Harris Trump debate

[Derec]

You haven’t shown that it is an “obsession,” at all.

The rest of your post, where you positively fawn over how great TS is, shows otherwise.

I’m surprised you would write this after right here in this thread it was shown to you that most of her fans are NOT, in fact, too young to vote.

That was claimed, but, alas, not shown. There's a difference.

Her singing ability has absolutely NOTHING to do with why democratic party strategists stan her. This might be a novel view for you, but sometimes women are worth more for their personality than for their looks or one portion of their skill set.

A personal attack woven into the fawning adoration of TS. Classy!

Meanwhile no mention of how “obsessed” the GOP is with Miriam Adelson, despite her product being shit, right?

I have not seen any Republicans fawn over her. Certainly not like Dems are fawning over TS.

 

[Derec]

Germany just smacked the orange one good!

Trump receives brutal mockery from the German government over false debate claim

Germany’s Foreign Ministry took the time to publicly correct one of Trump’s false claim at the debate, while also mocking him over his racist lie about Haitian immigrants eating pets.

www.msnbc.com

Germany did not (as orangey claimed in the debate) slow down on green energy.

They are pretty committed to "renewable energy" even when they make little sense. For example, they do not get that much sunlight in Germany.

As the article admits, Germany had to increase coal consumption because of the Ukraine war. What the article does not mention is the other reason Germany has to rely on coal more than necessary - their boneheaded decision to shut down nuclear power plants.
Note also that US fracked gas was crucial to supplying our European allies. And that Kamala wanted to ban this technology.

As often, Trump finds himself in the neighborhood of a good point, but can't quite find his way there.

Just like Kamala said, the world leaders laugh at him.

When it comes to mismanaging energy, Olaf Scholz is pretty risible himself.

 

[Politesse]

While Linda Ronstadt isn't on the same level as Taylor Swift (anymore), her denouncement of Trump just hours before he held a rally at the Ronstadt Music Hall was very poignant and a little bit funny in context.

If the hall is a venue available for hiring and Trump's people did all the right things in obtaining its use then I am not sure what the fuss is all about. It may have her name. Does that give her rights of veto over who may hire it?

Of course not. No one has said they can't use it, the rally went as planned. She just denounced the man publically as xenophobic authoritarian and rapist, as she has every right to do. This is a democracy, anyone can speak their mind.

 

[Derec]

What's more, why is JD Guyliner even in his current position?
The support of a billionaire.

He also graduated from Yale Law School and was a Marine. He shot to prominence with his book.

Swift was born to well-off parents, and they moved to Nashville to support her career, but unlike Vance - who went to Yale - she went to a much more competitive "school."

Yeah, Yale has nothing on - checks notes - Hendersonville High School.
The rest of the fawning praise for TS is snipped, but it does prove my point.
With billionaires like Musk or Teal, all I see is bile. With Swift of Winfrey, there is much praise. Even though what they are peddling is mediocre music and trashy, misinformative talk, respectively.

Besides, people like Musk, who started SpaceX, and Jared Isaacman, who was on board a SpaceX Dragon flight that tested the new spacesuits, do much cooler things. Whatever you may think of their politics vis-a-vis Swift's.

Sure beats taking a private jet from Tokyo to Las Vegas just to watch your boyfriend play with balls.

 

[Derec]

I reserve the use of the term “Incel” for single males who complain about not being able to get female company without having to pay money for it.

Given the state of the hookup culture, Tinder, etc., what's wrong with "paying money for it"?

I think it’s a contraction of “involuntarily celibate” though, which would probably exclude those who avoid celibacy by paying for sex.

That's how it started. It has become a general term of abuse toward any man the poster disagrees with.

But you’re not like any of that of course, so I wonder what you’re ACTUALLY complaining about.

Again, it is used (by you and others) as a term of abuse with people you disagree with.

 

[Derec]

To be fair, most of the damage was self-inflicted.

True. Kamala is being praised as a sharpshooter when the other guy just shot himself in the foot while cleaning his musket.

 

[Derec]

Not your demographic.

With the modern Democratic Party, it never is.

Welcome to celebrity culture. Yes, it's stupid. No, it's not going away. The Republicans are running a reality TV clown as their actual candidate, and the Democrats tried to pull out Oprah like she was some sort of secret weapon at the DNC. Americans are too dumb to select a political candidate on anything more nuanced than name recognition.

And that is not a good thing for the country, even if TS obsession benefits the Democratic candidate right now.

 

[Derec]

Gates
Buffet
Soros (trigger alert)

What are these three names in aid of?

