Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 3,061 through 3,090 (of 4,288 total)
1 2 3 … 102 103 104 … 141 142 143
  • Author
    Posts
  • November 13, 2016 at 11:47 am in reply to: Poem O the Day #58085
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Thanks, Nittany.

    ___

    Zooey,

    Have you considered Paul Celan’s Deathfugue? It’s beyond devastating. I don’t read German, but I bought his (bilingual) selected prose and poetry, translated by John Felstiner. Have previously read his excellent bio on Celan, with its essential (side) discussion on the difficulties of translation.

    I read it too long ago to be sure about this, but I think Celan’s poem was at least in part an answer to Adorno’s comment, “There can be no (lyric) poetry after Auschwitz.”

    (That comment has been translated with or without the lyric part.)

    https://www.celan-projekt.de/todesfuge-englisch.html

    Black milk of daybreak we drink it at evening
    we drink it at midday and morning we drink it at night
    we drink and we drink
    we shovel a grave in the air there you won’t lie too cramped
    A man lives in the house he plays with his vipers he writes
    he writes when it grows dark to Deutschland your golden hair Margareta
    he writes it and steps out of doors and the stars are all sparkling, he whistles his hounds to come close
    he whistles his Jews into rows has them shovel a grave in the ground
    he commands us to play up for the dance.

    Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
    we drink you at morning and midday we drink you at evening
    we drink and we drink
    A man lives in the house he plays with his vipers he writes
    he writes when it grows dark to Deutschland your golden hair Margareta
    Your ashen hair Shulamith we shovel a grave in the air there you won’t lie too cramped

    He shouts jab the earth deeper you lot there you others sing up and play
    he grabs for the rod in his belt he swings it his eyes are so blue
    jab your spades deeper you lot there you others play on for the dancing

    Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
    we drink you at midday and morning we drink you at evening
    we drink and we drink
    a man lives in the house your goldenes Haar Margareta
    your aschenes Haar Shulamith he plays his vipers
    He shouts play death more sweetly this Death is a master from Deutschland
    he shouts scrape your strings darker you’ll rise then as smoke to the sky
    you’ll have a grave then in the clouds there you won’t lie too cramped

    Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
    we drink you at midday Death is a master aus Deutschland
    we drink you at evening and morning we drink and we drink
    this Death is ein Meister aus Deutschland his eye it is blue
    he shoots you with shot made of lead shoots you level and true
    a man lives in the house your goldenes Haar Margarete
    he looses his hounds on us grants us a grave in the air
    he plays with his vipers and daydreams der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland

    dein goldenes Haar Margarete
    dein aschenes Haar Shulamith

    (Übersetzung von John Felstiner, in: Paul Celan – Poet, Survivor, Jew. New Haven 1995.)

    November 13, 2016 at 10:18 am in reply to: Poem O the Day #58069
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    nittany ram wrote:
    Billy_T wrote:
    nittany ram wrote:

    So Owen is saying he doesn’t like war?

    Hard to tell given his bland, non-descriptive verbiage.

    He was antiwar. Arguably the two greatest English poets of that war were Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Both were either antiwar going in, or became that way after seeing the slaughter, being gassed, suffering PTSD, etc.

    Yeah I know. I was joking. That was about the most descriptive poem about the horrors of war that anyone could possibly write.

    Oh, man. You got me.

    ;>)

    See, that’s what happens online when there’s no available “non-verbal communication.”

    Hope all is well, Nittany.

    November 13, 2016 at 10:16 am in reply to: What sorcery is this? #58068
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    bnw wrote:

    Then tell Obama not to say he was born in Kenya. Tell his Kenyan relatives too.

    He didn’t. He’s always said he was born in Hawaii. Which he was.

    What do you think, personally, bnw? Do you think he was born overseas and shouldn’t have been president because of that?

    November 13, 2016 at 10:12 am in reply to: Poem O the Day #58064
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    nittany ram wrote:

    So Owen is saying he doesn’t like war?

    Hard to tell given his bland, non-descriptive verbiage.

    He was antiwar. Arguably the two greatest English poets of that war were Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Both were either antiwar going in, or became that way after seeing the slaughter, being gassed, suffering PTSD, etc.

    November 13, 2016 at 10:05 am in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58059
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    bnw wrote:

    We have gone over this before. Better trade deals, less regulation, tax breaks, repatriation of corporate cash from abroad, tariff on goods brought into the US by manufacturers that stiffed the US worker and taxpayer, $1 Trillion infrastructure modernization and a stop to illegal immigration. A very synergistic approach.

    The only thing on that list that will help any worker is the trillion for infrastructure. If he gets that through a GOP congress which fought against all of Obama’s infrastructure proposals, it will be a miracle. But I’d definitely support that. Big time.

    All the rest just help the 1% or the 0.1%. It’s just standard issue trickle down. The GOP has peddled that for decades, and it’s never worked for anyone but the rich.

