tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post9096116303128626954..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Ann Coulter and crew should campaign for Bernie, after failure of Trump experiment to revive GOPagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-65368588361129160252019-03-09T17:57:03.567-05:002019-03-09T17:57:03.567-05:00C'mon Ann, get revenge by campaigning for Bern...C'mon Ann, get revenge by campaigning for Bernie after this level of open betrayal. The near-term future is going to be dominated by Democrats, so you might as well choose the best among them, and wash your hands of the irredeemable corporate-globalist GOP.<br /><br />"Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border. Major sections of Wall are being built..."<br /><br />https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1104503216111321089agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-5096943717051314852019-02-24T04:37:00.027-05:002019-02-24T04:37:00.027-05:00> If you say "We want America like it was ...> If you say "We want America like it was during the New Deal 1950s," that's enough of a dog-whistle to other culturally-oriented right-wingers, while being overtly in favor of New Deal outcomes.<br /><br />The corrupt new left will hear the dog-whistle alright, too, they can't be fooled, I'm afraid.<br /><br />> Debt is the other major reason why finance opposes de-industrialization<br />> and other cheap-labor practices.<br /><br />Sounds plausible, but when did they ever oppose immigration? I'm sceptical. theo the krauthttp://bit.ly/2gry8T4noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-90819370343556980452019-02-24T04:33:45.406-05:002019-02-24T04:33:45.406-05:00> European style welfare capitalism in exchange...> European style welfare capitalism in exchange for a permanent<br />> white supermajority. I would take that deal <br /><br />I'm not against it on principle, but do you know how corrupting that is? Here in Germany over 2 million are working for the welfare sector, the biggest employer by now, one third of MPs are working for it, full-time or honorary, preparing their golden parachute after politics. They love immigration of dysfunctionals, so they can bleed the taxpayer for their care, they got the state under their thumb.theo the krauthttp://bit.ly/2gry8T4noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-2120379290094543642019-02-23T08:43:06.350-05:002019-02-23T08:43:06.350-05:00"We'll have to see how far they push agai..."We'll have to see how far they push against free markets, concentrated industries, militarism / imperialism, corporate influence over the private sphere including family life, and so on."<br /><br />Merely not having knee jerk reaction over "hating" America and muh freedom is a step in the right direction. Silents and conservative Boomers/X-ers would rather be strangled than hear about what a joke this country has become on their watch.<br /><br />I find it rather absurd that later X-ers, or Millennials, would be accused of ideological derangement, when after all, it was Silents and conservative Boomers who commenced the current Darwinist regime in the first place. <br /><br />And research consistently shows that those who have the most to gain from something will be the ones to fight hardest for it. In other words, since people born over the last 45 or so years have gained practically nothing from Reaganism, it should follow that we won't defend it like the spoiled and worthless Silent Generation has. Is the cultural climate permitting us to challenge and essentially over-turn the dominate paradigm? No, hardly at all. We're in a very corrupt and decadent era, where we throw kajillions of people behind bars for the most flimsy of reasons. This isn't the early 70's, when the GI Generation permitted Silents and Boomers to start debauching the culture because that was, ya know, what two generations actually wanted. Nowadays you aren't to challenge the established culture. There are simmering class, cultural, racial, gender, and generational conflicts, and we no longer seem to have leaders who can develop a widely shared sentiment as to how to proceed forward and resolve these issues (whereas in the 60's and 70's, programs to protect the environment and advance civil rights were allowed forward momentum which opponents didn't obstruct too much).Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-58462372140521824502019-02-23T01:54:40.837-05:002019-02-23T01:54:40.837-05:00It goes w/o saying that any law needs tough enforc...It goes w/o saying that any law needs tough enforcement to work, including min wage. That's why pro-labor immigration restrictionists want mandatory E-verify, or something stronger, to punish employers rather than the illegals themselves.