Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Someone to watch: Elissa Slotkin
88 views
Skip to first unread message
Love
Nov 22, 2020, 11:04:10 PM11/22/20
to
A Michigan Democrat who seems to get it. Some snippets from
an article by Tim Alberta, chief political correspondent for
Politico Magazine. Full article at...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/13/elissa-
slotkin-braces-for-a-democratic-civil-war-436301
Title:
Elissa Slotkin Braces for a Democratic Civil War
Victorious but chastened, the moderate from Michigan thinks
her party has something to learn from—yes—Donald Trump.
"“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory
dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man
can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind
of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky
language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We
sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious
enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’
enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just
understand what’s good for them. … It’s talking down to people.
It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel
so distant from the political process—it’s not their life, it’s
not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics
stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.”"
"It has long been perceived that Democrats, in the post-9/11
era, are the party of inclusion and big-tent politics. But
Slotkin has begun to question that notion. She fears that
Democrats have created a barrier to entry, largely along
cultural lines, that makes the party fundamentally unwelcoming
to anyone with supposedly retrograde views of the world around
them. This is not merely about race and racism. The schisms go
far deeper, to matters of faith and conscience, economic freedom
and individual liberty. Indeed, for the heavy losses Trump
sustained among affluent college-educated whites, he nearly won
a second term because of his gains with Black and brown voters.
That these Americans were willing to support Trump, often in
spite of his rhetoric, reveals an uncomfortable truth for the
left. There are millions of voters—working-class whites and
working-class minorities—whose stances on social controversies
put them out of touch with the Democratic Party. It’s a truth
they might be willing to overlook, if only the party could do
the same.
“I remember, long before, literally, Donald Trump was even a
twinkle in our eye, the way that people in my life here couldn’t
stand political correctness. And I think [this is] the same kind
of sentiment,” Slotkin explained. “Because the political
correctness is thinking you’re better than somebody else—it’s
correcting someone. Now, I happen to believe that we live in a
different era, and that we have to be better than we were in
previous eras. … But people do feel looked down upon.”"
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/13/elissa-
slotkin-braces-for-a-democratic-civil-war-436301
--
Love
an article by Tim Alberta, chief political correspondent for
Politico Magazine. Full article at...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/13/elissa-
slotkin-braces-for-a-democratic-civil-war-436301
Title:
Elissa Slotkin Braces for a Democratic Civil War
Victorious but chastened, the moderate from Michigan thinks
her party has something to learn from—yes—Donald Trump.
"“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory
dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man
can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind
of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky
language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We
sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious
enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’
enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just
understand what’s good for them. … It’s talking down to people.
It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel
so distant from the political process—it’s not their life, it’s
not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics
stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.”"
"It has long been perceived that Democrats, in the post-9/11
era, are the party of inclusion and big-tent politics. But
Slotkin has begun to question that notion. She fears that
Democrats have created a barrier to entry, largely along
cultural lines, that makes the party fundamentally unwelcoming
to anyone with supposedly retrograde views of the world around
them. This is not merely about race and racism. The schisms go
far deeper, to matters of faith and conscience, economic freedom
and individual liberty. Indeed, for the heavy losses Trump
sustained among affluent college-educated whites, he nearly won
a second term because of his gains with Black and brown voters.
That these Americans were willing to support Trump, often in
spite of his rhetoric, reveals an uncomfortable truth for the
left. There are millions of voters—working-class whites and
working-class minorities—whose stances on social controversies
put them out of touch with the Democratic Party. It’s a truth
they might be willing to overlook, if only the party could do
the same.
“I remember, long before, literally, Donald Trump was even a
twinkle in our eye, the way that people in my life here couldn’t
stand political correctness. And I think [this is] the same kind
of sentiment,” Slotkin explained. “Because the political
correctness is thinking you’re better than somebody else—it’s
correcting someone. Now, I happen to believe that we live in a
different era, and that we have to be better than we were in
previous eras. … But people do feel looked down upon.”"
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/13/elissa-
slotkin-braces-for-a-democratic-civil-war-436301
--
Love
ansaman
Nov 23, 2020, 12:34:50 AM11/23/20
to
before longer for being lukewarm and therefore a tool of
the Trump fanatics.
The people she is talking about really need to be reeducated
in the way the Chinese are reeducating the Uyghurs. That will
solve the problem instead of spoonfeeding them as she suggests.
Anyone who disagrees with this POV is a tool of the patriarchy
and needs to go to the camps now. Are there no retired military
bases we can herd these folks into?
The woke are cancelling John Cleese now because he supported
J.K. Rowling and was insufficiently supportive of transgender
rights.
--
"We never are definitely right,
we can only be sure we are wrong."
- Richard Feynman
DMB
Nov 23, 2020, 3:13:16 AM11/23/20
to
On Monday, 23 November 2020 at 14:19:50 UTC+8:45, ansaman wrote:
> The people she is talking about really need to be reeducated
> in the way the Chinese are reeducating the Uyghurs.
Sick fuck. Leave our brains alone, deviant.
> The people she is talking about really need to be reeducated
> in the way the Chinese are reeducating the Uyghurs.
"China using dystopian brain-scanning headbands in schools"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f90wzKYbZqI
tregroes
Nov 23, 2020, 9:37:49 AM11/23/20
to
of their values and policies, that would truly be a race to the
bottom. Much better if they embraced the policies advocated by Sanders
and AOC such as Medicare for all, the Green New Deal and higher
minimum wage; wrest some of the wealth away from corporations and the
obsenely rich and direct it towards the working people whose wages
have stagnated or who must struggle to survive in a gig economy. They
won't do that, of course, because of the absurd bugbear of
'Socialism!'
Wilson
Nov 23, 2020, 10:03:49 AM11/23/20
to
what they actually want.
You can look at public statements in support of the so called "superior"
Chinese system from people who claim to be mainstream Democrats. Not
hard to find, many such cases! :-)
Wilson
Nov 23, 2020, 10:17:00 AM11/23/20
to
hispanics voted for Trump than ever voted for Republicans before. More
blacks voted republican than at any time since 1960.