    Every time we’ve tried that tax holiday stuff — the last time was 2004 — it’s been an utter failure. Google it and you’ll find even conservative publications blasting that idea. No serious economists support it. It’s just rewarding anti-American corporate behavior, and has never resulted in net benefits for us.

    Repatriation Tax Holiday Would Lose Revenue And Is a Proven Policy Failure

    And tariffs? Under the system of global capitalism, which conservatives helped bigly to create, and Trump exploits, that would backfire big time. You don’t think other nations would respond in kind? At best, that cancels out Trump’s move. At best.

    November 13, 2016 at 9:55 am in reply to: Poem O the Day #58056
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Thanks, WV, for the poem and the reading.

    The loss of life in WWI was horrific, and it included the poet above. Tens of millions. Horrific levels of maiming too. All of this despite the far lower levels of “kill rate,” which our government soon sought to change. Most soldiers during WWI refused to actually shoot to kill. A majority wouldn’t purposely shoot to kill their enemies.

    Governments around the world tried their best to increase the kill rate, with America in the lead. Went up during WWII, then up more in Korea, then waaay up in Nam. By the time we hit the Gulf War and the most recent invasions, that kill rate was top notch. The Psy-ops folks could then feel really “proud.”

    If you’re interested in WWI history, I read an excellent book on it not long ago. Kind of a “people’s history,” but with a set number (20) of on the ground voices:

    The Beauty and the Sorrow: An Intimate History of the First World War, by Peter Englund – review

    It’s really worth reading.

    Also, IMO, one of the greatest prose stylists in the English language, Ford Madox Ford, wrote a masterpiece/tetralogy on the subject. Four absolutely brilliant novels:

    Parade’s End.

    November 13, 2016 at 9:38 am in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58052
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    btw,

    Also: If Trump does go against decades of GOP policy and plans to lift up the 1% and crush the 99% — if he does, in fact, focus solely on making life better for all Americans, instead of just the 1%, then I’d support that too.

    But, right off the bat, he’d have to at least dump his tax proposals, because all of that is just standard issue, feed the plutocrats bullshit. All of that just wildly increases the gap between rich and poor, rich and the middle, the middle and the poor.

    And, hands piles and piles of cash to Trump himself and his children in the bargain.

    You’ve never dealt with that aspect of his proposals either, bnw.

    November 13, 2016 at 9:34 am in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58050
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    bnw wrote:
    Billy_T wrote:

    It’s looking more and more like Clinton will win big in the popular vote, btw. Most of the outstanding votes are in California, Washington and New York. She’s already up to something like a lead of 1.8 million. She may well end up with a 3-million-vote edge.

    And Trump is going to end up in the Romney and McCain range. A loozer. That sure is some “majority” mass movement you got there.

    Whats more impressive and gratifying is all those majority “loozer” voters bunched up in a few blue states. Should Trump turn the economy around and turn MI, OH, WI and PA into reliable red states then that “majority” mass movement is something you will have to get used to.

    “Turn the economy around.” Okay, I’ve asked you this before, and you’ve never really answered. What exactly is Trump going to do to make this happen? Please supply specifics, because he never did.

    “We’re going to stop the jobs from leaving, and bring them back” is not a plan. It’s an empty promise, which all politicians make. What is he going to do, specifically, to make this happen — especially when his call for massive deregulation of businesses conflicts with any claim about forcing the jobs to stay home. The two things are completely at odds.

    November 13, 2016 at 9:25 am in reply to: What sorcery is this? #58048
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    bnw wrote:
    Billy_T wrote:
    bnw wrote:

    Who was following Trump on twitter in 2012?

    So that excuses his meltdown? That excuses his racist crusade against Obama beginning in 2011, cuz he didn’t have as many twitter followers as he does now? That’s when he started his hysterical bullshit about Obama’s place of birth, and his college degree, and his supposedly sinister background, because electing the first black president simply could not stand in his eyes, and in the eyes of the alt-right which was yet to get their time in the sun.

    To disagree with Obama is not being racist.

    That’s a straw man. No one ever said it was, bnw. But it is racist to rant and rave about him not being born here, and demand for proof that he was. It is racist to ask for his papers, and endlessly question how he got into college, thrived there, was editor of the Harvard Review, taught Constitutional law for twelve years, etc. etc. It is racist to discriminate against blacks in his own rental properties. It is racist to launch a campaign against the “Central Park Five” and to still say they were guilty after being proven innocent.

    I’m one of the Central Park Five. Donald Trump won’t leave me alone. The Republican candidate’s antics have filled me with fear.

    The list goes on and on and on. But his supporters are still in denial about all of that, and that in no way surprises me.

    November 13, 2016 at 8:42 am in reply to: What sorcery is this? #58042
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    bnw wrote:

    Who was following Trump on twitter in 2012?

