New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Somebody really doesn't want Hillary to win...

Lukey

Senator
During the financial crisis of 2008-2009, I saw a funny cartoon.

It showed a fellow selling T-shirts with the large caption:

Capitalism Is Dead!!

He was making a lot of money, with a big smile on his face......
Yeah, I get the joke. I used a similar tack in the past to defend myself against attacks that my ideology was inconsistent with my idolatry of Hunter S. Thompson, who supposedly had socialist leanings. I merely linked to the many web sites hawking his wares...
 
IMO, Webb is a zero candidate. His short lived candidacy showed that he simply has no...anything. No drive, no ambition, no reason to be President, no answers, no ideas. He gained no traction whatsoever in his campaign...and an independent run would be highly ignored.
Possibly, Webb has ulterior motives like increasing his speaker's fees or increasing his chances for a VP spot?
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Possibly, Webb has ulterior motives like increasing his speaker's fees or increasing his chances for a VP spot?
He's already served in various capacities, so I'm not convinced he desires another position, especially one as highly visible as VP.

Speaker's fees...perhaps another book...
 

Arkady

President
Until now...
No. The second of Dubya's recessions was pretty long, but it ended years ago and was much shorter than the recessions I'm talking about. That was an 18-month recession.... painfully long by post-New Deal standards, but average or even short by pre-New Deal standards. The Hoover recession was 43 months long. There was one in the laissez-faire 19th century that stretched 65 months. We had eleven total recessions of 18 months or longer between 1860 and the start of the New Deal. In other words, in the 73 years preceding the New Deal, we had eleven separate recessions that would have been the longest-ever for the 82-year era since the New Deal started. The New Deal, through government interventions like deposit insurance, changed the economic game. In the old days, you'd seldom go a decade without something akin to the disaster of 2008.
 

Lukey

Senator
Have you considered the possibility that capitalism has come to the end of its natural lifetime, or do you believe it is eternal?

It's only "eternal" to the extent that we stop allowing the "central planners" to continue their attempts to control it.
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
That behavior seems to puzzle you because you're incapable of nuanced thought. For those of us who see in more shades than black and white, a person can be despicable in some ways (like, say, Clinton's vote to authorize Bush to use discretionary force in Iraq), and yet still some attacks against that person can be unfair. That's what's going on here. I don't rush to Clinton's defense in every strand. I saw her attacked yesterday for her Iraq vote, and didn't rush to her defense, since I think that attack is entirely justified. I also saw her attacked for her opposition to charter schools, and I didn't say a word, even though I'm also a charter school skeptic. It's not a topic I know a whole lot about, so I didn't have any strong conviction about whether Clinton's opposition to charter schools is justified or not, and I didn't speak up. But when someone attacks Clinton in a way that I think is patently ridiculous, like the never-ending Benghazi pseudo-scandal, then I'll speak up. When I do, your simple, black-and-white mind will tell you this means I must support her in all things.
You need a new shtick. This idiotic lefty template of unique practitioner of "nuance" and shades of gray is a childish retreat. The fact is that - nearly to a man/woman - lefties in this forum will absolutely vote for Hillary...and will occupy themselves with critique only of her enemies.

You will definitely vote for her if she's the Dem nominee.
 
I still believe biden would have more than a shot than webb.

if webb thinks he's viable, he has to IMMEDIATELY start running some national TV adds. not screwing around interviewing former biden campaign wonks.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
Possibly, Webb has ulterior motives like increasing his speaker's fees or increasing his chances for a VP spot?
BAM! I think it would be foolish for us not to consider this for Webb and many of the lower tier candidates. I suspect most of them know they have no chance and are simply building the brand. Huckabee also comes to mind, though really it's probably not fair to single any of them out.
 
BAM! I think it would be foolish for us not to consider this for Webb and many of the lower tier candidates. I suspect most of them know they have no chance and are simply building the brand. Huckabee also comes to mind, though really it's probably not fair to single any of them out.
I've seen numbers indicating Huck's personal finances improved dramatically after his 2012 run, but he is not the only one gaming the system. We need better metrics for judging aspiring presidential wanna-bees.
 
It's only "eternal" to the extent that we stop allowing the "central planners" to continue their attempts to control it.
If capitalism is on the verge of following feudalism and slavery into the graveyard of dead, and no longer useful, ideas,
"In capitalism, the profit motive rules and people, freed from serfdom for that purpose, to work for the capitalists in exchange of wages.

