Democrat's bold plan to return to power.

[Madison320]

As much as I can't stand most republicans, democrats are even worse. I heard Chuck Schumer this morning talking about how the democrats were too timid and that's why they lost the election. He said this time they are going to be bold and "GO AFTER" the evil rich. He used the phrase "GO AFTER" over and over. "We're going to "GO AFTER" the big pharma companies. We're going to "GO AFTER" the big oil companies. "GO AFTER" big mergers."

What do you suppose GO AFTER means?

[Zippyjuan]

As much as I can't stand most republicans, democrats are even worse. I heard Chuck Schumer this morning talking about how the democrats were too timid and that's why they lost the election. He said this time they are going to be bold and "GO AFTER" the evil rich. He used the phrase "GO AFTER" over and over. "We're going to "GO AFTER" the big pharma companies. We're going to "GO AFTER" the big oil companies. "GO AFTER" big mergers."

What do you suppose GO AFTER means?

Round them up in FEMA camps? Nuke them?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Round them up in FEMA camps? Nuke them?


Thank you for your contribution to the discussion!

[Zippyjuan]

They are trying to sound more populist: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/opinions/better-deal-opinion-bustos-cicilline-jeffries/index.html


Democrats: Our plan for a better deal

Reps. Cheri Bustos, David Cicilline and Hakeem Jeffries serve as co-chairs of the House Democratic Policy & Communications Committee. Bustos represents Illinois 17th Congressional District, Cicilline represents Rhode Island's 1st Congressional District and Jeffries represents New York's 8th Congressional District. The views expressed in this commentary are their own.

(CNN)Not a day goes by without another allegation or reckless tweet fueling the dysfunction of a deeply divided Republican Congress that fails to govern while hardworking families across the country are left behind. Mired in controversy, Washington Republicans are unable to uphold the basic bargain they made with the American people when they were elected: to fight to create new good-paying jobs and support sustained economic growth.

The simple truth is the economy isn't working the way it should; incomes and wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. Wage stagnation, underemployment, the exploding cost of a college education and the erosion of pensions are leaving many without hope. From rural towns to inner cities, millions can no longer achieve the American dream. Meanwhile, Washington special interests and powerful corporations have acquired more and more wealth.

The three of us represent very different districts in Rhode Island, New York and Illinois. Despite the clear regional differences, what we hear from our constituents is the same: They are tired of this rigged system. What they want most is a fighting chance at building a brighter future for themselves and their families. And what they need is a better deal.

On Monday, House and Senate Democrats will come together to unveil A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future, a bold economic agenda that works for all Americans to bring higher wages, lower costs and the tools Americans need to succeed.

Democrats will deliver real solutions, lasting economic growth and take significant action to improve the lives of the American people.

This agenda was created from the ground up across both the House and the Senate, and includes input from across the entire ideological spectrum. By listening to all voices, the agenda reflects the beautiful mosaic and diversity of our country -- as well as the hopes, dreams and aspirations of its people.

Through A Better Deal, we will create opportunities for those who need them most, not just those at the very top. We'll make government responsive to all hardworking Americans, not just a select few. And we'll make certain that if you work hard that you can support your family, that you can retire with the security and dignity that you've earned, and that your children can get the skills and knowledge they need to secure good-paying jobs in their hometowns.

For Democrats, this is our collective vision. This is not a slogan. It's who we are and what we intend to accomplish for the American people.

First, our plan starts by creating millions of good-paying, full-time jobs by directly investing in our crumbling infrastructure -- and putting people back to work building our roads and bridges. To help our small businesses thrive, we will prioritize entrepreneurs over giving tax breaks to special interests. We will fight for a living wage -- so parents don't have to work three or four jobs just to pay rent. And we will keep our promise to millions of workers who earned a pension, Social Security and Medicare so they can retire with dignity.

Second, we will lower the crippling cost of prescription drugs and the cost of an education that leads to a good job with a college degree or a technical skill. And we will crack down on monopolies and the concentration of economic power that has led to higher prices for consumers, workers and small businesses -- and make sure Wall Street never endangers Main Street again.

Third, we will offer new tax incentives to employers to invest in their workforce through training and education. To make sure our country stays on the cutting edge, we will bring high-speed Internet to every community in America and offer an apprenticeship to millions of new workers. We will encourage innovation, invest in advanced research and ensure start-ups and small businesses can compete and prosper. By making it possible for every American to get the skills, tools and knowledge to find a job or to move up in their career, we'll not only improve individual lives, we'll also stay competitive in the global economy.

