who he couldn't yet fire into resigning. And the primary criteria for their replacements in both cases would be personal loyalty to him.
Haven't gotten down to your level yet, wait till he's got a buddy or donor in your business and area, you'll be gone overnight.
That motherfucker put so many small businessmen around here out of business by hiring them and not paying them, saying sue me. I know 2 of them. He should be castrated for the lives of honest working people he's ruined.
Excellent broad view and the closeup of what's happening here.
How's this plan of name calling working out? It's kind of playing by his playground rules, isn't it? Yuh get swept up and pretty soon a thread about Democratic frontrunners is all about him. Because once again, it's all we can talk about.
Then at the end of three years of it, at the end of impeachment, near record and rising approval rating this morning.
James Carville said it last week: he basically said, we can win every argument on healthcare, drug prices, etc. why not have that argument instead of all this crap everyone's mired down in?
aven't gotten down to your level yet, wait till he's got a buddy or donor in your business and area, you'll be gone overnight.
Well, I look up and I ain't seein' any authoritarian/fascistic hoopla goin' on either. And: I'm thinkin' my penny ante money makin' falls well outside the attention of the big boys with their machinations.
That motherfucker put so many small businessmen around here out of business by hiring them and not paying them, saying sue me. I know 2 of them. He should be castrated for the lives of honest working people he's ruined.
Mebbe Mike can teach 'em how to farm, or, they could learn to code.
That is no doubt true. The problem is with letting his activities be normalized.
why not have that argument instead of all this crap everyone's mired down in?
cuz inevitably such a conversation has to address the big fat fuckin' commie squattin' happy at the top of heap.
Nominate Bernie: lose (cuz a-muricah don't want no commie).
Nominate anyone else: lose (cuz all the commie dupes, sympathizers, and card carriers will stay home in November).
Much easier to just, chimp-like, throw crap at my employee.
Well, I look up and I ain't seein' any authoritarian/fascistic hoopla goin' on either. And: I'm thinkin' my penny ante money makin' falls well outside the attention of the big boys with their machinations.
So this is libertarianism? Authoritarianism only matters once you yourself are affected?
Or I could just look at the stock market and BLS graphs.
Yep...and some fella will tell you a prez has little to do with them numbers while another fella will tell you a prez has everything to do with them numbers.
Pick your poison.
Me: I just look at how I'm doin'.
Trump hasn't helped me.
Obama hurt me.
Where you stand as you look at the platypus informs what you think about the platypus.
So this is libertarianism? Authoritarianism only matters once you yourself are affected?
There ain't no authoritarianism goin' on.
Wanna see some?
Elect Bernie.
There ain't no authoritarianism goin' on.
Okay.
PJ Media.
Hang on while I go fetch something from democratic underground or something else as credible as PJ.
PJ Media.
Hang on while I go fetch something from democratic underground or something else as credible as PJ.
Did you not read the disclaimer?
some spicy propagandaFollow the Libertarian persuasion and you can ignore any Democratic solon extant. They seem to be running the gamut between hallucinatory readings of current events and creative writing, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-Burbank CA) serving as an example of both. They are markedly out to lunch on economics and the current economy -- they are banking on your ignorance. Don't give them that win.
Trump didn't get my vote -- in 2016. By me, he's earned four more years; his bitter enemies are actuated not by law nor by ethics, nor by decency, nor by morals, definitely not by the Constitution: they are actuated solely by prejudice, and that taints. Out upon them all!
Follow the Libertarian persuasion and you can ignore any Democratic solon extant.
So give up one set of irrational beliefs for a less rational set of beliefs?
his bitter enemies are actuated not by law nor by ethics, nor by decency, nor by morals, definitely not by the Constitution: they are actuated solely by prejudice,
Prejudice towards ethics, decency, morals, and the Constitution.
Not remotely, HM. Observe their behavior. Ask yourself if "impeachment first, offense (if any) afterwards" is supportable or even endurable, let alone supportive of the Constitution. I say it is not, and I long ago took an oath to support it. Also that those who want to behave that way are antidemocratic fanatics of the first water.
