quash wrote:Therein lies the problem: not all of the very wealthy have the same goals. In fact, some of them have wildly different goals.
Guess what - their "goals"
don't matter, because whatever their "goals" are
they're the near-sole targets of Trump's economic agenda, the same (say it again, kids!) as under nearly every Republican administration going back a century or more. If you're
not very, very wealthy, you're
not going to get squat unless every single other colossal failure of "trickle down" economics leading up to this point was somehow a fluke (more on that in a moment).
By the by, I
distinctly recall offering you the name "Bashar al Assad" in response to your "name names" query; you simply refused to believe that he and his willful, lethal aggression towards his own people could
possibly be a central cause of his country's turmoil, because it
must actually be a shadowy liberal cabal pulling the strings, and that's that.
Not sure what else you intend to "discuss" on this matter, to be perfectly frank, unless you simply intend to veer back into murkier territory than "conservative economics is provably a pile of bullshit" and hope nobody notices.
Net neutrality is already dead. The US forfeiting control of DNS infrastructure was the first step of ensuring this.
Yeah, I'll let someone else pick up the baton on this one.
Technically true, but again, I'm not a conservative in any traditional sense of the word.
Unfortunately for the rest of us (even if we ignore your previous, very "traditional" assertion that wall street swindlers aren't "establishment" figures at all, they're just that much smarter than everyone else
), both Trump's policy proposals and the people he's surrounding himself with are
extremely "traditional" in that "sense", and are frankly making very few attempts to hide it. Not that they need to, considering what their base is willing to believe in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary.
Because they've all been half assed efforts.
....aaaand BOOM, there it is, like
fucking clockwork - the only reason previous policies of this type have not only failed spectacularly to do what we promised they'd do, but consistently accomplished the
exact opposite of it, is because dammit, we
just didn't act like we meant it! The only solution is
more upper-end tax cuts,
bigger entitlement cuts,
deeper gutting of regulations:
the beatings will continue until morale improves!
Y'know, if there's one sense in which Trump and company are
absolutely correct when it comes to calling liberals "losers", it's the fact that this type of utterly bogus "platform" not only
still exists at all after all that it's wrought, but that a sizable portion of people still
believe it and
base their votes on it: that we haven't been able to get such a
bone-simple fact across to the electorate is about as damning an indictment of our sheer haplessness as one could possibly ask for.
Right now we have Apple of all companies talking about opening manufacturing plants in the US.
To the extent that such reinvestment happens at all, I can guarantee you three things: 1) It will be
incredibly rare, 2) It will only ever occur in exchange for
disgustingly lenient sweetheart deals on the taxpayer dime ("hey, all those taxes you evaded via inversion? You don't even owe 'em anymore to begin with!"), and 3) Even in the
best-case scenario, will turn out
something like this:
The factory is not unionized, and pay starts at about $12 an hour...Cynthia Harper said she made $30 an hour at the plant when it was owned by GM — more than double what she earns now as a production line worker at Fuyao.
I can already hear the conservative apologists declaring what a "triumph for workers" it is as Foxconn USA opens its doors...even as they're double-checking that they've ordered extra-heavy-duty anti-suicide netting.
Sorry, but as I've said a million times now, so long as "greed is good" remains all you need to be a "legitimate" business, if you don't have a government willing to fight you tooth and nail you're going to get as close to reinstating slavery as you can get; otherwise you're simply not competitive.
At the six month mark, we'll have enough to make a judgement, and I seriously doubt he's going to be nearly as bad as you and others have said he will be.
Assuming, as one always must in order to continue responding to this metastasizing mess, that you're actually posting in anything resembling good faith as opposed to simply upping your lulz count, allow me to remind you that our current President-elect, just as a single, recent example, after months of singing the praises of torture and tossing any and all rules of war out the window in the name of fighting terror, told the NY Times the other day that
a single conversation with a single person has
completely and
instantly changed his view on the whole thing. If
he's not trolling the hell out of us about the way this latest embarrassment went down - and, frankly, even if he is, - then we've got a
major problem on our hands, and so does the rest of the world.
At the very least, getting Russia amicable towards the US and finally working towards a resolution in Syria already puts him well above the alternative.
Just as a quick final thought, you know as well as I do that if a liberal president was proposing
exactly what Trump is in this area, you and your cadre would be indignantly decrying it as "surrender", "capitulation", and, of course, an "apology tour."
See you in six months.
I guess Rhee wasn't shitty enough, he went and got us Betsy Devos.
A woman with no education background and no teaching experience.
How 'bout that,
another Dubya leftover - drain that swamp, boys, drain that swamp!
). It's also totally inaccurate. What those guys were doing is pretty fucking clear though... anyone not being able to see that just makes me visualize that time on Entourage when Ari went nuts on Lloyd saying "has so much cum been shot in those eyes you can't see 2 feet in front of you?!"