The working class no longer want your handouts. They want to be able to
live their lives and do their work without the overbearing oversight and
control of self-appointed social elites who reside exclusively in big
cities and have no idea what life is like outside of places like
Manhattan and Berkeley.
Your prescription will fail because you're working from an old
discredited playbook. You are living in the past and hoping the future
will continue as you believe it must.
https://nypost.com/2020/11/07/why-trump-grew-his-numbers-with-black-and-latino-voters/
tregroes
Nov 23, 2020, 11:02:15 AM11/23/20
to
Wilson
Nov 23, 2020, 11:31:00 AM11/23/20
to
Ned
Nov 23, 2020, 11:33:56 AM11/23/20
to
in July, 1993 (27 years ago), and ran for a decade.
Ned
---
Politically Incorrect is an American late-night, half-hour political talk show hosted by Bill Maher that aired from 1993 to 2002. It premiered on Comedy Central in 1993, before moving to ABC in January 1997. On September 17, 2001, Bill Maher criticized United States foreign policy on the show and argued that the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks were not cowards. The comments were widely condemned,[1] and while Maher later apologized, major advertisers stopped advertising with the show.[2] The show was canceled in 2002.
---
ansaman
Nov 23, 2020, 2:13:07 PM11/23/20
to
On 11/23/2020 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
> Trump overwhelmingly got the vote of the working middle class. More
> hispanics voted for Trump than ever voted for Republicans before. More
> blacks voted republican than at any time since 1960.
>
> The working class no longer want your handouts. They want to be able to
> live their lives and do their work without the overbearing oversight and
> control of self-appointed social elites who reside exclusively in big
> cities and have no idea what life is like outside of places like
> Manhattan and Berkeley.
>
> Your prescription will fail because you're working from an old
> discredited playbook. You are living in the past and hoping the future
> will continue as you believe it must.
My goodness Wilson, don't hold back!
> Trump overwhelmingly got the vote of the working middle class. More
> hispanics voted for Trump than ever voted for Republicans before. More
> blacks voted republican than at any time since 1960.
>
> The working class no longer want your handouts. They want to be able to
> live their lives and do their work without the overbearing oversight and
> control of self-appointed social elites who reside exclusively in big
> cities and have no idea what life is like outside of places like
> Manhattan and Berkeley.
>
> Your prescription will fail because you're working from an old
> discredited playbook. You are living in the past and hoping the future
> will continue as you believe it must.
ansaman
Nov 23, 2020, 2:15:13 PM11/23/20
to
On 11/23/2020 10:03 AM, Wilson wrote:
> The only way those people can win is through revolution. And that's
> what they actually want.
>
> You can look at public statements in support of the so called "superior"
> Chinese system from people who claim to be mainstream Democrats. Not
> hard to find, many such cases! :-)
>
>
"That's just sad." - Ross Perot (The guys in the black helicopters
> The only way those people can win is through revolution. And that's
> what they actually want.
>
> You can look at public statements in support of the so called "superior"
> Chinese system from people who claim to be mainstream Democrats. Not
> hard to find, many such cases! :-)
>
>
finally got him)
Wilson
Nov 23, 2020, 3:45:22 PM11/23/20
to
On 11/23/2020 2:13 PM, ansaman wrote:
> On 11/23/2020 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
>> Trump overwhelmingly got the vote of the working middle class. More
>> hispanics voted for Trump than ever voted for Republicans before.
>> More blacks voted republican than at any time since 1960.
>>
>> The working class no longer want your handouts. They want to be able
>> to live their lives and do their work without the overbearing
>> oversight and control of self-appointed social elites who reside
>> exclusively in big cities and have no idea what life is like outside
>> of places like Manhattan and Berkeley.
>>
>> Your prescription will fail because you're working from an old
>> discredited playbook. You are living in the past and hoping the
>> future will continue as you believe it must.
>
> My goodness Wilson, don't hold back!
I am holding back. Will try to do better!
> On 11/23/2020 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
>> Trump overwhelmingly got the vote of the working middle class. More
>> hispanics voted for Trump than ever voted for Republicans before.
>> More blacks voted republican than at any time since 1960.
>>
>> The working class no longer want your handouts. They want to be able
>> to live their lives and do their work without the overbearing
>> oversight and control of self-appointed social elites who reside
>> exclusively in big cities and have no idea what life is like outside
>> of places like Manhattan and Berkeley.
>>
>> Your prescription will fail because you're working from an old
>> discredited playbook. You are living in the past and hoping the
>> future will continue as you believe it must.
>
> My goodness Wilson, don't hold back!
Love
Nov 30, 2020, 7:00:18 AM11/30/20
to
In article <erhnrfdoq09ujmm5e...@4ax.com>, no...@nowear.com
says...
You are looking at it unidimensionally. You
don't need to adopt identical policies to
satisfy that group; you just need to show
that you are hearing their concerns and
taking them seriously, not merely waving
your hand and calling everyone who is not
radically woke names and talking down to
them. You, actually, are an example of why
the left has led us to be more and more
polarised.
--
Love
says...
don't need to adopt identical policies to
satisfy that group; you just need to show
that you are hearing their concerns and
taking them seriously, not merely waving
your hand and calling everyone who is not
radically woke names and talking down to
them. You, actually, are an example of why
the left has led us to be more and more
polarised.
--
Love
Love
Nov 30, 2020, 7:24:50 AM11/30/20
to
In article <k4nnrf5g3vh54aetc...@4ax.com>, no...@nowear.com
says...
Read what Slotkin said...again if you need to.
--
Love
says...
--
Love
Love
Nov 30, 2020, 7:30:09 AM11/30/20
to
In article <a4358172-6eec-40ab...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
Interesting. I never found Maher's stuff terribly
interesting though. He's no Jon Stewart.
--
Love
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
>On Sunday, November 22, 2020 at 8:04:10 PM UTC-8, Love wrote:
>> A Michigan Democrat who seems to get it. Some snippets from
>> an article by Tim Alberta, chief political correspondent for
>> Politico Magazine. Full article at...
>> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/13/elissa-
>> slotkin-braces-for-a-democratic-civil-war-436301
>>
>> Title:
>> Elissa Slotkin Braces for a Democratic Civil War
>> Victorious but chastened, the moderate from Michigan thinks
>> her party has something to learn from—yes—Donald Trump.
>>
>> "“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory
>> dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man
>> can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind
>> of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky
>> language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We
>> sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious
>> enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ??woke’
>> A Michigan Democrat who seems to get it. Some snippets from
>> an article by Tim Alberta, chief political correspondent for
>> Politico Magazine. Full article at...
>> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/13/elissa-
>> slotkin-braces-for-a-democratic-civil-war-436301
>>
>> Title:
>> Elissa Slotkin Braces for a Democratic Civil War
>> Victorious but chastened, the moderate from Michigan thinks
>> her party has something to learn from—yes—Donald Trump.
>>
>> "“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory
>> dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man
>> can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind
>> of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky
>> language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We
>> sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious
interesting though. He's no Jon Stewart.
--
Love
tregroes
Nov 30, 2020, 1:30:20 PM11/30/20
to
Love wrote:
>You, actually, are an example of why
>the left has led us to be more and more
>polarised.
I'm to bear all the sins of the left, am I?
>You, actually, are an example of why
>the left has led us to be more and more
>polarised.
How so?
Tang Huyen
Nov 30, 2020, 2:59:41 PM11/30/20
to
On 11/30/2020 10:30 AM, tregroes wrote:
> I'm to bear all the sins of the left, am I?
> How so?
So you are a Jesus for all the sins
> I'm to bear all the sins of the left, am I?
> How so?
of the left! You should be proud.
Hip Hip Hooray! The Saviour for the
Left is come! Rejoice!
Tang Huyen
tregroes
Nov 30, 2020, 6:54:25 PM11/30/20
to
tregroes
Nov 30, 2020, 7:04:09 PM11/30/20
to
explain Trump Man & Woman don't come from those themselves but from
intellectuals of the right speaking on their behalf. They're pretty
much the cannon fodder in a cultural war taking place elsewhere.
Tang Huyen
Nov 30, 2020, 7:51:22 PM11/30/20
to
On 11/30/2020 3:54 PM, tregroes wrote:
> Haven't accepted the gig yet; waiting to see what it entails.
It'll probably entail the nailing at the
> Haven't accepted the gig yet; waiting to see what it entails.
end -- but you should be proud of it. It
confirms you as you.
Tang Huyen
DMB
Nov 30, 2020, 7:53:16 PM11/30/20
to
On Tuesday, 1 December 2020 at 09:36:22 UTC+8:45, Tang Huyen wrote:
> > Haven't accepted the gig yet; waiting to see what it entails.
> It'll probably entail the nailing at the
> end -- but you should be proud of it. It
> confirms you as you.
>
> Tang Huyen
In modern times, it's a beheading or the gas chamber. We've evolved!
> > Haven't accepted the gig yet; waiting to see what it entails.
> It'll probably entail the nailing at the
> end -- but you should be proud of it. It
> confirms you as you.
>
> Tang Huyen
ansaman
Nov 30, 2020, 9:00:05 PM11/30/20
to
ansaman
Nov 30, 2020, 9:02:50 PM11/30/20
to
people who beheaded you will fall down to their knees.
tregroes
Nov 30, 2020, 9:20:07 PM11/30/20
to
ansaman wrote:
>On 11/30/2020 6:54 PM, tregroes wrote:
>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2020 10:30 AM, tregroes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm to bear all the sins of the left, am I?
>>>> How so?
>>>
>>> So you are a Jesus for all the sins
>>> of the left! You should be proud.
>>>
>>> Hip Hip Hooray! The Saviour for the
>>> Left is come! Rejoice!
>>
>> Haven't accepted the gig yet; waiting to see what it entails.
>>
>
>Quit Stalin for time!
Looks like I'm seen as Lenin' even further to the left than that guy
>On 11/30/2020 6:54 PM, tregroes wrote:
>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2020 10:30 AM, tregroes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm to bear all the sins of the left, am I?
>>>> How so?
>>>
>>> So you are a Jesus for all the sins
>>> of the left! You should be proud.
>>>
>>> Hip Hip Hooray! The Saviour for the
>>> Left is come! Rejoice!
>>
>> Haven't accepted the gig yet; waiting to see what it entails.
>>
>
>Quit Stalin for time!
Tang Huyen
Dec 1, 2020, 12:19:07 AM12/1/20
to
On 11/30/2020 6:02 PM, ansaman wrote:
> Yeah, if you come back three days after beheading, even the
> people who beheaded you will fall down to their knees.
But no such instance has been recorded on
> Yeah, if you come back three days after beheading, even the
> people who beheaded you will fall down to their knees.
reliable media, like photo equipment.
Perhaps tregroes will give us the
opportunity to observe it and catch it
on reliable media. And also other
remarkable things, like raising back
from the dead, pour épater les bourgeois.
Tang Huyen
ansaman
Dec 1, 2020, 12:34:41 AM12/1/20
to
Wilson
Dec 1, 2020, 10:33:29 AM12/1/20
to
correct. So you don't believe me either?
Maybe it's you and your bias.
Tang Huyen
Dec 1, 2020, 10:37:03 AM12/1/20
to
On 12/1/2020 7:33 AM, Wilson wrote:
> What I'm saying is that Slotkin and the writer at the link I posted are
> correct. So you don't believe me either?
>
> Maybe it's you and your bias.
Right. You are always right and those who
> What I'm saying is that Slotkin and the writer at the link I posted are
> correct. So you don't believe me either?
>
> Maybe it's you and your bias.
disagree with you are always wrong. Truth
is on your side. There is no doubt about
that.
Hip hip hooray for Wilson!
Tang Huyen
tregroes
Dec 1, 2020, 11:26:00 AM12/1/20
to
link agree with your own assessment. The question then is how you
arrived at that assessment. If you're proposing yourself as the
archetypal Trump supporter, enabling your ideological positions to be
read as speaking for all Trump supporters, that I don't believe. I
doubt you are typical.
