Here Comes The Left

[Elixir]

Progressive motto 'Tax and spend'.

Something tells me that you would object more to borrow and spend.

Yes, and I suspect that “tax and save” would become deflationary after a few years, and government services might get curtailed.
Oh, what to do, what to do?!

 

[ZiprHead]

@steve_bank you are just a cranky old guy who, if you had a lawn (I don’t know if you do or not) would yell at the kids, “Get off my lawn!”

Hardly. I look at the financial reality in the prophetess state of Washington and the evergreen city of Seattle.

Our 'millionaire tax' to make up a state shortfall in the billions of dollars. Cutting osendg is not an op0tionn for progressives.

In King County millions of dollars given for the homeless has been spent and noddy knows where or how.

A small example of the left tinkering wit economics. Independent drivers complained they were not making enough. The city added a surcharge on food deliveries. Cost of food delivery went up. demand went down. Drivers complained they were making less than before the surcharge.

There has been talk of taxing business to support small business that can not make it. The welfare state.

I suggest getting out of that wacky weed cloud and get some fresh air.

Progressive motto 'Tax and spend'.

No concept of a sustainable budget. Ideology over reality. Clinton supported welfare reform ad had a balanced budget. Centrist pragmatic democrats are long gone. Democrats have shifted to the ideological left. As republicans have gone o the right.

Center left and center right are gone. People like Mamdani are creeping into the democrats, anti American activists. And of course the MAGA crazies on the right. Flip sides of the same coin.

AI Overview
Yes, President Bill Clinton balanced the federal budget and actually achieved budget surpluses for four consecutive fiscal years, from 1998 to 2001. This marked the first time the United States government recorded a budget surplus in nearly 30 years.

AI Overview
Yes, President Bill Clinton strongly supported welfare reform. During his 1992 presidential campaign, he famously pledged to "end welfare as we know it". On August 22, 1996, he fulfilled that promise by signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) into law.

Personnel responsibility, the opposite of the nanny state.

I look at both the left and right the same way. The left tends tot get a pass here, and in mainstream. media.

Freethought, lookng at issues on their own merits without looking through an ideology. The opposite of the polarized politicsa that is killing us.

AI Overview
Thomas Jefferson theoretically disliked the idea of political parties as dangerous factions, but he paradoxically helped create and lead America's first opposition party, the Democratic-Republicans, to fight the financial policies of Alexander Hamilton.

I bet you'll love this.

The Two Santa Claus Theory​

The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party.[15][16] The theory states that in democratic elections, if members of the rival Democratic Party appeal to voters by proposing programs to help people, then the Republicans cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the Democrats who promise programs to help the disadvantaged. The "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the Republicans must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by not arguing to cut spending but offering the option of cutting taxes.[15]

According to Wanniski, the theory is simple. In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector."[16] Wanniski suggested this position, as left-liberal observer Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections."[17]

Jude Wanniski - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tigers!]

With a Mamdani in the WH and majority of his supporters in congress we would likely go the route of Venezuela.

The Venezuelan radicals destroyed the economy and the middle class by arbitrary ideological actions. Nationalized oil which fell into disrepair.

They bankrupted the government with unsustainable social programs sending.

That sounds precisely like what the Republitards said would happen if we elected Obama. Endless economic and social disaster.
As it turned out Obama gave us the longest string of consecutive growth quarters in modern history,

didn't start any wars,

Though Obama did like using drones to attack outside the USA.
Not starting any wars might be a parsing perception issue though.

ended Bushbaby's Iraq debacle and made no attempt to overthrow the results of elections, not even when The People decided they'd prefer a wannabe dictator, known career fraudster, sexual assaulter and and self dealing asshole.

That is definitely to his credit. Pity Trump could not follow suit.

 

[Elixir]

Though Obama did like using drones to attack outside the USA.

What would YOU use?
540 drone strikes over 8 years, vs an estimated >$150,000,000,000.00 spent and 17 (so far afaik) American soldiers killed in 4 months, world economy wrecked - and they won't even talk about the wounded... I swear, Tigers!, sometimes your contortionist attempts at equivocation are infuriating - or would be if they weren't so comical.
I can't fathom why or how you could EVER compare Obama with Trump.

 

[Tigers!]

Though Obama did like using drones to attack outside the USA.

What would YOU use?
540 drone strikes over 8 years,

When someone comes into office proclaiming the world is better because of their ascension I will give them the dignity of taking them at their word and seeing how well their actions comport with their fine words.

