Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

[ttystikk]

Millions already have, ground under the heel of our nation's naked imperialism in the service of capitalism. Neither Trump nor Clinton were going to do anything about that.

Maybe Bernie wouldn't either but at least he voted against the Iraq War.

 

[abandonconflict]

Millions already have, ground under the heel of our nation's naked imperialism in the service of capitalism. Neither Trump nor Clinton were going to do anything about that.

Maybe Bernie wouldn't either but at least he voted against the Iraq War.

Bernard was never trying to win the election. That's what makes berntards so fucking dumb. He was a sheepdog. You literally became a fanatic for a fake campaign for a stunt double designed to lure people back into the DNC. That's also why he uses socialist vernacular and pretends to be socialist. The appalling part is that a big enough group of mouthbreathers actually caused a split in the DNC to create a faction which resulted in Trump becoming president. Which you've stated is something you're overjoyed about.

 

[ttystikk]

Bernard was never trying to win the election. That's what makes berntards so fucking dumb. He was a sheepdog. You literally became a fanatic for a fake campaign for a stunt double designed to lure people back into the DNC. That's also why he uses socialist vernacular and pretends to be socialist. The appalling part is that a big enough group of mouthbreathers actually caused a split in the DNC to create a faction which resulted in Trump becoming president. Which you've stated is something you're overjoyed about.

That's your unsubstantiated opinion. It turns out that the loser of the nomination process is expected to and almost always does endorse the winner, and if you paid any attention at all to other elections you'd know that.

It's dishonest of you to misrepresent Mr Sanders doing the very same thing as 'sheepdogging', but as I've been pointing out all day, that's your preferred style of smear tactic.

He was on record as saying that if he didn't win, he'd endorse Mrs Clinton to keep the Chump out of office- an honest, honorable, laudable and logical approach.

None of those words apply to you, however.

What Mr Sanders succeeded in doing was showing Americans that the Democratic Party has been playing their base for morons for decades now and that there is an alternative.

Your misrepresentation about my supposed 'support' for the Chump is a laughable lie that your fanaticism won't let you break free of.

I'm just making lemonade from the lemons the election gave us while all you can do is shit post and fling poo.

Is being part of a solution so hard for you that you can't bring yourself to do it?

 

[st0wandgrow]

You continue to assume that I am, or must be, a Democrat.

That's fanaticism.

You and they both need to figure out that their job is to convince me that they represent my interests in our government, not the other way around.

Bernie Sanders did and still does make a stronger case for my vote than either Democrats or Republicans do. I will be happy to change my allegiances when I see a better alternative.

That's not MY problem. It's THEIRS.

But I don't expect you to understand. You're a fanatical Democratic shill and that's the be all and end all of your mission. Best of luck with that.

Well said. Clinton has a history of paying lip service to issues expressly for the purpose of getting votes. Kinda like how she "talks" about issues facing the African American community. Talk isn't enough for a lot of people, and they see through her thinly veiled rhetoric...

 

[Fogdog]

Well said. Clinton has a history of paying lip service to issues expressly for the purpose of getting votes. Kinda like how she "talks" about issues facing the African American community. Talk isn't enough for a lot of people, and they see through her thinly veiled rhetoric...

LOL

The white guy posts a video of one black guy making an argument that the old white guy is ok with the blacks. When 75% of African Americans voted for Clinton.

You are right. Talk isn't enough. Millions more voting for Clinton than Bernie says much more.

But why are we so hung up on last year?

Have you started to consider who you want to run in 2020? What about 2018? You are a Michigander if I recall correctly? A swing state. Are there any contested elections for Congress next year that you are following? We are comfortably blue in Oregon. Not much happening in 2018 for federal posts.

 

[ttystikk]

LOL

You say shit like that and then try to call someone ELSE racist?

The white guy posts a video of one black guy making an argument that the old white guy is ok with the blacks. When 75% of African Americans voted for Clinton.

You are right. Talk isn't enough. Millions more voting for Clinton than Bernie says much more.

But why are we so hung up on last year?