    So that excuses his meltdown? That excuses his racist crusade against Obama beginning in 2011, cuz he didn’t have as many twitter followers as he does now? That’s when he started his hysterical bullshit about Obama’s place of birth, and his college degree, and his supposedly sinister background, because electing the first black president simply could not stand in his eyes, and in the eyes of the alt-right which was yet to get their time in the sun.

    November 13, 2016 at 8:37 am in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58041
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    bnw wrote:
    Zooey wrote:
    — X — wrote:
    zn wrote:

    Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

    I submit that it’s THAT, and not some sort of White Supremacist movement, that got Trump in.

    I completely agree.

    The white supremacists did endorse Trump, but for all the attention they got, they just aren’t that big of a bloc. And they would never vote for a democrat anyway since Democrats are allegedly the party of color.

    I believe it is completely the fact that the Democrats have abandoned the working class, and Trump appealed to them.

    Wow you finally admitted Trump wasn’t elected because of racism. Good job.

    Well, I disagree with Zooey on that one. Obviously, all the people who voted for Trump weren’t racists. But all the racists voted for Trump. And under our election system, with a seriously divided nation and lots of close calls state by state, that percentage was the key to helping him win the Electoral College.

    And he hired a racist to be his campaign manager, Steve Bannon.

    It’s looking more and more like Clinton will win big in the popular vote, btw. Most of the outstanding votes are in California, Washington and New York. She’s already up to something like a lead of 1.8 million. She may well end up with a 3-million-vote edge.

    And Trump is going to end up in the Romney and McCain range. A loozer. That sure is some “majority” mass movement you got there.

    November 13, 2016 at 8:27 am in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58040
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    — X — wrote:

    Are you suggesting I’m being hypocritical somehow?
    Or is that one of those questions you just threw out there into the ambient air?

    No, X. I see you as one of the “sane” conservatives.

    ;>)

    But we’ve all heard the screaming frying monkey crowd tell us how “corrupt” Clinton is for having a charity, and how that apparently helped her become a trillionaire, even though there’s no evidence she benefited financially from her time at State. She probably did. That’s the pattern under capitalism. “Pay to play” is what it is because our economic system is what it is. But we don’t have any evidence to show that for her. But a lot of people on the right said she was the “most corrupt politician evah” based on the idea that she leveraged her connections for personal gain.

    Now we have a president who doesn’t even have to do this through indirect means. He can easily benefit massively from his actions in the White House — directly, instantly, that hour. No middlemen needed.

    Undo Obama’s hold on the pipeline in Dakota? Trump has big investments in that. Cut deals with Arab princes for weapons? Trump has huge investments in the Middle East. Cut deals with Russia? Let them take over their former satellites? That will greatly benefit Trump’s bottom line along with his buddy’s, Putin.

    It’s been said too often, but we really are in uncharted waters.

    And that said, you still didn’t really answer my question, my Dudeist friend. What do you actually think about his unprecedented potential for conflict of interests — and the fact that he can benefit immediately, hour to hour? Unlike the usual “grease the skids” politicians, he won’t have to wait until after he leaves office to see a return, or get shafted by donors who change their minds. He really will “win” often and bigly.

    November 13, 2016 at 8:16 am in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58039
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    — X — wrote:
    Billy_T wrote:

    X,

    Would you take a moment and address this?

    Trump is breaking with more than a century of precedent by refusing to place his large business holdings in a blind trust. His children, who are a part of his transition team, will be taking over all of that, directly. Trump obviously knows what he owns, the stocks, the companies, the land, the deals in place and pending. If it was questionable or worse for the Clintons to run a charity while HRC was at State, why is it not an even greater issue when Trump is in the White House and his kids continue to run his business empire?

    Okay.

    A. He’s not the President yet, so he’s not doing anything wrong — yet.
    B. Did you expect him to totally divest and put his holdings in the hands of 5 other people within 4 days?
    C. Trump’s fortunes are largely built on his brand. How do you put a “brand” in a blind trust? Anything Trump does as president will affect the value of that brand anyway. His kids are also a huge part of his businesses too, so how does he then eliminate the conflict of interest between the business and his job as POTUS? Divest his kids? If one of them creates a new business in the next couple of years, is there a conflict of interest for Trump if he signs a bill into law that ends up benefiting *that* business? Do they also need to put *their* holdings in a blind trust?

    Billy_T wrote:

    Is it only “crony capitalism” when anyone but a Republican does it? Is it only a conflict of interest and “pay to play” when anyone else but a Republican does it?

    Are you suggesting I’m being hypocritical somehow?
    Or is that one of those questions you just threw out there into the ambient air?