Spraying drones strikes all over the world is not guaranteed to win friends and influence people. ~approx. 4,00 killed.

vs an estimated >$150,000,000,000.00 spent and 17 (so far afaik) American soldiers killed in 4 months, world economy wrecked - and they won't even talk about the wounded... I swear, Tigers!, sometimes your contortionist attempts at equivocation are infuriating - or would be if they weren't so comical.

No argument from me that the current war in Hormuz was a stupid, reckless, foolish decision. No justification for it.

I can't fathom why or how you could EVER compare Obama with Trump.

Since I have never said in any way that Trump is better than Obama I am at a loss to see why you would say that.
You compare the 2 of them all the time. I have never complained about that.

 

[Elixir]

I have never said in any way that Trump is better than Obama I am at a loss to see why you would say that

Because of the rhetorically implied equivocation - “on the other hand” …

 

[Tigers!]

I have never said in any way that Trump is better than Obama I am at a loss to see why you would say that

Because of the rhetorically implied equivocation - “on the other hand” …

I do not put pollies, parties on pedestals. All have feet of clay.

I can criticise Obama and Trump yet be aware that Obama was a far better president that Trump will ever be.

 

[Elixir]

I can criticise Obama and Trump yet be aware that Obama was a far better president that Trump will ever be.

Yes. You could do that.
Responding to critiques of trump with “OTOH, Obama…” indicates that you are not likely to do that.

 

[thebeave]

I have never said in any way that Trump is better than Obama I am at a loss to see why you would say that

Because of the rhetorically implied equivocation - “on the other hand” …

I do not put pollies, parties on pedestals. All have feet of clay.

I can criticise Obama and Trump yet be aware that Obama was a far better president that Trump will ever be.

Yep. I generally like Obama, but he was no pacifist while in the White House:

Here's how Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have never said in any way that Trump is better than Obama I am at a loss to see why you would say that

Because of the rhetorically implied equivocation - “on the other hand” …

I do not put pollies, parties on pedestals. All have feet of clay.

I can criticise Obama and Trump yet be aware that Obama was a far better president that Trump will ever be.

James Buchanan was a far better President than Trump will ever be. Trump is a lower low than any US President, by a magnitude.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have never said in any way that Trump is better than Obama I am at a loss to see why you would say that

Because of the rhetorically implied equivocation - “on the other hand” …

I do not put pollies, parties on pedestals. All have feet of clay.

I can criticise Obama and Trump yet be aware that Obama was a far better president that Trump will ever be.

Yep. I generally like Obama, but he was no pacifist while in the White House:

Here's how Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016

To put that title link into context.

In 2014, the U.S. along with a number of coalition partners began Operation Inherent Resolve against the militant Islamic State group. The U.S. conducted numerous airstrikes in Iraq and Syria using both manned and unmanned aircraft, including drones. According to data from the U.S. Air Force Central Command, in 2016 the coalition dropped a total of 30,743 weapons in Iraq and Syria.

According to an analysis by the think tank Council for Foreign Relations, the U.S. carried out 79% of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in 2016 and was responsible for 24,287 of these bombs.

In addition, through Operation Enduring Sentinel in Afghanistan, the U.S. dropped a total of 1,337 weapons through both manned and unmanned aircraft, according to data collected by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent media outlet.

Data from the Long War Journal — part of the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank — and the liberal think tank New America also found the U.S. conducted around 513 strikes in Libya, 43 in Yemen, 14 in Somalia, and 3 in Pakistan in 2016. This data didn't give the exact numbers of weapons used. Regardless, keeping in mind the number of strikes in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, as well as the quantity of weapons used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the total still amounts to more than 26,000 bombs in seven countries in just 2016.

And Congressional Approval is a funny term used in the link title as Afghanistan and attacks on ISIS were notably covered. Limited strikes against adversaries isn't uncommon for President.

What the Trump Admin is doing in Iran is generally unprecedented, regarding the mix of lack of any goals, hopeless negotiations / awful messaging, lack of competency, complete lack of oversight, and the oddest sense of needless self-perpetuation, and the costly implications on the entire global economy. The US is spending billions to destroy millions. It is a Bay of Pigs with a much larger scale / impact.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Neither has any American president been a pacifist.

 

[Elixir]

“All have feet of clay” is true.
None are nearly so totally malevolent, stupid, corrupt or perverse as Donald Trump, is also true.
Moaning “who among us has not sinned?!”, does not obliterate the distinction.

 

[Derec]

Don't pretend you can't parse English.

I am not pretending, and I can parse English just fine.

