Silence Gives Assent..

HOISTED by yer own Picard!! :D

Michale

Michale

Your delusions are expected, and pathetic.

SHOCKING!!! SHOCKING I tell you!!!! :D

1000 quatloos says you'll support Hillary if she, by some miracle, get's the nomination.. :D

Michale

Running a bit late on this one, but the part about Hillary saying they couldn't even get the public option voted on when Dems controlled both houses of Congress is pure nonsense... revisionism.

Obama took the public option off the table in a backroom deal with the insurers.
Kind of hard to get a vote when the president capitulates on his own legislation before a vote can occur.

So, basically, Hillary was lying... and not making a valid point in any way.

If Obama had wanted a vote on the public option, there would have been one.
(and with a little arm twisting of a certain sniveling Senator with little arms, it would have passed too)

A

Going in to obtuse mode? I responded to the wikipedia article by pointing out that the "force" is the elimination of a minor tax deduction. No compulsion at all...

Looks like CNN has just given a big mighty FRAK U!! to the DNC and is giving Hillary another shot at Bernie...

1000 quatloos says that Bernie wipes the floor with Hillary...

AGAIN... :D

Michale

I don't know what you are trying to prove, Bashi..

WE ARE IN AGREEMENT...

Why does that hurt you so??? :D

Really? Where? Your quote from a source so obscure that you can't post it's source?

Apparently, the "lip service" DOES include "compulsion"..

But, it's a moot point. We are in complete agreement.. :D

I know, I know.. That hurts... But there it is...

Michale

By ending a single, one time tax deduction of relocation expenses when moving facilities over seas. Not exactly what I would consider "force"...

According to your link:

the Senate voted to advance the bill for consideration in a vote of 93-7.

Yup, both sides give the issue lip service...

Corporations would be FORCED...

I agree, a global minimum wage would destroy outsourcing, and stabilize job markets internationally, not to mention force corporations to play a little more fairly.

FORCE corporations..

Well.... I am glad there aren't any progressives who are advocating FORCING corporations to do anything.. :D

Michale

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the bill "would end senseless tax breaks for outsourcers" and "would end the absurd practice of American taxpayers bankrolling the outsourcing of their very own jobs."[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_Jobs_Home_Act

By ending the tax breaks, Congress would FORCE corporations to bring the jobs back to the US...

Like I said, we are in complete agreement on the issue, so no worries.. :D

Michale

Are you? Notice that sentence ended with a question mark and not a period...

Isn't that the argument that progressives make??

I have yet to see progressives or anyone else from either side of the political spectrum make the argument that companies should be forced to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. Trump seems to be unique here. Both sides give "bring back manufacturing jobs" lip service during elections but the plans are always vague and do not include compulsion.

And the reason it wouldn't be workable is that corporations, even EVIL corporations, have rights and shouldn't be FORCED to do things that are anathema to the freedoms we enjoy as Americans..

So, I completely agree with you Bashi. Forcing corporations to do things like bring home labor is not the answer..

Trump is wrong in that regard...

So are the progressives...

Michale

So, you are defending slave labor.. Er, excuse me. You are defending "decent pay" slave labor..

WHO ARE YOU!! And what have you done with Bashi!!! :D

I'll be sure and remember that you said that, as long as the slavers pay the higher end of the slave labor pay scale (they pay 8 cents an hour instead of the normal 3 cents an hour) then THAT is acceptable..

:D

But, as usual, you totally miss the point to push an unpopular agenda...

American companies should bring those jobs to America for Americans...

Isn't that the argument that progressives make??

Yes it is...

Isn't that the argument that Donald Trump is making..

Yes it is...

So, Donald Trump and Progressives are on the same page in this regard..

And that just chap's ya'all's arse, now doesn't it?? :D

For the record, I agree with you. While such a plan sounds good as a political sound bite and as red meat to throw to the hystericals, it wouldn't be workable in the reality of the hear and now..

My only goal in bringing this up was to show that what would normally be a "good idea" for progressives is suddenly a HORRIBLE idea when progressives find out that the "good idea" came from the mouth of Donald Trump..

Thereby proving, once again, that it's only the almighty '-D'/'-R' that matters...

Michale

Are you defending Free Trade??

My how the worm has turned.. :D

Bashi is protecting the rights of evil corporations, wants to impose slave labor, forget about a living wage and is defending free trade..

