Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Adder

(Don't mind me, I'm just an old crank that doesn't get the kids' music)

Only the kids ever truly understand the kids' music. Daily Dose # Whatever is about getting down with some James Brown, loose and all spread out. Escape-ism. At about 2:40, the band shifts into a funky riff and just works it for the next 17 minutes or so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPItm6Ww70Y

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This article is just amazing to me. Not because I disagree. But the stuff it addresses, namely:

• The problem of the lack of available jobs for people in certain geographic areas
• The reality of Republicans blaming those who are poor for those circumstances
• The revelation that the poor, who seemingly have no future, often turn to drugs
• The available jobs being of the service variety, which result in wage stagnation
• Etc.

is (i) what black people have been complaining about since the dawn of time in this country while being ignored, ridiculed, and over-policed and (ii) the direct result of the policies of the Republicans these people continually vote into office.

When people asked, "What's the matter with Kansas," everyone, including the people who are the focus of this article were angry that people on the left didn't understand that the social issues used as a pre-text to get these people to constantly vote against their own economic self-interest were so very important.

But what really surprises me is that any of you think that their support of Trump is any different than the status fucking quo. Trump doesn't give a fuck about these people. Just because he's not a career politician doesn't mean he's not going to completely screw them over like he's done to business partners, lenders, employees, etc. If they're voting for him because they think they're in this predicament because of Mexicans, Muslims, and black thugs--all the time pointing at black people in a WORSE position and faulting them for being lazy criminals--then they deserve what they get.

TM

I do think that what is happening now, with Trump, is different from the status quo, for a number of reasons. In no particular order:

It's far less focused on moral and social issues. While Trump will say stuff that's anti-abortion rights or anti-gay rights or whatever, that is not the focus of his efforts (in my opinion, he does that to pander to a particular audience, and his overwhelming need to pander to everyone will kill him in a general election). Trump will fight Cruz for evangelical votes, but it is not his primary focus.

It's more focused on economic issues -- all of which are the fault of "foreign" people (which, need I say, includes Americans who are not white). It's China and Mexicans and on and on and on.

It's a whole lot nastier. Trump is saying things that a lot of grumpy white people have said for a very long time, but have gotten quieter or more careful about where they say those things in recent years. He's ripped off whatever was covering up that ugliness, and stoked the shit out of it.

Those, in my view, are the main difference.

Oh, and also -- it's the motherfucking Apocalypse if he's elected.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://theslot.jezebel.com/lindsey-g...ium=socialflow

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I do think that what is happening now, with Trump, is different from the status quo, for a number of reasons. In no particular order:

It's far less focused on moral and social issues. While Trump will say stuff that's anti-abortion rights or anti-gay rights or whatever, that is not the focus of his efforts (in my opinion, he does that to pander to a particular audience, and his overwhelming need to pander to everyone will kill him in a general election). Trump will fight Cruz for evangelical votes, but it is not his primary focus.

It's more focused on economic issues -- all of which are the fault of "foreign" people (which, need I say, includes Americans who are not white). It's China and Mexicans and on and on and on.

It's a whole lot nastier. Trump is saying things that a lot of grumpy white people have said for a very long time, but have gotten quieter or more careful about where they say those things in recent years. He's ripped off whatever was covering up that ugliness, and stoked the shit out of it.

Those, in my view, are the main difference.

Oh, and also -- it's the motherfucking Apocalypse if he's elected.

I don't think we are disagreeing. While I tend to think that his followers think of his endless hate speech as addressing "social views" that are important to them, when I said it's status quo for them, I meant that, if elected, he is not going to help any of them out in any way whatsoever. The rich will get richer, faster. And everyone who voted for him will get fucked. Maybe they will be comforted by him calling women disgusting pigs or tweeting out made up bullshit about how blacks kill 80% of whites or continuing to promise to build a wall to keep Mexican rapists out. Whoever they vote for on the right just holds up another shiny object to distract regular people while the rich enjoy rack city with ten, ten, ten, twenties and them fifties bitch.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't think we are disagreeing. While I tend to think that his followers think of his endless hate speech as addressing "social views" that are important to them, when I said it's status quo for them, I meant that, if elected, he is not going to help any of them out in any way whatsoever. The rich will get richer, faster. And everyone who voted for him will get fucked. Maybe they will be comforted by him calling women disgusting pigs or tweeting out made up bullshit about how blacks kill 80% of whites or continuing to promise to build a wall to keep Mexican rapists out. Whoever they vote for on the right just holds up another shiny object to distract regular people while the rich enjoy rack city with ten, ten, ten, twenties and them fifties bitch.