"The capitalist class are free to spread their laissez faire practices around the world. In the capitalist-controlled parliament, laws are made to protect wealth.

"But according to Marx, capitalism, like slave society and feudalism, also has critical failings—inner contradictions which will lead to its downfall.

"The working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the 'grave digger' of capitalism. The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces.
won't you feel silly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history
 

Lukey

Senator
If capitalism is on the verge of following feudalism and slavery into the graveyard of dead, and no longer useful, ideas,
"In capitalism, the profit motive rules and people, freed from serfdom for that purpose, to work for the capitalists in exchange of wages.

"The capitalist class are free to spread their laissez faire practices around the world. In the capitalist-controlled parliament, laws are made to protect wealth.

"But according to Marx, capitalism, like slave society and feudalism, also has critical failings—inner contradictions which will lead to its downfall.

"The working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the 'grave digger' of capitalism. The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces.
won't you feel silly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history
The only reason Marxism hasn't "followed feudalism and slavery into the graveyard of dead, and no longer useful ideas" is because none of its adherents will admit to it's many failures in practice. That way you get to keep measuring actual capitalism in practice against an unachievable communist ideal, rather than Marxism as it is actually practiced. As I keep saying, capitalism is merely the least worst political economic system...
 
The only reason Marxism hasn't "followed feudalism and slavery into the graveyard of dead, and no longer useful ideas" is because none of its adherents will admit to it's many failures in practice. That way you get to keep measuring actual capitalism in practice against an unachievable communist ideal, rather than Marxism as it is actually practiced. As I keep saying, capitalism is merely the least worst political economic system...
Have you heard the expression "whistling past the grave yard?" Those adherents of capitalism who haven't noticed its inherent instability, as proven over the last two hundred years, seem to believe capitalism is a natural law, like gravity, for example.

It's not.

It is merely the latest in long line of economic systems dating roughly from the development of fire. Marx called this initial stage "primitive communism" which came to its end with the development of private property. This coincided with large scale agriculture which generated productive property like cattle and, of course, human slaves.

The second stage, according to Marx, was a slave society and this is where the concept of "class" and "state" arise; the former consisted of slave-owners and slaves, and the second develops as a tool for slave owners to more easily control their "property."

Feudalism come third in this progression after greed collapses the slave society. Theocracy, hereditary elites and classes, and the formation of the modern nation state all rise due to their inherent bonds with the Money Power.

Capitalism replaced the feudal serfs with wage labor in much the same way the serf replaced the slave during this fourth stage of development. Market economies and laissez faire economics generated vast, private fortunes by corrupting government to socialize cost and poverty among the majority while privatizing profit for a tiny minority.

Socialism comes fifth after the greed of the few results in producing a working class consciousness in the majority. For the first time in history productive forces are free to develop in a democratically planned way without the vast waste of capitalist anarchy.

Communism comes last, and it never exists until socialism and capitalism have run their historical course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history

"Fiat money and credit whose values were determined by anarchic market forces are abolished.

"Instead, in his Critique of the Gotha programme, Marx speculated schematically that from the 'total social product' there would be deductions for the requirements of production and 'the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc' which latter deduction 'grows in proportion as the new society develops', and, of course, deductions 'for those unable to work, etc'.

"After these deductions the workers could divide up the wealth produced by their labor and everyone could be simply given a 'certificate from society', which could then be exchanged for products.


"This schematically introduces a means of exchange ('the same principle' i.e. money) in socialist society but with the speculative element removed."
 

Lukey

Senator
Have you heard the expression "whistling past the grave yard?" Those adherents of capitalism who haven't noticed its inherent instability, as proven over the last two hundred years, seem to believe capitalism is a natural law, like gravity, for example.

It's not.

It is merely the latest in long line of economic systems dating roughly from the development of fire. Marx called this initial stage "primitive communism" which came to its end with the development of private property. This coincided with large scale agriculture which generated productive property like cattle and, of course, human slaves.

The second stage, according to Marx, was a slave society and this is where the concept of "class" and "state" arise; the former consisted of slave-owners and slaves, and the second develops as a tool for slave owners to more easily control their "property."