There are other things I don't believe either, such as that all the
millions of Trump supporters arrived at that position by each
individually assessing their own and the country's condition in a cool
and dispassionate manner. People are susceptible to rhetorical
pressure and there's certainly been a lot of that. As just one
instance, the Koch-funded and founded magazine "Libre" has been
pushing hard within the Latino community for Trump support and
continues to do so in Georgia for the soon-to-be runoff. Fox News has
laboured hard for Trump until very recently. People who are suffering
will adopt reasons that are offered by those posing as friends because
everyone wants answers.
>Maybe it's you and your bias.
in him. That *would* tend to make it difficult to find common ground
with someone who finds him appealing, but doesn't of itself dismiss my
point that the "Trump Phenomenon" has been taken up as a rallying cry
by a particular conservative strain of thought to fight a different
battle.
Wilson
Dec 1, 2020, 11:31:43 AM12/1/20
to
Not always. But usually.
Tang Huyen
Dec 1, 2020, 11:56:05 AM12/1/20
to
On 12/1/2020 8:31 AM, Wilson wrote:
> I'm not always right, but I do usually know what I think.
>
> Not always. But usually.
It can be granted that you do usually know
> I'm not always right, but I do usually know what I think.
>
> Not always. But usually.
what you think. But what makes it true?
Your thinking it does not make it so.
Unless you are God, who can make what he
thinks true just by thinking it. Is that
what you claim?
Tang Huyen
Wilson
Dec 1, 2020, 4:59:11 PM12/1/20
to
(But no. Not God).
ansaman
Dec 1, 2020, 11:13:50 PM12/1/20
to
Wilson
Dec 2, 2020, 8:08:56 AM12/2/20
to
On 12/1/2020 11:13 PM, ansaman wrote:
> On 12/1/2020 4:59 PM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 12/1/2020 11:56 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2020 8:31 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not always right, but I do usually know what I think.
>>>>
>>>> Not always. But usually.
>>>
>>> It can be granted that you do usually know
>>> what you think. But what makes it true?
>>> Your thinking it does not make it so.
>>> Unless you are God, who can make what he
>>> thinks true just by thinking it. Is that
>>> what you claim?
>>>
>>> Tang Huyen
>>
>> If I claim to be God, it wouldn't be the first time that happened here.
>>
>> (But no. Not God).
>
> The mighty Deity of Sheds.
>
Lord of Give A Fucks.
> On 12/1/2020 4:59 PM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 12/1/2020 11:56 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2020 8:31 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not always right, but I do usually know what I think.
>>>>
>>>> Not always. But usually.
>>>
>>> It can be granted that you do usually know
>>> what you think. But what makes it true?
>>> Your thinking it does not make it so.
>>> Unless you are God, who can make what he
>>> thinks true just by thinking it. Is that
>>> what you claim?
>>>
>>> Tang Huyen
>>
>> If I claim to be God, it wouldn't be the first time that happened here.
>>
>> (But no. Not God).
>
> The mighty Deity of Sheds.
>
Love
Dec 4, 2020, 1:48:37 AM12/4/20
to
In article <km1bsf542f5agbe8l...@4ax.com>, no...@nowear.com
says...
Hmm.
I must say, as one who moved from complete mocker
of Trump to being pretty sure I could have voted
for him, Slotkin's analysis rings true for me.
Am I not one of "those themselves"? Am I an
intelleckshul of the right (or left, which is
where Slotkin is)? Am I cannon fodder, or just
another lower middle class voter?
--
Love
says...
I must say, as one who moved from complete mocker
of Trump to being pretty sure I could have voted
for him, Slotkin's analysis rings true for me.
Am I not one of "those themselves"? Am I an
intelleckshul of the right (or left, which is
where Slotkin is)? Am I cannon fodder, or just
another lower middle class voter?
--
Love
Wilson
Dec 4, 2020, 8:14:34 AM12/4/20
to
going.
tregroes
Dec 4, 2020, 9:14:05 PM12/4/20
to
know of, you couldn't possibly be taken in by the devalued discourse,
corruption and confusion pumped out at press conferences and rallies
over the last four years, but if you really have moved from mocker to
supporter I may have to reconsider.
If you had been able to vote for Trump, what would you have been
voting for?
Love
Dec 7, 2020, 6:09:16 AM12/7/20
to
In article <joqlsfpupro7q3p1r...@4ax.com>, no...@nowear.com says...
I've spent enough time articulating that here
that you should already know...but I forget that
you slum elsewhere a lot. Sigh.
My vote would have been a largely anti-vote,
which is what I believe much of not most of
the Trump vote is. People are voting for the
rude crude bombastic asshole because he does
not play by the rules they see as no longer
serving their interests, and they trust him
more than those who do play by those rules.
What can we trust those who play by the rules
to give us more of?
1. Internationalism, not pride and a national
ethos of self-sufficiency.
2. Accusations. By pandering to every whining
group making the revolutionary claim of being
oppressed, those who play by the rules are
accusing all of us of being oppressors, all
the time.
3. Smug dismissals. We don't matter and we
are simply out of step with the times if we
don't happen to agree on every new half-baked
utopian progressive ideal, so much so that
we are deplorables for being as we are, and
not allowed to talk about things that concern
us.
4. Wasted money. We work hard to make what
little we get and "progressives" tell us that
we need to spend large to correct every teensy
thing they think is wrong in the world.
5. Moral decline. It's no secret that the
elites all have access to great coke while
the rest of us struggle to deal with our kid's
addiction problems. It's no secret that the
kids of the elite get off for crimes that our
kids do hard time for. And what's with the
major media and government telling our kids
that premarital sex is okay, and that dressing
like every day is trans orgy day is normal?
6. Attacks. There was a time when we
recognised that making literacy a condition
of voting was a kind of racism in action.
Voting gives the normal person authority over
the government but now the authority of the
normal person is eroded by making education
so necessary to get a position of authority
in a vast and complex government machinery
we no longer trust. The elites want us to
fully fund universities that have become
indoctrination camps. They want us to pay
for the training of the people who will have
authority over us. And those people then
want us to even let go of the one power that
we the people have left to defend ourselves
from a corrupt government: the power to
arm ourselves.
