FOX has been right all along, which is one of the reasons

[middleview]

For all intents and purposes, yes. It means you are aligning with their agenda, for good or ill. Why would you vote for a candidate that you were diametrically opposed to ideologically?

ask everyone who votes for anyone but Trump in 2020.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

No, he was “left of center” as a Carter Democrat, which he jokingly described as a “communist” position after becoming a Reagan Democrat.

What makes you think he was joking?

 

[EatTheRich]

What makes you think he was joking?

He became head of the FBI after passing several FBI background checks and being vetted by a Republican Senate.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

He didn’t put any “former” Marxist in charge of the FBI. And Brennan was a “former Marxist” only in the very loose sense that he voted for a Communist Party candidate at a time when the Communist Party gave lip service to Marxism but had long since repudiated nearly everything Marx stood for.

How do you know what they believed in 40 years ago? Marxists have moved the "revolution" to the ballot box, not "repudiated everything Marx stood for." The movement has evolved.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

He became head of the FBI after passing several FBI background checks and being vetted by a Republican Senate.

And certainly behaved in a way that would indicate he held views that were inconsistent with his "official" bio.

 

[EatTheRich]

How do you know what they believed in 40 years ago? Marxists have moved the "revolution" to the ballot box, not "repudiated everything Marx stood for." The movement has evolved.

That is a repudiation of what Marx stood for. It was literally the “revisionism” of Marx championed by the renegade from Marxism Bernstein and condemned by the (at the time) defenders of Marxism Kautsky and Lenin.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I rate your comment half-true.

What is true: there is no way to increase the wealth of all the poor permanently without seizing the wealth of, and thereby breaking the political power of, the rich who must keep the masses poor and regard technological progress so they can enjoy capitalist wealth which they falsely think is the pinnacle of wealth for our species.

What is false: Obama and other liberal politicians believe that wealth can be spread around by adopting “pro-prosperity” policies that result in “good jobs” and “high wages.”

What is false is the idea that progressive taxation and robust market regulation are "pro-prosperity" policies. And while it may be true that Obama and the rest of the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party (pretty much a distinction without a difference these days) BELIEVE that wealth confiscation and redistribution achieved by progressive taxation and robust market regulation "result in 'good jobs' and 'high wages'" (I applaud your use of the quote marks), in fact they result in the exact opposite.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

That is a repudiation of what Marx stood for. It was literally the “revisionism” of Marx championed by the renegade from Marxism Bernstein and condemned by the (at the time) defenders of Marxism Kautsky and Lenin.

So it boils down to a repudiation of his tactics, not his beliefs. Those are not one and the same.

 

[kaz]

Since virtually all that money went to General Electric, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, Intel, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Pepsi, Hollywood, Archer Daniels Midland, etc., taxpayers have every right to take back their robbed wealth by expropriating those companies.

I oppose all wealth redistribution, including corporate welfare. You're not going to draw me into arguing for that. I'm a capitalist, which is economic freedom. Government favoring companies and picking market winners is a form of socialism, not capitalism.

But that most redistribution of wealth is corporate welfare is a complete stinking pile of horse crap

 

[middleview]

What makes you think he was joking?

What makes you think he wasn't?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

What makes you think he wasn't?

Aren't you the one who insists Trump's joke about hoping the Russians found Hillary's emails was literally him asking for their help? So which is it, do we take people at their word or not? Or do you just get to pick and choose when we do and when we don't?

 

[EatTheRich]

What is false is the idea that progressive taxation and robust market regulation are "pro-prosperity" policies. And while it may be true that Obama and the rest of the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party (pretty much a distinction without a difference these days) BELIEVE that wealth confiscation and redistribution achieved by progressive taxation and robust market regulation "result in 'good jobs' and 'high wages'" (I applaud your use of the quote marks), in fact they result in the exact opposite.

Was any country more prosperous than the U.S. in the early 1960s when its top income tax rate was 78% and the market was much more regulated? Weren’t the Clinton tax increases and increased regulation followed by jobs growth and the Bush tax cuts and deregulation followed by collapses in job and wage levels?

 

[EatTheRich]

So it boils down to a repudiation of his tactics, not his beliefs. Those are not one and the same.

Not tactics. A strategy that complemented and informed his philosophical analysis and is inseparable from his praxis.

 

[middleview]

Aren't you the one who insists Trump's joke about hoping the Russians found Hillary's emails was literally him asking for their help? So which is it, do we take people at their word or not? Or do you just get to pick and choose when we do and when we don't?

find the post of mine about Trump's comment....

 

[Dawg]

Carter posed with a Confederate flag. His mom attended a Klan rally while he was on the campaign trail.

in Georgia

Peanut was the perfect Democrat...…...21% interest...….high unemployment

 

[middleview]

Aren't you the one who insists Trump's joke about hoping the Russians found Hillary's emails was literally him asking for their help? So which is it, do we take people at their word or not? Or do you just get to pick and choose when we do and when we don't?

No.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

No.

You aren't fooling anyone here.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

find the post of mine about Trump's comment....

There is no reason for me to waste the time looking for it through the three pages of your posts the search terms Trump Russians Hillary Emails brings up. If you didn't say precisely that (and I recall that you have) your many posts on the subject clearly puts you in the camp of those who do believe that his joke about the Russians maybe having her emails is evidence of his attempts to "collude" with the Russians to steal the election from her.

Lets make this easier - do you agree that Trump's campaign comment "maybe the Russians can find Hillary's missing emails" was just a joke (and not in any way "evidence" that he needed to be investigated) or not?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Not tactics. A strategy that complemented and informed his philosophical analysis and is inseparable from his praxis.

Perhaps, but there's a reason that communism has failed everywhere it has been tried on a larger scale, and it's not because the evil Americans undermined these nobel experiments. And that reason is why the modern Marxist movement has turned its longing eyes toward socialism as a training environment to help them figure out how to make their ideology work at the national level.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Was any country more prosperous than the U.S. in the early 1960s when its top income tax rate was 78% and the market was much more regulated? Weren’t the Clinton tax increases and increased regulation followed by jobs growth and the Bush tax cuts and deregulation followed by collapses in job and wage levels?

The fact of the matter is that nobody paid that top rate back then, and it is absurd to suggest that markets were "more regulated" in the 1960s than they are today.



In fact you are conflating tax rates with tax payments: Spending = Taxes (current + deferred)



Clinton cut TAXATION and in so doing actually reduced the size and scope of government, which is much more important than the number of pages in the Federal Register. Bush, on the other hand, increased overall taxation levels (spending) and regulation (hello, do the words Sarbanes Oxley and Patriot Act mean anything to you?). That is why the economy was way better when Clinton left office than when Bush did (either one, for that matter) - not some disingenuous contortion of their Administration's policy agendas.

You are a smart guy, and obviously zealous about promoting your ideology. You shouldn't need to relay on a misrepresentation of Presidential records to make its case.