He played idiots like the press and HondoFS for a fiddle. He says some things, they scream, so now he has all the justification in the world to say 'people disagree so we are going to investigate this'. And now if they find significant amounts of it they now have all the justification in the world to push ways to fix it, which goes beyond just Voter ID laws.
And to think it doesn't happen is FS...or more correctly HondoFS. A paper (that people on the Left screamed about) came up with an estimate of millions in previous elections:
Sounds like somebody should look into it and find out what the real answer is then, doesn't it?
In the meantime he'll keep doing 10 other things that the press would hate, but fortunately for the rest of us they are too distracted by this to pay attention.Its kinda brilliant manipulation of the not-so-bright folks in the world when you step back and look at it.
Ironcially, Debbie Wasserman-Shulz is the first ranking dem to begin to pick up on this, at least in the open. It will be interesting to see if anyone on the left listens to her. My guess is they won't, they still have no idea what hit them, they keep flailing with the same boiled down identity politics as if that is all that matters to the country. There is no hope for that crowd and the best thing for the nation will be their continued marginalization. If the dems are smart, they'll finally ditch this crowd, but with 40+ years of inertia, it's going to be tough sledding for the more sensible amongst them, most sensible dems have already punched out or been replaced with left wing, wing dings. I gotta say, it's fun to watch this train wreck.
The Dems in charge for the past 25 years are on their way out. It's the up and coming brainwashed generation of Socialists/Communists that will take over the Party in the coming years. The Bernie crowd will look like moderate centrists compared to the SJW wing of the future Dem party.
I agree with you, the democrat party of the past is dead and gone, their near term future is aligned with socialists like Bernie Sanders, but that slide started long ago.
Dems haven't been truly liberal for decades. Once they committed to big government and a social welfare state, they lost all sense of economic liberalism, the slide towards a more progressive (philosophically Marxist) totalitarian party began. Gasoline was thrown on the fire when they adopted identity politics as their central theme, branding themselves as social liberals, but in fact, their intolerance to opposing ideas and social norms has had precisely the opposite effect. Their use of political correctness as a sledge hammer to bludgeon their opponents with is a classic example of this.
Today that party is truly liberal in no sense. "Progressive" yes, liberal, no. Fortunately, when viewed from national, state and local levels, they are in their weakest position since the 1920's, and are unaware of their self-marginalizing. We need healthy opposition, from both sides, all societies do, so I do hope at some point they wake up, but for now it's fun to watch the train wreck.
We have had several years with deficits around $500 billion and Obama left Trump an expanding economy. We'll see what happens wth the deficits under complete conservative control. Then we'll talk about economic liberalism.
Since you bash totalitarian rule. What do you think about feds threatening to cut funding to localities that don't do what the feds want? Or threatening to send the feds in to take over Chicago? Asking for a fren.
Are you seriously trying to make the case for Obamanomics as economically liberal? Wow.
I have no problem with the feds withdrawing any form of funding from states, particularly as measures to reign in government spending. In this case, federal funding will be cut to localities who openly refuse compliance with immigration laws. That should be okay with anyone who has even a modest respect for our laws. Most find it outrageous to not suspend funding under those circumstances.
You're complaining about a tweet used as a shot across Emanuel's bow to get off his ass and do something about the out of control violence in his city, and equating it to a real threat to take over the city. Wow. Squirrel!
So now Obama was not economically liberal? What would you call it then?
For the rest, you know you would be throwing a huge fit if Obama even suggested the feds getting involved. Your deal is, if a Republican suggests it you are good, if it's something a Democrat says, it's communism. You won't look at anything objectively.
I don't think you understand what economic liberalism is.
He played idiots like the press and HondoFS for a fiddle. He says some things, they scream, so now he has all the justification in the world to say 'people disagree so we are going to investigate this'. And now if they find significant amounts of it they now have all the justification in the world to push ways to fix it, which goes beyond just Voter ID laws.
And to think it doesn't happen is FS...or more correctly HondoFS. A paper (that people on the Left screamed about) came up with an estimate of millions in previous elections:
Sounds like somebody should look into it and find out what the real answer is then, doesn't it?