The choice we face is simple. We can continue down this path of a rigged system and allow Washington to turn a blind eye to painful economic realities that so many Americans are facing. Or we can stand on the side of the American people. We can invest in hardworking families and build an economy that puts Americans first -- defined by better jobs, better wages and a better future.

[Ender]

As much as I can't stand most republicans, democrats are even worse. I heard Chuck Schumer this morning talking about how the democrats were too timid and that's why they lost the election. He said this time they are going to be bold and "GO AFTER" the evil rich. He used the phrase "GO AFTER" over and over. "We're going to "GO AFTER" the big pharma companies. We're going to "GO AFTER" the big oil companies. "GO AFTER" big mergers."

What do you suppose GO AFTER means?

There is NO difference between Repubs and Dems- they just use different talking points to keep the masses happy while they keep pushing the same agenda.

[phill4paul]

I should think it means they mean to follow behind them in an obeisant manner.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution

"The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution" rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. The percentages below are cumulative scores based on key votes from 1999 through 2015. Click on a senator's or representative's name to get a detailed breakdown of his or her voting record.



Only 20% of New Yorkers over 50%. Schumer at 13%. I guess "GO AFTER" means go after freedom.



New York
Sen. Charles Schumer - 13%
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand - 13%
Dist.1: Lee Zeldin - 60%
Dist.2: Peter King - 45%
Dist.3: Thomas Suozzi - N/A
Dist.4: Kathleen Rice - 7%
Dist.5: Gregory Meeks - 19%
Dist.6: Grace Meng - 24%
Dist.7: Nydia Velázquez - 26%
Dist.8: Hakeem Jeffries - 28%
Dist.9: Yvette Clarke - 26%
Dist.10: Jerrold Nadler - 24%
Dist.11: Daniel Donovan - 51%
Dist.12: Carolyn Maloney - 21%
Dist.13: Adriano Espaillat - N/A
Dist.14: Joseph Crowley - 21%
Dist.15: José Serrano - 24%
Dist.16: Eliot Engel - 18%
Dist.17: Nita Lowey - 15%
Dist.18: Sean Maloney - 18%
Dist.19: John Faso - N/A
Dist.20: Paul Tonko - 23%
Dist.21: Elise Stefanik - 42%
Dist.22: Claudia Tenney - N/A
Dist.23: Tom Reed - 57%
Dist.24: John Katko - 51%
Dist.25: Louise Slaughter - 20%
Dist.26: Brian Higgins - 17%
Dist.27: Chris Collins - 53%



http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

[Madison320]

There is NO difference between Repubs and Dems- they just use different talking points to keep the masses happy while they keep pushing the same agenda.

I don't think there's a huge difference, but there is a little in my opinion. Democrats say they're going to do the wrong thing and move us towards socialism and they do. Republicans occasionally say they're going to do the right thing, but they rarely do. In other words republicans are a little less socialistic, but more hypocritical.

[Madison320]

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion!

Man, Zippy was all over that, like stink on doo doo.

[Madison320]

Round them up in FEMA camps? Nuke them?

No, not that drastic. Normally "go after" in government terminology means "fine" then "put in jail" then "kill". Depending on when compliance is reached.

[nikcers]

There is NO difference between Repubs and Dems- they just use different talking points to keep the masses happy while they keep pushing the same agenda.
The establishment co-opted both major political parties, I think that their plan will backfire though. They exploit peoples political differences in ideology in order to silence any opposition to the establishment. I think we may see the death of political parties when they burn it down.

[Ender]

The establishment co-opted both major political parties, I think that their plan will backfire though. They exploit peoples political differences in ideology in order to silence any opposition to the establishment. I think we may see the death of political parties when they burn it down.

It's been co-opted for over 100 years- let us pray.

[Madison320]

It's been co-opted for over 100 years- let us pray.

You seem to believe in all sorts of vast conspiracies yet you scoff at the idea that that guys like Count and Zippy are getting paid a few bucks to post negative press against republicans.

It vexes me, I'm terribly vexed.

[nikcers]

You seem to believe in all sorts of vast conspiracies yet you scoff at the idea that that guys like Count and Zippy are getting paid a few bucks to post negative press against republicans.

It vexes me, I'm terribly vexed.
The deep state isn't a conspiracy theory anymore. The conspiracy theory is that it doesn't exist.

[Cleaner44]

They are trying to sound more populist: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/opinions/better-deal-opinion-bustos-cicilline-jeffries/index.html

They are trying to sound more populist...

They are sounding more pathetic.

[Ender]

You seem to believe in all sorts of vast conspiracies yet you scoff at the idea that that guys like Count and Zippy are getting paid a few bucks to post negative press against republicans.

