We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

People like Bret Stephens have no political constituency. He has a spot on the NYT editorial page because the NYT longs for your "true Republican ideals". As you apparently do. Elevating Bret Stephens is an act of denial about what most conservatives want, think and do.

Okay. But I cited him as a stylistic example of how the Left should react to Trump. If you watch how he calmly eviscerated Trump, you get an example of how the Left should react to Trump.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Sadly, he’s president so we can’t ignore him. Leaving aside corruption, Russia and obstruction of justice, and his lies on everything from the crowd size at his inauguration to the reasons he disinvited the Eagles to the White House, thanks to you and people like you, we have:

The Religious Right in control of social policies

The separation of families who are legally seeking asylum in the US (with the kids being held in what a sitting senator described as dog cages)

A trade policy that coddles the Chinese and punishes our closest allies (was thinking about this today because we’re screwing Canada and the UK, aka the two countries who equally shared in the sacrifice and victory at Normandy).

A tax plan that gave away the farm to business and the 1% while giving a tax hike via elimination of the SALT deduction to people who live in places that didn’t vote for him

Encouraged actual Nazis in Charlottesville

I could go on.

I think you miss Sebby's point. We all have created this current mess, and it's important to know how to react when someone brings Trump up at your next cocktail party.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Also, there is 000.00% value in calling out every one of Trump's lies and dissecting in detail why they are wrong. While the Left does that, Trump has already lied again five more times. It's like handing out speeding tickets at a Nascar event. He's lying serially on purpose. He knows it occupies all of the media's time, forces them to focus on ten small things at once, and gives him 100% of the coverage 100% of the time.

You're getting worked. Played like a fiddle. Stop doing so.

I don't think it is intentional, it might be simple lack of care about lying.

But I agree that massed "trump's newest indignation" posts are ultimately harmful. I go back to W's years here. One poster here (hi Ty!) posted a new "reason" to impeach it seemed EVERY DAY for 8 years. Those that already agreed W should be impeached enjoyed every moment, i suppose, but at some point i quit reading them, or even thinking about the substance.

With Trump there is plenty of actual bad things to focus on. but Facebook has geared up the DU/MoveOn/Robert Reich meme machines to grind out nonsense, and there is no ability, or apparent desire to separate wheat from chaff.

Reich- "We need to get rid of the electoral college!" Yes, that's where our energies should be focused. Very smart point!

Or there are repeated posts about how Trump's decisions on China trade are QPQ for granting Chinese trademarks- they are "key" and "valuable." I posted on one of those here's FB that this was nonsense. chinese TMs are not worth anything- it doesn't enforce TMs, but it does grant them routinely. I also noted about a year ago the memes were that China had just granted TMs to the Trump brands and that was why DJT was making decisions. I said look, if you see China ENFORCE a trump TM let's hear about that, but granting one? nope.

The LT guy at least addressed my post, but another person, who I think is intelligent actually deleted my post. Em wants to post about how dumb Trump is a dozen times a day, but didn't want to even consider whether em himself had something to learn.

Encouraging a lack of intellectual discipline in the forces aligned against Trump can only lead to more fuzzy-thinking next election- "DU/MO/Reich all inform me the two parties are the same. The Bernie voters need an alternative!!!!"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bullshit. We enabled it. If we'd not ignored the Trumpkins, there wouldn't be Trumpkins.

Who is "we"? You don't identify as a Democrat.

I responded to you yesterday on this and you don't seem to have read my post. If you do and have something to say about it, I'm all ears.

Don't be a tool. The quote is associated with the French revolution, and I attributed it generally. I did not cite Antoinette as the source.

Don't be a tool. It's a myth, not history. That was my point.

The French ignored the angered masses. The Romans gave them circuses.

I'm no Niall Ferguson or David McCullough, so I'm not getting in the weeds with you, where you'll pick some tiny misquote and hold it up as rebuttal (by the way, stop doing that). But as analogues for the proposition one side says "Fuck the rabble" and the other says, "Placate the rabble," while neither does anything substantive to fix the rabble's problems, France and Rome work quite nicely.

(Cue GGG commenting on Ferguson here. Never forget to shoot the messenger!)

Niall Ferguson is not a real historian anymore, and you very much picked the wrong week to suggest he is.

Your analogues are shite. If you're going to go with an eighth-grade version of world history, expect to be called on it. My daughter is in elementary school and would happily tell you why it's wrong to say the Romans did nothing substantive to fix the rabble's problems. Marie Antoinette herself was known for charity to the poor, so your command of the Ancien Regime is just as trite.

