|Bort - 2017-12-19 |
Let's just point out that Pillager voted for Jill Stein and did what he could to put a trickle-down supporter in the Oval Office.
Oh, and it turns out Jill Stein is under investigation for collusion with the Russians too.
I'm the last person who would defend voting Stein inn the general but fuck sake, Bort, can you post anything that ISN'T about other people being politically inferior to you and your team? It's honestly kind of worrying at this point.
If we make it, we can all sit back and laugh.
But in the meantime, I am not convinced that the lot of you wouldn't happily put Trump back in power again, or cede yet more of the government to the Republicans. Look, I was a Nader supporter in 2000, and when it became abundantly clear around September 2001 that letting Bush into power was a grave mistake, I admitted my error. (But at least I can say it wasn't clear what a disaster Dubya would be. Hell, his VP had been secretary of defense under Bush I, and could tell you exactly why occupying Iraq in the Gulf War would have been a disaster. So at least there was experience, common sense, and restraint at work, or so it appeared.)
I see no signs of the current crop of Lefties learning a goddamn thing. I have yet to find even a single Leftie who feels they made a mistake by not voting strategically to stop Trump. I can find more Republicans who acknowledge their mistake; when you're running behind the Republicans in terms of admitting error, there's something very very wrong.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Bort; no one is going to admit their mistake to you, because you're such a dick about this.
Bernie would have won and the DNC rigged the primaries in Hillary's favor.
Bort, I'm beginning to think you're either Lena Dunham or a Goldman Sachs exec, as they're the only people who were actually pumped for Hillary.
For what it's worth, Bort, the net effect of your incessant bitching is to make a handful of users like me regret that they ever supported Hillary. Is that really your goal? Is it worth all that effort?
Regardless of the past, the future is clear that the left will only regain power by completely shedding the ugly Clinton legacy. Are you willing to do that Bort? Or are you also ansolutely refusing to "learn a goddamn thing"?
I think we've already established that user Bort is in fact the nom-de-plume of Secretary Clinton herself.
But this thing about Jill Stein, it made me laugh. About a year ago on Democracy Now Amy had Jill on to talk about the election, and they discussed this trip to Russia and her trying to meet with Putin. You can find the show in the archives if interested. Quite a bit different testimony than Team Trump, huh?
From the movie "Citizen Bort";
Bedside Nurse: If you could've found out what 'Pillager' meant, I bet that would've explained everything.
Attending Physician: No, I don't think so; no. Mr. Bort was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe 'Pillager; was something he couldn't get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't have explained anything... I don't think any word can explain a man's life. No, I guess 'Pillager' is just a... piece in a jigsaw puzzle... a missing piece.
Bort, do I owe you rent for all the space I take up in your mind?
John Holmes Motherfucker
I was completely in the tank for Hillary, and Cena Mark is tripping about her stealing the primaries. I had to say that, so apparently I'm getting sucked up in this pointless boohooing now. This video isn't even about Bernie OR Hillary OR Jill Stein. I know that some people regret their votes. They don't need to confess to me or Bort or anyone about it. The finger pointing helps no one. Believe me, we all own a little piece of the 2016 disaster.
Hillary would have just had more trickledown bullshit, just less extreme than Trump's. Bort, this is your fault and it's cause you didn't write in Bernie like I did.
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>>Hillary would have just had more trickledown bullshit, just less extreme than Trump's.
What the fuck does that even mean? her husband raised taxes on the wealthy. Are you saying that she would have cut taxes on the wealthy, only not as much? Is there some basis for this belief? Susan Sarendon says that we'd be at war if Hillary won, but I don't think she mentioned who with.
Bill just raised their taxes by like 5%. It wasn't anything radical. The rich were still being tremendously undertaxed. It was similar with Obama.
"I see no signs of the current crop of Lefties learning a goddamn thing. I have yet to find even a single Leftie who feels they made a mistake by not voting strategically to stop Trump"
The 'lefties' aren't the ones who need to learn here, that you utterly refuse to see that it was YOUR TEAM that lost and need to change to convince voters is on you and your chosen candidates. No one else is to blame but Trump voters and you fucking idiots who think everyone else should just line-the-fuck-up and'vote strategically' for whatever wall street horror continues to keep your white, middle-class status quo.
Honestly fuck you and the high horse you rode in on you total neolib shill dicksucker.
I only see Berniebusters thinking about it in terms of "teams" and projecting when they think those who voted for Hilary did it out of deifying worship.