<br /><br />I favor seizing all of their wealth, which is the fruit of the poisonous tree. Ill-gotten gains from running a business whose model is "we can only make money if we destroy America and pay illegal foreigners breadcrumbs".<br /><br />Somehow I think Bernie Sanders' coalition would be more willing to punish greedy employers, compared to the Trump admin which is doing absolutely nothing to employers (and hardly deporting the illegal workers either).<br /><br />Not just because of the rhetoric about corporate greed, etc., but because a Democrat coalition will not see their own elites punished by a crackdown on illegal hiring. That would be GOP bastions like small businesses in a material sector, agriculture, and the like.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-79180656517008764422019-02-22T16:03:43.322-05:002019-02-22T16:03:43.322-05:00You wrote: "if employers have to pay $20 an ...You wrote: "if employers have to pay $20 an hour, they will get the most bang for their mandatory 20 bucks and hire Americans, rather than Third Worlders."<br /><br />That would be nice, but the more likely possibility (as I saw repeatedly living in hardcore-lib cities with high mandatory minimum wages), is that the business lays off the legal American employees and hires illegals "under the table".Joanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01268070137274507745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-27251983967825353172019-02-22T09:25:30.226-05:002019-02-22T09:25:30.226-05:00Yes, for many of my generation it is synonymous wi...Yes, for many of my generation it is synonymous with social justice/identity politics. For the ones who don't use it that way there is a boomer-esque pavlovian allergic reaction to it and it shuts down debate immediately. Think of the new crop of congresswomen reverting to SJWism. They probably reflect what the vast majority of Millenials mean when they use the term. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-1385497525550946062019-02-22T04:04:30.924-05:002019-02-22T04:04:30.924-05:00"Socialism" is just a floating signifier..."Socialism" is just a floating signifier, and has been since the beginning.<br /><br />"Communism" is less ambiguous -- no private ownership, and usually a central planning board in place of a market.<br /><br />"Socialist" as a term includes the neoliberal dominant parties in the Med countries, as well as the neolib opposition in Venezuela.<br /><br />So, already it means whatever it means. Bernie does not use it in a neolib way -- quite explicitly not. Tucker is using it in a more Boomer way for his audience, referring to Communism.<br /><br />Millennials don't interpret it that way, so I wouldn't worry about them getting freaked out by a Tucker monologue against Communism just cuz it uses the term socialism. Millennials are pretty in favor of "socialism", by all polls.<br /><br />What remains to be seen is what it means when the Millennials implement what they call socialism. So far, it looks mostly like "social justice-ism" -- i.e., liberal identity politics, victimhood hierarchies, oppression Olympics, etc., plus some better handouts from the govt (Medicare for all -- which the other rich countries already have).<br /><br />We'll have to see how far they push against free markets, concentrated industries, militarism / imperialism, corporate influence over the private sphere including family life, and so on.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-43662150894471338882019-02-21T21:25:56.465-05:002019-02-21T21:25:56.465-05:00you notice fucker carlson ripping on "sociali...you notice fucker carlson ripping on "socialism" tonight? after getting trucked by that dutch guy i think he got a little spooked...no more sympathizing with mark blyth maybe...just say "socialism" and you scare everyone who might have been on board with going after all the entrenched interests bernie talked about in his announcement. sure, my dad is a fox news cable addict but he's a good proxy for a distribution of how people feel...i even know some people my age (early 20's) who call themselves "liberal" but bang on about free markets...and when they all watch netflix original shows and characters soliloquy snarkily about cheap drugs in single payer canada they all nod enthusiastically and say "what the hell are we doing wrong"...I fear that we've lost them and tucker to the neo/identity cons Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-25106159355177352562019-02-20T00:18:24.226-05:002019-02-20T00:18:24.226-05:00Further observation. I don't think I ever see ...Further observation. I don't think I ever see this type hate on other Dems; these aren't the "Bernie Bros". To the extent that they rag on other Democrats, it's because of perceived friendliness towards Trump supporters. Violence and violent ideation is very real and realized from them unlike the fake threat of the Bernie Bro Menace.Anon813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-42051880622757160962019-02-20T00:08:03.054-05:002019-02-20T00:08:03.054-05:00I think Ive mentioned it before, but I'm kind ...I think Ive mentioned it before, but I'm kind of curious about this weird bifurcation with Sanders supporters: sensible, down to earth populists who like or get along with Trump supporters and people who absolutely hate the guts of any Republican no matter the stripe. I think the latter group is very small, but I'm not sure.