It vexes me, I'm terribly vexed.

If you REALLY want to know what is going on, you have to read ALL sides- not just your comfy zone stuff. Maybe if you actually read TheCount's posts you'd understand that his manner is sarcasm. As far as Zippyjuan goes, he just offers different POVs, which I like as it saves me from hunting them down.

And I'm really vexed at all the hate and nastiness that has come to the forum from this whole last election BS. No argument? Call names!

Having a real discussion on the board is almost impossible these days.

[shakey1]

I suppose good honest reform is out of the question.:rolleyes:

[Madison320]

If you REALLY want to know what is going on, you have to read ALL sides- not just your comfy zone stuff. Maybe if you actually read TheCount's posts you'd understand that his manner is sarcasm. As far as Zippyjuan goes, he just offers different POVs, which I like as it saves me from hunting them down.

And I'm really vexed at all the hate and nastiness that has come to the forum from this whole last election BS. No argument? Call names!

Having a real discussion on the board is almost impossible these days.

What are the odds that a libertarian can find literally thousands of faults with republicans and zero with democrats? I'd say 0.00% wouldn't you?

It's not really a big deal, I'm sure the GOP does the same thing. They probably pay a few guys to post negative stuff about democrats over on democratic underground as well. It's probably a cost effective way to switch few votes.

[Madison320]

I suppose good honest reform is out of the question.:rolleyes:

Not until we run out of free stuff and we have our "Greece Moment". Then there's a chance.

[devil21]

I should think it means they mean to follow behind them in an obeisant manner.

Oh is this the "Better Deal"(tm) I saw flashed on the news feed earlier? The New Deal is running out of suckers...err steam....and needs to be freshened up.

In reality, all of the "going after" will be little more than charades for the masses to create support to enact the changes the bankers want and have planned for a long time.

"You wanted us to go after the oil industry! Sorry that gas now costs $7 per gallon! You wanted it!"

"You wanted us to go after the pharma companies! Sorry that meds are on strict rationing now, health care is unaffordable and people are dying. You wanted it!"

"You wanted us to go after trade imbalances! Sorry that anything imported now costs a fortune. You wanted it!"

"You wanted us to go after illegal immigrants! Sorry that you must now have this chip in your hand to identify you as a Citizen. You wanted it!"

etc etc

When all of it can be chalked up to the FRN petrodollar standard being dropped and the next phase of the NWO implemented. Hegelian Dialectic 101. A wise man once said, "The purpose of government is to pretend to fail."

-------------------

The deep state isn't a conspiracy theory anymore. The conspiracy theory is that it doesn't exist.

Only low-info types ever thought it was CT. Only low info types think it's not getting exactly what it wants with Trump at the helm. He was put there for a very specific reason.

[Ender]

What are the odds that a libertarian can find literally thousands of faults with republicans and zero with democrats? I'd say 0.00% wouldn't you?

It's not really a big deal, I'm sure the GOP does the same thing. They probably pay a few guys to post negative stuff about democrats over on democratic underground as well. It's probably a cost effective way to switch few votes.

Uh, when an OP is about a repub, why should someone post negs about dems?

AND, Zippy said nothing wonderful about dems on this post.

[Madison320]

Uh, when an OP is about a repub, why should someone post negs about dems?

AND, Zippy said nothing wonderful about dems on this post.

C'mon man. I'm not just talking about this thread. You're not challenging the fact that Zippy and Count only criticize republicans are you?

[Ender]

C'mon man. I'm not just talking about this thread. You're not challenging the fact that Zippy and Count only criticize republicans are you?

They criticize a lot of politicians but- So. What.

Who's in charge of Congress? The Repubs. They were also in charge the last 2 years of Obama's presidency and through all of W's.

I'm sure there's nothing to criticize there, amirite?

[Madison320]

They criticize a lot of politicians but- So. What.


Wrong. Only republicans. You aren't paying attention.



Who's in charge of Congress? The Repubs. They were also in charge the last 2 years of Obama's presidency and through all of W's.


Wait, last sentence you implied they criticize both. Now you're making excuses for them only criticizing repubs. Make up your mind. Besides that it's a stupid excuse, the Dems have had just as much power over the last 12 years or so. Duh.



I'm sure there's nothing to criticize there, amirite?

I try to be honest. I hate both parties, and I can show you dozens of posts that prove it as can 99% of the people here. I get annoyed when I see someone who is one sided, especially when they deny it. Dishonesty annoys me.

This was just from today:



So Roy Moore or Mo Brooks?
Are either of them worth supporting? Got a call from a Brannon guy asking for donations for Roy Moore.


