Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

Still, I'm fine if they throw away the 2014 election to do the right thing, since it's not exactly the most important election ever anyway. Maybe it'll even be mostly be contained to Obama instead of the democratic party, but they aren't going to make gains off this.

I really hate to agree with this but I do. Winning elections is important but enacting good policy is moreso. And if Obama can implement something resembling immigration reform without it being shredded in the House, then he should do that.

 

[Diablos]

I really hate to agree with this but I do. Winning elections is important but enacting good policy is moreso. And if Obama can implement something resembling immigration reform without it being shredded in the House, then he should do that.

How do you even know this would make them lose the Senate?

Perhaps people are mad because Obama isn't doing anything? If he does something to address the crisis it's only going to piss off conservatives... and they can't really hate him more than they already do.

 

[Diablos]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/democrats-border-crisis_n_5642313.html

Perhaps angriest of all was Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), who represents two of Chicago's biggest Latino neighborhoods. He fumed as he decried what he called the Republicans' "hatefulness toward an immigrant community" and noted that Republicans, who made Hispanic outreach a priority after their electoral defeat in 2012, have forgotten those they once deemed a priority.

"It is as though they have amnesia and have forgotten and abandoned that road. They have taken the road of those who are filled with spitefulness and hatred toward our community," he said, with his voice rising. "We will soon cure them of that amnesia, come this election and every election moving forward."

Democrats should be saying/reiterating this everywhere. Project all the confidence in the world that the GOP has committed a moral atrocity in the name of election year politics and are treating immigrants like sheep.

 

[Aaron Strife]

How do you even know this would make them lose the Senate?

Perhaps people are mad because Obama isn't doing anything? If he does something to address the crisis it's only going to piss off conservatives... and they can't really hate him more than they already do.

I don't even know if it would - but I can't be sure of what effect it would have so I'll just assume the worst.

 

[Diablos]

I don't even know if it would - but I can't be sure of what effect it would have so I'll just assume the worst.

The mere prospect of the Senate finally being within reach is enough fuel for Republicans. Anything else is just gravy short of a MAJOR scandal or something along those lines.

I can't see how executive action on immigration is any different; in fact, because the GOP's bill is already dead, the lines have basically been drawn, everyone knows what Obama is likely going to do.

Also it's early August; this will not be dominating the news come election time.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The mere prospect of the Senate finally being within reach is enough fuel for Republicans. Anything else is just gravy short of a MAJOR scandal or something along those lines.

I can't see how executive action on immigration is any different; in fact, because the GOP's bill is already dead, the lines have basically been drawn, everyone knows what Obama is likely going to do.

Also it's early August; this will not be dominating the news come election time.

Oh Diablos, if only I could be as optimistic as you.

Spoiler

My outlook hasn't really changed much, AR/NC are still easily winnable by the Democrats because the Republicans suck, Begich has always been fairly popular, and Landrieu will be boosted by oil&gas in a runoff if Democrats hold the majority still. This might harm Grimes' chances though if Kentucky voters see the immigration move as overreach and want to keep McConnell in the Senate to blunt Obama somehow.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

God, the nation has been stupid on their russian coverage.

http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-risking-war-russia

This isn't just saying we should do less in Ukraine (a valid position to take) this is actively painting Putin as 'not such a bad guy' and blaming the US and NATO for everything. Why the hell is it out fault the eastern european nations wanted defense from Russia? why the hell should Putin get special privileges there that's arguing for an imperialistic protectorate for Russia because 'history or something' . This doesn't fit into the leftist view denouncing things like the monroe doctrine as imperial enterprises and its exactly why yes, there really are 'blame america firsters' not as much as the right would have you believe but they exist and one of them is the Nation's editor in chief who is saying Russia has the right to invade and annex Ukraine.

The new US-backed Kiev government intended to seize all of Ukraine

Seriously?!?!

compare this to their coverage of Gaza, Vietnam and Iraq where their logic here could easily justify actions they have opposed

 

[Diablos]

Oh Diablos, if only I could be as optimistic as you.