<br />All the violent, murderous (3 people murdered on a bus; shooting up baseball field; etc.) anti-Trump people were Bernie supporters, not any other kind. This bothers and hurts the normal Bernie Sanders supporters significantly I've found when the topic comes up about how the media portrays them, naturally. In the media, better educated Bernie fans, you have guys who stalk Cernovich, Posobiec, are fervent de-platformers, will hate on the GOPe, and all with the same fervor.<br />Questions: Who are these people? Why do they support Bernie vs being anti-Bernie? With their hatred, and often ID politics, they seem to have a lot in common with the wealthy older pussyhats, but a big difference is the wealthy Dem woman doesn't see anyone else but herself whereas these guys definitely see others, oh boy do they ever see them, and obsess over them.<br /><br />Is it alienation and loneliness? Like, they identify wholly with a team, in this case, the Democratic Party, for reasons of low self-esteem? And within that group, they then gravitate to the outsider? Anon813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-32609923643235099652019-02-19T17:48:53.782-05:002019-02-19T17:48:53.782-05:00Trump's reaction to Bernie was sympathetic: he...Trump's reaction to Bernie was sympathetic: he's good on trade, got the nomination stolen by the DNC last time, but his ship has sailed.<br /><br />That's unlike the neocon garbage being pumped out by the GOP against Bernie -- muh free markets, muh Venezuela regime change, etc.<br /><br />That's the choice that Trumpian populists have in 2020 -- some random neocon (since Trump won't get the nom, passing the torch), or the only other challenger to the Establishment from 2016.<br /><br />After 4 years of a failed attempt to take over the GOP, for populists in 2020, it's Bernie or bust, bitch!agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-80689126826162666872019-02-19T16:28:21.663-05:002019-02-19T16:28:21.663-05:00He does not focus on Trump being racist, sexist, e...He does not focus on Trump being racist, sexist, etc. That's what makes him different. He includes some throwaway lines to that effect in his SotU responses, but they're just that -- throwaway.<br /><br />His campaign announcement video did not mention Trump at all, let alone focus on "racism". It was about the state of our broken society on a material level, and how he's been delivering the goods on making it better -- bullying Amazon into a $15 minimum wage, leading the vote to end support for Saudi's war on Yemen, and so on. Nothing about id-pol.<br /><br />It could've veered into "intersectionality," but thankfully did not. It's so awesome. My cat is getting jealous that I'm visibly excited about something other than him. Ha!agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-33515199195564969462019-02-19T10:52:55.683-05:002019-02-19T10:52:55.683-05:00What do you think of Bernie's announcement and...What do you think of Bernie's announcement and his focusing on Trump being racist, sexist, etc?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-51960714525839297642019-02-17T18:54:02.114-05:002019-02-17T18:54:02.114-05:00Black Bernie babe Briahna Joy Gray has already sai...Black Bernie babe Briahna Joy Gray has already said the Dems need the votes of white racists in flyover country in order to win back control. It's just a statement of fact, not an endorsement of their views.<br /><br />As long as that is simply "people who hold prejudiced beliefs," with no way for them to implement those beliefs on a systematic scale, then who cares what people think?<br /><br />If you're a white identitarian, your beef is not with historically protected minorities like African descendants of slaves and Native Americans. They're never going to be more than 15% of the population, and they're deeply rooted in this country, hence here to stay.<br /><br />Your beef is with the hordes of immigrants who were brought in to replace black and white working-class Americans. Employers of unskilled labor figured it would be better for them to just replace blacks with Mexicans, and that is what's happened.