St. John's comments on Executive Order on Immigration

Quote from: Ez_Uzi on February 19, 2017, 02:09:32 AM

to me Trump is just a face, he is largely the titular head of the emergent Tea Party, and this rise represents the rise of third party politics in the US (even though they cleverly ran under the guise of republicans rather than as independents). To me, this is a positive trend for politics in the US. They have arisen because of both dysfunctional democratic and mainstream republican parties.

Certainly the same discontent that animated the tea party played a role in Clinton's defeat - and that's really what the last election was, it wasn't an exhultation of Trump, it was a repudiation of HRC and everything she stood for - but it was more than anger at the fiscal irresponsibility of big government: it was a reaction to the hubris and condescension of the media-government complex, to the ossification of the agenda of people who think they know better than you what's better for you and that you should bend over and take it for your own good.

And if you don't take it - if you veer from the left's agenda in slightest most benign manner - you will be shamed and slandered and boycotted and destroyed. If you don't want to bake a cake, you're a homophobe. If you think Iranians should be vetted before being given US citizenship, you're a xenophobe. If you wonder why black lives matter more than white lives, you're a racist. If you own a gun you're a domestic terrorist. In short, if you don't believe what I believe you're a deplorable and oh by the way please vote for me. I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I approve this message. 

Whereas Trump told the deplorables that that what they thought was important wasn't stupid, that they were getting a raw deal socially and economically, and that they're alleged moral superiors were merely sanctimonious bullies who deserved a punch in the nose, which he gave them, which is why they love him.

Pretty much nails it on the head.

Quote from: Ez_Uzi on February 19, 2017, 02:09:32 AM

to me Trump is just a face, he is largely the titular head of the emergent Tea Party, and this rise represents the rise of third party politics in the US (even though they cleverly ran under the guise of republicans rather than as independents). To me, this is a positive trend for politics in the US. They have arisen because of both dysfunctional democratic and mainstream republican parties.

Certainly the same discontent that animated the tea party played a role in Clinton's defeat - and that's really what the last election was, it wasn't an exhultation of Trump, it was a repudiation of HRC and everything she stood for - but it was more than anger at the fiscal irresponsibility of big government: it was a reaction to the hubris and condescension of the media-government complex, to the ossification of the agenda of people who think they know better than you what's better for you and that you should bend over and take it for your own good.

And if you don't take it - if you veer from the left's agenda in slightest most benign manner - you will be shamed and slandered and boycotted and destroyed. If you don't want to bake a cake, you're a homophobe. If you think Iranians should be vetted before being given US citizenship, you're a xenophobe. If you wonder why black lives matter more than white lives, you're a racist. If you own a gun you're a domestic terrorist. In short, if you don't believe what I believe you're a deplorable and oh by the way please vote for me. I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I approve this message. 

Whereas Trump told the deplorables that that what they thought was important wasn't stupid, that they were getting a raw deal socially and economically, and that they're alleged moral superiors were merely sanctimonious bullies who deserved a punch in the nose, which he gave them, which is why they love him.

Tell me again how manufacturing is coming back to the states?

 Tell me again how manufacturing is coming back to the states? [/quote]

Sure. While it is not my responsibility to teach you economics, but it is a subject I excel in, especially on the quantitative side. So the first thing you need to understand - and pardon my mild incivility - is why did manufacturing leave the United States?. But to answer this question, we have to turn to economic historians, and they will start by telling you a major flaw in my discipline called the myth of trade liberalism, and the link to economic development. I suggest reading the article below, and you will start to get a sense of why Trump is doing what he is doing.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1996/eirv23n36-19960906/eirv23n36-19960906_016-free_trade_is_an_aberration_not.pdf

The findings in the article above were not new and were re-validated by Ha Joon Chang in 2009. That is, earlier Adam Smith had warned that if English merchants and manufacturers were free to import, export, and invest abroad, it would be they who profit while the English society would be harmed … So he instead argued or believed that English capitalists would like to invest and purchase in their home country, and so if by an “invisible hand” (the only time this terms appears in Wealth of Nations), England would be spared the consequences of economic liberalism. Similarly, David Ricardo, discusses that his theory of comparative advantage would collapse if it were more profitable to the capitalists of England to invest in Portugal for both manufacturing and agriculture … but this would not happen because again he believed that they would feel insecure about capital abroad and that they would be satisfied with lower rate of profits in their own country …

