Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Money, Money, Money Makes the World Go Round

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The Republican Party is a closed circle Human Centipede of cuckery.

Look, just because you're thinking of Ted Cruz jerking off in a corner while Trump and Heidi Cruz fuck doesn't mean the rest of us need to have the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Sanders is a capitalist, just not a 'free market' capitalist. If you dig through his statements in the past, he does talk sometimes about how global capitalism has lifted people out of poverty. At the same time, unfettered capitalism can lead to wealth inequality. This isn't actually a radical proposition or view to hold and I share many of these sentiments.

As to how the GoP smear machine will portray all this, who knows? He does have the currency of authenticity more than many other politicians, so it is possible a well timed speech or series of statements could easily dissipate some of these attacks.

 

 

For the first one, Warren "is a capitalist to her bones. I'm not." He then goes on to talk about the problems which we all agree on but then doesn't specify the specific solutions he's suggesting which I assume wouldn't be capitalistic. It comes right after he talks about how all candidates should release their medical records. The second one is self-explanatory.

 

It seems like he's stretching authenticity thin. He's reversed himself on immigration (good for him - shows growth but some won't see it that way), he's reversed himself on medical records and reverses himself on how the nomination should work based on what works best for him in that moment. But next to Trump...

Bold: I wish I could live in that world.

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me socialism is nationalizing banks, taking over the means of production (of say oil, and other important products) etc. Changing corporate or individual tax rates is still within the realms of capitalism. I cant watch videos but I will take a look later,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

To me socialism is nationalizing banks, taking over the means of production (of say oil, and other important products) etc. Changing corporate or individual tax rates is still within the realms of capitalism. I cant watch videos but I will take a look later,

Interesting. To me it's just Denmark and Canada.

I think when Republicans use it they mean Venezuela but when Bernie uses it he means Denmark and Canada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IheartIheartTesla said:

To me socialism is nationalizing banks, taking over the means of production (of say oil, and other important products) etc. Changing corporate or individual tax rates is still within the realms of capitalism. I cant watch videos but I will take a look later,

 

The definitions seem murky but he did advocate a government takeover of energy production.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/02/bernie-sanders-climate-federal-electricity-production-110117

In the '70s, he was quite fiery. In a recent statement, he didn't say whether he believed differently now.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html

Quote

Bernie Sanders advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, including energy companies, factories, and banks, when he was a leading member of a self-described "radical political party" in the 1970s, a CNN KFile review of his record reveals.

Sanders' past views shed light on a formative period of his political career that could become relevant as he advances in the 2020 Democratic primary.
Many of the positions he held at the time are more extreme compared to the more tempered democratic socialism the Vermont senator espouses today and could provide fodder for moderate Democrats and Republicans looking to cast the Democratic presidential candidate and his beliefs as a fringe form of socialism that would be harmful to the country.
Aspects of Sanders' plans and time in the Liberty Union have been reported before, but the material taken together, including hundreds of newly digitalized newspapers and files from the Liberty Union Party archived at the University of Vermont, paint a fuller portrait of Sanders' views on state and public-controlled industry at the time.
 
In a statement to CNN, Sanders campaign spokesman Josh Orton said, "Throughout his career, Bernie has fought on the side of working people and against the influence of both the powerful ultra-rich and giant corporations who seek only to further their own greed. The record shows that from the very beginning, Bernie anticipated and worked to combat the rise of a billionaire ruling class and the exploding power of Wall Street and multinational corporations. Whether fighting to lower energy prices or expand access to capital for local development, Bernie's first priority has always been -- and will always be -- defending the interests of working people across the country."

 

This should confuse everyone even more but it's interesting. :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ormond said:

I guess I don't have the trust in Sanders here that you do. I worry that he just doesn't have the personality to be more "conciliatory" on his "symbolic messaging" during the general election campaign than he is now. Do you have evidence for him making such a shift in the past somewhere?

So, I'll admit that I'm a Sanders fan, and especially a fan of his stump speech, because I'm firmly in the camp who believes that someone needs to point out that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to capitalism and income inequality in the U.S.