<br /><br />So, your policy goals would be reducing immigration in the future, and getting the immigrants already here to return home. That is eminently possible under a Bernie realignment. Just shut up about your motives, since motives do not matter, only real-world outcomes. If you say "We want America like it was during the New Deal 1950s," that's enough of a dog-whistle to other culturally-oriented right-wingers, while being overtly in favor of New Deal outcomes.<br /><br />If you and Bernie supporters could support the same outcomes -- reduced immigration after forcing labor-intensive sectors to pay higher wages to workers -- then that's all that matters. It doesn't matter that you have different motives. Outcomes, not motives, are what holds together a coalition of allies.<br /><br />(Just look at the godless Pentagon and the fundamentalist Zionist Christians, who both support massive aid to Israel, albeit for entirely separate motives, and who both staunchly vote for the same Republican party.)<br /><br />That's not to say that some Bernie supporters or other Dems won't try to prevent an invasion of former Trump supporters. Just like how the old-guard Rockefeller Republicans did not want the invasion of conservative Southerners circa 1980 -- but the realignment was won by Reagan, and the Rockefellers got sidelined.<br /><br />Likewise the old-guard SJW libs will try to keep populist Trump supporters out of the Bernie realignment -- but they won't be any more successful than the Rockefellers who resisted Reagan. That's what realignment does, bring a big chunk of defectors from the old dominant coalition into the old opposition, transforming it into the new dominant coalition. Anyone who doesn't like it, does not count.<br /><br />Now, this time around, the atmosphere is so polarized that it may take another election cycle to force this realignment into existence, since the partisan resistance is so fierce against it happening *on both sides*. Dems resisting the invasion of Trumpers, and Trumpers resisting the call of defection.<br /><br />So maybe it takes until a split opposition fails to stop the GOP in 2020, and after Nikki Haley's term as president (since Trump won't be the nominee), both sides decide to give in on their partisan BS and unite against a common enemy (all the easier without the person of Trump as the president -- not even the most deluded Trump cultists will cuck for president Nikki Haley).agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-39365473968812695892019-02-17T16:04:38.206-05:002019-02-17T16:04:38.206-05:00You are directing this proposition of a left right...You are directing this proposition of a left right political coalition towards right wing Trump supporters. European style welfare capitalism in exchange for a permanent white supermajority. I would take that deal and build that coalition in a heartbeat. My question is: Would Bernie bro's and economic leftists take that deal? Are they really willing to work with "racists" like me? I want a country for "ourselves and our posterity" this is a gross immortality to the left half of our population. And I am guilty of being straight, white, male, and Christian all at the same time. I would love to spend the 2020's building this coalition you describe but I would be crucified at the first parlay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-57984015722521695212019-02-17T15:46:23.972-05:002019-02-17T15:46:23.972-05:00Debt is the other major reason why finance opposes...Debt is the other major reason why finance opposes de-industrialization and other cheap-labor practices. The more that mfg sends its factories out of the country, the less corporate revenue there is to tax here in the US.<br /><br />And with the disappearance of all those good-paying jobs for the working and middle classes, that's less income tax revenue that the govt can extract from the middle and bottom tiers of the pyramid.<br /><br />The jobs that replaced mfg are shitty servant jobs, which means the workers earn too little to have to pay income taxes. And even if they could be forced to, their income has still been cut in half.<br /><br />De-industrialization is a major contributor to the explosion of the national debt over the past 35-40 years, since the govt has been starved of tax revenues now that our economy has devolved back into a pre-industrial servant economy.<br /><br />Who will have to jump on the grenade of soaring debt? Big finance. They will have to bail out the govt by monetizing the debt outright (to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars), which would entail printing shitloads of dollars and hyper-inflation.<br /><br />With inflation, the value of financial assets (most of which are denominated in US dollars) plummets. But that does not hurt the tangible assets of the GOP sectors -- farmland will continue to be productive, the military bases will still be well-stocked with vehicles, weapons, and loyal soldiers.