Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

Fogdog · Aug 19, 2017

SneekyNinja said:
Too green? She's an attorney, ex AG of California and a Senator.

What are Bernie's qualifications, his age? His porn novels? How to defraud a bank?

Bernie surprised everybody by coming in second once. Second in a presidential primary is pretty good. I bet you haven't done that. He also hangs around the Democratic Party Caucus because he can't actually do anything as an independent but he's sticks it to them when convenient. Bernie is a fighter.

What's Harris ever done, she's green. I said that in ignorance and because I'm ignorant then I believe she's done nothing, which makes it true. A fact doesn't have to be true to be believed. Anything you say will make you a shill because she's easy on the eyes and guys can't think about anything else anyway. Harris hasn't placed second in a presidential campaign. This makes her green.

SneekyNinja · Aug 19, 2017

Fogdog said:
Bernie surprised everybody by coming in second once. Second in a presidential primary is pretty good. I bet you haven't done that. He also hangs around the Democratic Party Caucus because he can't actually do anything as an independent but he's sticks it to them when convenient. Bernie is a fighter.

What's Harris ever done, she's green. I said that in ignorance and because I'm ignorant then I believe she's done nothing, which makes it true. A fact doesn't have to be true to be believed. Anything you say will make you a shill because she's easy on the eyes and guys can't think about anything else anyway. Harris hasn't placed second in a presidential campaign. This makes her green.

I take it you're being humorous?

Because she's passed 10x more legislation through the California State Govt than Bernie has in his whole 400 year Senate career.

Given the history of this place I think what the original poster of "she's too green" meant to post was that she's "too colored".

SneekyNinja · Aug 19, 2017

Fogdog said:
LOL You just can't leave rigged alone, can you?

Here is an article sympathetic to your belief: I could have pulled up a counter argument but this one is honest and provides facts that we can discuss.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/03/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-anti-sanders-conspiracy/

But it goes much further, and indeed gets even more unethical, than just collusion between corporate media and the DNC. The emails also reveal attempts to smear Sanders with quite literally any information that might damage him in key primary states. For instance, this email exchange between top DNC officials shows that they intended to “get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. [sic] He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” Clearly, in Kentucky and West Virginia, the DNC wanted to use Sanders’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof, against him. Such tactics are, to put it bluntly, reprehensible.

I'm telling you, that's pretty bad. DNC shouldn't have done it. And yet,

Where is there anything that says it actually went beyond some back room talk? An e-mail echange at the DNC did happen. Nott between "top DNC" but back room hacks. End of story. I can't find anything about it actually making the level you Sandernistas claim. This bullshit never left the office. Maybe you can show me where this plot made it into the press as a smear campaign. I can't find it. So show me.

Reprehensible? yep. Unethical on the part of the people who wrote those e-mails? yep

You work in an office. I have plenty of experience there too. There is always some idiot who says idiotic things that go nowhere. As far as I can tell, this whole story amounts to back office chatter.

Before you go off fulminating about evil DNC, recall that a result of this scandal was cleaning house, rewriting DNC rules with Sanders staff contributing to it, and the firing of DWS, who is never mentioned as involved in this mess. She was in charge and therefore accountable but DWS isn't attributed as participating in this mess.

Pad is propagating a fake news story in the best of the useful idiot tradition. There was no smear campaign that claimed Sanders was an atheist coming from the DNC or DWS. Never happened. Prove me wrong. .

I fully expect @Padawanbater2 or some other useful idiot to dredge this BS back up. I'll laugh at them too.

Dude don't fall off the train; it is the explicit job of the DNC to search for any ammunition that could be used against a potential candidate for President.

At least the Ron Paul weirdos knew when they'd lost...

Fogdog · Aug 19, 2017

SneekyNinja said:
Dude don't fall off the train; it is the explicit job of the DNC to search for any ammunition that could be used against a potential candidate for President.

At least the Ron Paul weirdos knew when they'd lost...

I've never heard the spin where they were just doing their job. That's a new one. If true, I don't know why the DNC wouldn't come out and explain. Sounds fishy and don't really care, it's water under the bridge. But that wasn't my point.