In the meantime he'll keep doing 10 other things that the press would hate, but fortunately for the rest of us they are too distracted by this to pay attention.Its kinda brilliant manipulation of the not-so-bright folks in the world when you step back and look at it.
Ironcially, Debbie Wasserman-Shulz is the first ranking dem to begin to pick up on this, at least in the open. It will be interesting to see if anyone on the left listens to her. My guess is they won't, they still have no idea what hit them, they keep flailing with the same boiled down identity politics as if that is all that matters to the country. There is no hope for that crowd and the best thing for the nation will be their continued marginalization. If the dems are smart, they'll finally ditch this crowd, but with 40+ years of inertia, it's going to be tough sledding for the more sensible amongst them, most sensible dems have already punched out or been replaced with left wing, wing dings. I gotta say, it's fun to watch this train wreck.
The Dems in charge for the past 25 years are on their way out. It's the up and coming brainwashed generation of Socialists/Communists that will take over the Party in the coming years. The Bernie crowd will look like moderate centrists compared to the SJW wing of the future Dem party.
I agree with you, the democrat party of the past is dead and gone, their near term future is aligned with socialists like Bernie Sanders, but that slide started long ago.
Dems haven't been truly liberal for decades. Once they committed to big government and a social welfare state, they lost all sense of economic liberalism, the slide towards a more progressive (philosophically Marxist) totalitarian party began. Gasoline was thrown on the fire when they adopted identity politics as their central theme, branding themselves as social liberals, but in fact, their intolerance to opposing ideas and social norms has had precisely the opposite effect. Their use of political correctness as a sledge hammer to bludgeon their opponents with is a classic example of this.
Today that party is truly liberal in no sense. "Progressive" yes, liberal, no. Fortunately, when viewed from national, state and local levels, they are in their weakest position since the 1920's, and are unaware of their self-marginalizing. We need healthy opposition, from both sides, all societies do, so I do hope at some point they wake up, but for now it's fun to watch the train wreck.
We have had several years with deficits around $500 billion and Obama left Trump an expanding economy. We'll see what happens wth the deficits under complete conservative control. Then we'll talk about economic liberalism.
Since you bash totalitarian rule. What do you think about feds threatening to cut funding to localities that don't do what the feds want? Or threatening to send the feds in to take over Chicago? Asking for a fren.
Are you seriously trying to make the case for Obamanomics as economically liberal? Wow.
I have no problem with the feds withdrawing any form of funding from states, particularly as measures to reign in government spending. In this case, federal funding will be cut to localities who openly refuse compliance with immigration laws. That should be okay with anyone who has even a modest respect for our laws. Most find it outrageous to not suspend funding under those circumstances.
You're complaining about a tweet used as a shot across Emanuel's bow to get off his ass and do something about the out of control violence in his city, and equating it to a real threat to take over the city. Wow. Squirrel!
So now Obama was not economically liberal? What would you call it then?
For the rest, you know you would be throwing a huge fit if Obama even suggested the feds getting involved. Your deal is, if a Republican suggests it you are good, if it's something a Democrat says, it's communism. You won't look at anything objectively.
I don't think you understand what economic liberalism is.
He played idiots like the press and HondoFS for a fiddle. He says some things, they scream, so now he has all the justification in the world to say 'people disagree so we are going to investigate this'. And now if they find significant amounts of it they now have all the justification in the world to push ways to fix it, which goes beyond just Voter ID laws.
And to think it doesn't happen is FS...or more correctly HondoFS. A paper (that people on the Left screamed about) came up with an estimate of millions in previous elections:
Sounds like somebody should look into it and find out what the real answer is then, doesn't it?
In the meantime he'll keep doing 10 other things that the press would hate, but fortunately for the rest of us they are too distracted by this to pay attention.Its kinda brilliant manipulation of the not-so-bright folks in the world when you step back and look at it.