But let's pretend for the moment that your command of history is fantastic. As analogies for what Republicans and Democrats have actually been doing, it's still shite. Republicans do not actually say "fuck the rabble." And Democrats are not actually saying "placate the rabble."

What's mutually exclusive in these statements, both of which I've said:

"The GOP lies more, and in a more loathsome manner."

"Both sides lie."

If you come down on both sides of an issue, you can always point to something you've said before to show your fair-mindedness.

What's the Democrats' solution to the problems that gave rose to this populism? Job retraining? Moar education!!! A European welfare state? They have no real answers. None. They have band aids... for stage 3 melanoma.

Democrats have proposed things that would help people. But. I would say more here, but since (as above) you haven't responded to what I said about it yesterday, what's the point?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Okay. But I cited him as a stylistic example of how the Left should react to Trump. If you watch how he calmly eviscerated Trump, you get an example of how the Left should react to Trump.

And I said that Bret Stephens has no political constituency, by which I was trying to say that even though the true Republican ideals of the kind of people who get columns on the NYT's editorial page may be very compelling to the NYT's editors and to you, they don't actually convince very many people who vote. If Trump was actually eviscerated, it turns out that he is a sort of zombie Godzilla who doesn't need internal organs to keep stomping on buildings and killing people.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. UBI (Replacing 50% of current transfer programs)
2. "Rentier Capitalist" Tax (Use classical economic definition of "rents" and tax income falling within that category at 25%)
3. Undo all Trump immigration constraints and create incentives for highly skilled immigrants to move to economically challenged areas where they can aid development. Trumpkins won't like this at first, but it will help them.
4. Transparency. Tell the nation exactly what the CIA and DOD have forecast regarding the impact of automation and globalization. Tell these fourth generation coal miners in WV it's time to move the kids in with the cousins in the cities, and not raise another hopeless generation beholden to a dying industry.
5. Single payer
6. New New Deal. Create a massive infrastructure bank to contribute to infrastructure spending with state, local, and private partners. End the grants and force the locals to find creative, more cost-effective ways to deliver more projects. Mandate prevailing union wage on all projects into which the bank lends.
7. Make fed-backed student loans 50% dischargeable in bankruptcy. Make private student loans 100% dischargeable.
8. In the case of fed backed student loans, allow feds to clawback full amount of loan from institution where any borrower defaults for in excess of 180 days within five years of graduation.
9. Increase capital gains rate to something near parity with labor.
10. Slap a punitive (35-50%) tax on coporations paying CEOs in excess of a certain ratio in relation to average worker.
11. Repeal McCarran Ferguson and let insurers compete nationally.

That's a start.

Basically, this is a list of programs that have been hotly debated in Democratic policy circles over the last couple of decades, most of which have some significant traction somewhere in the party and virtually all of which would, in a Dem Congress/Dem Administration, see legislative action -- perhaps not always exactly in line with what you're looking for (eg, something would be done on student loans but maybe not your specific provisions, and likely we'd also be restoring grant programs and reducing the total loan needs out there) but other times very much right in line with your assessment (e.g., cap gains and labor were near parity (but for social security) under Clinton and doing that would be a clear Pelosi priority if she ran the next Dem. Congress).

But you're whining about Dem's having no ideas rather than focusing on the distinctly Democratic discussion over these ideas.

None of what you lay out has any traction at all or is part of the discussion on the Republican side, save possibly letting insurer loose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. UBI (Replacing 50% of current transfer programs)
2. "Rentier Capitalist" Tax (Use classical economic definition of "rents" and tax income falling within that category at 25%)
3. Undo all Trump immigration constraints and create incentives for highly skilled immigrants to move to economically challenged areas where they can aid development. Trumpkins won't like this at first, but it will help them.
4. Transparency. Tell the nation exactly what the CIA and DOD have forecast regarding the impact of automation and globalization. Tell these fourth generation coal miners in WV it's time to move the kids in with the cousins in the cities, and not raise another hopeless generation beholden to a dying industry.
5. Single payer
6. New New Deal. Create a massive infrastructure bank to contribute to infrastructure spending with state, local, and private partners. End the grants and force the locals to find creative, more cost-effective ways to deliver more projects. Mandate prevailing union wage on all projects into which the bank lends.
7. Make fed-backed student loans 50% dischargeable in bankruptcy. Make private student loans 100% dischargeable.
8. In the case of fed backed student loans, allow feds to clawback full amount of loan from institution where any borrower defaults for in excess of 180 days within five years of graduation.
9. Increase capital gains rate to something near parity with labor.
10. Slap a punitive (35-50%) tax on coporations paying CEOs in excess of a certain ratio in relation to average worker.
11. Repeal McCarran Ferguson and let insurers compete nationally.