I'm responding to padawanker's claim that the DNC did conduct a smear campaign against Bernie. I used an article most friendly to their argument to show that the facts don't bear out wanker's fake news story. Even a Bernie-philic story like the one I posted didn't maintain a smear campaign actually happened.

It's part of the fake news mythology now and will come back. I'll repeat the same rebuttal. The story will live on. Eventually, decades from now, nobody will remember Sanders but will probably talk about this fake news story. Lies live longer than truth. At least in this era they do.

Oh, and the world is cooling.

Fogdog · Aug 19, 2017

SneekyNinja said:
I take it you're being humorous?

Because she's passed 10x more legislation through the California State Govt than Bernie has in his whole 400 year Senate career.

Given the history of this place I think what the original poster of "she's too green" meant to post was that she's "too colored".

Yes, being sarcastic. Probably not funny.

Its a common pattern that I've seen repeated by both Pad, tty and sky as well as tampon and right wingers to make a bold claim in all ignorance. As if their ignorance made making a false claim legitimate.

Maybe sky was saying green instead of black. I just went with the conventional meaning of the word. Sky is clearly ignorant of Harris. Maybe she's jealous for Bernie, maybe for herself, I don't know. To call Harris "green" is an easy ignorant hatchet job. Harris is young and gotten an astounding amount done. So, call her inexperienced and "green" instead of arguing the record. This is what Trump would have done.

She has gotten a lot done. Which means she's had to cut deals and work the system. Bernie babies despise people who get things done. And hate it when it's pointed out that Bernie has been good for a few people in Vermont but hasn't done much good at the national level. Aside from being a role model to explain what to look out for when selecting presidential candidates.

Bernie will have to demonstrate his ability to represent minority voters by gaining majority votes from that delegation in the Democratic Party before I will consider him for my vote again. @ttystikk and Pad have shown me why that must be so.

SneekyNinja · Aug 19, 2017

Fogdog said:
Yes, being sarcastic. Probably not funny.

Its a common pattern that I've seen repeated by both Pad, tty and sky as well as tampon and right wingers to make a bold claim in all ignorance. As if their ignorance made making a false claim legitimate.

Maybe sky was saying green instead of black. I just went with the conventional meaning of the word. Sky is clearly ignorant of Harris. Maybe she's jealous for Bernie, maybe for herself, I don't know. To call Harris "green" is an easy ignorant hatchet job. Harris is young and gotten an astounding amount done. So, call her inexperienced and "green" instead of arguing the record. This is what Trump would have done.

She has gotten a lot done. Which means she's had to cut deals and work the system. Bernie babies despise people who get things done. And hate it when it's pointed out that Bernie has been good for a few people in Vermont but hasn't done much good at the national level. Aside from being a role model to explain what to look out for when selecting presidential candidates.

Bernie will have to demonstrate his ability to represent minority voters by gaining majority votes from that delegation in the Democratic Party before I will consider him for my vote again. @ttystikk and Pad have shown me why that must be so.

Fogdog said:
I've never heard the spin where they were just doing their job. That's a new one. If true, I don't know why the DNC wouldn't come out and explain. Sounds fishy and don't really care, it's water under the bridge. But that wasn't my point.

I'm responding to padawanker's claim that the DNC did conduct a smear campaign against Bernie. I used an article most friendly to their argument to show that the facts don't bear out wanker's fake news story. Even a Bernie-philic story like the one I posted didn't maintain a smear campaign actually happened.

It's part of the fake news mythology now and will come back. I'll repeat the same rebuttal. The story will live on. Eventually, decades from now, nobody will remember Sanders but will probably talk about this fake news story. Lies live longer than truth. At least in this era they do.

Oh, and the world is cooling.

I was hoping as such, I had you as one of the rare intelligent and logical ones here and thought you'd smoked some Sanders Crack or whatever they're taking.

But you don't think it's explicitly the job of the DNC to do "extreme vetting" on the candidate they might but forward?

schuylaar · Aug 19, 2017

Fogdog said:
LOL You just can't leave rigged alone, can you?