After WWII the economic regime established by the US and Britain … negotiated by Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes … was of the belief that economic sovereignty is a crucial factor in growth. The system they designed was based on capital controls and regulated currencies (I call these smart regulations) in order to protect economic sovereignty (or as Bannon calls it economic nationalism - nationalism because it is not about white nationalism, he means anti globalization), and to permit state intervention to carry out social democratic measures - this is how the stimulus of infrastructure development and repair generates further jobs like FDR did, and then higher revenues can be dedicated for health, education and other social goods. The 25 year period was marked with significant growth and at the end of it the lowest inequality in the history of US. Can it be repeated? Of course it can but here the anamoly is again smart regulations coupled with freer internal markets... Hope this helps.

And if you don't take it - if you veer from the left's agenda in slightest most benign manner - you will be shamed and slandered and boycotted and destroyed. If you don't want to bake a cake, you're a homophobe. If you think Iranians should be vetted before being given US citizenship, you're a xenophobe. If you wonder why black lives matter more than white lives, you're a racist. If you own a gun you're a domestic terrorist. In short, if you don't believe what I believe you're a deplorable and oh by the way please vote for me. I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I approve this message.

I bet you Eric Blair is shaking his head in his grave saying, I told you so. I have never in my 30 years in this country, and 50 years in my life witnessed such an utter closing of minds - literally as you suggest even the slightest of incursion into the dominant ideology is violently repelled. I would have never guessed, despite having read 1984 umpteen times that we were 8 years away from where government takes over every aspect of my life, what i believe and who I am ... 8 more years of free trade, rampant illegal immigration, systematized propaganda through corrupted institutions including academia, stripping of liberties to the point of disarming, Newspeak (or politically correct language) that stifles revolt, thought crime (the horrific reality that thought crime did not entail death, thought crime is death), and the lust for pure power ... to make my arrival in Oceania safe. God, Jehovah, Allah help us

Perhaps the tea party felt that in Trump they found someone with hard enough skin to withstand the avalanche of avalanches ...

Unless I am recruited into the inner party of Oceania, I am not selling out LOL

Quote from: Ez_Uzi on February 19, 2017, 02:09:32 AM

to me Trump is just a face, he is largely the titular head of the emergent Tea Party, and this rise represents the rise of third party politics in the US (even though they cleverly ran under the guise of republicans rather than as independents). To me, this is a positive trend for politics in the US. They have arisen because of both dysfunctional democratic and mainstream republican parties.

Certainly the same discontent that animated the tea party played a role in Clinton's defeat - and that's really what the last election was, it wasn't an exhultation of Trump, it was a repudiation of HRC and everything she stood for - but it was more than anger at the fiscal irresponsibility of big government: it was a reaction to the hubris and condescension of the media-government complex, to the ossification of the agenda of people who think they know better than you what's better for you and that you should bend over and take it for your own good.

And if you don't take it - if you veer from the left's agenda in slightest most benign manner - you will be shamed and slandered and boycotted and destroyed. If you don't want to bake a cake, you're a homophobe. If you think Iranians should be vetted before being given US citizenship, you're a xenophobe. If you wonder why black lives matter more than white lives, you're a racist. If you own a gun you're a domestic terrorist. In short, if you don't believe what I believe you're a deplorable and oh by the way please vote for me. I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I approve this message. 

Whereas Trump told the deplorables that that what they thought was important wasn't stupid, that they were getting a raw deal socially and economically, and that they're alleged moral superiors were merely sanctimonious bullies who deserved a punch in the nose, which he gave them, which is why they love him.

GOAT post

Quote from: Foad on February 19, 2017, 09:18:15 AM

Quote from: Ez_Uzi on February 19, 2017, 02:09:32 AM

to me Trump is just a face, he is largely the titular head of the emergent Tea Party, and this rise represents the rise of third party politics in the US (even though they cleverly ran under the guise of republicans rather than as independents). To me, this is a positive trend for politics in the US. They have arisen because of both dysfunctional democratic and mainstream republican parties.