As stated in another post, the vast majority of Swift's fans ARE of voting age. The "tween and teen girls" myth is just lazy; she's not the 1963 Beatles.

That post did not provide any citation either.

Millions of people get a start because of "connections". She wasn't born sitting on a pile of precious stones and government funding.

Her parents had connections in Nashville's music industry.
Why are some connections glossed over, while others are used to dismiss any achievements?

 

[Derec]

Nope, this is no evidence that Bernie or the Democratic party “hates billionaires.” I’ll let you try to work out on your own what it does mean.

We can debate semantics till the cows come home, but saying that a group of people "should not exist" is not exactly showing good will toward them.

 

[Arctish]

You haven’t shown that it is an “obsession,” at all.

The rest of your post, where you positively fawn over how great TS is, shows otherwise.

I’m surprised you would write this after right here in this thread it was shown to you that most of her fans are NOT, in fact, too young to vote.

That was claimed, but, alas, not shown. There's a difference.

Her singing ability has absolutely NOTHING to do with why democratic party strategists stan her. This might be a novel view for you, but sometimes women are worth more for their personality than for their looks or one portion of their skill set.

A personal attack woven into the fawning adoration of TS. Classy!

Meanwhile no mention of how “obsessed” the GOP is with Miriam Adelson, despite her product being shit, right?

I have not seen any Republicans fawn over her. Certainly not like Dems are fawning over TS.

Could you provide the definition of "fawn" and "fawning" you are using?

I think you're exaggerating but I'm not up on all the latest internet slang.

 

[Politesse]

With the modern Democratic Party, it never is.

Very true. They strive to maintain a "big tent", but they do not worship the vaguely defined past as does Mr Trump.

And that is not a good thing for the country, even if TS obsession benefits the Democratic candidate right now.

On this, we agree. The death of informed political discourse in this country places a ticking time bomb at the foot of its load-bearing social institutions.

 

[Derec]

Very true. They strive to maintain a "big tent",

Supposedly "big tent" that is not big enough to include me.

On this, we agree. The death of informed political discourse in this country places a ticking time bomb at the foot of its load-bearing social institutions.

Indeed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

To be fair, most of the damage was self-inflicted.

True. Kamala is being praised as a sharpshooter when the other guy just shot himself in the foot while cleaning his musket.

She ably set him up but he took the bait because he’s a sociopathic narcissistic with no impulse control. Everyone on his side was warning him not to do it but he couldn’t help himself.

 

[Derec]

Could you provide the definition of "fawn" and "fawning" you are using?
I think you're exaggerating but I'm not up on all the latest internet slang.

Perhaps slight hyperbole, but not by much. The descriptions of her by posters like you and Rhea very very positive, praising her as "talented" and a "deft businesswoman" among other compliments.

 

[Derec]

That isn't hate. Emotion has nothing to do with it. The statement is in regards to what is the overall benefit of having billionaires for the national economy.

On the contrary. I think it is a very emotion-based argument.

We had similar discussions when it came to massive monopolies back in the late 19th century.

Monopolies really have nothing to do with billionaires, which is people with a net worth above a certain threshold, one that is getting smaller in real terms over time due to inflation.

At some point, there is a negative cost to allowing such an acquisition of wealth and power.

It means e.g. that the companies they started or invested in became very successful and their investments increased in value. It also allows these individuals to start other capital-intensive businesses such as developing launch vehicles and spacecraft. I think both Tesla Motors and Space X existing has been good for the country, and for the world.

When someone can become so wealthy it is nearly mathematically impossible to become poor, it probably isn't a bad idea to be a tad bit more aggressive on taking a portion of their income/revenue for ensuring a quality standard of living across the board.

They are already taxed. Musk pays billions in taxes. Should they be taxed more? Perhaps. But the likes of Bernie want confiscatory taxes that would tax billionaires out of existence.
But that would not bring that much revenue. There simply aren't enough billionaires. The total net worth of all US trillionaires is ~5T. Even if the government were to confiscate half of that, it still could not pay for Biden's signature spending bill which had a price tag of $3.5T over 10 years.

They'd still be fabulously wealthy, and things could be better as a baseline for everyone else.

I'd be for increasing marginal tax rates (including capital gains) by adding more brackets above say $1M and $10M. I am against things like wealth taxes or taxing unrealized capital gains. Those ideas are not well thought out.

 

[Derec]

One critical difference between Swifties and INCELS is, INCELS can't reproduce, so they must recruit, while a Swiftie just looked at a man and thought, "He might not be Mr. Right, but he's Mr. Right Now."

And this "Swiftie" wants to get impregnated by this one night stand?
Is she in the room with you now?

