Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Card

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    So, the Republicans have nominated a neo-Confederate to challenge Tim Kaine for his Senate seat from Virginia.

    Comment


      Slightly to the left of Kane then.

      drumroll

      Comment


        Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
        Older people tearing up the structures that helped them advance (the new deal/LBJ legacy in the states, welfare state in Europe)is really fuckig depressing. The lies people tell themselves, that they made it on their own, that young people don’t know they are born. Most all older voters now grew up under Keynesian orthodoxy. Could expect govt freebies in education, housing or health (at least if the right colour or not a despised single mum). If born white from mid 40s to late 50s, one of the luckiest generation s that ever lived (North America and Western Europe of course). And kissed it away when cunts like thatcher and Reagan appealed to their wallets. The culture wars of Trumpism and Brexit completing the process of denying goodies to the next gen, through greed or blind stupidity and nastiness.
        It's also demographics. The baby boomers are unique in that they have always been in the majority (born after a load of people died, and a couple of decades before contraception was brought in), so they have been able to decide how everything is run. For their entire lives, politicians peddled to their whims. Free college? Cheap housing? Here you go. Oh, you are now older and would like your cheap house to now increase in value and to pay less tax? Here you go. Baby boomers think they are property investment superstars because the entire world has been tweaked to their needs their entire lives. I'm fed up of them telling me to invest in housing and that you can't go wrong.

        However, if any other generation had ended up with a massive electoral majority for their entire lifespan, would they have acted any less selfishly?

        Democracy is mob rule, it is what it is.

        Comment


          Any chance of a Democrat win here in November? Republican Congressman narrowly lost the primary.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_...ional_district

          Comment


            Things aren't going to go on, Millennials are going to make sure of that. In some places that means tacking right, in some places that means tacking left.

            Comment


              Charleston seems to be doing OK. Are those the sort of suburbs where Republicans might struggle?

              Comment


                Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                Any chance of a Democrat win here in November? Republican Congressman narrowly lost the primary.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_...ional_district
                It would take a very big wave. If I were guessing on South Carolina districts likely to change, I'd have guessed at Charleston - it's a wealthy, well educated sort of city. And has a reasonable black population. But they still love their civil war patrician South airs, so it's very unlikely.

                Sanford's a fascinating character.

                A former governor, who had to quit because he literally couldn't be found when he claimed to be walking the Appalachian Trail, only to be discovered in Argentina with his mistress.

                Somehow he managed to get re-elected to Congress. But has been very critical of Trump, almost all from the right. Claiming that Trump's budget borrows too much, that sort of thing.

                He's such an outlier of a person, you really shouldn't read too much into it.

                It is, though, yet another incumbent gone, which will presumably just add to the Republicans problems.

                Comment


                  Yes, SC-1 has Charleston, but it also has industrial quantities of gated communities surrounding coastal golf courses

                  Comment


                    53-41 to Trump in 2016. That's probably too big a lead, even with no incumbent.

                    Comment


                      As always, the result is massively dependent on who turns out.

                      Trump won the Western Pennsylvania district that Conor Lamb flipped to the Democrats in March by 58-39

                      Comment


                        Here's hoping.

                        In other news.

                        The U.S. posted a $146.8 billion budget deficit in May, the largest for the month since 2009, as revenue declined.

                        The budget gap rose 66 percent last month from a year earlier, the Treasury Department reported on Tuesday. Spending rose by 10.7 percent to $363.9 billion, compared with a 9.7 percent fall in receipts to $217.1 billion.

                        The government is facing increasing borrowing in the coming years partly due to tax cuts enacted this year and the strain on social and health spending from an aging population. For the first eight months of the fiscal year, the fiscal gap widened to $532.2 billion, up 23 percent from last year’s $432.9 billion deficit.

                        Comment




                          Pardon signal on Red

                          Comment


                            Dummy it down a bit: when they say 'split with team', did they split with him and say 'there's nothing more we can do for you...you're on your own now' or did he say 'I've got it from here' ?

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
                              Older people tearing up the structures that helped them advance (the new deal/LBJ legacy in the states, welfare state in Europe)is really fuckig depressing. The lies people tell themselves, that they made it on their own, that young people don’t know they are born. Most all older voters now grew up under Keynesian orthodoxy. Could expect govt freebies in education, housing or health (at least if the right colour or not a despised single mum). If born white from mid 40s to late 50s, one of the luckiest generation s that ever lived (North America and Western Europe of course). And kissed it away when cunts like thatcher and Reagan appealed to their wallets. The culture wars of Trumpism and Brexit completing the process of denying goodies to the next gen, through greed or blind stupidity and nastiness.
                              About Keynes, I wouldn't mind people's opinions on this one.