Are you an antidemocrat, fanatical or not? Were you not *so* ready to substitute Party (deliberately capitalized; I consider them ignorant subversives) loyalty for something understandable as ethical thought, I'd be able to recognize you as intelligent and thoughtful.
Would that be nice, or not so nice?
Luce, care to explain in exhaustive detail -- or any detail -- just what's so irrational about free minds, free markets, and the natural, human-nature-friendly flow of capitalism? The people who congratulate themselves on disdaining capitalism are people of no effect and less wealth -- even less of adulthood. Does this amount to a fair if unvarnished description of you? If you *can* want to, prove otherwise. Don't offer excuse -- show me.
You will be much aided if you expose yourself to Dinesh D'Souza. ;) I mean his writing, especially What's So Great About Capitalism. And I suppose secondarily his Stealing America, which is more about his own whitecollar brush with the law than anything of overarching social commentary. That can be found elsewhere.
You do, however, need a hunger for knowledge that's roughly equal to mine.
Yep . . .
Where you stand as you look at the platypus informs what you think about the platypus.
The Creator has a sense of humor.
What's more, they're little and cute. Perhaps "the tough-spined echidna" is cuter, being littler.
Just wanted to mention it.
You will be much aided if you expose yourself to Dinesh D'Souza.
*blink*
As for the rest of your post, how about "no"? I have already stated my case, and I'm terribly sorry to tell you that you aren't my supervisor.
Has it never occurred to you your stated case would not satisfy a tough-spined echidna//Who if you don't mind would prefer that you didna? What you are doing does not persuade anyone as to the worth of emulating it.
You have so far declared in cold print you have *no* argument for believing as you do. I always make my arguments clear, even to those incapable of perceiving. Those -- they have to bear my pity, sorry wretches that they are. A bad religious attachment -- so many cling to the lesser way with a religious devotion -- can really bugger up a mind. Maybe without that "up."
I read, and am made wise.
Has it never occurred to you your stated case would not satisfy a tough-spined echidna//Who if you don't mind would prefer that you didna? What you are doing does not persuade anyone as to the worth of emulating it.
You have so far declared in cold print you have *no* argument for believing as you do. I always make my arguments clear, even to those incapable of perceiving. Those -- they have to bear my pity, sorry wretches that they are. A bad religious attachment -- so many cling to the lesser way with a religious devotion -- can really bugger up a mind. Maybe without that "up."
I read, and am made wise.
No, what I said was that I don't follow your orders.
I also said that I stated my case.
Since you refuse to be honest, this conversation is over.
I was undecided until I saw the CBS debates. I have decide I’m voting for Amy Klobuchar tomorrow.
She’s in last place the last time I checked, but she’s my favorite. So even though I am probably throwing my vote away, she the one who gets it.
very libertarian of you
One thing that has always puzzled me about libertarians is that they cannot accept that you can be a member of society and still maintain your individuality.
In short, I am going to do what's best for society as a whole. What UG wants in this thread is irrelevant to the general welfare of society, therefore I choose not to follow his orders.
I have decide I’m voting for Amy Klobuchar tomorrow.
Luckily it's not tomorrow yet... but
now what?
Well, shoot.
I actually liked her. Now I have to hold my nose a bit. And make a decision.
The remaining candidates really came across poorly to me in the debate. Trying too hard to seem aggressive.
And if she endorsed Biden, that means Sanders won't select her as a running mate when he wins. His running mate is going to be important since he will likely die in office.
Grr.
One thing that has always puzzled me about libertarians is that they cannot accept that you can be a member of society and still maintain your individuality.
One thing that doesn't surprise me about non-libertarians is how they don't understand that libertarianism is an umbrella with a whole whack of differing ideas under it.
I've explained mine (which ain't got nuthin' to do with individualism and which certainly doesn't preclude cooperation).
The remaining candidates really came across poorly to me in the debate. Trying too hard to seem aggressive.
I like Warren's aggressiveness; most of her attacks on Bloomberg would only need a name swap to apply to Trump.