Spoiler

My outlook hasn't really changed much, AR/NC are still easily winnable by the Democrats because the Republicans suck, Begich has always been fairly popular, and Landrieu will be boosted by oil&gas in a runoff if Democrats hold the majority still. This might harm Grimes' chances though if Kentucky voters see the immigration move as overreach and want to keep McConnell in the Senate to blunt Obama somehow.

Har. You've been going back and forth in your head, don't lie. Just the other day I'm pretty sure you wanted Obama to wait until after the election.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I think 2016 will be way closer than 2008 and 2012 were. I don't think it will be crazy like 2000-2004 but I find it hard to believe Hillary will be able to win everything Obama did.
I find it highly unlikely that she'd be able to get the House to flip btw.

You are massively overestimating the 2016 GOP candidates, that's all I'm going to say.

 

[PhoenixDark]

As I always ask every month for the past few months since jobs numbers have been released, how is such high growth possible after Obama's job killing tax hikes and regulations?

I'd like to hear Metamorpheus opinionate on that, instead of trying to argue that Obama really wanted to deprive millions of people from government dependence or that no one in the Republican party has called for impeachment.

To be fair, the economy is still bad. A lot of the jobs being created are low wage or minimum wage jobs, young people are staying in school because they can't find jobs in their field, etc. Obviously the baby boomer exodus plays a role in the participation rate being so low but it's also a sign of a weak economy.

Obama's claim that the economy is "booming" struck me as excessive. What sector/job field is leading the way?

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/democrats-border-crisis_n_5642313.html


Democrats should be saying/reiterating this everywhere. Project all the confidence in the world that the GOP has committed a moral atrocity in the name of election year politics and are treating immigrants like sheep.

Luis Gutiérrez is not who you want as a point man for your election campaign. "Illegal" Immigration is simply not popular and the two bases it fires up are a disadvantage for the Democrats.

The GOP infighting over immigration is because it is a long term vs. short term issue, and the "exploit it now, we'll fix it later!" camp is dominant. And if you're talking about just winning the next two or three elections, they're probably right politically.

Democrats taking their lumps now, but trying to minimize them by being cautious is likely the better long term strategy.

As I always ask every month for the past few months since jobs numbers have been released, how is such high growth possible after Obama's job killing tax hikes and regulations?

Labor Participation Rate:

 

[Oblivion]

To be fair, the economy is still bad. A lot of the jobs being created are low wage or minimum wage jobs, young people are staying in school because they can't find jobs in their field, etc. Obviously the baby boomer exodus plays a role in the participation rate being so low but it's also a sign of a weak economy.

Obama's claim that the economy is "booming" struck me as excessive. What sector/job field is leading the way?

Labor Participation Rate:

Yes, I get all that, but it doesn't disprove the original argument: that under SSE, positive, gradually increased job growth, should not be possible.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Har. You've been going back and forth in your head, don't lie. Just the other day I'm pretty sure you wanted Obama to wait until after the election.

My head's in a different place right now, I guess. The other day I was more concerned that rocking the boat could upset Democratic chances in certain races, but now I think providing legal status for 5 million-some immigrants might be more important. Policy is more important than politics, I get caught up in the horse race aspect sometimes.

It's like people saying Democrats could have held onto the House majority in 2010 if they didn't pass healthcare reform. What's the point of holding a majority, or being in the White House if you're too chickenshit to do anything with that power? Voters may react negatively but history has a way of sorting itself out.

In fact, we might see that in 2016. Worst-case scenario for 2014 is that Republicans gain the Senate majority by a couple seats. Well the 2016 map is just as bad for them as 2014 is for Democrats, and Clinton will (probably) be at the top of the ticket. They'll be swept back out of power as soon as they came in.

 

[kingkitty]

Ben Carson is a game changer.