    A. He told us he would not put his business in a blind trust and that his kids would run it. He told people that before the election. He also broke with decades of precedent by hiding his tax returns, though we managed to see a couple. This, too, shielded the American people from the truth about his entanglements and potential conflicts of interest. But from his financial statement, we still got a pretty good idea that they’re legion.

    B. It’s not about timing. He said he won’t do it. It’s not that it takes time and we need to be patient. He won’t be doing what all other presidents have done for well over a century, and for obvious reasons.

    C. What you describe is not our problem. It’s not just up to the American people to try to figure out a way to make sure Trump doesn’t act to increase his wealth. That’s on him, and he’s taken absolutely no steps to come close to doing so. And, you’ve also described why it was insane to elect him in the first place, and why it’s always going to be insane to elect a billionaire businessman or woman. Even with a serious blind trust, they are ripe for mega-conflict-of-interest.

    November 13, 2016 at 12:36 am in reply to: What sorcery is this? #58021
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Business Insider’s article at the time. Links on the website:

    Donald Trump Goes On An Epic Rant On Twitter After Obama Wins Brett LoGiurato Nov. 6, 2012, 11:45 PM 157,465

    ABC news:

    Donald Trump’s 2012 Election Tweetstorm Resurfaces as Popular and Electoral Vote Appear Divided

    salon.com

    Tuesday, Nov 6, 2012 11:41 PM EST Donald Trump loses it, calls for “revolution” UPDATED: The Donald deleted his most unhinged tweets calling for revolution. But we have the proof right here David Daley

    (Posting the additional articles to show it’s not just an outlier, etc.)

    • This reply was modified 8 years ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    • This reply was modified 8 years ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    November 13, 2016 at 12:29 am in reply to: What sorcery is this? #58017
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    And then, there’s Donald Trump, back in 2012, preaching revolution because Obama won reelection.

    Donald Trump Freaks Out on Twitter After Obama Wins Election

    Shortly after President Barack Obama was announced the winner of the 2012 election, Donald Trump had what some might call a melodramatic freak out on Twitter. He condemned America’s democratic process, said the Electoral College should get out of town and called for a revolution.

    But Trump is still OK with the concept of freedom of speech and told the Twitterverse just how he felt.

    He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    More votes equals a loss…revolution!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    Our country is now in serious and unprecedentedtrouble…like never before.

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    Don’t worry all hope isn’t lost though, Trump still has faith in the Republican controlled House of Representatives to carry the country, but of course only if it’s on Trump’s own terms. But no word yet if the House of Reps even know who the fanatic guy on Twitter is.

    Hopefully the House of Representatives can hold our country together for four more years…stay strong and never give up!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    House of Representatives shouldn’t give anything to Obama unless he terminates Obamacare.

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

    Do you think Trump is going to pack up and head to Canada now?

    Image courtesy of Flickr, Gage Skidmore.

    [UPDATE: Donald Trump deleted a few of his earlier tweets from the night after negative backlash. But here’s a screenshot of all of them, courtesy of New York Magazine.]

    • This reply was modified 8 years ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    • This reply was modified 8 years ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    November 13, 2016 at 12:22 am in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58016
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    Zooey wrote:
    — X — wrote:
    zn wrote:

    Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

    I submit that it’s THAT, and not some sort of White Supremacist movement, that got Trump in.

    I completely agree.

    The white supremacists did endorse Trump, but for all the attention they got, they just aren’t that big of a bloc. And they would never vote for a democrat anyway since Democrats are allegedly the party of color.

    I believe it is completely the fact that the Democrats have abandoned the working class, and Trump appealed to them.

    Yes, the Dems have abandoned the working class. No question. Probably started in the early 1970s, accelerated under Reagan, Clinton and hopefully hit its zenith under Obama. They did this in favor of the donor-class, upper-management, the “meritocracy” and the technocracy, to boil it down. Basically, your richest 10%.

    But the answer to all of that never was and never will be their kissing cousins, the Republicans, who have never done anything but crush that very same class. The GOP couldn’t abandon a class they never tried to help in the first place. They can’t claim to have ever been their champions, and none of their current policies would do anything but hurt them. At least the Dems have some institutional memory of once being at least obliquely in their corner. They at least can point to FDR and the New Deal, for example.

    That said, it’s pretty obvious America needs a true labor party. Not like the Brits with their centrist and safe version. But an actual, true, leftist labor party with a radical egalitarian platform. We need to start there, and work toward shit-canning capitalism altogether, cuz that’s really the only way to solve all of this. Even strong “progressive” medicine is too weak for our massive divisions and neck-breaking hierarchies.

    The only real answer is to tear down all pyramids, end competitive economics and replace that with non-hierarchical, cooperative, radically democratic, small is beautiful economies. We won’t fix this until we kill economic apartheid, once and for all.

    November 13, 2016 at 12:09 am in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58014
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    X,

    Would you take a moment and address this?