7. Reasons. Reasons we are wrong and stupid
and reactionary if we don't agree with them.
Well if that's reasoning, frak it, I'm done
with it. Don't talk to me, talk to the Trump.
--
Love
that you should already know...but I forget that
you slum elsewhere a lot. Sigh.
My vote would have been a largely anti-vote,
which is what I believe much of not most of
the Trump vote is. People are voting for the
rude crude bombastic asshole because he does
not play by the rules they see as no longer
serving their interests, and they trust him
more than those who do play by those rules.
What can we trust those who play by the rules
to give us more of?
1. Internationalism, not pride and a national
ethos of self-sufficiency.
2. Accusations. By pandering to every whining
group making the revolutionary claim of being
oppressed, those who play by the rules are
accusing all of us of being oppressors, all
the time.
3. Smug dismissals. We don't matter and we
are simply out of step with the times if we
don't happen to agree on every new half-baked
utopian progressive ideal, so much so that
we are deplorables for being as we are, and
not allowed to talk about things that concern
us.
4. Wasted money. We work hard to make what
little we get and "progressives" tell us that
we need to spend large to correct every teensy
thing they think is wrong in the world.
5. Moral decline. It's no secret that the
elites all have access to great coke while
the rest of us struggle to deal with our kid's
addiction problems. It's no secret that the
kids of the elite get off for crimes that our
kids do hard time for. And what's with the
major media and government telling our kids
that premarital sex is okay, and that dressing
like every day is trans orgy day is normal?
6. Attacks. There was a time when we
recognised that making literacy a condition
of voting was a kind of racism in action.
Voting gives the normal person authority over
the government but now the authority of the
normal person is eroded by making education
so necessary to get a position of authority
in a vast and complex government machinery
we no longer trust. The elites want us to
fully fund universities that have become
indoctrination camps. They want us to pay
for the training of the people who will have
authority over us. And those people then
want us to even let go of the one power that
we the people have left to defend ourselves
from a corrupt government: the power to
arm ourselves.
7. Reasons. Reasons we are wrong and stupid
and reactionary if we don't agree with them.
Well if that's reasoning, frak it, I'm done
with it. Don't talk to me, talk to the Trump.
--
Love
ansaman
Dec 7, 2020, 12:04:37 PM12/7/20
to
tregroes
Dec 7, 2020, 1:03:22 PM12/7/20
to
ansaman wrote:
>On 12/7/2020 6:09 AM, Love wrote:
[7 points]
>On 12/7/2020 6:09 AM, Love wrote:
>An amazingly good summary.
Reads like satire to me.
DMB
Dec 7, 2020, 1:13:04 PM12/7/20
to
On Tuesday, 8 December 2020 at 02:48:22 UTC+8:45, tregroes wrote:
> >An amazingly good summary.
> Reads like satire to me.
See, you're not in the fraternal order.
> >An amazingly good summary.
> Reads like satire to me.
Love
Dec 8, 2020, 3:45:33 PM12/8/20
to
In article <rqlnb3$j6b$1...@dont-email.me>, ans...@gmail.com says...
I've been practising being like you! :)
--
Love
--
Love
Love
Dec 8, 2020, 3:49:22 PM12/8/20
to
In article <ugrssf1vfb2p9tvp3...@4ax.com>, no...@nowear.com says...
Your homework is to re-read #3 and #7.
--
Love
--
Love
tregroes
Dec 8, 2020, 4:52:39 PM12/8/20
to
of the inclusive 3rd person pronoun. I don't believe it of you or of a
single homogenous grouping.
Dismissals can be factual. For instance, Midwestern farmers voted en
bloc for Trump but to suggest that they are alienated from their
legislators is nonsense. They have a very powerful lobby and receive
huge subsidies, without which they couldn't economically survive. When
Trump's trade war with China backfired and China stopped buying US
soybeans, his administration rushed in with a bailout. This covers #4
as well.
Basically, I think the idea that there is a single Trump constituency
whose members all subscribe to the same sense of grievance is a myth.
It's a myth that's been amplified and exploited by sections of the
media and polity and has achieved the same degree of acceptance as
other presiding political myths. As far as I can see, Trump has done
nothing for poor people, white or black, but has increased the wealth
of the already wealthy and supposedly despised elites through tax cuts
and other measures. If reason (#7) can't shed light, nothing else
will.
Tang Huyen
Dec 8, 2020, 5:20:15 PM12/8/20
to
On 12/8/2020 1:52 PM, tregroes wrote:
> As far as I can see, Trump has done
> nothing for poor people, white or black, but has increased the wealth
> of the already wealthy and supposedly despised elites through tax cuts
> and other measures. If reason (#7) can't shed light, nothing else
> will.
I suppose that this issue worries the Democrats.
> As far as I can see, Trump has done
> nothing for poor people, white or black, but has increased the wealth
> of the already wealthy and supposedly despised elites through tax cuts
> and other measures. If reason (#7) can't shed light, nothing else
> will.
They can't understand why the poor whites who
did not go to college would vote against their
own economic interests. To me, the poor whites
already resented the welfare doled out to the
blacks and Hispanics before, and globalisation
exacerbated this redistribution of income, so
the poor whites went into white resentment with
a vengeance. Before Clump, nobody knew how to
harness this white resentment into a cohesive
force to beat the Liberals, but Clump pulled
the trick. However, this constituency is
relatively small, about 40%, and cannot win
unless the Democrat candidate is stupendously
weak and disliked, and Hilary was, so Clump
won. But Biden was more liked and trusted, so
Clump lost. It seems that this conservative
base will have trouble winning the Presidency
again, unless somebody widely despised like
Hilary runs for President again. This
constituency is shrinking, and will be less
and less powerful, but must be taken seriously.
Voters cannot be trusted on to vote their own
economic interests.
Tang Huyen
Wilson
Dec 9, 2020, 12:14:14 PM12/9/20
to
On 12/8/2020 4:52 PM, tregroes wrote:
>
> Basically, I think the idea that there is a single Trump constituency
> whose members all subscribe to the same sense of grievance is a myth.
