I think his point is more like: Suppose Obama was president and replace all of the "endorsed Clinton" on that list with Breitbart clones. Would you think the media was biased in that case?
The thing is, for that analogy to hold water you need to assume that the entirety of the "mainstream" (or whatever you care to call it) media is coming from the same self-serving foregone conclusion as the Breitbart sector (or Fox, for that matter), i.e. they openly declare that everything
else is so
biased in one direction that they not only can, but must
go completely off the deep end in the other direction, in the name of "balance". The "mainstream" media has many, many
faults, and is obviously not magically free of any and all prejudice, but it doesn't
adopt the same mission statement/excuse for ludicrous behavior and slapdash, reactionary "reporting" that the "alt-right" and its ilk do, and its endorsements and other coverage are nowhere near as foreordained.
From what little I know, the USA already has the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world
As others have noted, this is an extremely
tortured stance to take (not that plutocratic apologists have missed a beat, of course), but the reason I posted what I did is because Trump is merely the latest in a very
long line of economic conservatives to insist that by throwing as much money as possible at the super-rich, everyone
will eventually benefit. The only problem is, despite many, many
indulgences thrown their way over countless decades, it's never even come close
to happening: when the rich get richer, they don't
hire, they don't
invest, and they sure as hell
don't raise wages, especially
in an economy suffering from sagging demand like we have now. Whenever they get a new tax break, subsidy, exemption, or - my personal favorite - a "tax holiday" wherein cheats who have been hiding their profits overseas can bring them back into the USA with absolutely no penalty, which means they not only get out of prosecution for tax evasion, they still
get to evade the taxes (man oh man, those billionaires have it so tough
), they use almost every last cent of it for increased executive compensation, share buybacks or other perks which workers never. ever
get within spitting distance of.
What makes the "trickle down" argument even more
ludicrous is that these same apologists proudly subscribe to the Ayn Randian "greed is good" pseudo-philosophy, which maintains that personal avarice is the only
legitimate motivation for anything
, and that if you're letting morals, ethics, human empathy or anything else get in the way of your desire to further enrich yourself for even a moment, you're Doing It Wrong. As such, whenever they propose a new gift for the rich they trot out "trickle-down" to convince people that it'll be totally
worth it, but when the promised benefits inevitably fail to materialize - because, after all, the rich are just practicing Pure Reason - it immediately turns into "we're not running a goddamn charity
here, quit complaining and get back to work, slacker" (also feel free to include a canned statement about "fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders")! And once the next plan to coddle the rich comes up, if anyone remembers how badly it failed last time, just insist that we obviously didn't coddle them enough
yet - once we give them even more
, it'll totally
start raining hundred-dollar bills!
It's about as pretty a sham as anyone's ever been shameless enough to cook up...and somehow, some way, the entirety of the rabidly liberal media
seems able to put two and two together on this subject, let alone actually call anyone out
BulletMagnet's dilemma is that he can't do this. You can take a few guesses as to why, but by now it's hilariously transparent at least to me.
Because I don't intend to yet again use this thread's latest side trip as means to redirect or abandon the current unfinished conversation and hope nobody notices until the next as-if-nothing-happened reboot of convenience?
Because I don't ignore and dismiss direct queries on the loopy pretense that the fact someone responded to something I or a favored figure said - you know, as people tend to do when discussing matters of import - automatically means I'm "winning"?
Because I don't insist that there are mysterious, amorphous, More Important Things To Talk About than the "red herring" that the current leader of the free world and the political wing which enables him are both irredeemably full of shit
, and flippantly deflect requests for further discussion on the grounds of You Losers Wouldn't Get It Anyway?
Because I view the fact that a modern, information-age presidential election can still be won with a cocktail of impotent bombast, shameless dog-whistling and a wholesale rejection of quantifiable fact (with a hefty side of creative redistricting and "anti-fraud" voter suppression) as a problem in need of fixing as opposed to an opportunity ripe for not only exploiting, but openly celebrating?
Because I'm not a complete