                              Didn’t Keynes get it mightily wrong with this "economics of abundance" theorised in 1930 (in Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren), about how free markets would provide full employment, solve all economic-related problems and bring equality a century later? (so in 2030). As I understand, he basically thought that because capitalism would make the world rich and because people couldn’t possibly need more than the essentials (having a good job and being comfortable), capitalism would mature into a generous and equal system, almost a philanthropic philosophy, whereby all the profits accumulated would benefit everybody more or less equally, with plenty of free time thrown in for the average worker who would barely know how to fill that leisure time.

                              So, from that angle, he got it wrong obvs. However, I'm not sure whether he did as he factored in unforeseen wars and potential significant population rises into his projections as a caveat, but I don’t know to what degree he thought the last two elements (wars and population growth) would interfere between 1930 and 2030. Well, he was right on this one (WWII), and population growth has been exponential since 1930 (it’s quadrupled).

                              So, how should we see his super optimistic predictions that never really materialised? It is fair or unfair to consider that he did get that one awfully wrong?
                              Last edited by Pérou Flaquettes; 13-06-2018, 20:50.

                              Comment


                                Also, of course, the Great Depression must have affected his projections, to what extent, I'm not sure. How advanced exactly was the Great depression when he wrote that in 1930?

                                Comment


                                  Yeah, Keynes ain’t The Man, and Keynesianism often seems to have little to do with him. He was a liberal in the old sense, and his whole drive was to preserve the Empire and Capitalism. “Social Democracy” and counter cyclical spending was more the means to stop socialism or other extremes and preserve the system, than A New World Is Possible.

                                  Comment


                                    So it appears that Cohen is refusing to pay his lawyers for a significant volume of work that they have already done, which is a much less exciting reason for their withdrawal than a number of the other possibilities.

                                    Comment


                                      Henry Winkler has to play him in the Hallmark biopic.

                                      Comment


                                        Tbf to Keynes though, Western Europe in general, and certainly the UK, had the lowest levels of inequality and something like full employment in the seventies (more people are in work now, but shit tonnes are underemployed/forced to work more than one shit job) just as the wheels came off the post-war settlement.

                                        Comment


                                          I have a conf call on Friday with someone from his lawyers' firm. That's my three degrees of separation.

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                            So it appears that Cohen is refusing to pay his lawyers for a significant volume of work that they have already done, which is a much less exciting reason for their withdrawal than a number of the other possibilities.
                                            But nobody is going to doubt the truth of it. Cohen seems exactly the kind of scumbag who'd stiff people who work for him - learning from Trump.

                                            My guess is that he agreed to cooperate, and at that point realised there was no point paying his lawyers because they weren't protecting him.

                                            Comment


                                              Variety seems to be reporting that it is actually Trump stiffing Cohen's lawyers.

                                              Comment


                                                Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
                                                Henry Winkler has to play him in the Hallmark biopic.
                                                I think you're thinking of early '80s Winkler. He looks like yer nan, now.

                                                Comment


                                                  Was more his ineptitude reminding me of Arrested Development.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
                                                    Tbf to Keynes though, Western Europe in general, and certainly the UK, had the lowest levels of inequality and something like full employment in the seventies (more people are in work now, but shit tonnes are underemployed/forced to work more than one shit job) just as the wheels came off the post-war settlement.
                                                    I think you’re right here in that, in summary, in his 100 year-long predictions (1930-2030), he was roughly good in the first half but poor in the second (Seventies onwards), a game of two halves for Keynes then. He got it right up to the late Seventies (free market economy did bring prosperity, equality and more leisure time), but was way off beam for the rest, in his assumptions that capitalism would continue for ever to operate on the same "sharing mode" as it were.

                                                    I think he basically placed too much emphasis on past events, history largely informed his perception of what the future held. It works to a point but a century-long forecast was always going to be iffy. His overarching mistake here I think was to assume that greed has limits. He played down the risks induced by excessive individualism, the fragmentation of society and humanity’s insatiable appetite for the filthy lucre. In this respect, he reminds me of many football observers in the early 1990s when (ignoring the warnings of the Football Supporters' Association and others) they predicted that clubs would keep the same ticket pricing policy and not price out fans as "the Sky money is so huge that they won’t need to". Well, we know what happened to that prognosis.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X