Here is an article sympathetic to your belief: I could have pulled up a counter argument but this one is honest and provides facts that we can discuss.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/03/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-anti-sanders-conspiracy/

But it goes much further, and indeed gets even more unethical, than just collusion between corporate media and the DNC. The emails also reveal attempts to smear Sanders with quite literally any information that might damage him in key primary states. For instance, this email exchange between top DNC officials shows that they intended to “get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. [sic] He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” Clearly, in Kentucky and West Virginia, the DNC wanted to use Sanders’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof, against him. Such tactics are, to put it bluntly, reprehensible.

I'm telling you, that's pretty bad. DNC shouldn't have done it. And yet,

Where is there anything that says it actually went beyond some back room talk? An e-mail echange at the DNC did happen. Nott between "top DNC" but back room hacks. End of story. I can't find anything about it actually making the level you Sandernistas claim. This bullshit never left the office. Maybe you can show me where this plot made it into the press as a smear campaign. I can't find it. So show me.

Reprehensible? yep. Unethical on the part of the people who wrote those e-mails? yep

You work in an office. I have plenty of experience there too. There is always some idiot who says idiotic things that go nowhere. As far as I can tell, this whole story amounts to back office chatter.

Before you go off fulminating about evil DNC, recall that a result of this scandal was cleaning house, rewriting DNC rules with Sanders staff contributing to it, and the firing of DWS, who is never mentioned as involved in this mess. She was in charge and therefore accountable but DWS isn't attributed as participating in this mess.

Pad is propagating a fake news story in the best of the useful idiot tradition. There was no smear campaign that claimed Sanders was an atheist coming from the DNC or DWS. Never happened. Prove me wrong. .

I fully expect @Padawanbater2 or some other useful idiot to dredge this BS back up. I'll laugh at them too.

Fogdog said:
Bernie surprised everybody by coming in second once. Second in a presidential primary is pretty good. I bet you haven't done that. He also hangs around the Democratic Party Caucus because he can't actually do anything as an independent but he's sticks it to them when convenient. Bernie is a fighter.

What's Harris ever done, she's green. I said that in ignorance and because I'm ignorant then I believe she's done nothing, which makes it true. A fact doesn't have to be true to be believed. Anything you say will make you a shill because she's easy on the eyes and guys can't think about anything else anyway. Harris hasn't placed second in a presidential campaign. This makes her green.

Bernie Sanders is as close to an honest politician as it's going to get. He also has the experience and is well liked on BOTH sides of the aisle.

He will make a great 46th, especially after what we're going to go through..you don't think this is over with Trump yet, do you? Not by far..

Ohhhhhhhhhh my friend, the BEST is yet to come. :wink:

schuylaar · Aug 19, 2017

Fogdog said:
Yes, being sarcastic. Probably not funny.

Its a common pattern that I've seen repeated by both Pad, tty and sky as well as tampon and right wingers to make a bold claim in all ignorance. As if their ignorance made making a false claim legitimate.

Maybe sky was saying green instead of black. I just went with the conventional meaning of the word. Sky is clearly ignorant of Harris. Maybe she's jealous for Bernie, maybe for herself, I don't know. To call Harris "green" is an easy ignorant hatchet job. Harris is young and gotten an astounding amount done. So, call her inexperienced and "green" instead of arguing the record. This is what Trump would have done.

She has gotten a lot done. Which means she's had to cut deals and work the system. Bernie babies despise people who get things done. And hate it when it's pointed out that Bernie has been good for a few people in Vermont but hasn't done much good at the national level. Aside from being a role model to explain what to look out for when selecting presidential candidates.

Bernie will have to demonstrate his ability to represent minority voters by gaining majority votes from that delegation in the Democratic Party before I will consider him for my vote again. @ttystikk and Pad have shown me why that must be so.

dude..you're pretty sick and not in a good way.

Fogdog · Aug 19, 2017

SneekyNinja said:
I was hoping as such, I had you as one of the rare intelligent and logical ones here and thought you'd smoked some Sanders Crack or whatever they're taking.

But you don't think it's explicitly the job of the DNC to do "extreme vetting" on the candidate they might but forward?