> It's a myth that's been amplified and exploited by sections of the
> media and polity and has achieved the same degree of acceptance as
> other presiding political myths. As far as I can see, Trump has done
> nothing for poor people, white or black, but has increased the wealth
> of the already wealthy and supposedly despised elites through tax cuts
> and other measures. If reason (#7) can't shed light, nothing else
> will.
The assertion that the poor are not better off today after four years of
>
> Basically, I think the idea that there is a single Trump constituency
> whose members all subscribe to the same sense of grievance is a myth.
> It's a myth that's been amplified and exploited by sections of the
> media and polity and has achieved the same degree of acceptance as
> other presiding political myths. As far as I can see, Trump has done
> nothing for poor people, white or black, but has increased the wealth
> of the already wealthy and supposedly despised elites through tax cuts
> and other measures. If reason (#7) can't shed light, nothing else
> will.
Trump's policies and that only the rich got richer does not hold up
against demonstrable metrics.
Wilson
Dec 9, 2020, 12:15:56 PM12/9/20
to
opinion of the regressive american left.
tregroes
Dec 9, 2020, 3:56:04 PM12/9/20
to
person has been voted in, he or she can never trust the voters not to
vote him or her out again. Therefore they shore up the walls.
ansaman
Dec 9, 2020, 5:18:09 PM12/9/20
to
against distributed by social media and the mainstream media to
both sides of the political spectrum. Right now, the right wing is
being bombarded with anti-mask rhetoric and even some anti-vaccination
talk since it fits in with international conspiracy stuff.
ansaman
Dec 9, 2020, 5:30:27 PM12/9/20
to
On 12/9/2020 12:15 PM, Wilson wrote:
> That the voters cannot be trusted is the driving and overwhelming
> opinion of the regressive american left.
The proletariat is only useful for seizing power. After that,
> That the voters cannot be trusted is the driving and overwhelming
> opinion of the regressive american left.
power is wielded by the leftist oligarchy because the proles
cannot be trusted to prevent or not foment counterrevolution.
tregroes
Dec 9, 2020, 6:31:14 PM12/9/20
to
ansaman wrote:
>leftist oligarchy
Heh. Like the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch.
>leftist oligarchy
Heh. Like the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch.
tregroes
Dec 9, 2020, 6:36:31 PM12/9/20
to
Love
Dec 10, 2020, 8:46:35 AM12/10/20
to
In article <o7svsfhf70tf4i9d4...@4ax.com>, no...@nowear.com says...
Oh, your reasoning suffers from the very same
problem you try to use to dismiss my points.
You are viewing Trump-voters as a monolith on
the one hand (eg. poor people voting against
their interests), and as disparate interests
on the other. I am telling you what they
have in common, despite not being a monolith.
You just don't want to believe it. Here is
why it is to be believed.
This goes to Tang's -- and indeed much of the
left's own too-easy dismissal too.
Even though poor, that group, conservatives
in general, regard independence and self
sufficiency more highly than wealth.
They do not consider it wrong that they are
poor so long as they can view themselves as
being morally supported by their government.
That moral support; that "atta boy, and we
will do all we can to not get in the way of
your self reliance" is valuable to them.
It is the same mindset that soldiers thrust
into war have. At the meta level, they are
victims, drafted into a war not of their
making, but at the immediate level, despite
the danger, they are powerful and in charge
of what happens next. There is a security
in that day-to-day feeling. It's not very
calculating. In fact it is distrustful of
calculated motivations -- of REASONS --
because calculation is what left it to them
to have to clean up the mess, at great risk
to themselves, in the first place. They
work on the level of "do I know you, can I
trust you, do you have my back, do you see
and acknowledge our worth and share our
common concerns?"
But just as they do not consider it "wrong"
that they are poor, they are very intolerant
of perceiving that the deck is stacked
against them. They notice that they are
poor, and especially notice when others
seem to be getting breaks that they are not
getting. Various kinds of government
largesse and interference constitute the
main body of their hates and suspicions.
To this group, life should be simple. Work
hard, put out real effort, be trustable on
a personal level, be there for your fellows,
be kind and fair, and be generous with what
you have, and you should be able to count
on the same from your society. And none of
those determinations will require complex
revolutionary "reasons" to be able to see.
The words "hegemonic" and "systemic" will
be great indicators that any piece of moral
reasoning is too complex to be trusted.
That group is fond of simple moral
reasoning. This can be seen in the number
of times we see them calling the left
"illogical".
There is wisdom in the desire for moral
imperatives to be simple, but that group
is dismissed as being not-college-educated,
which is transparent code for "too stupid
to be taken seriously, let's bribe them
instead". That this fact about that group
is mentioned so often in trying to explain
it (or explain it away), is not lost on
that group. To them it is clear that the
left holds them in disdain while, for some
reason, loving the people who are most
different from them: foreigners and inner
city welfare moms being emblems of that.
(merely emblems though, not the material
cause of their returning the left's
disdain for them 3 for 1) The left of
course dismisses this as mere racism, in
its rush to drape itself in the vestments
of moral authority.
The spectacle of the left dismissing the
very group that it believes it serves the
interests of, and is the "natural choice"
for, is like a fireworks display: not
possible to fully appreciate by those with
myopia but very obvious to everyone else.
Near-sightedness on the left is a product
of its own desperate vanity.
None of this means that Trump was a good
president or a good choice. It just means
that if you want to understand the
phenomenon, you need to open your eyes to
something and not merely try to explain
it, or any competing explanations, away at
every turn.
--
Love
problem you try to use to dismiss my points.
You are viewing Trump-voters as a monolith on
the one hand (eg. poor people voting against
their interests), and as disparate interests
on the other. I am telling you what they
have in common, despite not being a monolith.
You just don't want to believe it. Here is
why it is to be believed.
This goes to Tang's -- and indeed much of the
left's own too-easy dismissal too.
Even though poor, that group, conservatives
in general, regard independence and self
sufficiency more highly than wealth.
They do not consider it wrong that they are
poor so long as they can view themselves as
being morally supported by their government.
That moral support; that "atta boy, and we
will do all we can to not get in the way of
your self reliance" is valuable to them.