And if she endorsed Biden, that means Sanders won't select her as a running mate when he wins. His running mate is going to be important since he will likely die in office.
Grr.
Sanders is likely to check mid-term out as well.
I assume Bloomberg is bribing folks to leave the race...
Bloomburg is in their to help his billionaire buddy Trump by confusing the democrats as much as he can. :cool:
Bloomburg is in their to help his billionaire buddy Trump by confusing the democrats as much as he can.
Because some rich people are corrupt, then all rich people are corrupt? Another blanket lie that fails to address reality.
Trump and Bloomberg have always been at odds. And for obvious reasons. Bloomberg got rich by making things. He comes from where the work gets done. He, like so many other rich and responsible people (Gates, Turner, Buffett) got rich by actually making something.
The evil rich got that way by only screwing others. Trump being the classic example of an evil rich man.
Only brainwashing calls all rich men good or evil. Good ones come from where the work gets done. William Clay Ford, for example, knew how to drive a car. His father did not even have a license.
Having money only means one must then ask "Did he earn it or pilfer it?" Why is Putin so rich? Thief. Why were Bill and Dave (Hewlett and Packard), Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin rich? They innovated like any patriotic American. They advanced America and its economy by making things necessary and productive.
Ask not whether the guy is rich. Ask how he got rich. That says so much about whether he is good or evil. The good innovate. The evil even stiff their contractors.
Bloomberg, like Biden, has a long history of advancing America. Neither go about throwing hand grenades at everything.
Wow, that escalated quickly.
I voted yesterday for Bernie Sanders. We'll see in six days how the rest of Washington voted.
I'm not going to miss the primary winner of American Samoa, Mike Bloomberg. This always felt like a vanity project of his. I think he sincerely detests the leadership of President Trump but the prospect of Yet Another Bazillionaire buying the office made me want to puke.
I'm not going to miss the primary winner of American Samoa, Mike Bloomberg.
The best thing he did was preventing Gabbard from winning anything.
This always felt like a vanity project of his. I think he sincerely detests the leadership of President Trump but the prospect of Yet Another Bazillionaire buying the office made me want to puke.
He was pretty clear about why he was running - to prevent Sanders or Warren from raising his taxes, and when he entered Biden looked very weak. Now Biden looks strong, so he feels confident that his tax rate is safe.
[eta]Now he can begin the beneficial part of his campaign, and spend lots of money to specifically beat Trump.
The best thing he did was preventing Gabbard from winning anything.He was pretty clear about why he was running - to prevent Sanders or Warren from raising his taxes, and when he entered Biden looked very weak. Now Biden looks strong, so he feels confident that his tax rate is safe.
[eta]Now he can begin the beneficial part of his campaign, and spend lots of money to specifically beat Trump.
I agree with you about Gabbard; pass, thanks.
I also agree with you about his most effective contribution (pardon the choice of words) to the most important goal of defeating Trump.
I don't know about his claim (which I didn't see) about keeping his tax bill low by blocking the advance of the campaigns of Sanders or Warren. I think that mistakenly dismisses the function of Congress when it comes to changing taxes.
Getting a different president come November and getting a dramatically different Congress, especially the Senate come November are not the same thing.
The bodies are starting to pile up.
Warren will quit in less than 10 days.
I just heard Howard Dean suggest that Biden needs to embrace a number of Bernie's proposals. He said that after Trumps fucking nonsense someone low-key has appeal but he can't show up with nothing. smrt
I don't know about his claim (which I didn't see) about keeping his tax bill low by blocking the advance of the campaigns of Sanders or Warren. I think that mistakenly dismisses the function of Congress when it comes to changing taxes.
All candidates' positions are tempered by that fact.
As for taxes, I was being uncharitable in my interpretation of his basing the decision to run
[pp 3] on Biden's apparent weakness to Warren and Sanders at the time.
I'll be more charitable now, assuming he actually supports whoever wins the nomination, and, perhaps more importantly, the downballot candidates as well.
The bodies are starting to pile up.
Warren will quit in less than 10 days.
Unless they start to do so literally.