However, I can see why some people might be turned off by the rhetoric of his stump speeches. I came across this clip the other day of bonus features released from an interview Sanders did with Hassan Minhaj of Patriot Act on Netflix, and Sanders seemed like a completely different person than he does in his stump speeches. He's funny, engaging, moderates his rhetoric, talks extensively about minority issues in addition to economic ones, and just seems like the "safer" type of candidate that many in the Democratic party seem to be looking for.

Here's a link to it if anyone would like to watch (it's a little over 12 minutes long).

https://youtu.be/iaqcwyZPuKg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.salon.com/2020/02/21/what-weve-learned-about-elizabeth-warrens-feminism-shes-no-moderate/

 

Quote

 

As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote Thursday, this was Warren tying together what one might call Bloomberg's "#MeToo problem" with the way he wields his wealth as a shield from accountability, all under the banner of "elites acting with impunity." It also makes Bloomberg sound a lot like Donald Trump, whose impunity while he "boasts about sexual assault" is tied to his more general sense of financial and legal impunity. 

Warren's ability to pull off this linkage of sexism to a larger criticism of elite abuse of power — and really, it was a hat trick, since she also tied all that together with Bloomberg's history of "supporting racist policies like redlining and stop-and-frisk" — wasn't just the result of some clever writing from her strategic team, however much they may have helped. This fits in with a larger pattern with Warren, whose feminism is simply inseparable from the issues that have defined her career, namely her opposition to predatory capitalism and her war against the ways economic elites corrupt our political systems. . . .

. . . . But another argument, one that Warren herself advanced at the time and has since put forward more bluntly, is that the problem isn't that women work. It's that the capitalist system has adjusted in ways that exploit families. That second income into households wasn't making families wealthier — it was just allowing the capitalist system to drive up the cost of everyday living and maximize profits. And it should be the job of the federal government to step in and change the system so that women's work can do more for their families economically. 

Yes, Warren was justifiably critical of feminist organizations back then for bucketing these economic considerations outside the larger concept of "women's issues". 

"Women's issues are not just about childbearing or domestic violence," Warren and Tyagi wrote. "If it were framed properly, middle-class economic reform just might become the issue that could galvanize millions of mainstream women to join the fight for women's issues."

In the years since, Warren's feminism has gotten sharper and, at the same time, feminism has become more interested in these kind of economic concerns. For instance, the issue of subsidized child care, which had been tabled for decades after activist campaigns around the issue in the 1970s had failed, has risen to the top of feminist concerns in the past decade.

Most Democrats have embraced some policy ideas for making child care more affordable, and none so more than Warren, who has released a detailed plan for universal day care — which she wants to pay for by taxing the wealthy, which is a double whammy, lifting women up economically while also reducing wealth inequalities. . . .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

God help me, I do love Warren.  She is far and away the best candidate in the mix.    

I also like to wave at those as they are thrown out into the cold. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg's favorability dropped by 30.points with moderate dems since the debate, so any of yall who feared and loathed him should toss a coin to your Warren. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have to take 15 minutes to explain why your version of socialism is different and much better than what the other thinks it is you have lost the debate. It just too difficult to talk about those abstractions and theories and win a political discussion.For what it's worth I've spent many younger  years calling myself a democratic socialist. Not sure what I call myself now.

15 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

God help me, I do love Warren.  She is far and away the best candidate in the mix.    

I love Pete but I really dig Warren too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 3:14 PM, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Yes, I think we all agree with this.  But that is most likely to happen if there are other reasons to sustain the tanking.  I would be paying closer attention to jobs growth, unemployment (by various measurements), commodity prices,  consumer debt ratios, corporate debt ratios, corporate confidence, consumer confidence, etc.  I think there are a lot of macro indications that something is going to happen.  But I've been saying that for two years now.  Summoning @OldGimletEye.

All this is relevant. But, the main worry is the fact the Fed Funds Rate is still too low and what the government response is going to be. I wonder what sort of shenanigans we will get next time. Well it probably will be similar to the last time. Another 10 year recession. Good times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know you’re joking, but did you forget that this already happened to a ranking House Republican recently, and the response was “we could have stopped the shooter if we were allowed to have our guns. MOAR GUNZZZ!!!”

Pointless Disclaimer:

Cynical post incoming, that'll make Jace look like puny pony princess.

House Republicans, pfft amateurs. You go after Trump appointed judges and Senators. Those who can and will do long term damage.

