|
That DICK! posted:I liked when Mitt Romney's campaign was dealt a serious blow by saying that 47% of the country would never vote for him, so Hillary in all her wisdom publicly wrote off half of Trump's supporters the romney thing is interesting because candidates in both parties used to poo poo talk half the country all the time in private to big donors, like if you didnt you were basically screwed, but now all that poo poo gets recorded always so national politicians have to break their instincts
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 13:35 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:40 |
|
comedyblissoption posted:also keep in mind that there is extra context that the public sector HAS to spend money that never existed before to keep up with generation of wealth in the economy unless you want to experience the effects of deflationary forces. there is no other way for this "new money" to be generated.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 13:37 |
|
I think we kinda need an economic macro thread, because I know my macro is weak. You up for it Pener? You seem like you know poo poo. Maybe you can drag Aoelius in as well.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 13:38 |
|
rudatron posted:The vast majority of money is created by commerical banks, not the central bank, through the fractional reserve system. It doesn't serve the public good.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 13:45 |
|
rudatron posted:I think we kinda need an economic macro thread, because I know my macro is weak. You up for it Pener? You seem like you know poo poo. Maybe you can drag Aoelius in as well. I'm a layman at all this. I know a bit about how it all works because I took Economic History in college, but I'm constantly having to look up stuff just to make sure I'm not getting my premises wrong.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 13:52 |
|
Do it bitchcomedyblissoption posted:this is true, but for the commercial banks to ever collect on their loans and make a profit, don't they eventually have to get the money indirectly from the progenitor of the USD which would be the federal reserve?
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 14:34 |
|
i'd like to think the debt chain can't be effectively infinite and that someone has to actually collect some USD somewhere along this path
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:01 |
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Notice how they lost both when they began adopting Clinton third way-ism in the 90s. No they didn't: house democrat from the south had being part of the Reagan Coalition since the 1980s: what lost them the house in 1994 was because they were viewed as too left and Bill Clinton was accused of not being a centrist Typo has issued a correction as of 15:24 on Apr 22, 2017 |
# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:21 |
|
comedyblissoption posted:just a reminder that the democrats owned a majority in both houses of congress for the vast majority of the years between FDR and the 1990s They kept it past the early 80s because they were willing to pass Reagan's agenda: there wasn't a big difference between a conservative democrat and a republican except brand name. If they didn't they would have lost the house around 1982 or 1984
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:24 |
|
Typo posted:No they didn't: house democrat from the south had being part of the Reagan Coalition since the 1980s: what lost them the house in 1994 was because they were viewed as too left and Bill Clinton was accused of not being a centrist
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:26 |
|
the argument that democrats need to be republican lite in order to win so the worse republicans don't get in was the excuse for why the democrats have abandoned being the party of FDR. this argument should have been soundly repudiated by the results of 2016 I hope.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:31 |
|
comedyblissoption posted:ok people were accusing obama of being a marxist communist socialist muslim. what is even your point here? shifting to the center was a response to losing electoral relevance, not the other way around
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:32 |
|
comedyblissoption posted:the argument that democrats need to be republican lite in order to win so the worse republicans don't get in was the excuse for why the democrats have abandoned being the party of FDR. this argument should have been soundly repudiated by the results of 2016 I hope. sure, but this was definitely true in the 1990s and the early 2000s
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:34 |
|
I suspect it is more because of losing electoral support because the democrats started abandoning labor and workers and FDR policies starting in the 70s. they couldn't lose electoral relevance overnight.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:37 |
|
comedyblissoption posted:I suspect it is more because of losing electoral support because the democrats started abandoning labor and workers and FDR policies starting in the 70s. they couldn't lose electoral relevance overnight. Carter was a new dealer and McGovern wanted a Min-income in the 1970s, the issue why they lose isn't because the democrats wasn't left enough: it's because Reagan convincingly sold a set of ideas to the American public that made themselves as individuals and consumers as oppose to members of unions and other new deal institutions. It's easy to blame party leadership, but the electorate really did buy into ideas that made old school liberal governing impossible all the way up until sometime around 2008 Typo has issued a correction as of 15:55 on Apr 22, 2017 |
# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:52 |
Typo posted:Carter was a new dealer and McGovern wanted a Min-income in the 1970s, the issue why they lose isn't because the democrats wasn't left enough: it's because Reagan convincingly sold a set of ideas to the American public that made themselves as individuals and consumers as oppose to members of unions and other new deal institutions.