 

[Rhea]

Could you provide the definition of "fawn" and "fawning" you are using?
I think you're exaggerating but I'm not up on all the latest internet slang.

Perhaps slight hyperbole, but not by much. The descriptions of her by posters like you and Rhea very very positive, praising her as "talented" and a "deft businesswoman" among other compliments.

LoL, me pointing out that she is, in fact, a billionaire based on sales, is a fact, not a love letter.
She has managed to take over a billion dollars into her pocket from people who like what she is selling.

I do not have to be one of those people to acknowledge this well known fact.

You haven’t shown that it is an “obsession,” at all.

The rest of your post, where you positively fawn over how great TS is, shows otherwise.

Why would you want to introduce the hyperbole, the inaccuracy, of saying my description of her value to the democratic party strategists equals “fawning”?

Fact: Her audience is a valuable demographic. And there are a lot of them. Dem strategists would be fools to miss that fact.

I’m surprised you would write this after right here in this thread it was shown to you that most of her fans are NOT, in fact, too young to vote.

That was claimed, but, alas, not shown. There's a difference.

You keep telling yourself that you want to believe a thing without checking it. Go right ahead.

Her singing ability has absolutely NOTHING to do with why democratic party strategists stan her. This might be a novel view for you, but sometimes women are worth more for their personality than for their looks or one portion of their skill set.

A personal attack woven into the fawning adoration of TS. Classy!

Is it a personal attack to suppose that you might not value women for the value they bring - in an exchange where you are disparaging the nvalue a woman brings?

I mean, you kinda made the point yourself.

Meanwhile no mention of how “obsessed” the GOP is with Miriam Adelson, despite her product being shit, right?

I have not seen any Republicans fawn over her. Certainly not like Dems are fawning over TS.

You keep using this word. You are not using it like the rest of the english-speakers use it.
Fawning is Mitch McConnel saying he supports Trump. Fawning is Elise Stefanik going to Mar-a-Lago.
Being glad that a person with a huge adience is making ads for you is not fawning. It’s just good business.
I mean, in the standard usage of the word.

 

[Derec]

On the topic of hating billionaires, you’d think widespread social unrest would be a top priority for them to actively prevent. After all, history offers plenty of warnings—the French, Russian, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions were all fueled by resentment toward the ruling elite.

Ruling elite is not necessarily the same as wealthy businessmen.
As I pointed out before, even a backbencher like AOC has much more political power than Elon Musk.

The fall of dictatorships in 20th-century Latin America also provides lessons in how concentrated wealth and power can trigger upheaval.

The Cuban dictatorship has not fallen. Neither has Venezuelan. It seems that Chile and Colombia may be heading that way.

Hatred toward the ultra-wealthy is often a cultural or emotional response to inequality.

But, as I said, it is only certain ultra-wealthy that are hated on here. Musk is hated, Swift and Winfrey are adored.

 

[Derec]

And what makes her "worth listening to"? What makes her opinions so special? It's just cult of personality.

So? Change the pronouns and you’ve described Trump.

Indeed. So why does your lot like Swift so much when they are so similar?

 

[Derec]

LoL, me pointing out that she is, in fact, a billionaire based on sales, is a fact, not a love letter.

You did more than that.

She has managed to take over a billion dollars into her pocket from people who like what she is selling.

So did Musk. So did Bezos.

Why would you want to introduce the hyperbole, the inaccuracy, of saying my description of her value to the democratic party strategists equals “fawning”?

Because of the uncritically positive portrayal of her in your post.

Fact: Her audience is a valuable demographic. And there are a lot of them. Dem strategists would be fools to miss that fact.

And yet Dem strategists do not see my demographic as "valuable".

You keep telling yourself that you want to believe a thing without checking it. Go right ahead.

Do you have a citation that "vast majority" of Swifties are 18-34 or not?

Is it a personal attack to suppose that you might not value women for the value they bring - in an exchange where you are disparaging the nvalue a woman brings?

I am criticizing the uncritical portrayal of Taylor Swift by Democrats. And I am contrasting it with the negative portrayal of most other billionaires. Elon Musk - "it was all luck, he played no role in the success of Tesla and Space X, he should be taxed heavily, he should not get to have a spaceship". Taylor Swift "talented and deft businesswoman, wasn't it great she flew from Tokyo to Las Vegas?".

You keep using this word. You are not using it like the rest of the english-speakers use it.
Fawning is Mitch McConnel saying he supports Trump. Fawning is Elise Stefanik going to Mar-a-Lago.

How are these more "fawning" that excessive praise you Dems have for Swift?