No! I live in Bama and both of those guys are terrible, especially Roy Moore. Do a search on the 10 commandment fiasco with Roy Moore.

I used to vote republican unless there was a libertarian on the ballot. After I moved to AL in 2000 I quit voting republican, I just leave it blank unless there's a libertarian. That's how bad the republicans are here.

[Ender]

I DO pay attention AND I appreciate your honesty but I think you are just falling into the hate-bait pit that a few other members are promoting.

Zip's always been blasted on but, AFIK, the Count only started drawing the hate-bait when he started posting against Trump. Now people try to make him baaaaad and I do not agree. Besides, if you don't like them, put them on ignore.

And, for what it's worth, I don't like the 2 parties, either- just want a Ron Paul or 2 or 3 to help us in this critical time.

[TheCount]

As Lewis Black said, we have a party of no ideas and a party of bad ideas.

Hell, I couldn't even tell you what each party's core message is anymore. The Democrats are all over the damn place and the Republicans haven't decided if they're going to throw away all of their principles and just go flat out populist or not.

As for "going after" big banks, big pharma, and big mergers: I don't think that is a Democratic thing. You can find the same suggestions right here on this forum, usually advocated by the very Trumpiest of posters. This is fundamentally a populist idea, in my opinion, and that is why Trump and Sanders shared many of the same fundamental economic philosophies during the campaign. Everything that is wrong with your life is the fault of somebody else, and that person is (fill in the blank; some suggestions: Mexican, White, rich, a government employee, a private sector employee, a banker). Your life would be way better if only we went and fucked that guy over.

[UWDude]

Everything...

Here we go....


that is wrong with your life is the fault of somebody else, and that person is (fill in the blank; some suggestions: Mexican, White, rich, a government employee, a private sector employee, a banker). Your life would be way better if only we went and $#@!ed that guy over.

Yeah, $700B in bailouts for insurance companies kept a real estate bubble from popping, therefore driving up prices even higher. And yeah, the unbridled printing of money does hurt the average joe. And yeah, immigrants, legal or illegal, do take jobs that could be done by born natives, and yeah, illegal immigrants often pay very little in taxes, and often, being non-respecters of the law anyway, collect benefits as well.

[Swordsmyth]

As Lewis Black said, we have a party of no ideas and a party of bad ideas.

Hell, I couldn't even tell you what each party's core message is anymore. The Democrats are all over the damn place and the Republicans haven't decided if they're going to throw away all of their principles and just go flat out populist or not.

As for "going after" big banks, big pharma, and big mergers: I don't think that is a Democratic thing. You can find the same suggestions right here on this forum, usually advocated by the very Trumpiest of posters. This is fundamentally a populist idea, in my opinion, and that is why Trump and Sanders shared many of the same fundamental economic philosophies during the campaign. Everything that is wrong with your life is the fault of somebody else, and that person is (fill in the blank; some suggestions: Mexican, White, rich, a government employee, a private sector employee, a banker). Your life would be way better if only we went and $#@!ed that guy over.
Government employees alone cause more damage to more people than any court system short of judgement day could possibly punish, there are several other categories you mentioned that rival them, you are showing your insanity again.

[TheCount]

Yeah, $700B in bailouts for insurance companies kept a real estate bubble from popping, therefore driving up prices even higher.

Goverment's fault.


And yeah, the unbridled printing of money does hurt the average joe.

Also government's fault.


And yeah, immigrants, legal or illegal, do take jobs that could be done by born natives, and yeah, illegal immigrants often pay very little in taxes, and often, being non-respecters of the law anyway, collect benefits as well.

Yep, government's fault.

Punishing insurance companies won't keep the government from bailing other other companies in the future.

Punishing bankers won't stop the government from printing money.

Deporting all the immigrants won't stop the government from taxing you.

So why do you want to blame people for things that are the fault of government?

[TheCount]

Government employees alone cause more damage

Except ICE agents and cops, right? You support that kind of government employee.

[Swordsmyth]

Except ICE agents and cops, right? You support that kind of government employee.
We have not had enough ICE agents for longer than anyone can remember and more than usual are required to deal with the overwhelming number of illegals that have been let in.
Cops vary by location but almost everywhere has too many, you know very well I have said I want less cops.

[TheCount]

We have not had enough ICE agents for longer than anyone can remember and more than usual are required to deal with the overwhelming number of illegals that have been let in.

Sounds like a yes.



Cops vary by location but almost everywhere has too many, you know very well I have said I want less cops.

Also sounds like a yes. You support cops, just not all cops. But 'less' cops.