|
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 16:34 |
|
[Cackling]
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 16:37 |
|
hillary tried to claim FDR's mantle by holding her campaign announcement speech on Roosevelt Island in Four Freedoms Park, named for a line in the State of the Union speech he gave the day after Pearl Harbor the gall of that, to try to claim valor from an actual hero of this empire, after doing so much to poo poo on his legacy during her working life, is such classic hillary
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 16:48 |
|
Typo posted:Carter was a new dealer and McGovern wanted a Min-income in the 1970s, the issue why they lose isn't because the democrats wasn't left enough: it's because Reagan convincingly sold a set of ideas to the American public that made themselves as individuals and consumers as oppose to members of unions and other new deal institutions. carter started the deregulations
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 16:59 |
|
Typo posted:Carter was a new dealer and McGovern wanted a Min-income in the 1970s, the issue why they lose isn't because the democrats wasn't left enough: it's because Reagan convincingly sold a set of ideas to the American public that made themselves as individuals and consumers as oppose to members of unions and other new deal institutions. I think campaign Obama in 2008, and Trump's economic populist message in 2016 has proven that the American people no longer buy into this. This is kinda why it was frustrating to see HRC campaign the way she did. Trump would talk about how the Free Trade deals were dumpster fires, "we need to invest in infastructure spending", and other various ideas that in the past would be considered "left wing". Hillary meanwhile would run back over to the right, defending the Bushes and championing neoliberalism. They keep rejecting what their base wants and focusing on neoliberalism preached by the nutjobs with "blue checkmarks" via their name. It's a winning. message. Trucker Carlson is preaching protectionism. People like my dad, Adam Carolla are shrugging their shoulders at the whole "YOU'LL HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY FOR FRUIT/FOOD" argument that I saw Fox Business types make just like 2 years a go. Trump...indirectly might be the best person i've ever seen prove how neliberalism is a failed ideaology.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 17:05 |
|
We need to be unabashedly pro-government. Edit: We need pro-government narratives. I'll rip off a monologue I saw a while ago: I am not a politician but I do know this: If the water comes out when I turn on the tap, it doesn't happen magically. Or if there's gasoline when I turn on the pump. For the world to function, a thousand things have to go right every minute. And they have to go right quietly. That's why you have government, to make sure that these things happen quietly. So that we can have our society. I posted that in another thread and I liked this guy's angle: OXBALLS DOT COM posted:People don't want a small government, they want an invisible government Accretionist has issued a correction as of 17:12 on Apr 22, 2017 |
# ? Apr 22, 2017 17:06 |
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I think campaign Obama in 2008, and Trump's economic populist message in 2016 has proven that the American people no longer buy into this. pretty much: trump might have actually done a lot of the berniecrat's dirty work for them by destabilizing the reaganite ideology and preparing the scene upon which a new set of ideas captures a majority of the electorate
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 17:11 |
|
Accretionist posted:We need to be unabashedly pro-government. Well and I do notice a streak of "libertarian" in most 's. It's why gun rights, free speech and such are so roundly protected. These are very much American concepts in a lot of ways. But this doesn't mean that they're adverse to concepts like public roads, schools, healthcare and other things that are vital for a successful country. I imagine they're not thrilled with frivolous poo poo or the continued funding of stuff like the NSA or things like "The Patriot Act", etc
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 17:23 |
|
The problem is that they seem to have no clue what counts as "frivolous".
