Jump to content

U.S. Politics 2016: From Russia With Love

Martell Spy

By Martell Spy,
in General Chatter

Recommended Posts

Balefont Council Member

Balefont

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I have to agree. The whole Libs vs Cons thing has gotten way out of hand. Not sure what the answer is, but if it's affecting your friendships and employment then it has gone too far.

I don't have anything against conservatives, per se.  However, I do have a lot of feelings against Trump supporters because even if they don't think they're racist, sexist, etc. they are still supporting an outright vile human being - an admitted sexual predator who has made outright racist statements and supports extremely racist policies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaxom 1974 Council Member

Jaxom 1974

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Balefont said:

I don't have anything against conservatives, per se.  However, I do have a lot of feelings against Trump supporters because even if they don't think they're racist, sexist, etc. they are still supporting an outright vile human being - an admitted sexual predator who has made outright racist statements and supports extremely racist policies. 

It's bad enough that that don't think it...it's the outright refusal to understand or accept simple facts regarding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MercenaryChef Council Member

MercenaryChef

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

It's bad enough that that don't think it...it's the outright refusal to understand or accept simple facts regarding it.

facts are pointless. rhetoric, venom and a desire to be the winner is all that matters.  

oh, the poor forgotten white American voter forced to rally behind a greedy ignorant fascist because the American dream is utter bullshit. 

four years from now they will be no less fucked and the cycle can begin again hopefully with minimal wounds to society and the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A Horse Named Stranger Council Member

A Horse Named Stranger

Posted
Posted

I don't think it had been posted in one of the older threads.

An hour long conversation/discussion between S. Silverman and Bernie Sanders. Apparently Sanders is atm doing a book tour and something, and he gives his view on the future of the Democratic Party and what went wrong. It has its lenghts, but it's overall relatively entertaining.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGimletEye Council Member

OldGimletEye

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

‘The Wealthy Would Never Steal’ — A Credo for Trump’s Party

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/the-wealthy-would-never-steal-a-credo-for-trumps-party.html

Quote

In a National Review column, Kudlow makes the case not only that Trump and his administration are not corrupt, but also that they cannot be corrupt, by virtue of their wealth. “Why shouldn’t the president surround himself with successful people?” reasons Kudlow, “Wealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption.”

You know, the thing I really like about the Republican Party is that they really do surround themselves with excellence. And Trump looks like he’s going to keep that tradition alive by getting the “best people”.

Like, I mean fuckin tip top. Fuckin top notch.

Take Larry Kudlow for example. Now there is a guy’s predictions you can take the fuckin bank. I’m sure if you went long on MBS’s based Larry’s advice and predictions about the future of the economy you didn’t loose your ass.

And if you really want to know what really happened, about some event like say mornin in murica ,you should listen to Larry, rather than let’s say some bum like Martin Feldstein.

And I think the broader point he makes is true: You should take the policy advice of wealthy people at face value. I mean they are rich and you’re not. You suck and they don’t. So, like when somebody like Bernie Marcus makes a policy recommendation of tax cuts for the rich you really should take his “own personal experience” arguments as being true and not at all as a bit self serving. Like don’t bother looking at publicly available data or anything or don’t bother with any of that fancy econometric stuff to see if ol’ Bernie’s assertions hold an ounce of water. And certainly don’t get into the weeds thinking about things the Slutsky equation or anything when people talk about income tax cuts for the wealthy. Just trust old Bernie that substitution effects will dominate income effects, super charging Johnny Galts to go into Galtian overdrive.

If you just listen to people like Kudlow and Bernie, I promise you that you won’t end up feeling like Flounder, after being told,”You fucked up, you trusted us.”

And for those, people that voted for Trump thinking he was going to be a hero of the proletariat, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGimletEye Council Member

OldGimletEye

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, LongRider said:

If the rich don't steal and are such stellar paragons of morality, then why did Gingrich suggest that Trump pre-pardon his Cabinet?  Weird that.  I guess Gringrich isn't on the Kudlow train. 

Yet.

Ruh Roh. Somebody didn't read his Ayn Rand.

Somebody didn't do his assigned reading.