    Trump is breaking with more than a century of precedent by refusing to place his large business holdings in a blind trust. His children, who are a part of his transition team, will be taking over all of that, directly. Trump obviously knows what he owns, the stocks, the companies, the land, the deals in place and pending. If it was questionable or worse for the Clintons to run a charity while HRC was at State, why is it not an even greater issue when Trump is in the White House and his kids continue to run his business empire?

    Is it only “crony capitalism” when anyone but a Republican does it? Is it only a conflict of interest and “pay to play” when anyone else but a Republican does it?

    Seriously. How can this not piss off the very people who screamed bloody murder about “The Clinton Crime Syndicate” with all of their allegedly shady deals, real or imagined?

    November 12, 2016 at 8:20 pm in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58004
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    In short: It’s like if people revolted over the destruction of their local water system, disgusted by their elected officials who let this happen. All kinds of great analyses come out, breaking down exactly what went wrong and who’s to blame.

    And in response to all of this great analysis, and that anger, the people decide to go with this huge international corporation, with a history of ripping off municipalities, stealing their water, bottling it up and selling it off across the world. They choose an even greater threat to their water system, instead of someone or some group with a history of actually fighting for clean, sustainable, safe water systems wherever and whenever they’ve been tasked with this.

    November 12, 2016 at 8:11 pm in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58003
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    And while it looks like the board basically ignored this article, I think it really, really needs to be read. It’s stunning how little attention this has gotten from the media, IMO:

    Trump’s conflicts of interest take White House into uncharted territory With his children, and not a blind trust, running his company, little prevents the president-elect’s political and business careers from bleeding into each other

    The above isn’t some left-wing fabrication. No one in the Trump camp is denying any of this. In fact, Trump proudly told his own rallies that his kids would run his businesses while he’s prez, and he would break with more than a century of precedent by refusing to put all of that in a blind trust.

    Seriously. Think about the massive number of likely conflicts of interest regarding his holdings — and they’re all over the world. Actions he and the GOP take or don’t take will have direct impact on his wealth, and he’s going to know all about that on a day to day basis.

    The fight over the Dakota Pipeline? Trump has large holdings in that company. People don’t think that’s going to impact his decision to go forward or side with the Native American population there?

    I’ve got some great beachfront property in Afghanistan for ya if you don’t think that will matter.

    November 12, 2016 at 8:01 pm in reply to: Robert Reich: The Democratic Party Needs To Clean House #58001
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    — X — wrote:
    wv wrote:

    Neither threaten the power structures and both will/would increase inequality
    and enrich the banks and corporations.

    I know you disagree. We shall see in the next four years.

    I don’t know that I do disagree with that. I never called him a unifier.
    I’m leaving that open, because I can’t presume to know how this will turn out.
    He’s already getting a little wishy-washy early on. But yeah. We’ll see.

    But we already know how the GOP does things. We already know their desires to slash taxes for the rich and deregulate the financial sector even more. Trump agrees. We already know that his tax plan would add tens of millions to his own bottom line each year, and potentially hundreds of millions for his kids, when he gets rid of the estate tax.

    We know all of that already.

    If Trump really were the answer for the working class, why on earth would he promise to end an estate tax — a favorite plan of the GOP too — that doesn’t apply to anyone in the bottom 99.8% of the country? Why would he call for slashing taxes on millionaires and billionaires like himself? That’s not going to help one single solitary working class bloke, and the lost revenue will force the rest of us to pick up the slack.

    When the plutocrats skate on their taxes, that means the rest of us pay more — and/or have our benefits slashed.

    Reich’s analysis of the Dems is spot on. He’s probably even guilty of being too soft on them in a lot of ways. But the crazy thing about this election is that Trump and the GOP are the last folks on earth we should count on to help the working and middle class — much less the poor. They’ve never shown the slightest interest in anyone but plutocrats and oligarchs. Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s just the Dems who are in their thrall.

    • This reply was modified 8 years ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    November 12, 2016 at 4:44 pm in reply to: Bernie on the Election #57978
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    wv wrote:

    Hitler on the Election

    Is there one in which Hitler is happy Trump won? Cuz, um, that would make a hell of a lot more sense, given his strong alt-right, Neo-Nazi, White Nationalist and KKK support — not to mention his extremely low totals when it comes to black and brown voters.

    November 12, 2016 at 4:35 pm in reply to: Spoiled Americans want to flee what they created #57975
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    NewMexicoRam wrote:
    wv wrote:
    NewMexicoRam wrote:

    OK, I’m cutting back in to make one last comment.

    I know the GOP increased the use of fillibusters. I knew that when I posted my link. I believe that to be the result of a president who tried to force things through rather than negotiate. He is the one who said “elections have consequences.” That should be a red flag for any party to hear. I want to see a President who will take the time to discuss with the other side and find ways to compromise.