It is the same mindset that soldiers thrust
into war have. At the meta level, they are
victims, drafted into a war not of their
making, but at the immediate level, despite
the danger, they are powerful and in charge
of what happens next. There is a security
in that day-to-day feeling. It's not very
calculating. In fact it is distrustful of
calculated motivations -- of REASONS --
because calculation is what left it to them
to have to clean up the mess, at great risk
to themselves, in the first place. They
work on the level of "do I know you, can I
trust you, do you have my back, do you see
and acknowledge our worth and share our
common concerns?"
But just as they do not consider it "wrong"
that they are poor, they are very intolerant
of perceiving that the deck is stacked
against them. They notice that they are
poor, and especially notice when others
seem to be getting breaks that they are not
getting. Various kinds of government
largesse and interference constitute the
main body of their hates and suspicions.
To this group, life should be simple. Work
hard, put out real effort, be trustable on
a personal level, be there for your fellows,
be kind and fair, and be generous with what
you have, and you should be able to count
on the same from your society. And none of
those determinations will require complex
revolutionary "reasons" to be able to see.
The words "hegemonic" and "systemic" will
be great indicators that any piece of moral
reasoning is too complex to be trusted.
That group is fond of simple moral
reasoning. This can be seen in the number
of times we see them calling the left
"illogical".
There is wisdom in the desire for moral
imperatives to be simple, but that group
is dismissed as being not-college-educated,
which is transparent code for "too stupid
to be taken seriously, let's bribe them
instead". That this fact about that group
is mentioned so often in trying to explain
it (or explain it away), is not lost on
that group. To them it is clear that the
left holds them in disdain while, for some
reason, loving the people who are most
different from them: foreigners and inner
city welfare moms being emblems of that.
(merely emblems though, not the material
cause of their returning the left's
disdain for them 3 for 1) The left of
course dismisses this as mere racism, in
its rush to drape itself in the vestments
of moral authority.
The spectacle of the left dismissing the
very group that it believes it serves the
interests of, and is the "natural choice"
for, is like a fireworks display: not
possible to fully appreciate by those with
myopia but very obvious to everyone else.
Near-sightedness on the left is a product
of its own desperate vanity.
None of this means that Trump was a good
president or a good choice. It just means
that if you want to understand the
phenomenon, you need to open your eyes to
something and not merely try to explain
it, or any competing explanations, away at
every turn.
--
Love
Julian
Dec 10, 2020, 9:01:43 AM12/10/20
to
Love
Dec 10, 2020, 9:15:20 AM12/10/20
to
Wilson
Dec 10, 2020, 11:02:58 AM12/10/20
to
Just because you might happen to currently agree with them does not make
what they are doing helpful to people or beneficial to society.
Tang Huyen
Dec 10, 2020, 11:07:26 AM12/10/20
to
On 12/10/2020 8:02 AM, Wilson wrote:
> Just because you might happen to currently agree with them does not make
> what they are doing helpful to people or beneficial to society.
Hey!
> Just because you might happen to currently agree with them does not make
> what they are doing helpful to people or beneficial to society.
Tang Huyen
Wilson
Dec 10, 2020, 12:34:16 PM12/10/20
to
Sharply rising household incomes for Blacks and Hispanics during Trump's
presidency have lifted many in their communities above the poverty line.
During each of the three years of Trump, about 380,000 Blacks climbed
their way out of poverty, compared to only 80,000 for Obama. More than a
half-million Hispanics moved past the poverty line in each of the three
years of Trump, compared to only 150,000 under Obama.
Why have Blacks and Hispanics fared so well in the Trump economy? Jobs.
Jobs. Jobs. The Trump economy has been a job creating machine. The
unemployment rate for Blacks and Hispanics in February 2020, before the
arrival of the coronavvirus to our shores, was the lowest in the past
half-century.
In spite of the predictions of the many nay-saying economists, the Trump
job-creating machine is back to work. Since April 2020, the unemployment
rate has decreased every month for Blacks and Hispanics.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2020/10/22/how_have_blacks_and_hispanics_fared_in_the_trump_economy_581569.html
---
IRS analysis released in early March, before the world went crazy, tells
us some very interesting things.
The tax cuts did increase economic growth over previous years and over
the Congressional Budget Office-predicted baseline, though not quite
reaching the Trump administration’s 3% annual goal. This increase in
economic growth resulted in an increase in adjusted gross incomes of
5.7% in 2019 over 2018, the biggest jump in AGI in several years.
The tax cuts also succeeded in targeting benefits at the middle class.
Taxpayers reporting between $40,000 and $50,000 per year had the largest
percentage tax cut of any group, with a 14.5% tax cut. Overall, those
who earned less than $200,000 per year saw a 10.96% tax reduction with
the sharpest reductions for those who earned between $25,000 and $100,000.
By contrast, those who earned over $1 million per year saw the smallest
tax reduction (4.3%).
Between lower taxes and higher adjusted gross incomes, Americans were
significantly better off after the Trump tax cuts.
And federal revenue has consistently increased in the years after the
Trump tax cuts. Despite the enormous tax cut, federal revenue increased
by $10 billion in 2018, by $130 billion in 2019, and was projected to
grow by even more in 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic
effects.
So did the Trump tax cuts work? Yes — GDP growth increased, which led to
significantly increased personal incomes and job creation. And the
individual tax cuts primarily benefitted middle-income earners rather
than the wealthy.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/17/did-the-trump-tax-cuts-really-work/
---
The employment rate stood at 3.5% as of December 2019 - the lowest in 50
years.
The story grows quite interesting when we focus on wage earners in lower
brackets. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the 20-year growth trend for the 10th percentile weekly wage was $2.03
per quarter. For Trump’s first three years, wage growth was $4.95.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/02/under-trump-americans-have-seen-their-best-wage-growth-in-40-years/
---
Manufacturing
Manufacturing rose 3.6 percent during Trump's three years, which was
more than double the rise of 1.7 percent in the three years under Obama
before that, according to government data.
Manufacturing employment also rose under Trump, with 487,000
manufacturing jobs created.
In contrast, in the three years prior to Trump's term, manufacturing
employment rose by 287,000 jobs.