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 17:40 |
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Well and I do notice a streak of "libertarian" in most 's. It's why gun rights, free speech and such are so roundly protected. These are very much American concepts in a lot of ways. can the democrats credibly drop gun control as an issue in red states
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 18:02 |
|
Btw, if any of you agree --Accretionist posted:We need to be unabashedly pro-government. -- I have posted a thread for that.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 18:21 |
Typo posted:can the democrats credibly drop gun control as an issue in red states
|
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 19:40 |
|
Shattered is a pretty good read. On chapter six right now, and it starts with a great story: quote:As the fog of summer was still clearing, when few people paid close attention to politics, the New York Times had just published a story about a coming Clinton campaign strategy shift. Hillary would “show more humor and heart,” the headline declared. This book makes Mook and Palmieri look like such loving idiots. Montasque has issued a correction as of 20:56 on Apr 22, 2017 |
# ? Apr 22, 2017 20:46 |
|
hello fellow humans will you nae nae with me this fine morning
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 20:53 |
|
Beep Boop, I am presidentbot 4000, made to run for office. Whirr, why do I run? Zrrt, error error, cannot compute.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 21:32 |
|
Montasque posted:Shattered is a pretty good read. On chapter six right now, and it starts with a great story: tbf I got a feeling this is partially because they mostly interviewed ppl who aren't mook and are trying to cover their own asses by blaming someone else
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 21:43 |
|
Typo posted:tbf I got a feeling this is partially because they mostly interviewed ppl who aren't mook and are trying to cover their own asses by blaming someone else Absolutely, Mook is the fall guy. to get to Palmieri's incompetence you need to read between the lines just a little bit... I mean she was in control of HRC's media outreach, which was mostly awful and arrogant.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 21:51 |
|
If you read to the end, you'll find out that "it was all Russia/the FBI/BernieBros' fault" was a strategy deliberately concocted by Mook and Podesta just after the election to deflect blame.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 22:22 |
|
Barry Convex posted:If you read to the end, you'll find out that "it was all Russia/the FBI/BernieBros' fault" was a strategy deliberately concocted by Mook and Podesta just after the election to deflect blame. Nothing like trying deflect the blame for getting Trump elected
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 22:25 |
|
This Palmieri video is like the most blatant admission of bad Dem ideology I have ever seen, and these are the sort of people Hillary kept around her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx03IuXG5Eg quote:I think that a lot of this energy is not — the base is there, but you are wrong to look at these crowds and think that means everyone wants $15 an hour. Don’t assume that the answer to big crowds is moving policy to the left. I think the answer to the big crowds is engaging as much as you can to be as supportive as you can and understanding — what these people want, they are desperate. It’s all about identity on our side now.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 23:12 |
|
MaxxBot posted:This Palmieri video is like the most blatant admission of bad Dem ideology I have ever seen, and these are the sort of people Hillary kept around her. $12 a hour should be enough for anyone..
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 23:20 |
|
It's no wonder how they lost a million and a half votes in the Rust Belt "Hello, I work extremely hard, the car is noisy and my teeth have hurt for the past several years. It is no longer possible to earn a decent wage in any of the three vocations I am skilled in. How are you going to help?" "We're going to fight against increasing your income too much and make sure you're relying on expensive, lovely private health insurance for the rest of your life. I understand and empathize with your racism."
|
# ? Apr 22, 2017 23:32 |
|
Montasque posted:Shattered is a pretty good read. On chapter six right now, and it starts with a great story: They managed her campaign like a brand. Coming soon: Hillary Clinton with an all new human flavor!
|
# ? Apr 23, 2017 00:38 |
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:They managed her campaign like a brand. Coming soon: Hillary Clinton with an all new human* flavor!
|
# ? Apr 23, 2017 00:41 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 08:40 |
|
It's ALMOST Human!
|
# ? Apr 23, 2017 00:49 |