Say Bernie gets coronavirus. Dude just had a heart attack; he's a goner. Biden's a little healthier, but very much in the danger zone, age-wise. So is Warren.
Maybe they'll all cark it by the end of the summer, and only young, healthy Buttigieg will be left holding any delegates.
He was pretty clear about why he was running - to prevent Sanders or Warren from raising his taxes, and when he entered Biden looked very weak.
Biden looked weak. And Sanders was lying out his ass - like a
socialist Trump would do. It was not about taxes. Bloomberg was quite right. His programs were lies - not practical - did not address the actual problem. Sanders, for example, would guarantee a Trump victory. That was not in doubt.
Facts about Sanders are accurate and damning. His proposal after proposal is only based in political beliefs - rather then based in reality and actual problems. I have not a clue why anyone would vote for someone who has magic solutions without bothering to first identify a problem. And whose solutions do not solve anything.
That is not an honest man. That is someone only campaigning for support from the emotional - and not from people who learn facts before making a conclusion. Bernie would guarantee Trump's reelection. So Bloomberg (too late but he had to try) entered the race to provide moderates with an intelligent option.
The Economist accurately defined Sanders - who is and acts on the cover so similar to The Don. When Biden was tanking, we desperately needed someone who represents patriotic Americans - the moderates. Biden, getting his act together at the last minute, made Bloomberg unnecessary.
What just happened in the past 48 hours is one for the history books. We have never seen so much political change so fast.
Next question. Can Biden (so well known for being a nice guy) match or deflect insults by a master anti-American, Putin loving, presidential liar and crook? (I am being kinds to that scumbag.)
I was also surprised to learn some Warren proposals also were not based in addressing a problem. She proposed solutions solved only by raising taxes. As if money solves problems. (Only business school graduates make that claim.) I thought she was better than that.
I paid no attention to any of them until after Iowa. Everything before Iowa was irrelevant. After Iowa I was shocked, by learning the problems and reading facts, how bad Sanders was.
So Biden is better because he neither defines problems nor offers solutions?
So Biden is better because he neither defines problems nor offers solutions?
You cannot say that.
However Trump and Sanders promoted solutions that clearly have no relationship to the problem. And can even make things worse.
For example, what did a tax cut for the rich do? What does promoting hate of immigrants do?
Show me one reason that banning fracking solves a problem? it only creates new problems. Both are boldface lying. That is about as evil as any politicians can be. That is no different than intentionally lying about Saddam's WMDs. Or blaming 11 September on Saddam.
Why are they lying. They want support from the lemmings among us. At what point is that not insulting?
So Biden is better because he neither defines problems nor offers solutions?
Define the actual problem for us, tw.
Most rational people know what the problems are they don't have to be explained. When people lament about these problems crying why aren't the being fixed, the standard reply from the left and right is, and always has been, not enough money.
We need a better health care system. Not enough money.
Thousands of bridges are in danger of collapse. Not enough money
There's too many potholes in my street. Not enough money.
That's why the campaign pledges to tax the gazillionaires making people think all these problems will be addressed if the government gets more money.
I'll wait for Joe to announce Hillary (popular vote) as his running mate so he can be her presidential beard.
Define the actual problem for us, tw.
Was already done. For example, fracking. Fracking is not the problem. Some companies - because they want to make profits and don't care about the product - are creating problems. Cited before - Cabot Oil. Are all fracking companies a problem? Of course not. So why ban all fracking because the extremist refuses to address (ignores) the actual problem? Companies run by similar types who are also running companies like GM, Sears, and GE into the ground. To only enrich top management. And to even blame employees.
It was defined previously. Why did you not read it?
xoxoxoBruce has cited more.
Why do some streets constantly need repair? No foundation. Politicians (using concepts taught in business schools) simply have those roads repaved on dirt. I have watched one particular and deep pothole constantly reopen because they simple put more asphalt on it. And because, having wasted so much money on Mission Accomplished and Afghanistan, we do not widen those roads for turning lanes.
