achilles return

us politics and elections thread

3,000 posts in this topic

7 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

Honestly I'm just amazed you tied Lamb winning into Russia. Sun Tzu into Russia.

 

Everything=Russia.

 

 

 

Every. Single. Thing.

It's like playing the Soviet version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, a game.

Lamb => Guns => NRA => Alexander Torshin => Russia

Lamb => Guns => Cultural Appropriation => Judo => Putin => Russia

 

:munch:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Doozer said:

They'll shift to the right once they get a real job. Unfortunately for Millennials, Democrats are doing everything they can to keep them unemployed and living at home.

Does it bother anyone else that the left rely so heavily on uniformed, immature teens and 20-somethings to win elections? They're the easiest demographic to manipulate...

and as we all know astrophysicists don't have real jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Future voter's whose mind may have been shaped early on by liberal progresses, one day have to go out on their own, pay their own bills, and discover the ideology they once had goes out the window and they at least come to the realization that being more to the center or slightly conservative, is in their best interest.  

This is a Serge sentence if I ever saw one...sorry I stepped on your toes

and you think after being straddled with student loan debt, expanding wealth inequality, and stagnant real wages they're going to say, "oh yeah, let's vote for the guys who don't care about any of this crap"?

i was pretty far right on economic issues when i was a teenager, but then the economy exploded the semester i started college. i'm just a couple years shy of thirty now. i'll never support neoliberal economics, and the gop is utterly repulsive to me. there's a lot more where i come from, and the longer we continue racing towards the edge of the cliff, the more of us there will be. 

mfaulk57158 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, achilles return said:

and you think after being straddled with student loan debt, expanding wealth inequality, and stagnant real wages they're going to say, "oh yeah, let's vote for the guys who don't care about any of this crap"?

i was pretty far right on economic issues when i was a teenager, but then the economy exploded the semester i started college. i'm just a couple years shy of thirty now. i'll never support neoliberal economics, and the gop is utterly repulsive to me. there's a lot more where i come from, and the longer we continue racing towards the edge of the cliff, the more of us there will be. 

I always wondered why I was required to take so many humanities classes in college, but had to take economics as a voluntary elective.

It's probably because it's more difficult to indoctrinate these kids into socialism if they actually figured out why they are getting "straddled by student loan debt, and stagnant wages", or why "the expanding wealth inequality" is completely irrelevant to their economic future. (spoiler: it's caused by all the "fair share" and "equality of outcome" lefty government regulations.)

As a former college liberal, I'm ashamed to admit it took me until my senior year to see through all the BS.

Personally, I think that once these kids figure out that they can't rely on any government (GOP or Dem) to actually help them, they'll choose the candidate who will let them keep more of their money, to decide for themselves how to improve their own lives.

 

Edited by Doozer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doozer said:

I always wondered why I was required to take so many humanities classes in college, but had to take economics as a voluntary elective.

It's probably because it's more difficult to indoctrinate these kids into socialism if they actually figured out why they are getting "straddled by student loan debt, and stagnant wages", or why "the expanding wealth inequality" is completely irrelevant to their economic future. (spoiler: it's caused by all the "fair share" and "equality of outcome" lefty government regulations.)

As a former college liberal, I'm ashamed to admit it took me until my senior year to see through all the BS.

Personally, I think that once these kids figure out that they can't rely on any government (GOP or Dem) to actually help them, they'll choose the candidate who will let them keep more of their money, to decide for themselves how to improve their own lives.

 

Your story is the scenario I laid out for toad.  Congratulations though, you figured it out quicker than most of us.  The Dems kept promising me things and I bought into it with Carter and Clinton, only to discover they were kleptocrats and they thought they knew what was better for me than I did.

Unless you want someone (gov) to control your life, take your money and redistribute it how they see fit, you are better off with the guys that take off the economic restraints and let the system work for you and not you work for the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doozer said:

I always wondered why I was required to take so many humanities classes in college, but had to take economics as a voluntary elective.

It's probably because it's more difficult to indoctrinate these kids into socialism if they actually figured out why they are getting "straddled by student loan debt, and stagnant wages", or why "the expanding wealth inequality" is completely irrelevant to their economic future. (spoiler: it's caused by all the "fair share" and "equality of outcome" lefty government regulations.)

As a former college liberal, I'm ashamed to admit it took me until my senior year to see through all the BS.

Personally, I think that once these kids figure out that they can't rely on any government (GOP or Dem) to actually help them, they'll choose the candidate who will let them keep more of their money, to decide for themselves how to improve their own lives.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doozer said:

I always wondered why I was required to take so many humanities classes in college, but had to take economics as a voluntary elective.

It's probably because it's more difficult to indoctrinate these kids into socialism if they actually figured out why they are getting "straddled by student loan debt, and stagnant wages", or why "the expanding wealth inequality" is completely irrelevant to their economic future. (spoiler: it's caused by all the "fair share" and "equality of outcome" lefty government regulations.)

As a former college liberal, I'm ashamed to admit it took me until my senior year to see through all the BS.

Personally, I think that once these kids figure out that they can't rely on any government (GOP or Dem) to actually help them, they'll choose the candidate who will let them keep more of their money, to decide for themselves how to improve their own lives.

 

You may say they can't help them, but a **** ton of these kids grew up in a world where the GOP cratered the economy and a dem president got it going again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Are still fundamentally conservative...:lol:

Yes. Most universities don't teach things that fundamentally challenge the status quo. Economics courses, for example, are geared to promote American styled capitalism. What makes conservatives lose their minds about universities is that their particular worldviews, especially their social conservatism, are not coddled and they become extremely uncomfortable that they're not longer in their bubbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, HMFIC said:

LOL !  "Expanding wealth inequality" ???   That's called Capitalism, the best make more, the worst make less, economics is not a zero sun game. There is enough available for all who deserve it.  "Stagnant real wages " ??   That is largely determined by a productive economy, not political thought.  "You would never support neoliberal economics "?  The two aforementioned phrases are straight out of the Liberal play book.  Looks like you need to take off the blindfold, and look at the real world for a change.