 

[Oblivion]

David Corn gets it:

https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/495708228173725696

 

[benjipwns]

I am not Garrett B. Smooth, his graph extends farther.

 

[Diablos]

My head's in a different place right now, I guess. The other day I was more concerned that rocking the boat could upset Democratic chances in certain races, but now I think providing legal status for 5 million-some immigrants might be more important. Policy is more important than politics, I get caught up in the horse race aspect sometimes.

It's like people saying Democrats could have held onto the House majority in 2010 if they didn't pass healthcare reform. What's the point of holding a majority, or being in the White House if you're too chickenshit to do anything with that power? Voters may react negatively but history has a way of sorting itself out.

In fact, we might see that in 2016. Worst-case scenario for 2014 is that Republicans gain the Senate majority by a couple seats. Well the 2016 map is just as bad for them as 2014 is for Democrats, and Clinton will (probably) be at the top of the ticket. They'll be swept back out of power as soon as they came in.

The Dems were fucked in 2010 no matter what. If Obamacare didn't pass maybe they would have retained more seats, but they likely still would have lost their House majority.

GOPers will know their time in the Senate is precious if they get a majority, but I'd be weary of their antics.

Luis Gutiérrez is not who you want as a point man for your election campaign. "Illegal" Immigration is simply not popular and the two bases it fires up are a disadvantage for the Democrats.

The GOP infighting over immigration is because it is a long term vs. short term issue, and the "exploit it now, we'll fix it later!" camp is dominant. And if you're talking about just winning the next two or three elections, they're probably right politically.

They don't have to point to him, they just have to emulate him. No one is going to credit this man with inventing said critique. A bunch of other Dems including Obama have said it before. They just need to say it now.

The GOP is way off for 2016 if they think these antics will do them any favors -- and I'm still not convinced Obama acting alone on this is going to do anything for the Senate one way or the other. The odds can't get closer than they already are. It comes down to turnout, and again, the right knows how close they are to finally winning back the Senate.

I don't see executive action on immigration hurting Senate Dems much with swing voters, either.

 

[VanMardigan]

Back in April:


Republicans only:

How do we explain that they picked Nowitzki over Duncan?!?!?!?!

 

[benjipwns]

How do we explain that they picked Nowitzki over Duncan?!?!?!?!

28% Mavs fans vs. 20% Spurs fans?

 

[benjipwns]

They don't have to point to him, they just have to emulate him. No one is going to credit this man with inventing said critique.

A point man is the person who you emulate and effectively put out front.

Gutierrez is closer to my moral position than most Republicans and Democrats (though he still falls short of full morality) but we're both parsecs from not only the GOP base but independents and many Democrats.

"Defending America, American citizens, American jobs and American taxpayers" from "illegal" immigrants is going to destroy "it's the moral thing to allow freedom of association and anyone who says otherwise is a hateful bigoted racist" at the ballot box.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez issued some tough talk to La Raza event-goers in Los Angeles, telling them bluntly that they should use their voices and their votes to “punish” those who fail to support amnesty-type legislation for the illegal minor-age border crossers.

“We need to raise our voices, make ourselves citizens, sign up to vote and punish those who speak ill and criminalize children who come to our border,” Mr. Gutierrez said in Spanish at the weekend La Raza conference,

Saying this kind of thing at La Raza events isn't going to win many votes where the Democrats need them.

This kind of anti-human rights garbage is far more popular than the moral open borders position:

Sorry, but in our opinion, Democrat Luis Gutiérrez is an anti-American piece of crap who lies to the American People on a regular basis to gain support for open borders, and lately to make it seem like it is just a few innocent children invading our country everyday.

If Mr. Gutiérrez would pull his head out of his asshole he would know that there is MUCH more than just a few children crossing the border illegally. Allong with the tens of thousands of illegal children being abandoned on our borders, there is also many very dangerous terrorists crossing the border everyday who wish to kill Americans.