Therefore, you do not oppose all government employees. You oppose some mythical, specific class of government employees who you view to be in the wrong somehow.

[oyarde]

As much as I can't stand most republicans, democrats are even worse. I heard Chuck Schumer this morning talking about how the democrats were too timid and that's why they lost the election. He said this time they are going to be bold and "GO AFTER" the evil rich. He used the phrase "GO AFTER" over and over. "We're going to "GO AFTER" the big pharma companies. We're going to "GO AFTER" the big oil companies. "GO AFTER" big mergers."

What do you suppose GO AFTER means? In Dem speak it means steal from them and give to a worthless ignorant fuck that would vote for them .

[oyarde]

The Dems have no new or bold plans , in fact it is the same stale old communism cronyism they have peddled since 1913 .

[oyarde]

As much as I can't stand most republicans, democrats are even worse. I heard Chuck Schumer this morning talking about how the democrats were too timid and that's why they lost the election. He said this time they are going to be bold and "GO AFTER" the evil rich. He used the phrase "GO AFTER" over and over. "We're going to "GO AFTER" the big pharma companies. We're going to "GO AFTER" the big oil companies. "GO AFTER" big mergers."

What do you suppose GO AFTER means?

Nearly all republicans suck and all Dems are much worse .

[UWDude]

Therefore, you do not oppose all government employees. You oppose some mythical, specific class of government employees who you view to be in the wrong somehow.

Worthless lawyers, regulators, city hall, epa administrators, climate change scientists, climate change science grant reviewers, DEA officers, CIA employees, NSA employees, DHS employees, women's studies professors, NEA administrators and recipients, road construction standabouts and sign flippers, propaganda writers and PSA commercial actors, and about 1000 other positions are all overpaid, and hardly "mythical".

And no, as much as it pisses me off that bad cops get away with bad stuff all the time, and as much as it pisses me off that so much is spent on a military empire we don't need, I will never say we don't need cops, firefighters, and a military. As a matter of fact, almost all the jobs I listed above, I also think are required for a functioning government in some instances. There are just way too much, and they are way overpaid.



Punishing insurance companies won't keep the government from bailing other other companies in the future.

Punishing bankers won't stop the government from printing money.

Deporting all the immigrants won't stop the government from taxing you.

What do you mean by "punishing"? You mean like taking back the money they stole from us in the bailouts? Do you mean like stopping the subsidation of insurance, and ending insurance requirement laws? Deporting all the immigrants would mean more money for American citizens who actually do and have paid taxes, as well as lower rents, etc....


So why do you want to blame people for things that are the fault of government?

Insurance companies and banks run the government. AIG is an insurance company, and it told the government pay all it's buddies $700 Billion, so it wouldn't have to cover it's bad deals itself, and the government agreed. There is no difference especially between the banks and the government.

[anaconda]

What do you suppose GO AFTER means?

Letting them go first?

[r3volution 3.0]

As Lewis Black said, we have a party of no ideas and a party of bad ideas.

Hell, I couldn't even tell you what each party's core message is anymore. The Democrats are all over the damn place and the Republicans haven't decided if they're going to throw away all of their principles and just go flat out populist or not.

As for "going after" big banks, big pharma, and big mergers: I don't think that is a Democratic thing. You can find the same suggestions right here on this forum, usually advocated by the very Trumpiest of posters. This is fundamentally a populist idea, in my opinion, and that is why Trump and Sanders shared many of the same fundamental economic philosophies during the campaign. Everything that is wrong with your life is the fault of somebody else, and that person is (fill in the blank; some suggestions: Mexican, White, rich, a government employee, a private sector employee, a banker). Your life would be way better if only we went and fucked that guy over.

Well said

The Deep State brigade is dancing to the same tune as the Bernie Bros. Contrary to what a couple other posters said, the former are not (almost all of them) interested in (nor do they understand) the market. It's not conservativism, just mindless populist rage. "Get the bankers!" means just what it says, and no more; it's surely not about hard money. Anyway, if the Dems are moving away from weirdosexualism as their totem, and back to good old fashioned populist demogoguery, they'll be more formidable in future elections. Hell, if the Dems carry through on that transformation, and there's a libertarian reaction in the GOP (crosses fingers), expect a great many Trumpers to (re)join the Dems.

[nobody's_hero]

I think most of the time parties are too bold and that's what costs them. If you had a party that just sat in office doing nothing they'd probably get re elected without question.

Unfortunately you have a party that goes rip-roaring across the entire middle east in wars without end, or a party that completely fucks the healthcare system up through the mouth and out the ass.