Gingrich is going to kicked out of class and not be allowed back into the room, until he does his homework.

Anyway, what would conservatives like to say about "elites" right about now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LongRider Council Member

LongRider

Posted
Posted

Seriously tho, Kudlow's 'the rich don't steal' and Gringrich's 'Trump's rich cabinet needs pre-pardon's and special ethics rules because they're so rich' really are very troubling.  I know in America the rich are admired, but this is taking that 'rich worship' to new levels.  Of course, it's being done by people who are already rich, but one might argue that the ground was prepped by many of Trump's supporters who admired him because of his wealth and his perceived business success.

But being wealthy and successful does not make one ethical nor predispose the rich to be looking out for the 'little guy' no matter what promises were made to secure votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Chatywin et al. Council Member

Mr. Chatywin et al.

Posted
Posted

I don't think you can actually pre-pardon someone, but it raises a question that could lead to a Constitutional crisis: Can the President implement rolling pardons to effectively make him, or anyone for that matter, above the law? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGimletEye Council Member

OldGimletEye

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, LongRider said:

Seriously tho, Kudlow's 'the rich don't steal' and Gringrich's 'Trump's rich cabinet needs pre-pardon's and special ethics rules because they're so rich' really are very troubling.  I know in America the rich are admired, but this is taking that 'rich worship' to new levels.  Of course, it's being done by people who are already rich, but one might argue that the ground was prepped by many of Trump's supporters who admired him because of his wealth and his perceived business success.

But being wealthy and successful does not make one ethical nor predispose the rich to be looking out for the 'little guy' no matter what promises were made to secure votes.

You're right. Also, the whole idea of defining "success" as being wealthy is a pretty big value judgement.

And I would add: Being a rich business person doesn't mean your policy arguments become better simply by virtue of being a successful business person, even if  you're as "successful" as you claim.

Herbert Hoover was a successful business person, yet he seeming had little idea of what to do about the Great Depression. His Secretary of The Treasury, Andrew Mellon, had little idea either. FDR, who spent most of his life, in public service, and not in business was closer to the mark than either Hoover or Mellon. Some of the stuff that FDR did, maybe arguably questionable, like NIRA, but FDR was right to restore confidence in the banking system and emphasizing inflating the price level. See for instance Eggertson (2008). And here.

I think members of "The Party of Business" are inclined to give an extra heap of deference to business people, particularly on economic matters. Though, to be fair, I suppose many independents and even Democrats are inclined to think this way. But, ultimately, I don't think it holds an ounce of water.

Successful business people need to put forth their theoretical arguments and data like everyone else. They shouldn't get away with,"trust me cause yo my awesome business experience man!". If people like Bernie Marcus want to argue that tax cuts for the rich are key to firing up the economy, then at a minimum he should present data of his own investment decisions to see if what he is saying holds an ounce of water. "My own personal bidness experience" type of arguments don't cut the intellectual mustard here. And even if Marcus could present such evidence about his investment decisions with respect to income taxes, it would seem that the data on the aggregate affects of income taxe cuts for the wealthy would reject Marcus's assertions.

If people, like Puzder wan't to argue that raising the minimum wage will cause more unemployment he shouldn't be allowed to get away with "trust me man, my bidness experience!". His arguments have to pass the empirical smell test like everyone else's arguments and he needs to describe or suggest theoretical mechanisms like everyone else has to.

Carly Fiorina doesn't get to suggest "expansionary austerity" just because of her "bestus bidness experience, evah" guides her into thinking that way.

And then you have the issue of whether the person talking about how awesome their business experience is - is really being all that accurate. As has been shown or suggested, Donald Trump would have been better off today, in financial terms, if he had just bought stocks replicating the S & P 500 index and then spent the rest of his time playing X-Box and doing bong hits. And if you could adjust Trump's investment record for risk, then his investment record probably looks even worse.

Carly Fiorina was another one that liked to talk about her awesome business experience as reason for handing over the keys of the country to her. Although, in reality, her tenure at Hewlett-Packard was extremely controversial and her decision to merge with Compaq questionable. The day she got canned, the stock market went up about 7 percentage points.

"The Party of Business"

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...