TM

I'm going to assume the last part is from that link that I Will Not Click. With so much good music in the world, why would I?

Anyhoo -- Yeah. Status quo for the people who support him. At best -- and maybe much worse.

For the wealthy? I actually think a President Trump will so thoroughly fuck up the country that anyone but the super-wealthy will be fucked. We could all end up as security guards for Koch or Ellisons compounds. This shit is not going to be pretty.

I may be exaggerating, but I actually think Trump could drive this nation straight off the cliff. And if he doesn't, he still will most likely benefit only the super-rich.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm going to assume the last part is from that link that I Will Not Click. With so much good music in the world, why would I?

Anyhoo -- Yeah. Status quo for the people who support him. At best -- and maybe much worse.

For the wealthy? I actually think a President Trump will so thoroughly fuck up the country that anyone but the super-wealthy will be fucked. We could all end up as security guards for Koch or Ellisons compounds. This shit is not going to be pretty.

I may be exaggerating, but I actually think Trump could drive this nation straight off the cliff. And if he doesn't, he still will most likely benefit only the super-rich.

No argument from me.

Anyone else? Anyone?

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I do think that what is happening now, with Trump, is different from the status quo, for a number of reasons. In no particular order:

It's far less focused on moral and social issues. While Trump will say stuff that's anti-abortion rights or anti-gay rights or whatever, that is not the focus of his efforts (in my opinion, he does that to pander to a particular audience, and his overwhelming need to pander to everyone will kill him in a general election). Trump will fight Cruz for evangelical votes, but it is not his primary focus.

It's more focused on economic issues -- all of which are the fault of "foreign" people (which, need I say, includes Americans who are not white). It's China and Mexicans and on and on and on.

It's a whole lot nastier. Trump is saying things that a lot of grumpy white people have said for a very long time, but have gotten quieter or more careful about where they say those things in recent years. He's ripped off whatever was covering up that ugliness, and stoked the shit out of it.

Those, in my view, are the main difference.

Oh, and also -- it's the motherfucking Apocalypse if he's elected.

This is America for the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern (Hi Hank!). The Bloviators. The people who want to whine and complain about other people, including but by no means limited to people like them. And that is regardless of their race, class, or sex.

The thing is, those people are disproportionately white men, I'll let someone else figure that out. But I think aging men are the entitled whiners in our society, more than women, more than minorities, more than kids.

But I would bet, as a percentage, more rich white men love trump than middle class white men, there just aren't as many rich people to fill the halls he holds his rallies in.

What they have in common is that they think Rush Limbaugh is a reasonable way to approach public policy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

http://theslot.jezebel.com/lindsey-g...ium=socialflow

TM

I look forward to seeing all the commercials in October with snippets from that in them.

After Lindsey endorses Trump.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It's more focused on economic issues -- all of which are the fault of "foreign" people (which, need I say, includes Americans who are not white).

See, I'd say it's more focus on the foreign people, who can be glibly blamed for economic issues. Which is why its ugly. And why those people aren't interested in Bernie, who talks a lot about those economic issues.

Oh, and also -- it's the motherfucking Apocalypse if he's elected.

He won't be elected. But will it be the apocalypse anyway?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

See, I'd say it's more focus on the foreign people, who can be glibly blamed for economic issues. Which is why its ugly.

Sing it, brother.

I am especially disturbed at the way they demonize inversion transactions and those who engage in them. This is ugly, ugly, ugly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really, because I kind of think those articles had just a little substance to them. I think it's you who's got nothing in terms of reply.

But yes, there is some resentment. I resent people who repeatedly fuck up, and have never proven themselves in the private sector, inflicting their economic policy suggestions on us. These same criticisms could be aimed at Milton Friedman.

Deification of pure academics pontificating about real world processes is dangerous. This buffoon just recently argued that we should rid the world of $100 bills. This is a direct assault on our freedoms. Why? Well, of course, because Larry, who is right on everything in theory, knows what's best for us. Nevermind his track record and gross inexperience in working within the private economy he knows so well...

You'll never get it because you deify people like Summers. I see him for what he is. And I rightly resent, quite deeply, that a person so wrong so often still insists on joining the big policy debates. Go teach a class, Larry. You're out of your depth, and dangerous.

I have no idea what you're talking about re $100 bills, and I don't really care. If he wants to get rid of them, I don't understand why you care, either, but whatever.

