jfc, not even matt yglesias is safe from daou's blunderbuss


https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...10409652785152


https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/906354975789473792

also the democrats have learned absolutely nothing.



https://twitter.com/virgiltexas/stat...44297820917761

It's possible that Hillary's book is better than all these extracts make it seem to be, but based on the stuff I've seen online it seems like she has written a self-congratulatory book about losing an election. It takes a really "special" kind of person to do that.

If you were the single person most responsible for the election of Trump, you'd probably work pretty hard to convince yourself that it wasn't your fault.

HRC is sort of the ultimate conundrum because separating out the precise lines between haters and deplorables, right-wing trolls and idiots, and well-meaning Clinton critics is extremely hard to do.

Some of the excerpts I've seen seem a bit self-congratulatory but more blame deflection than back-patting. But then some of the stuff that is supposed to be REALLY EGREGIOUS seems thoughtful and true enough. And then some of the bad takes seem pretty clearly part of marketing.

Remember, too, that the excerpts are part of a marketing campaign. The gossipy blame game stuff are going to sell what is probably a slightly different book than the marketing hype portends. They want to goad people into thinking it's a gossip tell-all when it's probably not a lot of that.

That is, the pre book hype seems like a perfect encapsulation of her entire career: sure, the crimes and wrongdoings are real enough but the hate headed her way for it seems really, really out of proportion. Her crimes here are sort of the normal trolls people do in these pre-release book tours that people are turning into crimes-of-the-century sorts of tropes. Part of me wants to say "guys, this is just dumb book marketing" but it's sort of like giving speeches to Goldman. It's a bad idea in conceit and I don't want to defend it and HRC shouldn't deflect blame but the amount of hate that flows her way for the banal bad stuff most everyone else does too feels unsavory, that it comes from some other place.

tl;dr summary:
- HRC's book tour is a ~moderate-level bad look
- HRC's critics take moderate, penny ante crimes and turn them into mortal sins
- the actual book will probably not be 500 pages of blame deflection hottakes, the hottakes that get people jawing at each other are carefully selected to get people jawing at each other

Maybe the best thing to do now is just everyone look somewhere else, and do not pay attention to HRC. I realize that's the "but then WHY does she even have to have a book?!" and yes, I know, I know, but still.

Your hannity is showing.

Then tax the capital gains for CEOs who exercise their stock options. I said taxing the utlra wealthy on an individual basis is necessary. But not corporate profits. Why is Apple sitting on $200 BILLION dollars in cash mostly overseas? You can't make it HARDER for businesses to compete. You can't give incentives to send jobs overseas, cut hours so they don't have to provide health insurance (an entirely different topic of which asks the question; why companies are in the health insurance business in the first place).

There is nothing wrong with companies making money. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO! IT'S WHY THEY EXIST! The problems lie in what they and their CEOs are allowed to get away, the loopholes that have been created, and taxes they can now dodge because of dumb rules, regulations, and governmental policies.

You're damn right. So we agree on at least this much. The goal is to get more of the profits shared with the American worker. Used to be if a company did well, so did its employees. That's not the case anymore. Why? Because they are taxed and regulated to the point where they just ship offices, plants, and jobs overseas because its cheaper.

Back at ya big guy.

No. This exact post goes against all your liberal talking points so you don't like it. Won't even discuss it or entertain any other idea of how to create more parity in wealth. What I'm suggesting takes money OUT OF the mega rich and forces them to distribute it to the workers who are much more likely to spend and stimulate the economy.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a company making money. The problem is, there aren't enough companies who can compete anymore and there are too many monopolies. It's just gonna get worse and disparity in wealth between the average worker and the ultra rich will just get wider and wider as they use their money and power to lobby government policies that favor them (what other reason on earth do you think the GOP wants to REDUCE taxes on the rich? Hint: It's NOT because most of their base is rich). Smaller companies looking to innovate, compete, and employ, don't need more corporate taxes and regulations, they need less.

I'll take this as a compliment. Better to be clueless than dishonest. Unlike yourself, I admit I don't have an answer to everything, so it's very possible that I'm clueless on many things. But it's also better to have an open mind on things, than to shut out every other idea and possibility because you refuse to even address another contrary view.

Yet, it was a FACT that the more time Bernie had to spend in a state and get his message out, the better he did. But go ahead and keep ignoring facts.

I don't listen to Hannity, so I don't know what he says or said. But if you're saying you'll ignore a fact just because of where it comes from, you're just a dishonest fool.

how can you quote me where i'm refuting you and then claim to agree with me? you are such a disingenuous republican troll

[QUOTE=+rep_lol;52817544]







Hmm. It would be nice to also include charts on governmental spending, major regulations, government spending per household, and America's share of public debt during those same time frames. Why did you omit those?

What does that have to do with anything? Was Hillary somehow through the powers of dnc teleportation able to be in more places at once than bernie?

It is a fact that bernie did worse in primary voting than in caucuses. Wanna guess which one is more democratic? Caucuses have less participation by definition, on top of which almost any date you choose to hold the caucus will make people drop out. This happened in my state, Washington. A non binding primary vote had 3x the participation of the caucuses, yet the caucus delegates gave bernie a "landslide". And yet, he still didn't beat her total popular vote.