Have you started to consider who you want to run in 2020? What about 2018? You are a Michigander if I recall correctly? A swing state. Are there any contested elections for Congress next year that you are following? We are comfortably blue in Oregon. Not much happening in 2018 for federal posts.

I'll be voting against Cory Gardner in 2020. If Jared Polis runs for Colorado governor I'll support him, and vote for a Democrat or liberal candidate to replace him. Other than that, not much here.

 

[ttystikk]

Well said. Clinton has a history of paying lip service to issues expressly for the purpose of getting votes. Kinda like how she "talks" about issues facing the African American community. Talk isn't enough for a lot of people, and they see through her thinly veiled rhetoric...

Talk is cheap, all right. But the omnibus crime legislation of 1996 has cost black people and America in general a great deal.

Mrs Clinton has talked about that- but strangely hasn't really taken a stand on it.

But why are we talking about Mrs Clinton?

Because she's the kind of person the Democratic party keeps trying to shove down America's throat!

Maybe it's time for another approach.

 

[Fogdog]

Talk is cheap, all right. But the omnibus crime legislation of 1996 has cost black people and America in general a great deal.

Mrs Clinton has talked about that- but strangely hasn't really taken a stand on it.

But why are we talking about Mrs Clinton?

Because she's the kind of person the Democratic party keeps trying to shove down America's throat!

Maybe it's time for another approach.

I must have missed that while we were arguing.

Who is the candidate the Democratic party is trying to shove down America's throat?

Agree that Clinton is only relevant if the Democratic party is clinging to her policies. Who is doing that? What did they say?

At the risk of being what I call a dumb polls reader, I'll just put this out there:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ahead-of-midterms-voters-prefer-democrats-even-as-republicans-appear-more-motivated-to-vote/2017/07/19/470441d6-6c01-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.5c71350134a1

A slight majority of registered voters — 52 percent — say they want Democrats to control the next Congress, while 38 percent favor Republican control to promote the president’s agenda, according to the poll.

This is more of an indictment of Trump than of Democratic genius. Democrats have shown great propensity to fumble the ball when its handed to them by their opponent.

 

[st0wandgrow]

LOL

The white guy posts a video of one black guy making an argument that the old white guy is ok with the blacks. When 75% of African Americans voted for Clinton.

You are right. Talk isn't enough. Millions more voting for Clinton than Bernie says much more.

But why are we so hung up on last year?

Have you started to consider who you want to run in 2020? What about 2018? You are a Michigander if I recall correctly? A swing state. Are there any contested elections for Congress next year that you are following? We are comfortably blue in Oregon. Not much happening in 2018 for federal posts.

I'm most interested to see if kid rock will actually run for the senate. Seems like he's strongly considering it. I can't see him standing a chance, but who knows. I don't really know much about what his platform will be, but he seems like a goober so I'm not expecting much.

He would be running against incumbent Debbie Stabenow, who all things considered has a pretty good voting record on issues that I care about. She voted against the authorization of the Iraq war, has a pretty good record on environmental issues, and has been a friend to minorities/LGBT/immigrants, has opposed most bills that would line the pockets of the 1%, and has gone on record in support of a Medicare for all health care system.

As for 2020, too soon to say. I would of course support Sanders if he ran again, but he's an old man. Other than him I like what I've seen from Kamala Harris, but I haven't done enough reading on her to really form an educated opinion just yet. I'm lukewarm on Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren. Their stances on certain issues make me hesitate a bit (I don't know if Franken would sincerely push for single payer for example).

Who are you looking at for 2020?

 

[Fogdog]

I'm most interested to see if kid rock will actually run for the senate. Seems like he's strongly considering it. I can't see him standing a chance, but who knows. I don't really know much about what his platform will be, but he seems like a goober so I'm not expecting much.

He would be running against incumbent Debbie Stabenow, who all things considered has a pretty good voting record on issues that I care about. She voted against the authorization of the Iraq war, has a pretty good record on environmental issues, and has been a friend to minorities/LGBT/immigrants, has opposed most bills that would line the pockets of the 1%, and has gone on record in support of a Medicare for all health care system.