Real wages are stagnant because the policy focus since the late 70s/early 80s has been on limiting inflation, which tends to happen once full employment is reached. Full employment causes inflation because those conditions allow labor to have more bargaining power which then leads to higher wages which leads to more money in circulation and you hopefully get the point. However, the neoliberal powers that be (both parties) view this as a bad thing so once this happens they raise interest rates, among other things, to force the economy to slow down and for unemployment to rise. These policies, coincidentally, heavily favor the wealthy since they are not affected by this wage suppression and the combination of this and policies to crack down on unions has caused profits to soar. This is why real wages have stagnated for most Americans and wealth inequality has exploded over the past few decades.

Likewise, these conditions are similar to the Gilded Age, an era notorious for the wealthy wielding too much political power and the government actively colluding with those interests to suppress the rise of labor power. That era eventually ended once enough people in power began to realize that the only way this would end was either reform or revolution, so they began to attach themselves to the growing populist movements of the late-1800s. This is what led to the progressive era.

You'd know this if you knew the basics of economics, capitalism, and our own history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Real wages are stagnant because the policy focus since the late 70s/early 80s has been on limiting inflation, which tends to happen once full employment is reached. Full employment causes inflation because those conditions allow labor to have more bargaining power which then leads to higher wages which leads to more money in circulation and you hopefully get the point. However, the neoliberal powers that be (both parties) view this as a bad thing so once this happens they raise interest rates, among other things, to force the economy to slow down and for unemployment to rise. These policies, coincidentally, heavily favor the wealthy since they are not affected by this wage suppression and the combination of this and policies to crack down on unions has caused profits to soar. This is why real wages have stagnated for most Americans and wealth inequality has exploded over the past few decades.

Likewise, these conditions are similar to the Gilded Age, an era notorious for the wealthy wielding too much political power and the government actively colluding with those interests to suppress the rise of labor power. That era eventually ended once enough people in power began to realize that the only ways this would end were either reform or revolution, so they began to attach themselves to the growing populist movements of the late-1800s. This is what led to the progressive era.

You'd know this if you knew the basics of economics, capitalism, and our own history.

Add in a transition from tangible creation/production to a services economy, with the greatest sources of wealth accumulation being provided tax-preferred status PLUS the shell game of supporting stock prices for the benefit of shareholders rather than employees which has been aided by the deregulation of securities. 

But "capitalism" and all that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Real wages are stagnant because the policy focus since the late 70s/early 80s has been on limiting inflation, which tends to happen once full employment is reached. Full employment causes inflation because those conditions allow labor to have more bargaining power which then leads to higher wages which leads to more money in circulation and you hopefully get the point. However, the neoliberal powers that be (both parties) view this as a bad thing so once this happens they raise interest rates, among other things, to force the economy to slow down and for unemployment to rise. These policies, coincidentally, heavily favor the wealthy since they are not affected by this wage suppression and the combination of this and policies to crack down on unions has caused profits to soar. This is why real wages have stagnated for most Americans and wealth inequality has exploded over the past few decades.

Likewise, these conditions are similar to the Gilded Age, an era notorious for the wealthy wielding too much political power and the government actively colluding with those interests to suppress the rise of labor power. That era eventually ended once enough people in power began to realize that the only way this would end was either reform or revolution, so they began to attach themselves to the growing populist movements of the late-1800s. This is what led to the progressive era.

You'd know this if you knew the basics of economics, capitalism, and our own history.

So your understanding of economics boils down to a bunch of illuminati controlling our lives...

...some hypothetical "they" keeping the average man down. :ninja:

And your solution is to give these guys even more control hoping they're going to fix it?

Edited by Doozer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doozer said:

So your understanding of economics boils down to a bunch of illuminati controlling our lives...

...some hypothetical "they" keeping the average man down. :ninja:

And your solution is to give these guys even more control hoping they're going to fix it?

The government that created the problem is now going to fix the problem for us.  I've never bought into that canard, but we have a lot of people on here that believe the government is the solutions to all our problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doozer said:

So your understanding of economics boils down to a bunch of illuminati controlling our lives...

...some hypothetical "they" keeping the average man down. :ninja:

And your solution is to give these guys even more control hoping they're going to fix it?

Illuminati stuff would be making tick tock threads. This is established economic policy, dumb dumb.

And, no, the solution isn't giving neoliberals and reactionaries more control. Progressives and demsocs need to gain more power from the local to the federal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Progressives and demsocs need to gain more power from the local to the federal level.

But isn't this where they've lost over a thousand seats since 2010 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

But isn't this where they've lost over a thousand seats since 2010 ?

No. That was mostly neoliberal centrists.

Also, that argument has become difficult to take seriously since Republicans have been the ones losing seats over the past year or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

No. That was mostly neoliberal centrists.

Also, that argument becomes difficult to take seriously since Republicans have been the ones losing seats over the past year or so.

No, nowhere close to a thousand.  In the eyes of voting a Demo seat is a Dem seat.

You cannot make up on one year what the previously lost in 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WhenFalconsWin said:

No, nowhere close to a thousand.  In the eyes of voting a Demo seat is a Dem seat.

You cannot make up on one year what the previously lost in 7.

Wow. No ****?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Wow. No ****?

Like you had a clue in the last elecction., That's kinda what you were eluding to just a few minutes ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now