Actions have consequences. Calling Bort's posts counterproductive (by the same people who happily post about schadenfreude and tears when it's the other team being mocked) because he drives home the point of the real world consequences of Berniebuster political support is like calling Allied soldiers mean for parading German citizens through liberated death camps.
Lots of people are going to die on the Medicaid and ACA mandate cuts alone. I hope it was worth it for your tantrum and black beret fantasies.
It's easier to blame some nebulous, poorly defined subset of "purity voters" supposedly mindlessly devoted to Sanders or Stein than it is to confront the Democratic Party's numerous and shameful failures in campaigning and turning out the vote.
I mean, it would totally harsh the Two Minutes Hate to confront the fact that numerous working class and minority voters felt let down, and didn't particularly feel compelled to turn out for a campaign that felt entitled to their votes and didn't feel the need to even visit them much. Fuck 'em!
And god forbid we cast any blame toward those paid well into six figures to completely forget the lessons of the Obama coalition and instead chase after imaginary "moderate" suburban Republicans who were just as steeped in Hillary hatred as any Breitbart or InfoWars moron.
Not even visit them much? Oh my! This is me wringing my hanky.
Donald Trump and the Republican party is out to utterly destroy these people, and being butt-hurt will NOT change that fact. I by no means think Hillary is the best person to be president, but I DO believe that Bernie had absolutely zero chance of winning, and that Hillary would be significantly better than Trump.
Fuck you and fuck everyone who's so shallow and stupid to think like you. You're the reason we have Trump.
"Oh, this is me wringing my hanky about desperate working class or poor people who never felt the recovery and didn't make the effort to turn out for a campaign with an 'everything is fine' message," says comfortable gormless dipshit wringing his hanky about people daring to vote differently. I mean, in the end it's not even about feelings -- it's about DOING WHAT IS KNOWN TO WORK TO WIN A FUCKING ELECTION. You put in the effort for them, they put in the effort for you.
"People who think like me"? Fuck you. Despite my exceedingly strong distaste, I voted for Clinton in one of the safest blue states there is. But people who "think like me" realize that people are entitled to vote however they wish according to their perceived interests; that votes are earned, not owed; and that a campaign that spends over a billion fucking dollars should at least visit a swing state now and again.
|simon666 - 2017-12-19 |
I agree that trickle down economics damn pile of beans, but I just don't buy into Reich's loose correlative argument. I grant that the medium of a 3 minute video can't really dig into complex economic issues. Nevertheless, it seems to me the stronger argument is something along these lines:
1. Spending: There are only so many cars, TVs, refrigerators, and bags of groceries that the top 1% of people can buy.
2. Saving: There are ample places for the 1% (and corporations) to put their wealth that are not hard material goods (stocks, banks accounts of various types, other non material investments) that removes money from circulation through the middle and lower class.
3. Thus, the spending and saving habits of the top 1% cannot power an economy for the remaining 99%.
I'm sure 1-3 could be tightened up in some manner. But I think Reich would have a more rhetorically powerful argument like the one I just laid out rather than trying to convince people that Democrats are better stewards of the economy. By associating economic patterns with political parties, Reich, in my view, risks losing his rhetorical force insofar as average people's political tribalism gets in the way of their accepting his conclusion. I could be wrong though.
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>>Agreed, he tries to present a loose correlation, in a system with millions of different variables, as direct causality and as such it is very easy to put the whole argument into question.
No, he does not. I just watched it again. Speakers of English will note that all he ever claims, over and over again, is that supply-side trickle down economics is "baloney". That's his thesis, and that's all he's arguing. Not a correlation, but the lack of a correlation. And that's a lot easier. If something happens, you can argue about what caused it. If something doesn't happen... it just doesn't happen.
I can't watch the video right now, so I'm going off memory, but I'm pretty sure Reich correlates trickle down economic policy (tax breaks for rich, corporations) with slow or negative economic growth and thus conversely and perhaps implicitly that the opposite of trickle down economic policies will lead to better overall economic growth.
Reich also makes this point by correlating those policies with which political party was in in the executive: Reagan (GOP), Clinton (Dems).
He's trying to get people to buy into the idea that trickle down is bad economic policy. He's right about that conclusion. He'd do better if just said why it makes bad economic policy: minority economic classes can't buy enough stuff to spread their money around to the rest of folks with lesser purchasing power.
|Accidie - 2017-12-19 |
I used to date this guy's hair stylist. That's about all I have to add to this discussion.
|kingofthenothing - 2017-12-19 |
Where have all the dollars gone?
Long time passing...
|Enjoy - 2017-12-20 |
I'm trickling down really hard right now and you're going to take it like a champ.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|