Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What's happening is those folks are becoming perhaps the most important part of the Republican party because they are highly motivated and well financed; remember, Republican primaries in 2020, a high-turnout year, totaled about 18 million voters. Now revisit the "maybe 10 million" number you had - that's a number that, with high motivation, can dominate that process.

Today, I suspect you can count on one hand the Republicans who can be elected without enthusiastic backing from that constituency. Certainly here in Massachusetts, they chased an otherwise popular Republican governor from oiffice.

Oh, I totally agree the loons are essential. But they also punch above their weight in primaries and often wind up costing the GOP in the generals.

They pissed away the Governor's mansion here by nominating a person so insane none but the most hardened social conservatives and election deniers will vote for him.

The Democrats here also ran ads for the crazy fucker to ensure they'd get to run against a certain loser. Some people would call that sort of gamesmanship an example of what's wrong with politics, but there are two other adjectives that fit: genius, and pretty fucking funny.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If those asshats vote, yes, they vote Trump. But how many of those clowns are out there? A few million wingnuts? Maybe ten? (And how many are barred felons?)

I don't see any responsible statistical basis for the assertion Trump was overwhelmingly elected by racists.

Your argument that racists provided the little bit needed to win is true. Trump needed every group he that voted for him to win in 2016 as his margin was so thin. But that would mean that if he somehow lost, say, the military vote, or the tax voters, he would not have won. Every group he had was essential. Racists were one slice of a big, very strange pizza.

I'd totally agree with articles that said, "But for the Racists, No Trump." I think the math to support that is out there (with the caveat I just noted).

OTOH, articles saying, "It's Not the Economic Anxiety; It's the Racism," are stretching the point. It's both, among a lot of other shit. Much of it bizarre.

ETA: And the sexists! Fuck, how did I forget the sexists. Shit, that's a huge part of Trump's vote. In fact, how did racism become the favored narrative explaining Trump's win when clearly, however much of that was involved, sexism was a far larger - possibly by multiples - component? I guess people assume all sexists are racists? That's not true by a long shot. Equally loathsome crowds, but the Venn there looks far more like a sideways 8 than a 0.

One: Trump was not elected by racists. Millions of racists voted for him, but he was elected by people who voted third party.

Two: I agree with you on the rich/poor white people thing. But the racists, to the extent they voted, went Trump.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Sensitivity? I just described them as clueless and credulous.

I also noted that they are not the most downtrodden in borrowing the descriptive “Upper Precariat.”

If you’re in constant fear of being downsized, you’re in a bad place. Pick an adjective.

You just want to call them all racists. I actually agree many of them are. But as I noted earlier, the interplay between economic anxiety and racist attitudes is complex. You’d rather see it bluntly, call them all racists and being done with it. This of course allows you to avoid the discussion of how neoliberalism is one of the biggest causes of Trumpism.

Your version of capitalism is, “Fuck the middle; charity for the bottom.” That’s fine. I don’t really give a fuck because I don’t think the situation is solvable. But at least I own that corner. You want to be an apologist for monopolies and neoliberal polices that fuck the poor and the middle and absolve yourself of being selfish by saying “I’m in favor of greater redistribution…”. That’s crumbs for the desperate. And your bullshit in that regard is the definition of transparent.

You’re as selfish as any of the rest of us, including me.

Stop changing the subject. Here's Adder's post that you and Hank objected to:

Originally Posted by Adder

Someone with your track record should be very careful about typing those words. You only think you're correct because of your incorrect stereotype of who the Trump backers are.

They are not the economically downtrodden. They are just white people.

Adder was right. Trump's supporters are not "the economically downtrodden." Do they have grievances? Sure? Plenty of people have grievances and aren't the economically downtrodden. Elon Musk for example. Might they feel economically vulnerable? Sure, who doesn't? It is very clear that support for Trump generally correlates with income, not the reverse. If you look at the population and try to figure out where Trump's support is, it is exactly *not* the economically downtrodden.

Among other things, I think it's hysterical that you think I'm an apologist for monopolies. But that's a whole different conversation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

One: Trump was not elected by racists. Millions of racists voted for him, but he was elected by people who voted third party.

I mean, let's be clear. Trump lost the popular vote, big time, twice. No one else has lost twice as badly as he has since Adlai Stevenson. He is a huge loser, who got the job because of Electoral College, not because he persuaded more people to support him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So you're saying as rich as these guys are money mangers, and for that matter, since they're old, estate lawyers should be hanging around the courthouse?

No, you asshat, I'm talking about his support more generally. That's as stupid as thinking that global warming is falsified by cold day in winter.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But since Ty insists, consider this. If the best gauge of racist sentiment on this list is immigration, which is true, it still ranks 14 percent below the economy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2016-election/

I don't believe I've said that Trump voters are racists in this thread, and it seems like you are bringing it up in order to change the subject. Whatever else is true, Trump voters are white and more affluent than Biden or Clinton voters, in general.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And this is probably the most significant hole in Ty's argument. It is necessarily based on a set of assumptions. Most notably, the unsupported and unsupportable assumption that because Trump voters aren't uniquely destitute, they must be racist.