Feudalism come third in this progression after greed collapses the slave society. Theocracy, hereditary elites and classes, and the formation of the modern nation state all rise due to their inherent bonds with the Money Power.

Capitalism replaced the feudal serfs with wage labor in much the same way the serf replaced the slave during this fourth stage of development. Market economies and laissez faire economics generated vast, private fortunes by corrupting government to socialize cost and poverty among the majority while privatizing profit for a tiny minority.

Socialism comes fifth after the greed of the few results in producing a working class consciousness in the majority. For the first time in history productive forces are free to develop in a democratically planned way without the vast waste of capitalist anarchy.

Communism comes last, and it never exists until socialism and capitalism have run their historical course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history

"Fiat money and credit whose values were determined by anarchic market forces are abolished.

"Instead, in his Critique of the Gotha programme, Marx speculated schematically that from the 'total social product' there would be deductions for the requirements of production and 'the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc' which latter deduction 'grows in proportion as the new society develops', and, of course, deductions 'for those unable to work, etc'.

"After these deductions the workers could divide up the wealth produced by their labor and everyone could be simply given a 'certificate from society', which could then be exchanged for products.


"This schematically introduces a means of exchange ('the same principle' i.e. money) in socialist society but with the speculative element removed."
All I can say is "good luck with that." I don't think it works without magnanimity, which is in awful short supply with the human race.
 
All I can say is "good luck with that." I don't think it works without magnanimity, which is in awful short supply with the human race.
We are not in any danger of drowning in magnanimity:eek:?
Do you think Marx had the following part right?


"The Second Stage: may be called slave society, considered to be the beginning of 'class society' where private property appears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history
  • Class: here the idea of class appears. There is always a slave-owning ruling class and the slaves themselves.
  • Statism: the state develops during this stage as a tool for the slave-owners to use and control the slaves."
 

Lukey

Senator
We are not in any danger of drowning in magnanimity:eek:?
Do you think Marx had the following part right?


"The Second Stage: may be called slave society, considered to be the beginning of 'class society' where private property appears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history
  • Class: here the idea of class appears. There is always a slave-owning ruling class and the slaves themselves.
  • Statism: the state develops during this stage as a tool for the slave-owners to use and control the slaves."
God I can only hope not...
 
God I can only hope not...
It gets worse
"The slave-owning class 'own' the land and slaves, which are the main means of producing wealth, whilst the vast majority have very little or nothing.

"The property-less included the slave class, slaves who work for no money, and in most cases women, who were also dispossessed during this period.

"From a Marxist perspective, slave society collapsed when it exhausted itself.

"The need to keep conquering more slaves created huge problems, such as maintaining the vast empire that resulted (i.e. The Roman Empire).

"It is ultimately the aristocracy born in this epoch that demolishes it and forces society to step onto the next stage."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history
 

Arkady

President
You need a new shtick. This idiotic lefty template of unique practitioner of "nuance" and shades of gray is a childish retreat. The fact is that - nearly to a man/woman - lefties in this forum will absolutely vote for Hillary...and will occupy themselves with critique only of her enemies.

You will definitely vote for her if she's the Dem nominee.
I assume I wont' vote for her if she's the nominee. I live in Massachusetts, where the de facto disenfranchisement of all the state's residents gives me the luxury of a protest vote. The electoral college system makes it so my vote won't matter as anything other than symbolic, since if Massachusetts is anywhere close to competitive, it will be a landslide for the Republican nationally regardless of which way Massachusetts goes. So, it comes down to which symbol I think will do the more good: will there be more value in strengthening Clinton's mandate against the Republicans by increasing her margin of victory a bit, or will be there more value in signalling that there's a sizable faction on the left that's sick of the neoconservative leanings of establishment Democrats? I'm likely to swing towards the second option -- though that'll depend a lot on what Clinton says down the line. In the meantime, I support Sanders and hope I don't have to make that call.

Regardless, my point was that your rhetoric was demonstrably wrong. There are a lot of us on the left who don't rush to Clinton's defense every time. We attack her when we think she's wrong, defend her when we think she's right, and stay on the sidelines when we're ambivalent. That confuses you, because that kind of behavior is so far outside your own experience. You have one mode -- attack. And so you seem to assume that everyone must either be the same or to be a mirror image of your own simple-minded approach, always defending.
 
Top