<br /><br />Or, the govt will have to default on the debt, which would damage our credit rating, and make foreign lenders less likely to give us credit. That would harm the finance sector most, since they are the ones who mediate financial transactions with the rest of the world.<br /><br />Defaulting would also severely weaken the dollar -- there will be less demand for the currency of a govt that ramps up its supply in order to pay off its debt. That would primarily harm sectors whose wealth is financial and denominated in dollars, rather than tangible things like farmland, livestock, bases, weapons, etc.<br /><br />If the big Wall Street banks, and the central bank, want to avoid having to jump on the grenade of debt -- or at least, if they want to jump on a smaller rather than a larger grenade -- they will have to re-industrialize the economy, to boost corporate tax revenues on factories that return to the US, and income tax on well-paid workers and managers of those factories.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-20294063121596739432019-02-17T15:19:49.714-05:002019-02-17T15:19:49.714-05:00See also the votes on NAFTA. The two sectors it se...See also the votes on NAFTA. The two sectors it served were manufacturing -- allowing US manufacturing to move their factories to the cheap labor colony of Mexico -- and agriculture -- allowing the highly subsidized US ag sector to export its products into the Mexican market, where the local farmers are not so highly subsidized and cannot compete with US farmers.<br /><br />Ag and mfg control the GOP, so that's who pushed NAFTA. It was negotiated by the Bush Sr. administration, and overwhelming majorities of Republicans in the House and Senate voted in favor. Majorities of Democrats voted *against* NAFTA in the House and Senate, both of which they held in 1993.<br /><br />Most Republicans, plus a handful of traitor Democrats, and the traitor-in-chief in the WH (Clinton), allowed NAFTA to pass.<br /><br />Why did Democrats vote against it? Because the finance sector got nothing from it. The Bush Sr. admin did not negotiate a way for the Wall Street banks to enter and take over the financial services market in Mexico. And the de-industrialization would hurt the Democrats' electoral base of labor unions.<br /><br />Even a puppet of Wall Street like Chuck Schumer voted against NAFTA -- that's how opposed the finance sector was to it. He's now the head of the party in the Senate, so it was not a fringe position to take. Although, Pelosi voted in favor of NAFTA, as one of the minority of traitors.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-2421797385527217892019-02-17T15:05:06.069-05:002019-02-17T15:05:06.069-05:00Big finance may invest some of their wealth in agr...Big finance may invest some of their wealth in agriculture and manufacturing, but they prefer more speculative sectors like info-tech.<br /><br />And even then, that's only part of their revenue. Any lower or middle-tier investor can do that. What the big Wall Street investment banks can do, which the lower-tier players cannot, is underwrite somebody's IPO (again, preferring tech companies), buy tons of US treasuries, borrow tons of dollars from the central bank, and other purely financial activities.<br /><br />The ag / manufacturing sector itself is 100% invested in cheap labor and de-industrialization. A financial firm that is partly invested in those sectors is only partly invested in destroying the real economy. See the history of the New Deal -- controlled by the big finance sector of the Northeast, and happy to let the manufacturing sector get unionized, pay high wages, and keep their factories in America.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-22076844203852638572019-02-17T11:40:22.207-05:002019-02-17T11:40:22.207-05:00A key part of any sort of realignment is punishing...A key part of any sort of realignment is punishing the military elites. Firstly gut pay to start at $2 per hour for privates. If they want benefits they can get a job like normal people, so get rid of veteran's pensions/tricare/the VA.<br /><br />Use the saved money to start helping shore up the safety net.Jamal Robinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-66086408183471741512019-02-17T10:13:56.502-05:002019-02-17T10:13:56.502-05:00> As odd as it may seem, big finance is a bette...> As odd as it may seem, big finance is a better ally in reducing immigration<br /><br />Don't their players invest their income in shares of the regular economy, eventually? Thus they own means of production and profit from exporting job and cheap labour. theo the krauthttp://bit.ly/2gry8T4noreply@blogger.com