Maybe Mr. Gutiérrez is a friend of the terrorists, and knows that they are invading our nation, but has been paid to turn the other way.

As long as the anti-immigration side can continue to portray it as "protecting America" then it creates the false choice of Americans vs. foreigners (aka us vs. them) and you always want to be on the side of "us."

 

[Oblivion]

I am not Garrett B. Smooth, his graph extends farther.

So you say, benji. So you say...

 

[Diablos]

You are overthinking it, benjipwns. I merely am saying all Democrats should be saying something in the vein of what he said. They don't need to hold a press conference with him, they don't need to quote him directly. I'm just saying they need to get out ahead of the misc. hyperpole and GOP talking points (or at least try) to sharpen the message. They don't have to use words like bigot and racist either.

 

[HylianTom]

re: 2016

I think the GOP's continued alienation of voting segments, combined with Hillary doing better among white voters than recent Democratic candidates (a poll this week had her outperforming all Dem candidates since 1976) will make it probable that her margin of victory is pretty comfortable.

Until something seismic happens that changes the landscape, I'm sticking to my election-of-2012 stance for 2016:
ice in my veins.

---

re: immigration executive order

For guessing on how things would shake-out, it's tough to predict how voters would react to Obama's executive order. There's a rule that I have for this president's time in office: for every Obama action, there is a radically unequal and opposite Tea Party reaction. Obama's executive order might turn-off some voters, but the reactions from those on the extreme right might nauseate swing voters. This being such an emotional issue, his political measurements might be assuming that a volcanic reaction from the Tea Party base will grab unflattering headlines.

 

[benjipwns]

You are overthinking it, benjipwns. I merely am saying all Democrats should be saying something in the vein of what he said. They don't need to hold a press conference with him, they don't need to quote him directly. I'm just saying they need to get out ahead of the misc. hyperpole and GOP talking points (or at least try) to sharpen the message. They don't have to use words like bigot and racist either.

Every competitive race Democrat has to give the impression that they oppose an amnesty course. They'll be running away from Obama if he takes any significant executive action in that direction because they're going to be hammered by it.

Being pro-immigrant is not a winner with far too many constituent groups in both parties.

Plus the "illegal" tag has sailed, making it even more impervious to argue for amnesty, let alone the only moral position of open borders.

 

[Diablos]

For guessing on how things would shake-out, it's tough to predict how voters would react to Obama's executive order. There's a rule that I have for this president's time in office: for every Obama action, there is a radically unequal and opposite Tea Party reaction. Obama's executive order might turn-off some voters, but the reactions from those on the extreme right might nauseate swing voters. This being such an emotional issue, his political measurements might be assuming that a volcanic reaction from the Tea Party base will grab unflattering headlines.

Exactly. Something big happens, or the President is trying to sell an idea -- if he's purple, they're green. If it happens a year later and he's green, they're purple. If Obama caved in to GOP demands they'd probably just all of the sudden spin it as a bad deal that he should have worked harder with them on, or I wouldn't be surprised if they'd then outright reject it while Cruz and co. push for an even more extreme, insane plan just to bait Obama into looking even dumber.

Every competitive race Democrat has to give the impression that they oppose an amnesty course. They'll be running away from Obama if he takes any significant executive action in that direction because they're going to be hammered by it.

Being pro-immigrant is not a winner with far too many constituent groups in both parties.

Plus the "illegal" tag has sailed, making it even more impervious to argue for amnesty, let alone the only moral position of open borders.

Then the damage has already been done. Obama can't just sit on his hands. He has to act. If he does nothing, or actually deports tons of people, he'll do just as much if not more damage to himself and his party. This issue in and of itself is more damaging overall than a mere executive order, because it reminds people of where the parties stand when they campaign.

He has no choice.

 

[benjipwns]

"He" already has deported tons of people, what's a few more?

 

[Diablos]

Zero discretion when it comes to deportation is incredibly bad policy.
Furthermore the GOP bill doesn't even allocate enough money to deal with the problem.