Don't pretend you don't understand how reports of crimes lead to investigations, but when the police disbelieve the reports they don't bother investigating or they investigate the victims and witnesses rather than investigating the alleged criminal.

Who can't parse the English language now?
I never said anything about that police and prosecutors should "disbelieve". But they should not automatically believe either. Both have the danger of prejudging the case (see Nifong, Michael Byron). The goal should be, as much as possible, an impartial and professional investigation.

It's obvious you want to use the most extreme meaning of "believe" (intransitive verb: to have unwavering faith despite a dearth of evidence)

No. I am using the far less extreme form of "to consider to be true or honest" and similar. Inherent in all those definitions is that one side is believed over the other, which means that investigators and prosecutors lose impartiality.

because you want to cry about how extreme "believe women" is, apparently because you want reports of rape and sexual assault to not be taken seriously.

Taken seriously and investigated, yes. Case prejudge by believing one side over the other, no.

 

[Elixir]

Neither has any American president been a pacifist.

Jimmy Carter was the closest thing in my lifetime. At least he is a lifelong humanitarian.

 

[Arctish]

Don't pretend you can't parse English.

I am not pretending, and I can parse English just fine.

Don't pretend you don't understand how reports of crimes lead to investigations, but when the police disbelieve the reports they don't bother investigating or they investigate the victims and witnesses rather than investigating the alleged criminal.

Who can't parse the English language now?
I never said anything about that police and prosecutors should "disbelieve". But they should not automatically believe either.

They should not automatically have faith like a little child that the person telling them about a crime is all wise, all knowing, and infallible.

You are still using the most extreme definition of "believe" when the most common one is obviously the appropriate one given the context.

Both have the danger of prejudging the case (see Nifong

Are you claiming that Mike Nifong believed Crystal Mangum, a woman who was so disturbed and delusional the night she and another stripper got into a fight with their clients that the police took her to a psychiatric hospital to be checked out by professionals?

Nifong admitted in court he never interviewed her. He never assessed the accuracy of her statements. He said: "I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night...We're not at that stage yet."

"Believe women" had nothing to do with Mike Nifong's decision to indict the students, hide exculpatory DNA evidence, and grandstand in front of the press. It had nothing to do with why he was removed from office, disbarred, and went to jail.

No. I am using the far less extreme form of "to consider to be true or honest" and similar. Inherent in all those definitions is that one side is believed over the other, which means that investigators and prosecutors lose impartiality.

Believing someone is honestly reporting what they think is true is not the same thing as deciding only their statements are true and not considering other accounts.

because you want to cry about how extreme "believe women" is, apparently because you want reports of rape and sexual assault to not be taken seriously.

Taken seriously and investigated, yes. Case prejudge by believing one side over the other, no.

Well then, we agree.

Except about Mike Nifong.

 

[bilby]

Yep. I generally like Obama, but he was no pacifist while in the White House:

Here's how Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016

To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

To a man with the title "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States", every problem looks like a target.

Americans have an odd double standard in this regard; They are a bit surprised that anyone is too concerned about a few hundred (or a few thousand) precision targetted bombs being used to take out some "bad guys", or to attempt to overthrow a regime that is unfriendly towards the USA, and consider any "collateral damage" to be something those foreigners can and should shrug off as a minor irritant and a necessary evil; But if someone attacks a handful of US locations, including their military HQ, suddenly a few thousand deaths is the most profound event of a lifetime, and they are all "Remember 9-11: Never Again!"

The US inflicts a 9-11 level trauma on other countries on a weekly basis, and seems oblivious to even the possibility that those countries might not like the USA as a result.

Zero Americans sat down after 9-11 and said, "You know, that Bin Laden chap might have a point, perhaps we should reconsider our choice of leaders to make oir country more friendly towards the Islamic world". Nobody (except perhaps Al Queda, and their utterly insane comrades and supporters) would expect them to.

Yet many Americans (including those with influence in the Whitehouse and Pentagon) apparently seriously expect Iranians to sit down after Tehran is bombed and soberly consider that perhaps it is time for a new leadership who are more friendly towards the US and the West. The epithet "utterly insane" seems appropriate for those who support that bit of strategic brilliance.

If you bomb people, they will hate you for a generation. Americans know this; They respond that exact same way themselves. But bizarrely, they don't seem to believe it, at least when it comes to foreigners.

 

[robnisch]

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 54791

I just read the platform a couple days ago. Yes, all those were in it.

 

[Derec]

What if the victim is male?

Why should that change anything at all?

For starters, you should not call neither female nor male accusers "victims" as that prejudges the case.