Ironcially, Debbie Wasserman-Shulz is the first ranking dem to begin to pick up on this, at least in the open. It will be interesting to see if anyone on the left listens to her. My guess is they won't, they still have no idea what hit them, they keep flailing with the same boiled down identity politics as if that is all that matters to the country. There is no hope for that crowd and the best thing for the nation will be their continued marginalization. If the dems are smart, they'll finally ditch this crowd, but with 40+ years of inertia, it's going to be tough sledding for the more sensible amongst them, most sensible dems have already punched out or been replaced with left wing, wing dings. I gotta say, it's fun to watch this train wreck.
The Dems in charge for the past 25 years are on their way out. It's the up and coming brainwashed generation of Socialists/Communists that will take over the Party in the coming years. The Bernie crowd will look like moderate centrists compared to the SJW wing of the future Dem party.
I agree with you, the democrat party of the past is dead and gone, their near term future is aligned with socialists like Bernie Sanders, but that slide started long ago.
Dems haven't been truly liberal for decades. Once they committed to big government and a social welfare state, they lost all sense of economic liberalism, the slide towards a more progressive (philosophically Marxist) totalitarian party began. Gasoline was thrown on the fire when they adopted identity politics as their central theme, branding themselves as social liberals, but in fact, their intolerance to opposing ideas and social norms has had precisely the opposite effect. Their use of political correctness as a sledge hammer to bludgeon their opponents with is a classic example of this.
Today that party is truly liberal in no sense. "Progressive" yes, liberal, no. Fortunately, when viewed from national, state and local levels, they are in their weakest position since the 1920's, and are unaware of their self-marginalizing. We need healthy opposition, from both sides, all societies do, so I do hope at some point they wake up, but for now it's fun to watch the train wreck.
We have had several years with deficits around $500 billion and Obama left Trump an expanding economy. We'll see what happens wth the deficits under complete conservative control. Then we'll talk about economic liberalism.
Since you bash totalitarian rule. What do you think about feds threatening to cut funding to localities that don't do what the feds want? Or threatening to send the feds in to take over Chicago? Asking for a fren.
Are you seriously trying to make the case for Obamanomics as economically liberal? Wow.
I have no problem with the feds withdrawing any form of funding from states, particularly as measures to reign in government spending. In this case, federal funding will be cut to localities who openly refuse compliance with immigration laws. That should be okay with anyone who has even a modest respect for our laws. Most find it outrageous to not suspend funding under those circumstances.
You're complaining about a tweet used as a shot across Emanuel's bow to get off his ass and do something about the out of control violence in his city, and equating it to a real threat to take over the city. Wow. Squirrel!
So now Obama was not economically liberal? What would you call it then?
For the rest, you know you would be throwing a huge fit if Obama even suggested the feds getting involved. Your deal is, if a Republican suggests it you are good, if it's something a Democrat says, it's communism. You won't look at anything objectively.
I don't think you understand what economic liberalism is.
I'll engage this. What's your version of economic liberalism?
He played idiots like the press and HondoFS for a fiddle. He says some things, they scream, so now he has all the justification in the world to say 'people disagree so we are going to investigate this'. And now if they find significant amounts of it they now have all the justification in the world to push ways to fix it, which goes beyond just Voter ID laws.
And to think it doesn't happen is FS...or more correctly HondoFS. A paper (that people on the Left screamed about) came up with an estimate of millions in previous elections:
Sounds like somebody should look into it and find out what the real answer is then, doesn't it?
In the meantime he'll keep doing 10 other things that the press would hate, but fortunately for the rest of us they are too distracted by this to pay attention.Its kinda brilliant manipulation of the not-so-bright folks in the world when you step back and look at it.
Ironcially, Debbie Wasserman-Shulz is the first ranking dem to begin to pick up on this, at least in the open. It will be interesting to see if anyone on the left listens to her. My guess is they won't, they still have no idea what hit them, they keep flailing with the same boiled down identity politics as if that is all that matters to the country. There is no hope for that crowd and the best thing for the nation will be their continued marginalization. If the dems are smart, they'll finally ditch this crowd, but with 40+ years of inertia, it's going to be tough sledding for the more sensible amongst them, most sensible dems have already punched out or been replaced with left wing, wing dings. I gotta say, it's fun to watch this train wreck.