    ————-

    Well you are coming at that from a point of view on the ‘right’. You know how us leftists see it? — Obama didnt fight hard enough for ANYTHING. He was MR COMPROMISE. Or actually MR THROW IN THE TOWEL WITHOUT FIGHTING FOR ANYTHING. Honestly thats how leftists view him.

    So, different ‘truths’ based on where we stand politically.

    Different views.

    w
    v

    ___________________________________________________

    So, you’re saying it’s ok for the “right” to compromise, but not the “left?”

    See, I don’t see compromise as “throwing in the towel.” I see it as negotiation. Both sides get something out of it they can both feel good about (again, remember I know there are more than 2 sides to politics, but bear with me please). Just pushing and ramming through things all the time is tiring and creates friction before the next fight even begins. IMO, this is where Obama failed as a President.

    I know extreme rightists will be disappointed in Trump and probably say the same thing about him, that he will “give in” too quickly and not fight. Just watch.

    To me, the part in bold is key. There just isn’t any evidence that Obama and the Dems did this. IMO, that false perception was created by right-wing media and it just doesn’t reflect reality. The reality is, again, Obama and the Dems tried waaaay too hard to negotiate and compromise. In fact, they seemed to pre-negotiate with themselves before they ever entered the breach. This was especially true with the ACA, when they took Single Payer off the table beforehand, and then the Public Option.

    They started the process with the GOP after they had already caved on everything the left wanted. They built upon Romneycare and the Heritage Foundation ideas and added 150 GOP amendments after that. And the Republicans still said no.

    I despise both parties and I have never been and could never be a Democratic Party member. But I think it’s more than clear who plays hardball and who would rather hold hands across the water. Perhaps that’s all Kabuki, and I suspect a lot of it is. But that’s basically how the duopoly works right now.

    November 12, 2016 at 4:27 pm in reply to: Spoiled Americans want to flee what they created #57970
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    wv wrote:
    NewMexicoRam wrote:

    OK, I’m cutting back in to make one last comment.

    I know the GOP increased the use of fillibusters. I knew that when I posted my link. I believe that to be the result of a president who tried to force things through rather than negotiate. He is the one who said “elections have consequences.” That should be a red flag for any party to hear. I want to see a President who will take the time to discuss with the other side and find ways to compromise

    ————-

    Well you are coming at that from a point of view on the ‘right’. You know how us leftists see it? — Obama didnt fight hard enough for ANYTHING. He was MR COMPROMISE. Or actually MR THROW IN THE TOWEL WITHOUT FIGHTING FOR ANYTHING. Honestly thats how leftists view him.

    So, different ‘truths’ based on where we stand politically.

    Different views.

    I will not try to change your mind though. I’ll not hammer you with a gazillion reasons why you are ‘wrong’ and why you should change your mind, etc. THAT is where political boards always simmer and boil over.

    We all gotta stop trying to prove the other person WRONG about stuff. Just share
    yer view, listen to the opposing views, and acknowledge the difference and…..next topic.

    w
    v

    Yep. That’s how we see Obama and the Dems.

    November 12, 2016 at 4:25 pm in reply to: Spoiled Americans want to flee what they created #57969
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Obama also held a summit on the deficit in the middle of a recession. A major concession to the Republicans, and incredibly stupid to boot. In the capitalist system, it’s economic suicide to cut spending and try to reduce deficits in the middle of a recession.

    He also reupped Bush’s tax cuts twice
    Kept his defense secretary
    Rehired his Fed chairman
    Kept his wars going and expanded them
    Kept his GWOT going and expanded it
    Radically increase his drone program
    Continued his Wall Street bailouts, TARP and TALF, etc.
    Never once suggested we should roll back Bush’s surveillance state measures
    Added to them
    Offered Boehner the “Grand Bargain,” which included slashing Medicare and Social Security, something that would have been unthinkable for a Democratic president a few years before that

    The above is just for starters.

    Obama’s record is “conservative” in every way except for a few culture war issues and the DREAMers act. Maybe a coupla “green” items. But on balance, Republicans should have seen Obama and the Dems’ governance and danced in the street, day after day. Because far from getting some “far left radical,” bent on “transforming America,” they actually got a old-style, moderate Republican with the D on his sleeve. And Obama worked hard to maintain the status quo ante he received from his predecessor.

    November 12, 2016 at 4:15 pm in reply to: Spoiled Americans want to flee what they created #57966
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    NewMexicoRam wrote:

    OK, I’m cutting back in to make one last comment.

    I know the GOP increased the use of fillibusters. I knew that when I posted my link. I believe that to be the result of a president who tried to force things through rather than negotiate. He is the one who said “elections have consequences.” That should be a red flag for any party to hear. I want to see a President who will take the time to discuss with the other side and find ways to compromise. That’s the way things get done. I believe we are seeing Trump begin to do that. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but I doubt it. I’m ok with the fact that the GOP won’t get everything they want. And the left should feel the same.