 

[East Lake]

God, the nation has been stupid on their russian coverage.

http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-risking-war-russia

This isn't just saying we should do less in Ukraine (a valid position to take) this is actively painting Putin as 'not such a bad guy' and blaming the US and NATO for everything. Why the hell is it out fault the eastern european nations wanted defense from Russia? why the hell should Putin get special privileges there that's arguing for an imperialistic protectorate for Russia because 'history or something' . This doesn't fit into the leftist view denouncing things like the monroe doctrine as imperial enterprises and its exactly why yes, there really are 'blame america firsters' not as much as the right would have you believe but they exist and one of them is the Nation's editor in chief who is saying Russia has the right to invade and annex Ukraine.



Seriously?!?!

compare this to their coverage of Gaza, Vietnam and Iraq where their logic here could easily justify actions they have opposed

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ogist_the_nation_just_published_the_most.html

You might like this. Doesn't cover everything but has a few good points. I think if Cohen is not deliberately repackaging Kremlin propaganda he's part of a group of leftists who will give plenty of leeway to any organization that's a buffer to the west. It's incoherent because you can't excuse annexations, fraudulent elections, state controlled media, and so on so they don't talk about it. They talk about something else and do what they can to create the new fake or extremely narrow narrative.

 

[benjipwns]

It's incoherent because you can't excuse annexations, fraudulent elections, state controlled media, and so on so they don't talk about it.

They didn't seem to have a problem during 1917-1989.

Especially around the 1930's and 1940's.

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ogist_the_nation_just_published_the_most.html

You might like this. Doesn't cover everything but has a few good points. I think if Cohen is not deliberately repackaging Kremlin propaganda he's part of a group of leftists who will give plenty of leeway to any organization that's a buffer to the west. It's incoherent because you can't excuse annexations, fraudulent elections, state controlled media, and so on so they don't talk about it. They talk about something else and do what they can to create the new fake or extremely narrow narrative.

Yeah Stephen Cohen has taken an oddly totally pro Russian view. I've tried to understand what he's trying to say but it is just not sensical. He totally rationalize Russian nationalism.

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah Stephen Cohen has taken an oddly totally pro Russian view.

Not really, the guy wrote like five books in the 80's and 90's about how the West let down the glorious Russian culture by not accommodating the Soviets more so that they'd be less jerks to their people and how it all would have worked if Bukharin followed Lenin instead of Stalin but again the West didn't help.

He was one of the many Sovietologists of the 70's who was positive about how things were changing and it was all that nasty Stalin's fault, and the West was just making things worse, etc.

He's married to vanden Heuvel so he can probably write whatever he wants in The Nation.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/02/the-coming-democratic-mid-term-collapse.html

The Coming Democratic Midterm Collapse

History tells us the “six-year itch” is a very real thing, and there’s little Obama’s Democrats can do to stave off a big loss this November.

The “Great Exception” offers you no comfort: So how did the Democrats actually pick up five House seats in 1998, and not lose a single Senate seat, at a time when the incumbent Democratic President had been pummeled all year by accusations of sexual misconduct and possible perjury? On August 17, just a few weeks before the fall campaign iced off, he had to go on national TV to offer a mea kinda sorta culpa.

Yes, part of the explanation was Republican overreach, which, combined with Independent Counsel Ken Starr's imitation of Inspector Javert, brought Clinton’s supporters to the polls. The far more powerful explanation was the now-famous phrase pinned on James Carville’s campaign office wall: it’s the economy, stupid.

Describing the economy in 1998 makes it hard to believe we’re looking at the same country: unemployment at 4.5 percent. Inflation at 1.5 percent. Real GDP growth over 4 percent. The projected budget surplus was so high that a serious economic debate was underway that asked: should we wipe out the national debt, or do we need a bit of debt to keep credit flowing?