It's almost as if they get elected and try to do as much damage as they can before they get kicked out again.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

As Lewis Black said, we have a party of no ideas and a party of bad ideas.

Hell, I couldn't even tell you what each party's core message is anymore. The Democrats are all over the damn place and the Republicans haven't decided if they're going to throw away all of their principles and just go flat out populist or not.

As for "going after" big banks, big pharma, and big mergers: I don't think that is a Democratic thing. You can find the same suggestions right here on this forum, usually advocated by the very Trumpiest of posters. This is fundamentally a populist idea, in my opinion, and that is why Trump and Sanders shared many of the same fundamental economic philosophies during the campaign. Everything that is wrong with your life is the fault of somebody else, and that person is (fill in the blank; some suggestions: Mexican, White, rich, a government employee, a private sector employee, a banker). Your life would be way better if only we went and fucked that guy over.


Arm chair blah blah and pseudo intellectualism of tee vee shows. You spouted some basically meaningless crap to--ONCE AGAIN--derail a thread by making it about your pursuit of Trump supporters. You do some nice coffee klatching and derailing, but your one trick pony turned into a bad magic act long ago. This is Ron Paul Forums. Who was your voting choice in 2016? Hillary Clinton? The candidate going after the "super wealthy," "corporations," and "Wall St. banks."



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QMU2iayWK0

[Ender]

Arm chair blah blah and pseudo intellectualism of tee vee shows. You spouted some basically meaningless crap to--ONCE AGAIN--derail a thread by making it about your pursuit of Trump supporters. You do some nice coffee klatching and derailing, but your one trick pony turned into a bad magic act long ago. This is Ron Paul Forums. Who was your voting choice in 2016? Hillary Clinton? The candidate going after the "super wealthy," "corporations," and "Wall St. banks."



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QMU2iayWK0

Actually TheCount was absolutely correct in his post.

And don't hit me- you know I like you. ;)

[Madison320]

I DO pay attention AND I appreciate your honesty but I think you are just falling into the hate-bait pit that a few other members are promoting.

Zip's always been blasted on but, AFIK, the Count only started drawing the hate-bait when he started posting against Trump. Now people try to make him baaaaad and I do not agree. Besides, if you don't like them, put them on ignore.

And, for what it's worth, I don't like the 2 parties, either- just want a Ron Paul or 2 or 3 to help us in this critical time.

Search on old posts. I challenge you to find a negative post about dems by either. That's very weird to me. Anyway I'm tired of arguing about it. :)

[otherone]

I should think it means they mean to follow behind them in an obeisant manner.


...like they HAVE been, but THIS time they ain't gonna be timid about it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Search on old posts. I challenge you to find a negative post about dems by either. That's very weird to me.

You'd also be hard pressed to find an anti-Dem post from me. You know why? There aren't any pro-Dem posts. 99.9% of people here already loathe all Dems, so why beat a dead horse? Similarly, I don't often make posts criticizing cannibalism or the slapping of puppies. Moreover, most of the anti-Dem postings here are actually pro-Trump postings in disguise. For every "Dems are bad because they support illiberal policy X," there are 100 "Dems are bad because they're attacking Trump." I don't jump on that bandwagon because I'm not interested in carrying water for Trump. I'd much rather criticize him, since there are many people here who support him for reasons incomprehensible.

TL;DR - absence of anti-Dem postings =/= Dem support

[TheCount]

Similarly, I don't often make posts criticizing cannibalism or the slapping of puppies. Obviously that's because you are a puppy-slapping baby eater. We don't want your kind here!

[Madison320]

You'd also be hard pressed to find an anti-Dem post from me. You know why? There aren't any pro-Dem posts. 99.9% of people here already loathe all Dems, so why beat a dead horse? Similarly, I don't often make posts criticizing cannibalism or the slapping of puppies. Moreover, most of the anti-Dem postings here are actually pro-Trump postings in disguise. For every "Dems are bad because they support illiberal policy X," there are 100 "Dems are bad because they're attacking Trump." I don't jump on that bandwagon because I'm not interested in carrying water for Trump. I'd much rather criticize him, since there are many people here who support him for reasons incomprehensible.

TL;DR - absence of anti-Dem postings =/= Dem support

Yeah, I've heard that argument but it doesn't make sense. It might make sense if this was a Rush Limbaugh site but it's not. This is a Ron Paul website. A libertarian website, not a right wing republican website. Most of the people here hate both parties. And it has nothing to do with Trump, I've noticed the repub only criticism long before Trump. It's extremely fishy. Especially combined with support for the federal reserve, saying the economy was "good" under Obama (seriously?), downplaying the debt, and some other red flags like equating tax breaks to welfare benefits.