On the issues that actually matter more to a lot of people, like how the economy should be managed, Summers has been much more right than the people to whom the Republicans in Congress have listened, with consequent harm to the economy and particularly to the people who are now turning to Trump. But you call him fat and worry about your God-given right to carry Franklins. I guess that's exactly the kind of substance that has given us Trump.

I don't deify Sanders, unless by that word you mean "point out the fat-shaming of". I do like talking about economics, partly because it matters.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Why? Amounts that trigger review won't change.

Why? We are all moving in that direction already. What makes you think hundred dollar bills are what's keeping us in a cash-based system? How often does anyone use hundreds?

TM

I'm not concerned about a CTR. I'm concerned about any move to increase oversight.

We are moving in that direction already. But those of us who aren't, for good reason, should be protected. The underground economy is an integral part of the broader economy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have no idea what you're talking about re $100 bills, and I don't really care. If he wants to get rid of them, I don't understand why you care, either, but whatever.

On the issues that actually matter more to a lot of people, like how the economy should be managed, Summers has been much more right than the people to whom the Republicans in Congress have listened, with consequent harm to the economy and particularly to the people who are now turning to Trump. But you call him fat and worry about your God-given right to carry Franklins. I guess that's exactly the kind of substance that has given us Trump.

I don't deify Sanders, unless by that word you mean "point out the fat-shaming of". I do like talking about economics, partly because it matters.

What are you even saying here? Get your shit together.

Summers' only recent position has been we shouldn't raise rates. Raising rates had little impact. You cite no policy. You offer Trumpian rhetoric with an enhanced vocabulary.

You say it all when you say you like "talking economics." Thankfully, your mental masturbation doesn't exit this forum. Larry's is on the business page.

Did you just use "shaming" earnestly? Sir, indeed -- get your shit together.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Listen, what I feel about Larry Summers' performance as an adviser is not really relevant to my point. What I'm trying to understand is why you feel the need to put Trump and Summers (or Trump and anyone who has any legitimacy in any field at all) in the same boat.

You are right that people who are considered experts in their field based on dedicating their lives to the study of a topic are often sought out to assist elected officials who can't possibly be in such a position when it comes to the numerous subjects on which they need to form an opinion and make decisions. And yes, experts are often wrong. But it is beyond irresponsible for you to put a fucking buffoon who is an expert in zero things, including his own business, in the same category as any expert. It's just a ridiculous exercise.

Consider:

"Wow, Bill Belichick really drew up an awful offensive scheme for the Super Bowl. Denver was all over them on every play. He got everything wrong. We should hire Donald Trump to be our head coach next year. He's very rich, and although he has absolutely no experience with football, he can probably figure it out. And if he can't, he'll just hire smart people to assist him."

TM

You've fixated on a collateral thing. Summers is not the same variant of bloated jackass as Trump. A reptile probably applies more rigor to his conclusions than does The Donald of Orange. I only lump them together because both have such an utterly undeserved self-aggrandizement complex. One clown inherited a fortune and parlayed it into a garish "empire" of shlock. The other collected degrees, gold-plated wonk positions, and got Bezos to give a blog at WaPo. Neither is worth listening to in much detail, and both are highly irritating in anything beyond minimal doses. Yet neither seems capable of shutting the fuck up in any instance.

But you are correct - Summers has a wealth more collected academic intellect, and though it pains me to concede, I'd have to select him over Trump if compelled to pick one to be stranded with on a desert island. Part of this is because I imagine Larry'd be more whiny than dictatorial. The other part of it is, if it came to survival of the fittest, I'd want the guy I could most easily outrun.

It'd also be more fun "shaming" Larry for lack of survival skill. There is no "shaming" Trump.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

He won't be elected. But will it be the apocalypse anyway?

This is the question. The Comb-over and the Damage Done?

Trump's down 10 points against Hillary. But the impact of him driving so much right wing extremism, coupled with Bernie driving so much left wing utopian hope isn't going away. These strands of supporters connect on certain points and are mortal enemies on others. The only diagnosis is more polarity generally and more fragmentation. And whoever wins being seen as illegitimate by nearly half the county. In other words, four more years of the last sixteen. Only with more war! Be it DJT ot HRC, we're going into the Middle East in a serious way.*


________________
* Obama's only blunder has been Libya. We should've left Gaddafi, the garbage pail lid, on that place. Otherwise, he's been conservative non-interventionist. He deserves more credit for this.