    And I’m sure there are over 300 million ways in this country to take positions on an issue. Somehow, over our history, this has boiled down to 2 major parties instead of the 3,4,5 or whatever numbers of positions there are. It works as a 2 “position” platform for the most part, with each party having its disagreements within their ranks. But it still works as a big awkward 2 party system. So, while I respect the opinions of everyone here and their multiple sides, 2 parties is what is largely seen in public and I’ll use terminology that fits as best it can within that, hoping people realize I know there are a multitude of opinions and positions.

    I am not going to be a guy who takes his ball and bat and goes home whining. Please don’t think that of me. But I want to see discussions that recognize none of us are perfect, no party or position is perfect, and we live with flaws. I can respect the positions of others here, while disagreeing. But let’s not use “they always, or never” and terminology like that, please. If there are multitudes of positions, please recognize that in “the other side” as well. I tend to vote GOP, but believe me, there are things that frighten me about doing so. I just hope and pray that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can continue for years to come.

    NMR,

    On that part in bold. If that harmless little statement caused problems among the GOP — and I don’t for a second believe it did — then the people who did react to it are incredibly sensitive and need to buck up. It’s also a statement I’ve heard come out of the mouths of presidents and congressional leaders after every election in my lifetime. It’s standard fare. Nothing more. Both parties always say that.

    And, again, Obama did take the time to discuss the issues with the GOP. He continuously reached across the aisle and had his hand slapped down. As ZN said, I’m highly critical of this, that the Dems do this all the time, that they go fetal, spineless, cave in. It pisses me off. But, from everything I witnessed and read about, following politics far too closely for my own health, I have never in my life seen a president more willing to work with the other side — to a fault. This is all the more stunning given the way his overtures were met.

    Take the ACA. The Dems and Obama set up endless meetings between the two parties, industry, etc. etc. including the Gang of Six — basically three conservadems and three republicans. They hashed things out for nearly two years. The Dems agreed to more than 150 GOP amendments in hopes of getting them on board, and they began the entire thing with the Heritage Foundation and Romneycare as its basis. It started on the Republican side and they still added 150 GOP amendments. Did the Dems receive a single GOP vote after all of that?

    Um, nope.

    This happened with the Stimulus too. Major concessions toward the Republicans, including tax cuts that made up nearly a third of the Stimulus. That wasn’t good enough either.

    (more below, to split this up a bit).

    November 12, 2016 at 2:25 pm in reply to: Spoiled Americans want to flee what they created #57949
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    I’m sorry Billy. Those comments are in the extreme. So the GOP “always” does the wrong and the left/Dems/whatever term you want “always” is correct and fair. Now you’re trying to change how to use the votes that were cast. Disagreement is fine, but villifying the other side with extremes just doesn’t sit with me.

    Here’s the facts on fillibusters. Looks like the Dems have had more than their share of them:
    Fillibusters

    There it is. Obstructionism goes both ways.

    So, I’m done with this. I’ll comment on your future posts if it appears you are using terms that are inclusive in arguement, but as it is, this feels like the “old board” to me. And I had enough of that to last me for a very long time.

    Nothing extreme in anything I said, NMR. I just stated objective fact. And no way did I say or suggest that the Dems were always correct or fair. Far, far from it. I despise both parties, remember? And you must have skipped over the part where I criticized the Dems and Obama, which was each time I said they were far too willing to compromise and negotiate.

    As for filibusters. Yes, the GOP broke all records since Obama took office. The two parties haven’t been close to equal in their usage of that tool. Not at all close.

    (your own link shows that, btw. But I’ll provide another.)

    3 Charts Explain Why Democrats Went Nuclear on the Filibuster

    November 12, 2016 at 1:57 pm in reply to: Trump has major unresolved conflicts of interest. To an unprecedented degree. #57940
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    And just think about this for a moment:

    Then there is the matter of the president-elect’s stock portfolio. Trump has holdings in Dakota Access pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners. In his first 100 days, Trump has pledged to remove every impediment to the pipeline, which has been the subject of protests violently suppressed by police in North Dakota. He also owns stock in Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted that he was “feeling hopeful” on Wednesday, and in Bank of America – he has promised to deregulate the banking industry.

    Trump will personally benefit from removing those impediments to the pipeline. He’ll get richer, personally. Same with his other large holdings and stocks, when he launches his massive deregulation plans and slashes his own taxes and those for business.

    How on earth is that not “crony capitalism” in the most direct manner we’ve ever seen? He’s not just going to be making other fat cats even fatter. He’s going to radically increase his own wealth via his actions as president — immediately. And by slashing the estate tax, which ONLY impact the richest 00.2% of Americans, he hands his children potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. And that will have to be made up by the working class.

    It’s one of the biggest cons in our history, and we’ve had waaay too many of them.