That's a start.

Would you vote for someone who wanted to do these things if they were going to raise your taxes a bit to do them?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Would you vote for someone who wanted to do these things if they were going to raise your taxes a bit to do them?

Yes. The long term return on those things I believe would be many multiples of the tax increase. Also, it's necessity. I don't wish to live in a gilded Brazil when I'm 65.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Basically, this is a list of programs that have been hotly debated in Democratic policy circles over the last couple of decades, most of which have some significant traction somewhere in the party and virtually all of which would, in a Dem Congress/Dem Administration, see legislative action -- perhaps not always exactly in line with what you're looking for (eg, something would be done on student loans but maybe not your specific provisions, and likely we'd also be restoring grant programs and reducing the total loan needs out there) but other times very much right in line with your assessment (e.g., cap gains and labor were near parity (but for social security) under Clinton and doing that would be a clear Pelosi priority if she ran the next Dem. Congress).

But you're whining about Dem's having no ideas rather than focusing on the distinctly Democratic discussion over these ideas.

None of what you lay out has any traction at all or is part of the discussion on the Republican side, save possibly letting insurer loose.

You're right.

The really strange thing I grapple with is, I disliked Hillary in part because she was not left enough for me on certain important issues.

My philosophy still remains somewhat libertarian. I believe people should be left to fend for themselves. But that's not what we've had. We've had a govt that kept its thumb on the scale in favor of capital over labor, in favor of big business freezing out small competitors, and in favor of using the criminal justice system to control the disenfranchised.

That's not a fair playing field.

I think the playing field has to be made more fair by giving the folks who are being a screwed a few of the same types of favors the rentier and crony capitalists have enjoyed for the past fifty or so years.

It's kind of like the Hebrew Jubilee concept, just not quite as extreme.

I believe I might have been able to vote for Sanders. I saw him as a possible nuclear option which would teach the greedheads who've ruined a lot of this country what happens to pigs. He'd have had 4 years to make a mess after which wanna-be rentier and crony capitalists would think twice before stealing the whole punch bowl again.

My grandfather loaned money in the Depression. I was taught never to be a pig or punch downward. I can ignore the plight of people sometimes, but working to profit off the backs of the disadvantaged, make money off their misfortune, or render people serfs is not in my blood. Similarly, however, being "my brothers' keeper" is not in my blood either. All I owe anyone is to make sure the referee is not fixing the game. And in 2016, whether it was Hillary or Trump, I saw the ref fixing the game.

Sorry, this got far afield. But sometimes I'm not sure I adequately describe where I'm coming from on this stuff.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're right.

The really strange thing I grapple with is, I disliked Hillary in part because she was not left enough for me on certain important issues.

My philosophy still remains somewhat libertarian. I believe people should be left to fend for themselves. But that's not what we've had. We've had a govt that kept its thumb on the scale in favor of capital over labor, in favor of big business freezing out small competitors, and in favor of using the criminal justice system to control the disenfranchised.

That's not a fair playing field.

I think the playing field has to be made more fair by giving the folks who are being a screwed a few of the same types of favors the rentier and crony capitalists have enjoyed for the past fifty or so years.

It's kind of like the Hebrew Jubilee concept, just not quite as extreme.

I believe I might have been able to vote for Sanders. I saw him as a possible nuclear option which would teach the greedheads who've ruined a lot of this country what happens to pigs. He'd have had 4 years to make a mess after which wanna-be rentier and crony capitalists would think twice before stealing the whole punch bowl again.

My grandfather loaned money in the Depression. I was taught never to be a pig or punch downward. I can ignore the plight of people sometimes, but working to profit off the backs of the disadvantaged, make money off their misfortune, or render people serfs is not in my blood. Similarly, however, being "my brothers' keeper" is not in my blood either. All I owe anyone is to make sure the referee is not fixing the game. And in 2016, whether it was Hillary or Trump, I saw the ref fixing the game.

Sorry, this got far afield. But sometimes I'm not sure I adequately describe where I'm coming from on this stuff.