As for the national mood? In the fall of 1998, the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll reported that, by a 55-31 margin, the public believed things were pretty much headed in the right direction. All of which meant that while the public may not have trusted Clinton with their young daughters, they did trust him to mind the store.

Today? That same poll reports that, by a 2 1/2-1 spread, the country thinks “things are off on the wrong track.” And the economic numbers show a slow shuffle toward an anemic recovery; certainly not the kind of numbers that would persuade voters to rally behind the President’s party.

It’s not beyond possibility that Republicans could trigger such a rally, say, by seriously pushing impeachment (which may explain why Democrats react to the idea the way Brer Rabbit regarded the briar patch). But if we’re talking about probabilities, that six year curse looks very much like it will live to haunt another second-term President.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ogist_the_nation_just_published_the_most.html

You might like this. Doesn't cover everything but has a few good points. I think if Cohen is not deliberately repackaging Kremlin propaganda he's part of a group of leftists who will give plenty of leeway to any organization that's a buffer to the west. It's incoherent because you can't excuse annexations, fraudulent elections, state controlled media, and so on so they don't talk about it. They talk about something else and do what they can to create the new fake or extremely narrow narrative.

What you are discribing is a 'fellow traveler' or 'useful idiot' (depends on what Cohen's views are, I'd probably put him in the former rather than latter camp)

Not really, the guy wrote like five books in the 80's and 90's about how the West let down the glorious Russian culture by not accommodating the Soviets more so that they'd be less jerks to their people and how it all would have worked if Bukharin followed Lenin instead of Stalin but again the West didn't help.

He was one of the many Sovietologists of the 70's who was positive about how things were changing and it was all that nasty Stalin's fault, and the West was just making things worse, etc.

He's married to vanden Heuvel so he can probably write whatever he wants in The Nation.

Yeah. I'm just shocked they don't see the inherent contradiction in what they are advocating and justifying.

 

[speculawyer]

Not really, the guy wrote like five books in the 80's and 90's about how the West let down the glorious Russian culture by not accommodating the Soviets more so that they'd be less jerks to their people and how it all would have worked if Bukharin followed Lenin instead of Stalin but again the West didn't help.

He was one of the many Sovietologists of the 70's who was positive about how things were changing and it was all that nasty Stalin's fault, and the West was just making things worse, etc.

He's married to vanden Heuvel so he can probably write whatever he wants in The Nation.

Well he's lost track of reality then. Things probably would have been better if Bukharin followed Lenin instead of Stalin but so what? If wishes were horses . . .

Russia is being run by a corrupt quasi-dictator right now that clamps down on the free press, runs crooked elections, and supports a lot of other shady characters & dictators. That's reality and we all hope they can change and do better. But the place is so corrupt that they need to be slapped down the USA and the EU. But the EU is pretty pathetic.

But . . . on the good side, Putin being such a complete a-hole sure helps green energy and energy efficiency efforts. You are crazy if you let yourself become dependent on the Russia bear. As I wrote in the Ukraine thread, I think we should be sending natural gas frackers to the Ukraine to help them.

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah. I'm just shocked they don't see the inherent contradiction in what they are advocating and justifying.

I say that about a lot of you guys.

In seriousness, they don't see it because it isn't one for them. Their premises and definitions have adjusted to ensure this. It's like the Carr quote I posted a few weeks ago or what Marcuse wrote. They aren't fraudulent elections when [whoever] gets 95% of the vote it just shows the unity of the people behind the regime. Unlike in the West where the evil forces (usually capitalist interests) divide us and so it's our 50/50 or 45/45/10 or 35/30/25 (for our Yuropean friends) elections that are actually the fraudulent ones.

Marcuse wrote at length about how Western "free speech" isn't actually free speech. Probably his "best" work is "Repressive Tolerance" in which he argues that government suppression of "incorrect" views is actually more tolerant and democratic because it prevents those views from dominating and overshadowing the correct views. So societies which allow KKK marches or Rush Limbaugh on the air are actually the intolerant ones because these incorrect views unrepressed could potentially become majority views and repress the correct ones.