    November 12, 2016 at 1:46 pm in reply to: Spoiled Americans want to flee what they created #57938
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    NewMexicoRam wrote:
    Billy_T wrote:
    NewMexicoRam wrote:

    Personally, I don’t see what the angst is all about. Don’t people realize that the GOP doesn’t have 60 votes in the Senate, like Obama had for 2 years? That means there will need to be major compromise and negotiation like we haven’t seen in many a year.
    I doubt Trump uses executive orders to push his way through. Not like Obama did, anyways. He’s a populist not an idealist conservative.
    I believe negotiation will now find its way back into our federal system.

    Obama went the executive order route less often than Dubya, Clinton, Reagan and every president going back to Benjamin Harrison. And Trump has promised to overturn all of them — at least until he met with Obama and changed his mind about some of them. But we’ll see. Overturning them is also using the power of executive orders.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

    As far as the lack of negotiation and compromise? That’s virtually entirely on the GOP, whose leaders said on Obama’s inauguration day that they would block everything he tried to do, and they were able to for the most part.

    The Dems, in stark contrast to the GOP, are all too willing to compromise and negotiate. That’s one of their biggest faults as a party. Rolling over and playing dead for the other side of the aisle, caving in, basically always starting the negotiation process within the frame the other side creates. Drives me up a wall.

    ___________________________________________________

    That’s not the history I’m looking at. Many times Obama blasted the GOP to get on his side before Congress even debated an issue. And Harry Reid did the same in the Senate. Did the GOP try to block things? Of course. Will the Dems try to block things now? Of course. But look at the tone the last 24 hours where there are reports that Trump is changing his tune some on major issues. It may make many in his camp angry, but it does show me that there is a willingness to negotiate. That’s important going forward.

    I thought you agreed in another thread to look at the other’s POV?

    NMR,

    I read your point of view, considered it carefully, and I disagree. That’s all. And I said why. There is no evidence that Obama or the Dems were unwilling to compromise or negotiate. Again, IMO, they’re guilty of being all too willing to do that. And no American president in my lifetime has tried as hard as Obama to reach across the aisle. Again, he did this to a fault. It’s one of the worst things about the way he governed, IMO.

    And the GOP didn’t just try to block things. They took unprecedented steps to do so, and broke every record for filibusters and holds in American history. The Dems don’t come within light years of the recent GOP for that. Think about it, NMR. The GOP refused to even allow hearings to replace Scalia! That’s never been done.

    And to make it worse, they said “Let the people decide,” as if they hadn’t already. Obama was elected twice and his term runs four years, not three. And when Republicans thought Hillary was going to win, they changed their mind again about “let the people decide” and said they would block ALL of her nominees for SCOTUS.

    Now we get, “The people have spoken,” cuz Trump won the Electoral College. Apparently, that only counts when a Republican is elected. If it’s a Democrat, it’s “We’re going to block everything they do,” despite the people’s vote.

    November 12, 2016 at 12:28 pm in reply to: Spoiled Americans want to flee what they created #57931
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    NewMexicoRam wrote:

    Personally, I don’t see what the angst is all about. Don’t people realize that the GOP doesn’t have 60 votes in the Senate, like Obama had for 2 years? That means there will need to be major compromise and negotiation like we haven’t seen in many a year.
    I doubt Trump uses executive orders to push his way through. Not like Obama did, anyways. He’s a populist not an idealist conservative.
    I believe negotiation will now find its way back into our federal system.

    Obama went the executive order route less often than Dubya, Clinton, Reagan and every president going back to Benjamin Harrison. And Trump has promised to overturn all of them — at least until he met with Obama and changed his mind about some of them. But we’ll see. Overturning them is also using the power of executive orders.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

    As far as the lack of negotiation and compromise? That’s virtually entirely on the GOP, whose leaders said on Obama’s inauguration day that they would block everything he tried to do, and they were able to for the most part.

    The Dems, in stark contrast to the GOP, are all too willing to compromise and negotiate. That’s one of their biggest faults as a party. Rolling over and playing dead for the other side of the aisle, caving in, basically always starting the negotiation process within the frame the other side creates. Drives me up a wall.

    November 12, 2016 at 12:16 pm in reply to: Draining the Swamp #57928
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    PA Ram wrote:

    I find myself reading this with a smile as I think back to Bernie.

    Like him or hate him, does anyone believe that he would have had someone like Jamie Dimon on his short list for Treasury Secretary?

    He was the most genuine candidate in my lifetime. I appreciate him more every day.

    Agreed. And I still think he didn’t want to go far enough. But relative to everyone else in the duopoly? Yeah. Head and shoulders better. Definitely genuine and I think he would have crushed Trump.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 30 posts - 3,061 through 3,090 (of 4,288 total)
1 2 3 … 102 103 104 … 141 142 143