The Dems in charge for the past 25 years are on their way out. It's the up and coming brainwashed generation of Socialists/Communists that will take over the Party in the coming years. The Bernie crowd will look like moderate centrists compared to the SJW wing of the future Dem party.
I agree with you, the democrat party of the past is dead and gone, their near term future is aligned with socialists like Bernie Sanders, but that slide started long ago.
Dems haven't been truly liberal for decades. Once they committed to big government and a social welfare state, they lost all sense of economic liberalism, the slide towards a more progressive (philosophically Marxist) totalitarian party began. Gasoline was thrown on the fire when they adopted identity politics as their central theme, branding themselves as social liberals, but in fact, their intolerance to opposing ideas and social norms has had precisely the opposite effect. Their use of political correctness as a sledge hammer to bludgeon their opponents with is a classic example of this.
Today that party is truly liberal in no sense. "Progressive" yes, liberal, no. Fortunately, when viewed from national, state and local levels, they are in their weakest position since the 1920's, and are unaware of their self-marginalizing. We need healthy opposition, from both sides, all societies do, so I do hope at some point they wake up, but for now it's fun to watch the train wreck.
We have had several years with deficits around $500 billion and Obama left Trump an expanding economy. We'll see what happens wth the deficits under complete conservative control. Then we'll talk about economic liberalism.
Since you bash totalitarian rule. What do you think about feds threatening to cut funding to localities that don't do what the feds want? Or threatening to send the feds in to take over Chicago? Asking for a fren.
States violating federal laws deserve to be punished. Odd black lives don't matter to you.
I thought Republicans were the States' rights folks?
Oops.
You might be too stupid to troll.
No. It was the democrats who wanted to keep Jim Crow
He played idiots like the press and HondoFS for a fiddle. He says some things, they scream, so now he has all the justification in the world to say 'people disagree so we are going to investigate this'. And now if they find significant amounts of it they now have all the justification in the world to push ways to fix it, which goes beyond just Voter ID laws.
And to think it doesn't happen is FS...or more correctly HondoFS. A paper (that people on the Left screamed about) came up with an estimate of millions in previous elections:
Sounds like somebody should look into it and find out what the real answer is then, doesn't it?
In the meantime he'll keep doing 10 other things that the press would hate, but fortunately for the rest of us they are too distracted by this to pay attention.Its kinda brilliant manipulation of the not-so-bright folks in the world when you step back and look at it.
Ironcially, Debbie Wasserman-Shulz is the first ranking dem to begin to pick up on this, at least in the open. It will be interesting to see if anyone on the left listens to her. My guess is they won't, they still have no idea what hit them, they keep flailing with the same boiled down identity politics as if that is all that matters to the country. There is no hope for that crowd and the best thing for the nation will be their continued marginalization. If the dems are smart, they'll finally ditch this crowd, but with 40+ years of inertia, it's going to be tough sledding for the more sensible amongst them, most sensible dems have already punched out or been replaced with left wing, wing dings. I gotta say, it's fun to watch this train wreck.
The Dems in charge for the past 25 years are on their way out. It's the up and coming brainwashed generation of Socialists/Communists that will take over the Party in the coming years. The Bernie crowd will look like moderate centrists compared to the SJW wing of the future Dem party.
I agree with you, the democrat party of the past is dead and gone, their near term future is aligned with socialists like Bernie Sanders, but that slide started long ago.
Dems haven't been truly liberal for decades. Once they committed to big government and a social welfare state, they lost all sense of economic liberalism, the slide towards a more progressive (philosophically Marxist) totalitarian party began. Gasoline was thrown on the fire when they adopted identity politics as their central theme, branding themselves as social liberals, but in fact, their intolerance to opposing ideas and social norms has had precisely the opposite effect. Their use of political correctness as a sledge hammer to bludgeon their opponents with is a classic example of this.