Just out of curiosity do you like the federal reserve? Think the economy was good under Obama? 20 trillion in debt not that bad?

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah, I've heard that argument but it doesn't make sense. It might make sense if this was a Rush Limbaugh site but it's not. This is a Ron Paul website. A libertarian website, not a right wing republican website. Most of the people here hate both parties.

About a quarter of the active members spend all day promoting the sitting Republican President. No one did that when Obama was President, or if they did, they got negged to infinity and/or banned in 10 seconds. There was never any lasting pro-Obama faction here in the way there is now a pro-Trump faction. This site is no longer the hardcore libertarian site it once was; it has become (not entirely, but to a large extent), a Limbaugh type pro-Trump site.


And it has nothing to do with Trump, I've noticed the repub only criticism long before Trump. It's extremely fishy.

It has everything to do with Trump. Pre-Trump, there was no faction here promoting mainstream political candidates. We were pretty much all united in opposition to basically everybody in DC except for the Pauls, Amashes, etc. Naturally, most of the criticism was focused on GOPers, because those were the immediate obstacles (it wasn't Dems screwing Ron in the GOP primaries). Then Trump comes along and, as I said above, a quarter of the membership become Trump promoters. Anti-Trump posting from the rest of us was the natural reaction.


Especially combined with support for the federal reserve, saying the economy was "good" under Obama (seriously?), downplaying the debt, and some other red flags like equating tax breaks to welfare benefits.

Yea, a couple people on this forum are leftists on economic issues, Zippy the only prominent one. I've never seen The Count post leftist material. But anyway, the point is, the absence of anti-Dem posting, and prevalence of anti-Trump posting, is not evidence of a Democratic Party plot. It's the natural reaction of libertarians against their forum being overrun by supporters of the extremely anti-liberty sitting GOP President. If a couple years ago a quarter of the members had suddenly joined the Obamanation and spammed the forum with pro-Obama promotions, you'd have seen an equal and opposite reaction.

[Ender]

About a quarter of the active members spend all day promoting the sitting Republican President. No one did that when Obama was President, or if they did, they got negged to infinity and/or banned in 10 seconds. There was never any lasting pro-Obama faction here in the way there is now a pro-Trump faction. This site is no longer the hardcore libertarian site it once was; it has become (not entirely, but to a large extent), a Limbaugh type pro-Trump site.



It has everything to do with Trump. Pre-Trump, there was no faction here promoting mainstream political candidates. We were pretty much all united in opposition to basically everybody in DC except for the Pauls, Amashes, etc. Naturally, most of the criticism was focused on GOPers, because those were the immediate obstacles (it wasn't Dems screwing Ron in the GOP primaries). Then Trump comes along and, as I said above, a quarter of the membership become Trump promoters. Anti-Trump posting from the rest of us was the natural reaction.



Yea, a couple people on this forum are leftists on economic issues, Zippy the only prominent one. I've never seen The Count post leftist material. But anyway, the point is, the absence of anti-Dem posting, and prevalence of anti-Trump posting, is not evidence of a Democratic Party plot. It's the natural reaction of libertarians against their forum being overrun by supporters of the extremely anti-liberty sitting GOP President. If a couple years ago a quarter of the members had suddenly joined the Obamanation and spammed the forum with pro-Obama promotions, you'd have seen an equal and opposite reaction.

Pretty much my POV.

[Madison320]

Yea, a couple people on this forum are leftists on economic issues, Zippy the only prominent one. I've never seen The Count post leftist material.

Here ya go:




That's true, an increase in the base of 10%, 20% even 50% could easily be hidden by other factors and we might not ever notice it. But we increased it by something like 400-500%. It will get noticed.


If this is an economic fact, then the effects would have happened already.





Plus I believe we are going to print more.


People have been repeating that continuously on this forum since the end of the last round of QE. Anything is possible, of course, but the economy is performing very well and there's no reason to think that they would do so without a major change in economic conditions.






Don't you think the markets have tripled because of QE?



Not in the way that you mean, no. If the markets had tripled solely due to inflation, then it would be extremely apparent in all aspects of the market.

[r3volution 3.0]

Madison320

I don't see anything particularly leftist in those comments; nowhere does The Count praise any of the state's illiberal economic policies.

He's simply disagreeing with you on their effects.

Being a libertarian, and recognizing that QE (for instance) is harmful, doesn't require one to have any particular economic forecast.

I, for one, don't expect a hyperinflationary collapse in the near future, yet I'm as critical of inflationary monetary policy as one can be.