 

I mean, you just have to look back for the past six years. What protests where there?

On the one hand, we had the smart civilized creative protest with pussy hats. On the other hand, we had some yahoos picking up arms to defend a rancher, who broke the law and threatened federal agents with force.

One of those protests was succesful, the other one was a fashion statement. One side is doing a civlized a protest, or the biggest mandmaid's tale cosplay in history, while the other is wrecking up your democratic institutions. Writing mails and letters to Lindsey Lohan or Lindsey Graham is having very little effect on that.

At some point it's time to realize that you are not getting anywhere, and that this reality is not a biopic featuring Ben Kingsley. I think, I would've gone full prepper at some point, if I were American that is. 

But since I am not, I will just try to write a Haiku on behalf of the POTUS just to show what you are up against. I haven't tried writing a Haiku in over twenty years, so don't be too critical of the metrics.

Into office.

Mexican rapists. Their kids locked in cages like Animals in the Zoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 2:16 PM, Tywin et al. said:

 even if it’s the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, can bring the rest of the economy down with it.

Have you playing around with OLG models again? Well, I don't blame you. Multiple equilibrium and sunspots are pretty interesting.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Pointless Disclaimer:

Cynical post incoming, that'll make Jace look like puny pony princess.

House Republicans, pfft amateurs. You go after Trump appointed judges and Senators. Those who can and will do long term damage.

 

I mean, you just have to look back for the past six years. What protests where there?

On the one hand, we had the smart civilized creative protest with pussy hats. On the other hand, we had some yahoos picking up arms to defend a rancher, who broke the law and threatened federal agents with force.

One of those protests was succesful, the other one was a fashion statement. One side is doing a civlized a protest, or the biggest mandmaid's tale cosplay in history, while the other is wrecking up your democratic institutions. Writing mails and letters to Lindsey Lohan or Lindsey Graham is having very little effect on that.

At some point it's time to realize that you are not getting anywhere, and that this reality is not a biopic featuring Ben Kingsley. I think, I would've gone full prepper at some point, if I were American that is. 

 

#MeToo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ormond said:

I worry that he just doesn't have the personality to be more "conciliatory" on his "symbolic messaging" during the general election campaign than he is now. Do you have evidence for him making such a shift in the past somewhere?

I mean, no, I don't have anything I could cite quickly.  Like I said, this is just based on my observation of his campaigns.  Particularly in 2006, when I was living in DC, just got kicked out of AU as an undergrad, so I had a lot of time on my hand.  Therefore, I was insanely politically active and was interested in Sanders becoming really the first self-identified "socialist" to be elected to the Senate.  Ever.  Sanders was obviously going to win, but he did have to deal with a - get this - self-funded candidate (Richard Tarrant) who put in upwards of $7 million.  Quaintly, that was a lot back then, and Sanders behaved not as a rabble-rouser, but instead understood how to build bridges in order to fundraise at a competitive level.  

So, my evidence there is I personally worked with his (very low level) people then.  And they knew, even in Vermont, it was best to moderate his message in order to run up the score, or margin of victory.  I mean, this can be seen even in his expressed policy preferences or voting record.  Do you think Bernie Sanders was genuinely against the Brady Bill?  Or do you think he voted against it repeatedly because he's from Vermont which may be insanely liberal on most things, but they also like their guns?

1 hour ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

If you have to take 15 minutes to explain why your version of socialism is different and much better than what the other thinks it is you have lost the debate.

Well said.  Definitions and conceptions of socialism vary.  Widely vary.  But regarding electoral concerns, this is Sanders' fundamental weakness vis-a-vis any other potential nominee.  He has to explain why he's a socialist, and consequently why you are stupid Mr. Average American voter - say Joe the Plumber - for thinking you aren't too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

All this is relevant. But, the main worry is the fact the Fed Funds Rate is still too low and what the government response is going to be. I wonder what sort of shenanigans we will get next time. Well it probably will be similar to the last time. Another 10 year recession. Good times.

Yeah, either upthread in this one, or at the end of the last thread we were talking about how basically all the tools in the toolkit have been used, WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING.  Because reasons.  About the only thing that is left is a WPA like infrastructure program, which actually might be useful in the long term (but maybe not as much as people think in the short term), and a war.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×