Frankly, I never even gave the DNC much consideration until last year. This is pretty much all I know about the DNC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee
Campaign role
The DNC is responsible for articulating and promoting the Democratic platform and coordinating party organizational activity. When the president is a Democrat, the party generally works closely with the president. In presidential elections it supervises the national convention and, both independently and in coordination with the presidential candidate, raises funds, commissions polls, and coordinates campaign strategy. Following the selection of a party nominee, the public funding laws permit the national party to coordinate certain expenditures with the nominee, but additional funds are spent on general, party-building activities.[3] There are state committees in every state, as well as local committees in most cities, wards, and towns (and, in most states, counties).

In those wikilieaks e-mails, it's not clear that the DNC was conducting defense strategies proactively for Sanders. I've never heard an official statement that said what you said either. Their role as described in Wikipedia might encompass what you said under the "coordinate campaign strategy" mandate. I suppose.

I'm buying the story that the DNC was biased towards Clinton. I'm not buying that the DNC did anything to swing the election. The stuff that's discussed in those wiki e-mails is mundane and not worthy of the kind of attention Sandernistas give it. Definitely what pad claimed was fake.

Fogdog · Aug 19, 2017

schuylaar said:
dude..you're pretty sick and not in a good way.

love you too.

twostrokenut · Aug 19, 2017

Fogdog said:
not legit in this situation.

Care to rebut with a real explanation?

Case law is somewhat varied as to the hecklers veto. It will take years to see the outcome of all of this through the court system but they are piling up.

It will be interesting to see where it leads and I am afraid you are not going to like the outcome.

I agree with your basic premise and as I said before I am kind of an absolutist on rights, right to peacefully assemble is right there at the top, including counter assembly's permits be damned.

I suppose as with everything else the outcome will largely depend on intent. Who intended to "disrupt" and who intended to be peaceful and what disruptive tactics were discussed before hand vs what was actually implemented.

When its all said and done I think you are going to look back and see that you are in a mass hysteria bubble where you are attempting to deny the rights of some by supporting the rights of others forgetting that your rights end where others begin.

Fogdog · Aug 19, 2017

schuylaar said:
Bernie Sanders is as close to an honest politician as it's going to get. He also has the experience and is well liked on BOTH sides of the aisle.

He will make a great 46th, especially after what we're going to go through..you don't think this is over with Trump yet, do you? Not by far..

Ohhhhhhhhhh my friend, the BEST is yet to come.

He's going to have to do more than impress white voters. You Sandernistas have convinced me that African Americans, Hispanics and rational women were right to pick somebody else. Sanders attracted fickle white voters who would leave social justice issues withering after their own issues were dealt with. They had seen it before.

Pad's insults to pin just spoke volumes about the need for us to coalesce around social equality. Tty's conservative rant against Antifa tells me all I need to know about Sandernista committment to social justice. Your Jew and black people comments stink to high heaven.

Economic justice is a subset of the problems in this society and Sanders pretty much only dealt with that in the 2016 campaign. I'm not writing him off for 2020 but he needs to show that he's more than just a guns and butter candidate. You and your Sandernista brothers are making me leery about Sanders. You folks are despicable when it comes to social justice. Is Sanders like that? 70% if African Americans thought so in 2016. I'm going to follow my black brothers' lead here.

Fogdog · Aug 19, 2017

twostrokenut said:
Case law is somewhat varied as to the hecklers veto. It will take years to see the outcome of all of this through the court system but they are piling up.

It will be interesting to see where it leads and I am afraid you are not going to like the outcome.

I agree with your basic premise and as I said before I am kind of an absolutist on rights, right to peacefully assemble is right there at the top, including counter assembly's permits be damned.

I suppose as with everything else the outcome will largely depend on intent. Who intended to "disrupt" and who intended to be peaceful and what disruptive tactics were discussed before hand vs what was actually implemented.

Nazis use free speech to press for policies that would limit it. Government can't interfere. And so, it's up to citizens to make them shut the fuck up.

Make the world a better place. Punch a Nazi in the face.

Insert Klansman or racist or fascist for Nazi depending on circumstances.