As for 2020, too soon to say. I would of course support Sanders if he ran again, but he's an old man. Other than him I like what I've seen from Kamala Harris, but I haven't done enough reading on her to really form an educated opinion just yet. I'm lukewarm on Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren. Their stances on certain issues make me hesitate a bit (I don't know if Franken would sincerely push for single payer for example).

Who are you looking at for 2020?

Oregon is such a backwater politically that nobody I know of is even close to national standing. I've read up on a few who have popped up on national radar. One I'd really like to vote AGAINST is Corey Booker, D Senator, NJ. His record in support of Wall Street and big pharma turns me off. I'm skeptical of any early opinions that I form regarding 2020 elections because I don't work hard enough to learn the field. Some woman from California gets good press. That's the level of knowledge I have on the subject.

Locally, DeFazio is the only congressman running that I can vote for. The Republican challenger would need backing from radical right wingers in southwestern Oregon counties yet be moderate enough for college towns (Lane and part of Benton counties). Needless to say, the republican will be DOA on my ballot.

Senators from Oregon aren't up for re-election this year.

Redistricting might become a factor in 2020 elections, to the bad for DeFazio. That corner of Benton County was crucial to his win the last time.

 

[st0wandgrow]

Oregon is such a backwater politically that nobody I know of is even close to national standing. I've read up on a few who have popped up on national radar. One I'd really like to vote AGAINST is Corey Booker, D Senator, NJ. His record in support of Wall Street and big pharma turns me off. I'm skeptical of any early opinions that I form regarding 2020 elections because I don't work hard enough to learn the field. Some woman from California gets good press. That's the level of knowledge I have on the subject.

Locally, DeFazio is the only congressman running that I can vote for. The Republican challenger would need backing from radical right wingers in southwestern Oregon counties yet be moderate enough for college towns (Lane and part of Benton counties). Needless to say, the republican will be DOA on my ballot.

Senators from Oregon aren't up for re-election this year.

Redistricting might become a factor in 2020 elections, to the bad for DeFazio. That corner of Benton County was crucial to his win the last time.

Agreed on Booker. I couldn't cast my vote for him.

 

[abandonconflict]

It's dishonest of you to misrepresent Mr Sanders doing the very same thing as 'sheepdogging'

No, it's exactly what he did. He be sheepdoggin, that's why we call him Saint Bernard.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm most interested to see if kid rock will actually run for the senate. Seems like he's strongly considering it. I can't see him standing a chance, but who knows. I don't really know much about what his platform will be, but he seems like a goober so I'm not expecting much.

He would be running against incumbent Debbie Stabenow, who all things considered has a pretty good voting record on issues that I care about. She voted against the authorization of the Iraq war, has a pretty good record on environmental issues, and has been a friend to minorities/LGBT/immigrants, has opposed most bills that would line the pockets of the 1%, and has gone on record in support of a Medicare for all health care system.

As for 2020, too soon to say. I would of course support Sanders if he ran again, but he's an old man. Other than him I like what I've seen from Kamala Harris, but I haven't done enough reading on her to really form an educated opinion just yet. I'm lukewarm on Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren. Their stances on certain issues make me hesitate a bit (I don't know if Franken would sincerely push for single payer for example).

Who are you looking at for 2020?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/23/kid-rock-run-senate-serious-michigan-analysis-215408

Another untested politician performer on the national stage. Franken and Kid Rock. That's a pair. The article goes on about how some Republicans think he'd be a natural to run against Stabenow.

Oh yeah, Kamala Harris. I've read good stuff about her. (said sarcastically about myself). I feel ignorant about the field. Not any different than the last few elections. It's just that now, I'm paying more attention and am made aware about how little I know. It usually takes me until the last quarter of the year before the election before I even know who's running.

 

[ttystikk]

I must have missed that while we were arguing.

Who is the candidate the Democratic party is trying to shove down America's throat?

Agree that Clinton is only relevant if the Democratic party is clinging to her policies. Who is doing that? What did they say?