So many problems are addressed only by first identifying each problem. When were you going to admit that Mission Accomplished, blacksite torture sites, and the 5000 wasted American soldiers means we should be holding those criminals in the administration responsible. So that it does not happen again? So that $trillions goes into making America great and not promoting problems like a criminal president. Crickets?
There is another reason for those problem. Those crickets.
Did I mention other nations have big stadiums for crickets? Never mind. That's not a problem.
Fracking is not the problem.
I take issue with this. Fracking makes fossil fuels cheaper. And makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete with fossil fuels. The planet needs to move away from fossil fuels in order to lessen the impact of human caused climate change. Fracking is making things worse. It is the problem.
Fracking is like finding a more efficient way to produce opium.
I take issue with this. Fracking makes fossil fuels cheaper. And makes it more difficult for alternative energy sources to compete with fossil fuels.
And so again, you are not identifying the problem. It has been posted so many times.
$35 of gasoline in a car. How much of that gasoline moves the car? $4. Therein lie the problem. Solutions have also been discussed. Learn from history. One was the 70 Hp per liter engine. It polluted less. It had better HP. It consumed less energy. It was far more reliable. And it was stifled by people such as Roger Smith (GM), Henry Ford (Ford), and Townsend and Richardo (Chrysler).
My god. GM makes a car where the engine cannot even recharge its battery. Why? That is a symptom of the real problem. Clinton even gave them money to innovate - Precept, Prodigy, and ECX2. And still they stifled innovation - as any good business school graduate would do to increase profits.
Address that problem. All were bean counters - not car guys. All wanted to make profits - not better products. And so many Americans were so brainwashed as to hype more destruction - "Buy American". Even in late 1970s when reasons for those problems were becoming obvious back then.
Why do we need fracking oil? Because we are not addressing the problem. Then want to cure symptoms by increasing prices? Or banning it? Where is that a solution? That is the evil Bernie Sanders solution. Either he is lying to get votes. Or he is that brainwashed dumb.
Meanwhile fracking for gas has substantially addressed global warming. Is its a final solution? Obviously not. It is a stepping stone - part of the long process to a solution.
To implement your solution, then cite another energy source that has the same or more energy per kilogram. We want to fix a problem by ignoring critical numbers? Yes. Many extremist left wants to do that. Demonstrated is the difference between a moderate vs. a left or right extremist.
Show me solutions. Do not solve problems by banning things. That is not innovation. That is an underlying point in Ayn Rand books.
Already solar and wind (in America) have supplanted other less desirable energy sources. (Not confirmed) I believe wind now produces more electricity than coal.
BTW, who are world leaders in wind? Not Americans. GE, a company that should be dominate, is but a secondary player to superior (innovative) foreign wind generators. GE only recently marketed a new wind generator that is even competitive - as GE keeps selling off division after division to maintain profits. To enrich their central committee of the communist party.
So where really is this problem? You did not say. A shortage of innovation. For example, my room mate, an engineer, stopped being an engineer to become a salesmen. Immediately doubled his income. America increasingly does not want many Elon Musks. Since he is an immigrant. And so many extremists (ie The Don) hate one of the largest sources of innovation - immigrants.
Are we addressing a problem? Or only want to cure symptoms?
Best engineer in my class quit engineering after only one year, went to Harvard Business, and massively increased his income working on Wall Street. Why is that problem ignored?
Too many refuse to address a fundamental problem clearly defined in every paragraph here. We are not innovating to solve your cited symptom. That (and not banning fracking) is the problem we should be addressing.
But again, those noisy crickets.
Unless a massive conversion to nuclear happens, it is not yet near possible to power everything with alternative energy sources; and so at this time, cheap natural gas crowds out coal and/or oil with about half the carbon emissions of those sources
Please to browse the charts and graphs at this page - and keep in mind that renewables they mention are not entirely carbon-free (it's complicated)
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/I'm trying to find the speech where Biden lambasted the fuel efficiency of GM vehicles. It's weird, I can't find it anywhere.
Now Warren's out; no endorsement yet.
Damn, but the party bosses hate Sanders.
Trump will eat Biden whole if it comes to it.
Yeah, there isn't much Joe left. Warren would have been a better choice.