Certainly the same discontent that animated the tea party played a role in Clinton's defeat - and that's really what the last election was, it wasn't an exhultation of Trump, it was a repudiation of HRC and everything she stood for - but it was more than anger at the fiscal irresponsibility of big government: it was a reaction to the hubris and condescension of the media-government complex, to the ossification of the agenda of people who think they know better than you what's better for you and that you should bend over and take it for your own good.

And if you don't take it - if you veer from the left's agenda in slightest most benign manner - you will be shamed and slandered and boycotted and destroyed. If you don't want to bake a cake, you're a homophobe. If you think Iranians should be vetted before being given US citizenship, you're a xenophobe. If you wonder why black lives matter more than white lives, you're a racist. If you own a gun you're a domestic terrorist. In short, if you don't believe what I believe you're a deplorable and oh by the way please vote for me. I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I approve this message. 

Whereas Trump told the deplorables that that what they thought was important wasn't stupid, that they were getting a raw deal socially and economically, and that they're alleged moral superiors were merely sanctimonious bullies who deserved a punch in the nose, which he gave them, which is why they love him.

GOAT post

Mic drop of the century

Quote from: Celtics11 on February 19, 2017, 01:28:02 PM

GOAT post

Mic drop of the century

Maybe or maybe another unfortunate victim of Mr. Garvey?

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=VnUCqazDWDQ

I bet you Eric Blair is shaking his head in his grave saying, I told you so.

Leftist are so well educated that they think 1984 is about Reagan and Snowball is George Bush.

Quote from: Ez_Uzi on February 19, 2017, 12:14:03 PM

I bet you Eric Blair is shaking his head in his grave saying, I told you so.

Leftist are so well educated that they think 1984 is about Reagan and Snowball is George Bush.

I remember when Reagan was similarly demonized but as a nuclear holocaust demagogue ... But he used that demonizing propaganda to perfection against the USSR - I'll blow you away like a paper bag, which he did metaphorically, and brought the Berlin wall down literally. He was also demonized to be the great destructor of the US economy. But having inherited near 20% inflation and unemployment rates, he made one of the biggest % reversals this century. Created 16 million (private sector) jobs unlike Obama (take note) has pretty much created public employment, which is to say he cheated.   

Now to say the current administration is even close to the greatness of Reagan, but that Reagan should be a closet hero of any liberal who has lived under any repressive socialist paradises or democrats’ stagflation. And that economically the current administration will far exceed Obamas (lack of) economic achievements. Finally while Reagan’s legacy is intact, Obamas on a slippery slope heading south - but Im sure the broke, male farmer in Iowa is enthralled with the prospects of marrying another broke, male farmer.

It's a holiday in Cambodia, it's tough kid but it's life
Its a holiday in Cambodia, don’t forget to pack your wife

I bet this is what a typical #resist strategic meeting looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=23f2N8Iuj-M

Tell me again how manufacturing is coming back to the states?

Sure. While it is not my responsibility to teach you economics, but it is a subject I excel in, especially on the quantitative side. So the first thing you need to understand - and pardon my mild incivility - is why did manufacturing leave the United States?. But to answer this question, we have to turn to economic historians, and they will start by telling you a major flaw in my discipline called the myth of trade liberalism, and the link to economic development. I suggest reading the article below, and you will start to get a sense of why Trump is doing what he is doing.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1996/eirv23n36-19960906/eirv23n36-19960906_016-free_trade_is_an_aberration_not.pdf

The findings in the article above were not new and were re-validated by Ha Joon Chang in 2009. That is, earlier Adam Smith had warned that if English merchants and manufacturers were free to import, export, and invest abroad, it would be they who profit while the English society would be harmed … So he instead argued or believed that English capitalists would like to invest and purchase in their home country, and so if by an “invisible hand” (the only time this terms appears in Wealth of Nations), England would be spared the consequences of economic liberalism. Similarly, David Ricardo, discusses that his theory of comparative advantage would collapse if it were more profitable to the capitalists of England to invest in Portugal for both manufacturing and agriculture … but this would not happen because again he believed that they would feel insecure about capital abroad and that they would be satisfied with lower rate of profits in their own country …