I consider it along with Moses Hess' "The Essence of Money" as some of the more fascinating insanity that's gained widespread acceptance.
http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hess/1845/essence-money.htm

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I say that about a lot of you guys.

In seriousness, they don't see it because it isn't one for them. Their premises and definitions have adjusted to ensure this. It's like the Carr quote I posted a few weeks ago or what Marcuse wrote. They aren't fraudulent elections when [whoever] gets 95% of the vote it just shows the unity of the people behind the regime. Unlike in the West where the evil forces (usually capitalist interests) divide us and so it's our 50/50 or 45/45/10 or 35/30/25 (for our Yuropean friends) elections that are actually the fraudulent ones.

Marcuse wrote at length about how Western "free speech" isn't actually free speech. Probably his "best" work is "Repressive Tolerance" in which he argues that government suppression of "incorrect" views is actually more tolerant and democratic because it prevents those views from dominating and overshadowing the correct views. So societies which allow KKK marches or Rush Limbaugh on the air are actually the intolerant ones because these incorrect views unrepressed could potentially become majority views and repress the correct ones.

I consider it along with Moses Hess' "The Essence of Money" as some of the more fascinating insanity that's gained widespread acceptance.
http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hess/1845/essence-money.htm

About us? I don't subscribe to that at least.

I do agreed some of the left has pretty totalitarian views on what is permitable and what isn't.

I also can't tell if your agreeing or blasting Marcuse. Because I think his theory is crap and everything what's wrong with the left. If you can't tell I tend to come from a more 'conservative' liberal tradition.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

how is such high growth possible after Obama's job killing tax hikes?

FRB: Press Release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that growth in economic activity rebounded in the second quarter. Labor market conditions improved, with the unemployment rate declining further. However, a range of labor market indicators suggests that there remains significant underutilization of labor resources. Household spending appears to be rising moderately and business fixed investment is advancing, while the recovery in the housing sector remains slow. Fiscal policy is restraining economic growth, although the extent of restraint is diminishing.

They mention the impact of the Obama/Congress tax hikes and spending cuts often.

 

[speculawyer]

I say that about a lot of you guys.

But we aren't saying it. I'm mocking him and APK is mocking him. Stephen Cohen is and he is in a tiny minority of people being mocked. Watch the GPS segment that he was on a week ago, both Fareed and the other guest were hammering him.


I, obviously, think the right has far more contradictions. As I pointed out in the thread on the immigration issue . . . why is it that Central America is outputting all these children that it can't handle? Well, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and other central American countries have abortion laws that basically ban abortion except if the mother will die. The inevitable result of such policies is an excess of children that are not properly housed, fed, and educated.

The right wing of the USA should be welcoming these kids with open arms . . . they are the inevitable result of the policies that they desire. But instead the seem to want to shoot them on sight. Go Figure.

 

[benjipwns]

About us? I don't subscribe to that at least.

But we aren't saying it. I'm mocking him and APK is mocking him.

Not about Cohen or any of his fellow travelers, just in general when we disagree on here:

I'm just shocked they don't see the inherent contradiction in what they are advocating and justifying.

It's a bad joke, so whatever, forget it.

I also can't tell if your agreeing or blasting Marcuse.

I consider the two pieces I linked to be pretty vile, but endlessly fascinating.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Labor Participation Rate:

Wouldn't it be better to use the out of work but looking number instead of the labor participation rate? Labor participation rate has more to do with demographics and population.

 

[East Lake]

What you are discribing is a 'fellow traveler' or 'useful idiot' (depends on what Cohen's views are, I'd probably put him in the former rather than latter camp).

I was reading this book tonight and while it's kind of a different subject she describes something similar in the first chapter. I was trying to post an analogy without sounding like a moron but it's not working right now. Anyway I think you'd like it if you haven't read it before. Parts about counter ideology and scapegoat theory made by leftists that's an attempt to escape reality.