Today that party is truly liberal in no sense. "Progressive" yes, liberal, no. Fortunately, when viewed from national, state and local levels, they are in their weakest position since the 1920's, and are unaware of their self-marginalizing. We need healthy opposition, from both sides, all societies do, so I do hope at some point they wake up, but for now it's fun to watch the train wreck.
We have had several years with deficits around $500 billion and Obama left Trump an expanding economy. We'll see what happens wth the deficits under complete conservative control. Then we'll talk about economic liberalism.
Since you bash totalitarian rule. What do you think about feds threatening to cut funding to localities that don't do what the feds want? Or threatening to send the feds in to take over Chicago? Asking for a fren.
Are you seriously trying to make the case for Obamanomics as economically liberal? Wow.
I have no problem with the feds withdrawing any form of funding from states, particularly as measures to reign in government spending. In this case, federal funding will be cut to localities who openly refuse compliance with immigration laws. That should be okay with anyone who has even a modest respect for our laws. Most find it outrageous to not suspend funding under those circumstances.
You're complaining about a tweet used as a shot across Emanuel's bow to get off his ass and do something about the out of control violence in his city, and equating it to a real threat to take over the city. Wow. Squirrel!
So now Obama was not economically liberal? What would you call it then?
For the rest, you know you would be throwing a huge fit if Obama even suggested the feds getting involved. Your deal is, if a Republican suggests it you are good, if it's something a Democrat says, it's communism. You won't look at anything objectively.
I don't think you understand what economic liberalism is.
I'll engage this. What's your version of economic liberalism?
Let me help Cletus out here. Economic liberalism to Troomps is protectionism (tariffs, duties, brow beating privately held companies, etc.) to artificially (and ultimately futilely) prop up an unskilled and unproductive work force. MAGA!
Economic liberalism is the road to communism. All these names are just attempts to disguise the true intent of liberal "progressives".
There is a ton of laughably stupid and illiterate commentary posted here (Hi Race!), a ton of it from you, but this is quite possibly the dumbest post ever. On a site ostensibly related to the UW.
Economic liberalism to Troomps is protectionism (tariffs, duties, brow beating privately held companies, etc.) to artificially (and ultimately futilely) prop up an unskilled and unproductive work force. MAGA!
Economic liberalism is the road to communism. All these names are just attempts to disguise the true intent of liberal "progressives".
There is a ton of laughably stupid and illiterate commentary posted here (Hi Race!), a ton of it from you, but this is quite possibly the dumbest post ever. On a site ostensibly related to the UW.
The Troomp on Troomp crimes in this thread is amazing.
Since you all hate Google, allow me to help:
Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individual lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals. While economic liberalism favours markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[2]
Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism[citation needed], or mixed economies. Economic liberalism also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies.[
The Troomp on Troomp crimes in this thread is amazing.
Since you all hate Google, allow me to help:
Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individual lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals. While economic liberalism favours markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[2]
Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism[citation needed], or mixed economies. Economic liberalism also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies.[
Baabs, youre a foo. What a waste of 5 hours of your time...and 30 seconds of mine
The Troomp on Troomp crimes in this thread is amazing.
Since you all hate Google, allow me to help:
Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individual lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals. While economic liberalism favours markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[2]
Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism[citation needed], or mixed economies. Economic liberalism also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies.[
Baabs, youre a foo. What a waste of 5 hours of your time...and 30 seconds of mine
The Troomp on Troomp crimes in this thread is amazing.
Since you all hate Google, allow me to help:
Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individual lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals. While economic liberalism favours markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[2]
Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism[citation needed], or mixed economies. Economic liberalism also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies.[
Baabs, youre a foo. What a waste of 5 hours of your time...and 30 seconds of mine
Comments
I don't think you understand what economic liberalism is.
HTH
Since you all hate Google, allow me to help:
Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individual lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households and not by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly, as this is considered to limit the decision power of some individuals. While economic liberalism favours markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods.[2]
Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism[citation needed], or mixed economies. Economic liberalism also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies.[