After WWII the economic regime established by the US and Britain … negotiated by Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes … was of the belief that economic sovereignty is a crucial factor in growth. The system they designed was based on capital controls and regulated currencies (I call these smart regulations) in order to protect economic sovereignty (or as Bannon calls it economic nationalism - nationalism because it is not about white nationalism, he means anti globalization), and to permit state intervention to carry out social democratic measures - this is how the stimulus of infrastructure development and repair generates further jobs like FDR did, and then higher revenues can be dedicated for health, education and other social goods. The 25 year period was marked with significant growth and at the end of it the lowest inequality in the history of US. Can it be repeated? Of course it can but here the anamoly is again smart regulations coupled with freer internal markets... Hope this helps.
[/quote]

Here's how to answer the question: it's never coming back

Quote from: Foad on February 19, 2017, 09:18:15 AM

And if you don't take it - if you veer from the left's agenda in slightest most benign manner - you will be shamed and slandered and boycotted and destroyed. If you don't want to bake a cake, you're a homophobe. If you think Iranians should be vetted before being given US citizenship, you're a xenophobe. If you wonder why black lives matter more than white lives, you're a racist. If you own a gun you're a domestic terrorist. In short, if you don't believe what I believe you're a deplorable and oh by the way please vote for me. I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton and I approve this message.

I bet you Eric Blair is shaking his head in his grave saying, I told you so. I have never in my 30 years in this country, and 50 years in my life witnessed such an utter closing of minds - literally as you suggest even the slightest of incursion into the dominant ideology is violently repelled. I would have never guessed, despite having read 1984 umpteen times that we were 8 years away from where government takes over every aspect of my life, what i believe and who I am ... 8 more years of free trade, rampant illegal immigration, systematized propaganda through corrupted institutions including academia, stripping of liberties to the point of disarming, Newspeak (or politically correct language) that stifles revolt, thought crime (the horrific reality that thought crime did not entail death, thought crime is death), and the lust for pure power ... to make my arrival in Oceania safe. God, Jehovah, Allah help us

Perhaps the tea party felt that in Trump they found someone with hard enough skin to withstand the avalanche of avalanches ...

Unless I am recruited into the inner party of Oceania, I am not selling out LOL

Trump has hard enough skin provided you don't disagree with him.

Quote from: Ez_Uzi on February 19, 2017, 11:29:44 AM

Tell me again how manufacturing is coming back to the states?

Sure. While it is not my responsibility to teach you economics, but it is a subject I excel in, especially on the quantitative side. So the first thing you need to understand - and pardon my mild incivility - is why did manufacturing leave the United States?. But to answer this question, we have to turn to economic historians, and they will start by telling you a major flaw in my discipline called the myth of trade liberalism, and the link to economic development. I suggest reading the article below, and you will start to get a sense of why Trump is doing what he is doing.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1996/eirv23n36-19960906/eirv23n36-19960906_016-free_trade_is_an_aberration_not.pdf

The findings in the article above were not new and were re-validated by Ha Joon Chang in 2009. That is, earlier Adam Smith had warned that if English merchants and manufacturers were free to import, export, and invest abroad, it would be they who profit while the English society would be harmed … So he instead argued or believed that English capitalists would like to invest and purchase in their home country, and so if by an “invisible hand” (the only time this terms appears in Wealth of Nations), England would be spared the consequences of economic liberalism. Similarly, David Ricardo, discusses that his theory of comparative advantage would collapse if it were more profitable to the capitalists of England to invest in Portugal for both manufacturing and agriculture … but this would not happen because again he believed that they would feel insecure about capital abroad and that they would be satisfied with lower rate of profits in their own country …

After WWII the economic regime established by the US and Britain … negotiated by Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes … was of the belief that economic sovereignty is a crucial factor in growth. The system they designed was based on capital controls and regulated currencies (I call these smart regulations) in order to protect economic sovereignty (or as Bannon calls it economic nationalism - nationalism because it is not about white nationalism, he means anti globalization), and to permit state intervention to carry out social democratic measures - this is how the stimulus of infrastructure development and repair generates further jobs like FDR did, and then higher revenues can be dedicated for health, education and other social goods. The 25 year period was marked with significant growth and at the end of it the lowest inequality in the history of US. Can it be repeated? Of course it can but here the anamoly is again smart regulations coupled with freer internal markets... Hope this helps.

Here's how to answer the question: it's never coming back
[/quote]

Could you provide any evidence on this ... and also on Trump's lack of acquiescence to ideas from others?

Quote from: Ez_Uzi on February 19, 2017, 12:14:03 PM

I bet you Eric Blair is shaking his head in his grave saying, I told you so.