You ought to stop cursing the democrats and grab an oar and help row the boat. Your biggest complaint is that you didn't like Hillary. No one asked you to date her, you were hiring her to do a job. And on many of these issues she was just as left as you, and the only chance to get something done on them.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Or there are repeated posts about how Trump's decisions on China trade are QPQ for granting Chinese trademarks- they are "key" and "valuable." I posted on one of those here's FB that this was nonsense. chinese TMs are not worth anything- it doesn't enforce TMs, but it does grant them routinely. I also noted about a year ago the memes were that China had just granted TMs to the Trump brands and that was why DJT was making decisions. I said look, if you see China ENFORCE a trump TM let's hear about that, but granting one? nope.

The LT guy at least addressed my post, but another person, who I think is intelligent actually deleted my post. Em wants to post about how dumb Trump is a dozen times a day, but didn't want to even consider whether em himself had something to learn.

It's no less annoying when you leave out the substance of my point when you do it over here. We all know you're an IP expert. Great. But if that's all you can focus on, please let me know in advance so I can avoid attempting to have a conversation with you about the larger point which you didn't address over here or over there.

Thanks.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It's no less annoying when you leave out the substance of my point when you do it over here. We all know you're an IP expert. Great. But if that's all you can focus on, please let me know in advance so I can avoid attempting to have a conversation with you about the larger point which you didn't address over here or over there.

Thanks.

TM

well you left the substance of mine, so Cheers!

But as understood, your point was that the entire family has no business being in international businesses that might gain Chinese TMs? I don't know that we have ever had a president that owned as many businesses. Certainly we have not in my lifetime. So accepting a FB meme about what he should do is maybe a bit of a stretch for me- moreso when the meme is telling me what his aide (his daughter, but still) should do.

And they would have applied for the applications years ago. It seems to me the real scare post is he/she should have dumped their businesses because of REASON? Not "He/She got Chinese TMs!!!! they're valuable!"

And I was not hating on your response. You did at least respond. I was hating on those that stick their head in the sand.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes. The long term return on those things I believe would be many multiples of the tax increase. Also, it's necessity. I don't wish to live in a gilded Brazil when I'm 65.

Perhaps you can see why someone who has read your many posts explaining how you vote your financial self-interest might be surprised at this turn of events.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

well you left the substance of mine, so Cheers!

Pure bullshit.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

But as understood, your point was that the entire family has no business being in international businesses that might gain Chinese TMs? I don't know that we have ever had a president that owned as many businesses. Certainly we have not in my lifetime. So accepting a FB meme about what he should do is maybe a bit of a stretch for me- moreso when the meme is telling me what he aide (his daughter, but still) should do.

FB meme? I didn't post a fucking meme. And what you just said makes no sense. We haven't had any Presidents in any business while in office while I've been alive. Do you understand why operating an international business while simultaneously setting foreign trade policy is an issue--even if it's just perception? Maybe you recall the beginning of Trump's presidency when everyone was making a big deal about his taxes* and him bullshitting about divesting? Maybe not.

If I'm making a point about the problem with Trump and his family who are serving as senior advisers divesting from their businesses (and what a grant of TMs looks like given that fact--when we are in the midst of trade negotiations and especially because we have a President who has demonstrated that he couldn't possibly comprehend the brilliant and nuanced TM point you keep making and will surely think they're doing him a personal favor), the fact that you have decided that a grant of a Chinese TM is no big deal because they're always granted is completely irrelevant. I acknowledged that the magic is in the enforcement. You are still stuck on the effect of the trademarks.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

But they would have applied for the applications years ago. It seems to me the real point is he/she should have dumped their businesses because of REASON. Not "He/She got Chinese TMs!!!!"

Again, step the fuck back from your specialty. It doesn't matter if they applied yesterday or 3 years ago. It doesn't matter that the magic with IP in China is enforcement. Every single instance of him or his idiot family being granted a benefit that runs strictly to their businesses--whether it be Chinese trademarks that they applied for before he ran or whether it be a huge loan from China to a business in which he has an interest (and there are many other examples) is a problem. Sometimes the problem is based on perception and sometimes it's based on outright corruption. Given how stupid Trump is and how he is likely to read any benefit granted to him (large, small, typical, standard, special, whatever) as a personal favor, are you prepared to say that the grant of these TMs means absolutely nothing? Do you think other countries are lining up to grant TMs where it means more? Do you think Trump isn't sending signals that he wants all of business ventures to run smoothly and is happy to grant favors in return?

TM

*I'm just going to assume that you realize that part of the reason why we want that information is so that we can see from whom and where he is deriving income.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Maybe if we stipulate that Hank is an expert on IP, he will agree that Trump and his family are corrupt. Win-win!