Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

Bannon sees himself as a revolutionary in the mould of Lenin, who is going to overturn the existing system. Anyone not on board with the revolutionary program, including mainstream Republicans, is an enemy. The man clearly has delusions of grandeur. The idea of negotiating a compromise solution is anathema to such people. I think he saw his role as being essentially an ideological commissar.
What emerges from various reports since his departure is that Bannon was widely disliked because of his aggressive style, and that nobody knew what he actually did.

"What emerges from various reports since his departure is that Bannon was widely disliked because of his aggressive style, and that nobody knew what he actually did"

-Says it all. People with no practical experience of public office, entering it without knowing how it works. I think both Bannon and his boss thought they could rule by decree, issue Executive Orders and change everything that way. Now he says he is taking on the people who were part of the same team he was in, because they are now the 'enemy' -it might be entertaining to read about it, but as for government, this does suggest the Presidency serves no real function, not even a ceremonial one as participants dropped out of the Kennedy Centre Arts awards and the President decided to follow their example, or did so to avoid the embarrassment of not knowing most of the people receiving awards.

[bluesoul]

i wonder why the science envoy for the state department took so long to resign considering he was working for a president that believes global warming is a chinese hoax. also, i like how he snuck in "impeach" in his letter.

very ted kaczynski of him



https://twitter.com/dan_kammen/statu...60794231013376

[filghy2]

New analysis suggests that the Democrats could win 54% in the next House of Reps election but only win 47% of the seats https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...dering-problem

Presumably they would need to win more than 57% of the votes to gain a majority. Perhaps the reason the US is withdrawing from promoting democracy abroad is that they no longer have one at home?

[bluesoul]

New analysis suggests that the Democrats could win 54% in the next House of Reps election but only win 47% of the seats https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...dering-problem

Presumably they would need to win more than 57% of the votes to gain a majority. Perhaps the reason the US is withdrawing from promoting democracy abroad is that they no longer have one at home?

as much as i love vox, imo, that's too much theory and not enough practice. or should i say, these guys are reaching.

the bottom line is you've got a country that doesn't give a shit about stats like that because nobody likes anyone that doesn't confirm what they believe (or want to believe), and you've also got another part of the country that's just pissed.

so yeah, we can write (or post) all the wonderful "think pieces" and "facts" and "theories" and questions we want, but tomorrow another moron decides to either run someone over or shoot someone and it's time for new "think pieces" and "theories" and so-called facts to write. it's almost like jerking off.

this is what you have currently in amerikkka: roger fucking stone types ready to go to civil war. of course, this cuck probably couldn't even hold a rifle correctly when shit hits the fan, but the fact is, nobody is listening to all these "facts" or theories.

people are ready for something- but i don't think they're sure what they're really ready for, or at the very least, i don't think they're aware of the meaning of being ready.

[filghy2]

So what exactly are you proposing? That the role of the media should be something other than finding out and disseminating the truth? That instead of trying to combat Trump and his supporters through reasoned fact-based argument we should do what? Engage in Trump-like ranting? Take to the streets and overthrow the government?

The dice may be loaded in relation to democratic politics, but it's still the only feasible way to defeat Trump and his like. The right owns the great majority of weapons in private hands, so the dice would be even more loaded in relation to any other approach.

Your assertion that nobody takes any notice of facts or changes their mind is too pessimistic. Although it is happening at a frustratingly slow pace, all of the evidence we have from polls etc is that Trump's support is steadily eroding.

[bluesoul]

So what exactly are you proposing? That the role of the media should be something other than finding out and disseminating the truth? That instead of trying to combat Trump and his supporters through reasoned fact-based argument we should do what? Engage in Trump-like ranting? Take to the streets and overthrow the government?

i'm not proposing anything. i'm saying there is no conversation. the right doesn't trust the mainstream media and we love the mainstream media (and we love to quote them too) so exactly what are we achieving? every fact the media posts about trump reassures the right that it's fake. so in essence, i only see more miscommunication- in an age when we have the internet which was made for communication.

i obviously welcome the idea that my theory is wrong. in fact, i hope i am. but then i see more crap happening and more theories and someone posting another "look what trump did. gee, this guy sure is an asshole". yeah no shit. but guess what, there are still people that support him like this guy: https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/s...97236338819072

so unless we're talking to him and seeing where this is all coming from, i see us only stuck in a mobius strip where we keep repeating this bullshit forever (including the bullshit posts)

[bluesoul]

thanks president trump

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...42677461229569

[filghy2]

so unless we're talking to him and seeing where this is all coming from, i see us only stuck in a mobius strip where we keep repeating this bullshit forever (including the bullshit posts)

Politics is always about trying to convince the few per cent of people who are open to changing their minds. There has always been a large percentage of people whose views and prejudices are so strongly entrenched that nothing will change them. By and large, the people holding forth on twitter etc are in the second category, not the first. Examples of people like Woods don't necessarily prove anything. This is what really matters https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/

Even preaching to the converted is not a waste, because it's important to keep people fired up, especially when voting is optional. Why do you think the right has invested so much in its own propaganda outlets? Your kind of fatalistic pessimism is exactly what the Trumpistas want to see.

[bluesoul]

Your kind of fatalistic pessimism is exactly what the Trumpistas want to see.

huh?

i'm not getting you. i like your optimism - but there is still something that feels incorrect about what what you said. maybe you are right... but i feel you are not. i cannot explain it. just a feeling.

now read this: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...42677461229569

btw: i like you. you're civil and polite.

[Stavros]

Some of you may have seen the newspaper accounts of an investigation into Corporation Tax, which is going to be an interesting topic when the President sends his proposals for tax reform to Congress.
The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has analysed corporation tax and come to the conclusion there is no evidence that reducing corporation tax stimulates job growth, by releasing funds that corporations can use to grow, creating jobs. Indeed, the evidence is that whatever the headline figure of corporation tax is, most companies negotiate their way through loopholes to pay significantly less, in some cases, almost nothing.

Sukumvitboy (to whom many thanks) recently recommended a 2012 book by Joseph Stiglitz -The Price of Inequality. And there it is, on page 73, where he writes of corporation tax:

Loopholes and special provisions have eviscerated the tax to such a degree that it has gone from providing 30 per cent of federal revenues in the mid-1950s to less than 9 per cent today.

Stiglitz also argues that the tax could be amended to reward firms that create jobs with a tax reduction, and impose higher taxes on those that do not.

The report is discussed here (there is also an article on it in the New York Times)
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ns-debt-report