Leftist are so well educated that they think 1984 is about Reagan and Snowball is George Bush.

Didn't Snowball have an affair with Frida Kahlo ... before being assassinated in Mexico?

Quote from: Poison on February 19, 2017, 11:38:44 PM

Quote from: Ez_Uzi on February 19, 2017, 11:29:44 AM

Tell me again how manufacturing is coming back to the states?

Sure. While it is not my responsibility to teach you economics, but it is a subject I excel in, especially on the quantitative side. So the first thing you need to understand - and pardon my mild incivility - is why did manufacturing leave the United States?. But to answer this question, we have to turn to economic historians, and they will start by telling you a major flaw in my discipline called the myth of trade liberalism, and the link to economic development. I suggest reading the article below, and you will start to get a sense of why Trump is doing what he is doing.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1996/eirv23n36-19960906/eirv23n36-19960906_016-free_trade_is_an_aberration_not.pdf

The findings in the article above were not new and were re-validated by Ha Joon Chang in 2009. That is, earlier Adam Smith had warned that if English merchants and manufacturers were free to import, export, and invest abroad, it would be they who profit while the English society would be harmed … So he instead argued or believed that English capitalists would like to invest and purchase in their home country, and so if by an “invisible hand” (the only time this terms appears in Wealth of Nations), England would be spared the consequences of economic liberalism. Similarly, David Ricardo, discusses that his theory of comparative advantage would collapse if it were more profitable to the capitalists of England to invest in Portugal for both manufacturing and agriculture … but this would not happen because again he believed that they would feel insecure about capital abroad and that they would be satisfied with lower rate of profits in their own country …

After WWII the economic regime established by the US and Britain … negotiated by Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes … was of the belief that economic sovereignty is a crucial factor in growth. The system they designed was based on capital controls and regulated currencies (I call these smart regulations) in order to protect economic sovereignty (or as Bannon calls it economic nationalism - nationalism because it is not about white nationalism, he means anti globalization), and to permit state intervention to carry out social democratic measures - this is how the stimulus of infrastructure development and repair generates further jobs like FDR did, and then higher revenues can be dedicated for health, education and other social goods. The 25 year period was marked with significant growth and at the end of it the lowest inequality in the history of US. Can it be repeated? Of course it can but here the anamoly is again smart regulations coupled with freer internal markets... Hope this helps.

Here's how to answer the question: it's never coming back

Could you provide any evidence on this ... and also on Trump's lack of acquiescence to ideas from others?
[/quote]

Common sense. It's not so common. It makes zero sense for a business to significantly increase  their manufacturing costs. Could some improvement be made? Probably. Why hasn't this SOB spent his time working on it? Our poor stupid lower class white people are the people who stand to lose the most.

In terms of Trump listening to ideas from others, if you listen to him when he's asked a question about something as black and white as electoral votes, and he says something that is clearly wrong, he blows it off when he's called out for it. He's a careless, angry child, but I have a feeling that he's gonna get his soon enough.

Great speech last night. Well, great for that piece of shit. Wonder what they laced his Big Mac with.

Great speech last night. Well, great for that piece of shit. Wonder what they laced his Big Mac with.

Liberal tears

Quote from: Poison on March 01, 2017, 07:17:25 PM

Great speech last night. Well, great for that piece of shit. Wonder what they laced his Big Mac with.

Liberal tears

Isn't it nice to have a President that loves this country again?

Quote from: Poison on March 01, 2017, 07:17:25 PM

Great speech last night. Well, great for that piece of shit. Wonder what they laced his Big Mac with.

Liberal tears

and don't forget the liberal whine, its a vintage year!!

Quote from: Marco Baldi on March 01, 2017, 07:18:42 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 01, 2017, 07:17:25 PM

Great speech last night. Well, great for that piece of shit. Wonder what they laced his Big Mac with.

Liberal tears

and don't forget the liberal whine, its a vintage year!!

"It's" you dumb shit

Quote from: Marco Baldi on March 01, 2017, 07:18:42 PM

Quote from: Poison on March 01, 2017, 07:17:25 PM

Great speech last night. Well, great for that piece of shit. Wonder what they laced his Big Mac with.

Liberal tears

Isn't it nice to have a President that loves this country again?

One born every minute.