Biden still has a chance against Trump IF he can get Tulsi Gabbard (BTW she's still in the race) to be his running mate. She can bring in the dirty old man vote which put Trump over the top last time 'cause he had Ivanka. Besides, I think Tulsi has the kind of women's hair Joe likes to sniff.
Joe is fucking senile. His policies may (or may not) be sound, but he just loses ...erm...what ...oh yes... on far too regular a basis. Bernie is a heart health hazard. And his policies may (or may not) be sound, but he hasn't really thought their execution out too well. Maybe he would just decree like the incumbent and make it so....? (and the incumbent is another heart health hazard, but that's a different story and I remain hopeful it will play out publically and painfully....). Shame Warren wouldn't work for Bernie as a running mate. Oh well, another election, another choice between old white men.... (Michigan Primary Tuesday) ....AMERICA WAKE THE FUCK UP. pls and thank you.
Trump will eat Biden whole if it comes to it.
Which explains why Bloomberg, at the last minute, jumped in. Biden must learn how to do more of what he did in a speech where he stuck to the teleprompter.
Meanwhile Sanders is a hunter's delight for Trump. Sanders was a guaranteed Trump victory. Peers who hate to be lied to have been disparaging Bernie for a long time now. Bernie's idea only work when he lies even to himself.
Biden gaffs are common. He must learn to not go off on tangents. And he must learn how to backslap Trump with insults. Because many only rate a leader by how well he can insult.
Or in Reagan's case, become teflon.
This has been a paid political announcement from the Boomeys for Bloomy Campaign.
I don't actually care at this point who the dem nominee is. My favorite dropped out ages ago.
I am here to vote against Trump. If the dems nominate a damn goldfish, I will vote for it.
I don't actually care at this point who the dem nominee is. My favorite dropped out ages ago.
I am here to vote against Trump. If the dems nominate a damn goldfish, I will vote for it.
I am Spartacus!I don't actually care at this point who the dem nominee is. My favorite dropped out ages ago.
I am here to vote against Trump. If the dems nominate a damn goldfish, I will vote for it.
This. With shades of "Biden will be more likely to get stuff done than an outsider like Bernie. So I hope it's him.
Goldfish for President. It has a nice rhythm to it.
His real name was God Fish. We can be saved.
To the extent that presidents affect the numbers in question, Obama got better numbers. (Compared to what they started with)
I may have underestimated how much a president can effect the numbers on their own.
I may have underestimated how much a president can effect the numbers on their own.
I guess his teleprompter reading skills last night didn't comfort the markets.
On the one hand, I'm pleased with him that he is finally taking notice, and clearly sought some help in writing a speech and coming up with some policy. Good for him.
On the other hand, my wife, who is teaching second graders pointed out that some of her students are better at reading out loud than he was last night. He clearly prefers to speak without a script where he can just ramble.
Cruise line stocks fell sharply this morning and I think this will be a longer term problem for them. Images of trapped passengers on sick ships are going to be hard to forget. Some airlines fell 12% or more this morning, and they will absolutely bounce back. It's a good time to buy airline stocks, assuming you can swoop in before others get the same idea.
I guess his teleprompter reading skills last night didn't comfort the markets.
He said all travel between Europe and America will cease for a month. Reality: Americans will not be stopped. Only all others cannot travel.
Apparently Americans do not spread viruses. Only Europeans allies do.
He said all trade between Europe and America will be halted. Reality: no commercial trade will stop.
He cannot even read a teleprompter without lying? Someone who has spent his entire life lying daily - of course he cannot even recite what a teleprompter says.
Reading the teleprompter required more than a 30 second attention span.
Congress is planning to spread a large chunk of money they don't have(deficits don't matter) to combat the economic impact of the Kung Flu.
I haven't heard who is getting all this cash;
the company losing business due to a decrease in traffic,
the waitress barely making the rent on tips that will now dry up,
the uninsured who can't afford medical care?
A few of the companies, perhaps.
People are talking seriously about UBI after mocking Yang throughout the primary. Better late than never, I suppose. The plan was to pay for his though.
