Will Hillary choose Donald as a running mate? Will Daisy be jealous? Would disneyland ever be the same?
Aww, and here I was expecting a blistering expose of what She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed and the Trumpster were really doing while shacked up in that love-motel in Portsmouth.
Donald knows she’s fucking Goofy.
Donald knows she’s fucking Goofy.[/quote]
How profound. It’s these political insights and behind-the-scenes revelations that keep me coming back to Forumosa, a news source you can trust.
Which cartoon character is Chelsea’s real father?
And - given recent primary results - what difference does it make?
What are you talking about? They don’t look anything alike!
[quote=“rowland”]Which cartoon character is Chelsea’s real father?
And - given recent primary results - what difference does it make?[/quote]
Remember when…?
[quote][quote=“rowland”]Let’s start off with:
mediaite.com/online/ted-cruz … -children/
Ann Telnaes, voice of tolerance and open-mindedness.
Remember when the president’s children were off limits? And before that, when they weren’t?[/quote] [/quote]
Somebody, in a lame attempt to put lipstick on a pig, asserted that Bubbette is tough and that’s what we want in a US president. Well, Bubbette is tough but the Donald is tougher. In neither case does it give me much comfort. I want someone who’s tough on the people’s behalf.
There’s only one candidate on either side that is tough on behalf of the people. So are you saying you support Bernie Sanders or am I missing something?
I can’t even picture how eight years of class struggle under Bernie-Leninism would fix America when its real problem is that it can no longer create the wealth necessary to sustain its standard of living. B-L’s only real benefit would be spreading the pain of economic decline more equally.
The most prominent “Hilary” with one L seems to be whoever was responsible for Hilary Term at Oxford. “Hillary” with two L’s really ought to be reserved for the late Edmund.
I’m not sure how many of you are familiar with a blog called “The Archdruid Report.” But there’s some interesting stuff there, and last week’s post was very relevant to this topic: The Decline and Fall of Hillary Clinton. It’s not just about Clinton, but the whole campaign by both parties, which has mostly been based on choosing “the lesser of two evils.” Some relevant quotes…
The author is not a Trump supporter, by the way. Though he thinks that if it’s going to be Hillary vs Trump in November, Trump will likely win. I happen to think he’s right, though my crystal ball is no better than anyone else’s at this point in the campaign.
There are hundreds of comments after the article, many of which are well-thought-out. Worth your time if this topic really interests you.
Last but not least, the link:
thearchdruidreport.blogspot.tw/2 … inton.html
cheers,
DB
The math just doesn’t support that. The US GDP is astronomically high and well in excess of what is required to sustain and even significantly improve the standard of living in the US. I think it’s quite clear that the US has more than enough money coming in. The US has a spending and allocation problem, but certainly very far from an income problem.
The ludicrously high US GDP just needs to be allocated better, and programs need to be streamlined to be more efficient, and yes it would help if rich people and corporations weren’t dodging taxes left right and center.
The math just doesn’t support that. The US GDP is astronomically high and well in excess of what is required to sustain and even significantly improve the standard of living in the US. I think it’s quite clear that the US has more than enough money coming in. The US has a spending and allocation problem, but certainly very far from an income problem.
The ludicrously high US GDP just needs to be allocated better, and programs need to be streamlined to be more efficient, and yes it would help if rich people and corporations weren’t dodging taxes left right and center.[/quote]
If the U.S. is rolling in wealth why did it recently have to write $4 trillion dollars worth of checks on an account with no funds in it to bail banks out of their failing bets? On another note, what does the U.S. actually produce any more that people want to buy? If you spend any time in the trenches of the U.S. economy it becomes clear pretty quickly that middle class workers are still losing good paying jobs as corporations have one foot out the door and replacing those lost jobs with low paying service or contract jobs.
That’s not what quantitative easing is, but we’ve talked about that at length already so maybe we’ll just leave it where it is. The mechanisms of Fed policy are readily available for people to study if they so choose, but it’s not nearly as sinister as people like to portray.
America doesn’t physically manufacture the products as much as they used to, but why do you think that makes such a difference? The actual production of goods is a tiny portion of the wealth of the world. That’s like trying to determine how healthy a person is by analyzing the health of their left hand.
I’m not sure what trenches you are referring to. I’m a pretty regular dude so I think I’m actually in the trenches am I not?
Anyway, the data shows a pretty strong US labour market. Far far in excess of anybody’s wildest dreams in 2008. All that’s happening is the average American is playing a continuous game of move the goal posts.
If there was a national poll in January of 2009 and the question was: "If private sector job growth was over 200,000 for a record smashing number of months in a row and the unemployment rate was below 5% before Obama left office would you be happy?
100% of the country would have said HELL YES. But 7 years later after moving the goal posts half the country is saying fuck Obama and his shit economy right? It’s sad really…
Even Bernie says things aren’t as rosy as they appear from the windows of Berkshire Hathaway corporate headquarters:
[quote]On Twitter this week, the Democratic presidential candidate said: “Most of the jobs that are being created today pay less than most of the jobs that were lost during the financial crisis.”
To back up the claim, Sanders’ campaign points to two studies from last year. One, from the National Employment Law Project, a left-leaning advocacy group, found that there were 1.85 million more people employed in lower-wage industries at the start of 2014 than at the beginning of the recession. But there were nearly 2 million fewer jobs in mid-wage and higher-pay industries.
The second, from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, found that jobs gained during the recovery paid an average 23% less than those lost during the recession, or only $47,170, compared to $61,637.
That’s because the top sectors that downsized were manufacturing and construction, which offered relatively high wages. The sectors that added jobs were accommodation and food services, as well as health care, both of which paid less, on average.[/quote]
“Even Bernie” ? Uh, isn’t that exactly what his whole schtick has been from the beginning?
[quote]On Twitter this week, the Democratic presidential candidate said: “Most of the jobs that are being created today pay less than most of the jobs that were lost during the financial crisis.”
To back up the claim, Sanders’ campaign points to two studies from last year. One, from the National Employment Law Project, a left-leaning advocacy group, found that there were 1.85 million more people employed in lower-wage industries at the start of 2014 than at the beginning of the recession. But there were nearly 2 million fewer jobs in mid-wage and higher-pay industries.
The second, from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, found that jobs gained during the recovery paid an average 23% less than those lost during the recession, or only $47,170, compared to $61,637.
That’s because the top sectors that downsized were manufacturing and construction, which offered relatively high wages. The sectors that added jobs were accommodation and food services, as well as health care, both of which paid less, on average.[/quote]
Yes- that’s exactly why the refusal of Republicans to borrow and spend on infrastructure has been totally insane- Obama, Rahm, and the Blue Dogs were to blame as well, to a much much lesser extent- there’s not much you can do when Congress is held by economic illiterates.
But while the economy has been far better than it would have been with the austerians in charge, they’ve managed to slam the brakes on hard enough to keep it just chugging along instead of getting to full recovery.
I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure libertines aren’t going to use any borrowed money to build the sorts of highways that would alleviate gridlock in job creation centers like Seattle, Austin and Denver. More likely their five year plans will revolve around forcing people out of their cars and into green, four hour commutes on public transit infrastructure built by union labor.
Another very good analysis of the Trump phenomena by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone. Matt is hardly a fan of Trump, but gives a good rundown of why you’d best not underestimate his appeal:
Trump, Feb 27, 2016
nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … l#jumpLink
Trump 2000
twitter.com/JGreenDC/status/703955984885161985
Donald knows what an important role the white racist vote plays in the Republican Party on Super Tuesday, and doesn’t want to jeopardise their support.