You are literally repeating hannity' stalking points in both of the paragraphs I quoted. I don't give a crap whether you listen to him, but you seem ta have swallowed them just as effectively as if you were a viewer. Lol, and here you are telling us here that there was substantial something in the emails and calling it a fact hoping no one will notice.

You/we agree that putting $10,000 of disposable income into 100,000 Americans' pockets is more likely to stimulate the economy than putting $1B into one mega rich person's. No?

Actually, yes. But through the powers of media and people like Feinstein.

You could be right on this. I'm not a political junkie or expert. I just know that the more time he had to get his message out, the better he did. By the time a primary was held, few voters knew his message and the longer he had to deliver it, the better he did. Do you disagree with this?

Maybe it was just Hilary getting her message out better during the primaries? She started her campaign earlier, raised more money, had better name recognition. Ever think of that?

I don't even know what you are talking about with Feinstein. Are you saying she shouldn't have supported Clinton at all? She should have done it privately? Shouldnt have stumped for her?

Lestat,

It's just insane that you act so confident about these things. Nobel prize winning economist don't even act this confident. And they certainly don't all agree with you.

Btw, the regulations are things that keep workers from getting killed on the job and keep rivers from catching on fire.

And companies build stuff overseas because the average factory wage in Vietnam is $0.53/hr.

My take is the most under mentioned cause for jobs moving overseas and the general race to the bottom for labor is

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inte...ight_transport

They're not really relevant. Well they kind of are, but not in the usual way.

I just admitted not even two posts ago that I might be entirely clueless. A post after that, I admitted I'm not a political expert. How the **** does that come off to you as being more confident than Nobel prize winning economists?

Right. Exxon's job is to profit and I'm not gonna trust them with resources that belong to all of us like our water, air. They need to be regulated. But here's a case in point for ya...

Last week a guy died on the Chicago el tracks and shut down the system. Uber and Lyft started surging. A ride that normally costs $25 was going for $250-$350.

Now some moronic alderman wants to put caps on surge prices. Do you agree with that? Why can't individual consumers be allowed to determine for themselves at what point they're not willing to trade their dollars for a ride? Sure, many can't afford to pay $250 and might be stranded, but they are stranded anyway! By allowing the market to determine supply and demand, it brings MORE available rides than there would be normally and those willing to spend the money can get to where they want to go.

Right. That's because Americans don't have the money to buy what used to be considered "made in America" quality products anymore. I'm old enough to remember the days when you could buy a desk, bookshelf, or office chair without having to put it together yourself. When you could walk into a shoe store and have someone measure your foot and wait on you, instead of sifting through rows of boxes yourself. I like to be waited on. I HATE having to walk down every aisle of these big box stores looking for what I need. And I'm willing to spend more money to go to higher priced stores.

But most Americans can't afford that (luxury?) anymore. And why is that? It's because their employer likely hoards money and doesn't share profits in the form of hourly or salary pay. They'll also cut their hours to 29 hour weeks, instead of 40 to get around having to pay for health insurance. They'll pull every trick in the book to get around these regulations that you're for and in the process hurt the employees who's backs they make their profits on.

I realize I have a very sophomoric view and it could be entirely wrong. But I'm not hearing any better answers from the likes of you guys. All you do is shout, "OMG! He's spewing conservative viewpoints! He's a Trump voter, a right wing news watcher, blah, blah, blah...". Instead, how about you tell me how we remedy the disparity in wealth? Our current system doesn't seem to be working and it's only getting worse. Instead of calling me and everyone who dares to raise a non liberal argument names, let's hear your remedies.

You are putting everyone into a group well decrying you are being put into the wrong group.

Its not surprising someone is not believed when they say they are for small gov and bernie.

Lestat,

Quit ranting and quit putting 27 different things in one post. How do you imagine I respond to that?

I don't really give a **** about Chicago aldermen. If I were mayor of Chicago I would have had cops, meter readers and dog catchers giving people rides for free and I'd be the most popular mayor in history. It'd probably propel me to the Presidency.

Strange that a "Bernie supporter" would be so in favour of price gouging.

Turns out this dude voted for Trump with some reservations... over his fiscal policy not being right wing enough lol.

This is the second time Lestat has confused Dianne Feinstein and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. I made fun of him for doing it last time because it was a really neat demonstration of how he never would've voted for a left wing Jew like Bernie Sanders. Now he has done it again! AGAIN. ****ing priceless.

It's weird that you only think of this situation in terms of extremes. Like caps automatically mean lowered supply in your model even though it's in the government's interest to have people continue working. For example along with caps the government could also incentivize drivers to get out and pick up fares, maybe by matching the ride price, and pay for it via public transportation budget since it serves as a failsafe for public transit outages. Yes it would mean some taxation for the greater public good.

You allegedly supported Bernie Sanders in the primary and Hillary Clinton in the general but you aren't aware of any left wing proposals to combat income inequality? Yeah, that ****ing story checks out.