[TheCount]

Here ya go:
Those same posts again?
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512296-Trump-election-panel-asks-all-50-states-for-voter-roll-data&p=6495367&viewfull=1#post6495367)
https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Creepy-Condescending-Wonka.jpg

[TheCount]

@Madison320 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=37914)

I don't see anything particularly leftist in those comments; nowhere does The Count praise any of the state's illiberal economic policies.

He's simply disagreeing with you on their effects.

Being a libertarian, and recognizing that QE (for instance) is harmful, doesn't require one to have any particular economic forecast.

I, for one, don't expect a hyperinflationary collapse in the near future, yet I'm as critical of inflationary monetary policy as one can be.

Since Madison broke the links when he quoted it, here's the thread itself: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?505372-FED-Raises-Rates-for-2nd-Time-in-Decade/


This is the second time he's attempted to derail in this exact same manner with the same quotes. I suspect that it won't be the last.

[r3volution 3.0]

Those same posts again?
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512296-Trump-election-panel-asks-all-50-states-for-voter-roll-data&p=6495367&viewfull=1#post6495367)
https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Creepy-Condescending-Wonka.jpg

From that thread:


What is the benefit to pretending that a increase of X in the money supply will always cause a predictable increase of Y in prices, whether stock prices or otherwise? It's simple and from the point of view of philosophy it may feel good, but it's not an convincing argument for anyone who bothers to look at the actual changes in the market because it will never pan out to be a direct 1-for-1 correlation.

That's not even the Austrian theory; it's the simple quantity theory of money, discredited a long time ago. Anyone attacking The Count for denying that an increase in the money supply must cause a proportional increase in prices doesn't even understand the ideology they claim to be defending.

[Madison320]

From that thread:



That's not even the Austrian theory; it's the simple quantity theory of money, discredited a long time ago. Anyone attacking The Count for denying that an increase in the money supply must cause a proportional increase in prices doesn't even understand the ideology they claim to be defending.

All things being equal it will. Since it grew by 500% what's going to offset it?

So you think the economy is performing well? You skipped that part. Also the part where I said QE caused the markets to triple. You disagree with that as well?

[r3volution 3.0]

All things being equal it will. Since it grew by 500% what's going to offset it?

All things being equal, of course, but is that what you and The Count were discussing?

It looked to me like you weren't discussing pure theory in a ceteris paribus world, but economic reality.

And in economic reality, if output increases sufficiently, inflation will not cause an increase in the price level.

...it still causes problems, of course, just not price increases.


So you think the economy is performing well?

Relative to what? Living standards aren't too bad in the US right now I'd say.

There are massive structural problems beneath the surface, which will eventually make themselves felt, but that's another matter.

[Madison320]

All things being equal, of course, but is that what you and The Count were discussing?

It looked to me like you weren't discussing pure theory in a ceteris paribus world, but economic reality.

And in economic reality, if output increases sufficiently, inflation will not cause an increase in the price level.

...it still causes problems, of course, just not price increases.



Relative to what? Living standards aren't too bad in the US right now I'd say.

There are massive structural problems beneath the surface, which will eventually make themselves felt, but that's another matter.


OK I give up. But I'm expecting something to happen in the near future and then we'll know who's right.

[r3volution 3.0]

OK I give up. But I'm expecting something to happen in the near future and then we'll know who's right.

Point is, it doesn't matter who's right; good libertarians can disagree on economic forecasting.

You can believe hyperinflation is coming tommorow and I not, and we're both libertarians provide we both object to inflationary monetary policy.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And don't hit me- you know I like you. ;)


No, I know I've never negged you and don't foresee that at all.

Over 99% of my negs are for trolls. I don't neg people for difference of opinion. I neg for bad behavior and shitty behavior. I neg people who get paid to post here.

[Madison320]

Point is, it doesn't matter who's right; good libertarians can disagree on economic forecasting.

You can believe hyperinflation is coming tommorow and I not, and we're both libertarians provide we both object to inflationary monetary policy.

I agree, but that's not where I was going.

[gaazn]

Their message is still jacked up because they won't abandon mega tech corporatism. These are the companies that will enable the government to actually execute their goal of tyranny.

[Zippyjuan]

All things being equal it will. Since it grew by 500% what's going to offset it?

So you think the economy is performing well? You skipped that part. Also the part where I said QE caused the markets to triple. You disagree with that as well?

Over what period of time did the money supply grow by 500%?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2

It is currently at $3.2 trillion. Growing by 500% would mean starting at $2.2 trillion. That was 35 years ago. How much did the economy grow in that time? If the economy grows at zero percent and the money supply grows at 500% then maybe you will see prices go up 500%.