At the risk of being what I call a dumb polls reader, I'll just put this out there:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ahead-of-midterms-voters-prefer-democrats-even-as-republicans-appear-more-motivated-to-vote/2017/07/19/470441d6-6c01-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.5c71350134a1

A slight majority of registered voters — 52 percent — say they want Democrats to control the next Congress, while 38 percent favor Republican control to promote the president’s agenda, according to the poll.

This is more of an indictment of Trump than of Democratic genius. Democrats have shown great propensity to fumble the ball when its handed to them by their opponent.

True story; what this implies very loudly at least to me is that there is plenty of room to the left of the current Democratic Party for people to occupy to get people excited about their leaders.

 

[ttystikk]

No, it's exactly what he did. He be sheepdoggin, that's why we call him Saint Bernard.

Your opinion. One that doesn't square with the facts.

 

[abandonconflict]

Your opinion. One that doesn't square with the facts.

He was a sheepdog for Kerry too, and not a very good one.

 

[ttystikk]

He was a sheepdog for Kerry too, and not a very good one.

So if it's another Democrat they get a free pass to support the nominee, but if Bernie does it he's a sheepdog, even if the opposing nominee is someone as odious as the Chump.

The more I hear of your opinions, the more worthless and shallow they are.

Go back to your Marxist screeds, you're out of your depth here.

 

[Fogdog]

Ttys sorry; what this implies very loudly at least to me is that there is plenty of room to the left of the current Democratic Party for people to occupy to get people excited about their leaders.

From what I've read, the party is shifting left or emphasizing areas where it is left in policies. It's this perspective of mine that causes me to get rankled when I read your diatribes against the Democratic party. WTF? Not fast enough for you? Considering the complexity of this stuff, I find slowness to formulate a policy indication of mindfulness of what they are trying to do. Not trying to raise an argument, just letting you know where I'm coming from.

Where I see everybody is to the right of an issue:

Missing in all of Democratic party leadership statements is what's going on in the Middle East. Regarding the Middle East, Obama was like Bush Jr, Trump is like Obama, and Sanders is like Clinton who is like Obama. All supported drone strikes, the strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Also, never one peep about Yemen. Bernie even said the Saudis should be allowed to "get their hands dirty", meaning he'd let Saudis do what they want to their poorer neighbor.

 

[Fogdog]

So if it's another Democrat they get a free pass to support the nominee, but if Bernie does it he's a sheepdog, even if the opposing nominee is someone as odious as the Chump.

The more I hear of your opinions, the more worthless and shallow they are.

Go back to your Marxist screeds, you're out of your depth here.

I think he's just saying Sanders wasn't the radical reformer he was cast as last year. Was never going to be. When he lost, he went back to the pack. Sanders is left of center but not anywhere near what AC would call far left or socialist. I think the socialist tag was attached to him by the reactionary right and Sanders just didn't argue with it because that would be counterproductive.

 

[ttystikk]

From what I've read, the party is shifting left or emphasizing areas where it is left in policies. It's this perspective of mine that causes me to get rankled when I read your diatribes against the Democratic party. WTF? Not fast enough for you? Considering the complexity of this stuff, I find slowness to formulate a policy indication of mindfulness of what they are trying to do. Not trying to raise an argument, just letting you know where I'm coming from.

Where I see everybody is to the right of an issue:

Missing in all of Democratic party leadership statements is what's going on in the Middle East. Regarding the Middle East, Obama was like Bush Jr, Trump is like Obama, and Sanders is like Clinton who is like Obama. All supported drone strikes, the strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Also, never one peep about Yemen. Bernie even said the Saudis should be allowed to "get their hands dirty", meaning he'd let Saudis do what they want to their poorer neighbor.

Jesus, the country has been sliding off the right wing for 40 years now. How much longer you wanna wait?!

I agree that no candidate is where I want to see them on military policy. I suspect there's too much money involved.

While I'm no fan of the war on Yemen, I'd rather Saudi Arabia be the ones stepping in it than us.