 

[benjipwns]

I was reading this book tonight and while it's kind of a different subject she describes something similar in the first chapter. I was trying to post an analogy without sounding like a moron but it's not working right now. Anyway I think you'd like it if you haven't read it before. Parts about counter ideology and scapegoat theory made by leftists that's an attempt to escape reality.

It's because the regime cannot be associated with failure as that would suggest it's totality of rule may be wrong in some manner, thus there MUST be sabotage afoot by wreckers, Kulaks, CIA, capitalists, blacks, Republicans, etc.

In this case, the Russian State, like the Soviets, only beat their people because they love them and they have to keep out the Western saboteurs from further undermining their progress.

This doesn't of course exclude the possibility that there is sabotage ongoing. Just that it's a common theme to explain away failure and in a totalitarian regime that dominates society completely with the State, the State must be infallible.

Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

Maybe I should have written "spoiler alert" for part of Arendt's book.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Grimes rips into McConnell and he's there to watch it all.

 

[Diablos]

Grimes rips into McConnell and he's there to watch it all.

Holy shit! Turtleface looks like he's going to cry!
Six year itch my ass -- he may just lose to Grimes!

 

[Joe Molotov]

He looks like he's about to crawl back in his shell.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

I was talking to my dad about Ronald Reagan, and he sent this reply:

I see what you are saying about the NUMBER of tax increases under the Reagan administration. What you don't seem to realize is that the rate of taxes at the end of his term was still 50% lower than the end of Carter's presidency. So if I cut your rent from $1000.00 to $250.00, then raise it 11-times, ending at $500.00, I did raise the rent, but it is still half of what you paid before.

Reagan also cut inflation (you haven't experienced that yet), cut unemployment, reduce the number of people below the poverty level, & got the economy booming.

If you think Obama is better for this country, you have that right. However, you may want to go outside your work-home bubble & see how many people his administration has hurt. I talk with customers every day that can no longer pay their mortgage because of his taxes.

And this about Obama:

Obama lost the gun ban so he has been going after ammunition ( go to the store & try to buy .22cal for you rifle).

Reagan lowered taxes from Carter (who also thought as Obama does), which is how the economy took off after is was near death under Carter. Also, Carter cut the military so badly that we had to cannibalize aircraft to get parts for others to keep them flying. That is where the term Hollow Air Force came from. Reagan had to rebuild the military to get our strength back.

Concentration camp? [Referring to claims about Obama going to put conservative Christians in concentration camps a la Hitler) Have you read about what is going on at the border?

I bet you read about conservatives hating Mexicans, but you don't read how conservatives have gone to the border with clothes, food, & toys for the illegal alien children.

So Obama being a socialist is laughable? So his socialist upbringing from his father, his mother, his grandparents, his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's socialist actions (social healthcare, redistribution of wealth, giant government, bypassing congress in violation of the Constitution, acting like he is king & not an employee of We The People (when the left passed Obamacare, 62% of Americans were against it). I could go on, but you both sound like you have made up you minds.

 

[Plinko]

I was talking to my dad about Ronald Reagan, and he sent this reply:

"his" taxes? LOL

 

[GTI Guy]

Grimes rips into McConnell and he's there to watch it all.

Complete annihilation

 

[RustyNails]

Wow, Bill Maher's audience booing Reza Aslan for quoting Amnesty International's findings. Glad Reza was able to push back on the unchallenged bullshit regardless.

 

[Fox318]

Back in April:


Republicans only:

Hasn't Cruz made enough enemies with int the parties establishment that would prevent him from running? The Peter Kings would make it their life mission to him.

Not to mention I can't see him getting any Hispanic vote with his stance on immigration and with that goes Florida.

Louie Gohmert, Steve King & Michele Bachmann wouldn't poll high so why shouldn't Cruz be lumped in with them?

Not to mention can Cruz point to legislation in the Senate that he has passed or worked on?