Jobs
"Before Mr. Trump took office in January 2017, the Congressional Budget
Office forecast the creation of only two million jobs by this point. The
economy has in fact created seven million jobs," wrote former Trump
chief economic advisor Gary Cohn and former Trump chair of the Council
of Economic Advisers Kevin Hassett in a Wall Street Journal article.
Further, when President Trump took office: "the Federal Reserve's median
forecast had the unemployment rate inching up toward 5 percent, almost
1.5 percentage points higher than the current 50-year low."
Wages
"Trump's 'Great' Economy Is Failing Workers," a New York Magazine
article argues.
But wages are at their highest point ever. Cohn and Hassett also note
that lowest-income workers have seen the biggest raises this year.
"Over the past year, nominal wages for the lowest 10 percent of American
workers jumped 7 percent. The growth rate for those without a
high-school diploma was 9 percent," they wrote.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/trump-economy-three-years-in
---
In January 2020, along with the usual criticisms, Factcheck posted:
- The unemployment rate, which was well below the historical norm when
Trump took office, has continued to fall to the lowest rate in half a
century.
- Total nonfarm employment grew by nearly 6.7 million since the
president took office.
- Household income grew; poverty decreased, and paychecks grew 2.5%
after inflation.
- The number of unfilled job openings stood at 6.8 million. That’s a
gain of nearly 1.2 million unfilled job openings — or 20.9% — since
Trump took office.
- Home prices reached record levels; home ownership increased.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/trumps-numbers-january-2020-update/
---
Stats from the White House:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/the-trump-economy-benefits-historically-disadvantaged-americans/
ansaman
Dec 10, 2020, 6:11:50 PM12/10/20
to
published.
Wilson
Dec 10, 2020, 6:22:18 PM12/10/20
to
tregroes
Dec 11, 2020, 3:20:33 PM12/11/20
to
depiction of the Trump heartland with images of flotillas of vehicles
festooned with Confederate flags and swastikas, or thousands of people
crammed into stadia all screaming "lock her up" on cue, or armed gangs
entering the legislature to intimidate members, or armed gangs
congregating outside the homes of election officials, or the death
threats issued online to such officials and their families, or the
whole Qanon conspiracy, and so on, and so on. This is the Jungian
Shadow of the Petersonian and Lewisian patrician Christo-conservative
ethos, though it isn't acknowledged. The Republican machinery never
either owns or disavows any of those displays. Rather it's ignored,
and the Shadow ignored just gets stronger. From the forementioned
ethos to the MAGA-hatted neo-nazi is a spectrum, and when I say 'myth'
I don't mean something imaginary and without verity but something
partial (in both senses) and, I believe, expedient.
Having been implicitly accused of smugness and condescension, I can't
help pointing out how soupily condescending that remark of Lewis's
about the working man is. That was the philosophical mainstay of
conservatism until the end of the second world war: the working man
has his dignity, he doesn't need to better his conditions. Following
that path you can conclude that if the working man was thrown even
more onto his own resources his dignity would increase proportionally,
and there's a good argument for reducing welfare provisions even
further, as the political Right wishes to do.
Also can't help noticing the irony --which is very common, actually--
of Lewis deriding the educated man as gullible and malleable. He, an
academic, who hardly ever set foot outside the university quad,
subscribing to a religiously-based anti-intellectualism. The same
strand exists throughout American culture, including the Academy.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always
has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant
thread winding its way through our political and cultural life,
nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance
is just as good as your knowledge."
Isaac Asimov.
Your noble icon above also perpetuates this anti-intellectual trope,
which is the real legacy of Puritanism. Man needs no intercessor
between him and God. We don't need experts. Faith trumps science.
I end my anti-Lewis rant (he's always made my skin crawl) with the
observation that the patrician Christo-conservative ethos is every bit
as authoritarian and conformative as the Left is supposed to be; just
as dogmatic and as interested in constraint and suppression, but
usually more subtle, with ridicule as its favoured tool.
Love
Dec 14, 2020, 4:35:15 AM12/14/20
to
In article <rquaj9$97f$1...@dont-email.me>, absfg_...@yahoo.invalid says...
Thanks. Now if only I could make it short
enough for leftists to read all the way
through.
--
Love
enough for leftists to read all the way
through.
--
Love
DMB
Dec 14, 2020, 2:32:33 PM12/14/20
to
On Saturday, 12 December 2020 at 05:05:33 UTC+8:45, tregroes wrote:
> I end my anti-Lewis rant (he's always made my skin crawl) with the
> observation that the patrician Christo-conservative ethos is every bit
> as authoritarian and conformative as the Left is supposed to be; just
> as dogmatic and as interested in constraint and suppression, but
> usually more subtle, with ridicule as its favoured tool.
I'm with you.
> I end my anti-Lewis rant (he's always made my skin crawl) with the
> observation that the patrician Christo-conservative ethos is every bit
> as authoritarian and conformative as the Left is supposed to be; just
> as dogmatic and as interested in constraint and suppression, but
> usually more subtle, with ridicule as its favoured tool.
They needed Hannibal Lecter to play him (lol).
Tang Huyen
Dec 23, 2020, 1:44:29 PM12/23/20
to
On 12/9/2020 9:14 AM, Wilson wrote:
> The assertion that the poor are not better
> off today after four years of Trump's
> policies and that only the rich got richer
> does not hold up against demonstrable metrics.
Hip hip hooray! Two grand for the unwashed
> The assertion that the poor are not better
> off today after four years of Trump's
> policies and that only the rich got richer
> does not hold up against demonstrable metrics.
masses!
Will you, Wilson, go for that? Or against?
Tang Huyen
DMB
Dec 23, 2020, 2:11:51 PM12/23/20
to
On Tuesday, 15 December 2020 at 04:17:33 UTC+8:45, DMB wrote:
> I'm with you.
> They needed Hannibal Lecter to play him (lol).
Btw.
> I'm with you.
> They needed Hannibal Lecter to play him (lol).
For the word, 'Narnia', change the 'r' to an 'n' and you'll have the anagram for the God of Sin [Inanna].
0 new messages