The doctrine of fighting words is in play here too. It doesn't make the act of violence legal, it does provide cover for Antifa tactics. When Nazis shout out "blood and soil", them's fighting words and the Nazis made certain that the Antifa could get to them. If Nazis had stuck to safety plans, the police could have kept the two groups separate. Nazis wanted to fight too. Antifa jumped at the chance and so the march was broken up. A simple, smart and beautiful strategy. Nobody hurt either. Not until a Nazi acted out according to their true nature.

twostrokenut · Aug 19, 2017

Fogdog said:
Make the world a better place. Punch a Nazi in the face.

While I agree with the emotion behind this sentiment this is where you admit that the crux of your position is emotional violence.

You have to admit your obvious bias here:

"blood and soil" is fighting words for you but "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" and "scalp collecting" just blip off your radar.

SneekyNinja · Aug 19, 2017

twostrokenut said:
While I agree with the emotion behind this sentiment this is where you admit that the crux of your position is emotional violence.

You have to admit your obvious bias here:

"blood and soil" is fighting words for you but "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" and "scalp collecting" just blip off your radar.

Dude, they're fucking Nazis...

Stop defending Nazis...

This shouldnt be difficult but Ill provide a flow chart...

[Were there Nazis there?] ---> [Yes] ---> [They're automatically at fault]

This isn't left versus right, Democrats vs Republicans...this is all freedom loving Americans vs fucking NAZIS.

LITERAL NAZIS.

The Golden Age Trump keeps referring to?

Came directly after killing hundreds of thousands of Nazis.

twostrokenut · Aug 19, 2017

SneekyNinja said:
Dude, they're fucking Nazis...

Stop defending Nazis...

This shouldnt be difficult but Ill provide a flow chart...

[Were there Nazis there?] ---> [Yes] ---> [They're automatically at fault]

Its pretty clear that I am not....when I literally state "i agree with the emotion behind this sentiment".

Don't get me wrong, its super difficult to support their right to peacefully demonstrate....but this is America dude and our rights are exceptional.

twostrokenut · Aug 19, 2017

SneekyNinja said:
this is all freedom loving Americans vs fucking NAZIS.

LITERAL NAZIS.

I consider you one of the more objective posters here. Do you not see the glaring irony in your statement?

SneekyNinja · Aug 19, 2017

twostrokenut said:
Its pretty clear that I am not....when I literally state "i agree with the emotion behind this sentiment".

Don't get me wrong, its super difficult to support their right to peacefully demonstrate....but this is America dude and our rights are exceptional.

Nope, cant accept that.

America was founded on the principles of fighting fascism.

Fascism is not protected by the Constitution that also guarantees freedom and equal rights to all.

Nazis don't get free speech because they oppose so much else in the document.

As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Fogdog · Aug 19, 2017

twostrokenut said:
While I agree with the emotion behind this sentiment this is where you admit that the crux of your position is emotional violence.

You have to admit your obvious bias here:

"blood and soil" is fighting words for you but "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" and "scalp collecting" just blip off your radar.

I don't understand the last half of your last sentence. I never said those things. If you want to deflect to police violence then say so and make your case. To me that's a different subject. A man carrying the Nazi flag who shouts at the crowd: "The Goyim know" is recalling the legacy of 6 million dead as though that was OK. The subject is people who shout at peaceful demonstrators "jew will not replace us", people in Nazi regalia marching with Nazi flags and whether or not it's OK for others to provide police the excuse to shut that protest down.

Nazis, KKK, alt right want a very different country and constitution. They carried and wore symbols of suppression and caused fear on the streets of that city. The history of the KKK and Nazis tells me that without strong opposition, they just continue to press for more and more. They aren't, as @Padawanbater2 said, like lesbians who just want to live normal lives safely alongside everybody else while practicing their own beliefs and lifestyle. Their whole ethos is to take that all away from others if not their lives.

And so they must not be allowed to feel safe when they say that shit.

twostrokenut · Aug 19, 2017

SneekyNinja said:
Nope, cant accept that.

America was founded on the principles of fighting fascism.

Fascism is not protected by the Constitution that also guarantees freedom and equal rights to all.

Nazis don't get free speech because they oppose so much else in the document.

As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Talk about eating emotional cake, which other minority groups of Americans do you wish to take rights from?

Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member