I have no idea what you think you are responding to. The board has a quote function. Please feel free to use it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Stop changing the subject. Here's Adder's post that you and Hank objected to:



Adder was right. Trump's supporters are not "the economically downtrodden." Do they have grievances? Sure? Plenty of people have grievances and aren't the economically downtrodden. Elon Musk for example. Might they feel economically vulnerable? Sure, who doesn't? It is very clear that support for Trump generally correlates with income, not the reverse. If you look at the population and try to figure out where Trump's support is, it is exactly *not* the economically downtrodden.

Among other things, I think it's hysterical that you think I'm an apologist for monopolies. But that's a whole different conversation.

You’re right. It’s Adder’s argument to which I was responding. You did not suggest the racial angle. He did.

My bad. Sorry for attributing his position to you.

You defended certain of the FAANGS in prior conversations about them being monopolies.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't believe I've said that Trump voters are racists in this thread, and it seems like you are bringing it up in order to change the subject. Whatever else is true, Trump voters are white and more affluent than Biden or Clinton voters, in general.

No. Adder likes that corner.

My response to you was regarding your assertion I’ve no love for the dirt poor. Neither of us does. Your charity is largely performative. For us to make real redistributions that would help the truly poor and middle, people like us would have to seriously downgrade our lifestyles. The economy would have to be radically altered.

I think it’s beyond policy solutions, and impossible. You employ the performative act of addressing the desperate with crumbs from the state via tax hikes that cost you at the margin in the moment but keep in place an economic system that makes you 100x that over the long term.

You get to feel good without really doing anything that causes you to acquire skin in the game. Same here. I talk a good game, and I did bet against this country in 2008 (and lost on it), but when the bailout lost on first vote and an apocalypse looked real, I dropped my libertarian shtick real quick.

I don’t like being called selfish by the selfish. We’re all in the club to some degree. (Look up the parasitic effects of the upper middle and affluent classes on the poor... Giridharadas does a great job.) Stop bullshitting yourself. Welcome to Self-Interested Club.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My response to you was regarding your assertion I’ve no love for the dirt poor. Neither of us does. Your charity is largely performative. For us to make real redistributions that would help the truly poor and middle, people like us would have to seriously downgrade our lifestyles. The economy would have to be radically altered.

Not really sure what you are talking about. There are a bunch of things I would do if I were charge that I'm pretty sure you wouldn't do, and I think they would help average people. If we were to talk about the specifics, you would adopt a jaded attitude, and explain how it would never work or never happen. I would try, and you wouldn't.

eta: You seem to think that it's pointless to help people on the margin, and I don't. If I had my way, I would, for example, spend lots more money on public education and mass transit, because I think those are goods that make life better for those who need to use them. Pretty sure you will now scoff at the inadequacy of anything one could try in that regard.

I think it’s beyond policy solutions, and impossible.

See, there it is. You don't want to do anything because it's "impossible."

You employ the performative act of addressing the desperate with crumbs from the state via tax hikes that cost you at the margin in the moment but keep in place an economic system that makes you 100x that over the long term.

I'd be game to do more than crumbs, but people like you tell me it's impossible.

You get to feel good without really doing anything that causes you to acquire skin in the game. Same here. I talk a good game, and I did bet against this country in 2008 (and lost on it), but when the bailout lost on first vote and an apocalypse looked real, I dropped my libertarian shtick real quick.

Look, friend, you know where I went when I left BIGLAW and what it did for my earnings. If I just wanted to make money, there are a lot of other things I could be doing.

I don’t like being called selfish by the selfish. We’re all in the club to some degree. (Look up the parasitic effects of the upper middle and affluent classes on the poor... Giridharadas does a great job.) Stop bullshitting yourself. Welcome to Self-Interested Club.

He does a great job, by focusing on what people actually do. You, on the other hand, are shooting blanks.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You defended certain of the FAANGS in prior conversations about them being monopolies.

Facebook -- not clear to me that they are a monopoly because I'm not sure how to define the relevant market, but it is an enormously harmful company that I have no interest in defending

Apple -- not sure whether they are a monopolist or a duopolist (with Android), but not sure it should matter

Amazon -- not sure they are a monopolist, and tend to think that the things they do are generally consistent with consumer welfare

Netflix -- not a monopolist by any stretch of the imagination, shouldn't be grouped with the others here IMO

Google -- clearly has been a monopolist for a long time, with harms for everyone else

As to which of these am I an apologist for a monopoly?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Amazon -- not sure they are a monopolist, and tend to think that the things they do are generally consistent with consumer welfare

Why/how does it help human welfare?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Why/how does it help human welfare?

They deliver all kinds of goods to your door. I certainly have many books on my shelf that I've never seen in a bookstore. In their core business, they compete by giving people what they want. When are you forced to transact with them for lack of options?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

They deliver all kinds of goods to your door. I certainly have many books on my shelf that I've never seen in a bookstore. In their core business, they compete by giving people what they want. When are you forced to transact with them for lack of options?

“Cheap shit is all that matters. Competition is a concern for the horse and buggy crowd.”

Somewhere, Bork smiles on you.

Perhaps from… Hell?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Why/how does it help human welfare?

The same way WalMart does, you silly fuck!