I'll have to remember this conversation. :D

Michale

Actually, I assume I know what copy and paste points make up your hysterical tear and choose to ignore it. If I respond, you can rest assured I have read the post and any linked articles.

Isn't that what you accuse me of with the links I post?? :D

No. Generally you make a point based on an link bait headline which is contradicted about two thirds in to the article you link to but have failed to read. Bit of a difference there...

And THAT is the problem.. Why can't APPLE have the assembly in the US??

Because they would have to pay a LIVING WAGE instead of pennies for slave labor..

In US prices, yes it would be under market value for labor. In china, Foxxcon jobs pay well comparatively speaking and get many more applications than jobs available.

You SUPPORT slave labor, Bashi??? :D

Do you? I ask again, how many electronic items in your shop are made in china? You can profit off Chinese "slave" labor but other businesses can't? Or only Apple? Are you still in to Xboxs? If so, any reason you are not calling for Microsoft to bring that assembly to the US?

Define "force"...

Government Regulation..

Is this regulation only about Apple or are you calling for the end of free trade?

Government Regulation..

Michale

So, in other words, you just assume you know what I am going to say and respond accordingly..

Isn't that what you accuse me of with the links I post?? :D

Yes, china does the assembly.

And THAT is the problem.. Why can't APPLE have the assembly in the US??

Because they would have to pay a LIVING WAGE instead of pennies for slave labor..

You SUPPORT slave labor, Bashi??? :D

Michale

Also, ask yourself this: where is Trump branded merchandise made? Why is he not leading by example?

Now I'd like that. But that s**t ain't the truth. The truth is… you're the weak, and I am the tyranny of evil men. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.

i'd like that, but that s**t ain't the case.
jules winfield (samuel l. jackson)~ pulp fiction

the fact is, obama's vote in both elections was bolstered big-time by the fact that the guy looks like a hollywood star. bernie, not so much. unless you count christopher lloyd in back to the future...

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bernie-700x700.jpg

JL

Define "force"...

What can I say, when you are on a hysterical streak, I tend to give your posts the ol' bla, bla, bla, scroll, scroll, scroll. You have become so repetitive that I rarely miss anything, case in point excepted...

OK, now I know it's you who have had one tee meeny martoonies.. :D

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/01/08/ftp373/#comment-68462

I have been back for over a week now...

Try and keep up... :D

Michale

Apparently, those who don't agree are nothing but corporate shills who just want to enrich the 1% at the expense of middle class Americans...

WOW... Never thought I could accurately say that around here, eh!!??? :D

But seriously, this little experiment has been a smashing success..

I throw an idea out there that sounds pretty reasonable and get a positive response...

Once the idea is revealed to be a TRUMP idea, then all hell breaks loose and the Left Wingery comes outta the woodwork to denounce the heretofore good idea...

"Mission accomplished!"
-Rod, STARGATE ATLANTIS

:D

Michale

You are a true Trump supporter...

Actually, as you well know, I can't vote in the Primaries... Ergo, I am not supporting anyone...

But I have to admit..

I LOVE the way Trump get's ya'all's panties in a twist...

I really love that.. :D

Michale

Or Government SHOULDN'T force corporations to do something..

Oh!!! Oh wait!!! Oh!!! Oh!!! I got it..

Government SHOULD force corporations to do things that further the Left Wingery agenda...

But Government should NOT force corporations to do things that DOESN'T further the Left Wingery agenda...

That's it, right!!???? :D

Michale

One of us is too drunk to be posting.. :D

You said: "I certainly don't agree that Trump should try and force apple to bring the jobs back to the US..."

Then *I* said: "So, what you are saying is that government shouldn't FORCE corporations to do anything...

Then YOU said: "I said no such thing"

So, which is it??

Government should FORCE corporations to do something??

Or Government SHOULDN'T force corporations to do something..

Make up yer mind...

Or, go my route and have another beer.. :D

Michale

Still blathering, eh?

You are a true Trump supporter...

Bullshit. Back it up. It's on this page so it should be easy for even you to point it out...

Yawn. The old cut and paste response? I mentioned there were many factors. You chose a single one. Who is really cherry picking?

Really?? Government regulation is pure naked unadulterated FORCE....

So, NOW you are claiming that Government Regulation is unconstitutional??

Double yawn. If you are going to run both sides of an argument, is there really any reason for anyone else to participate?

And a corporate sympathizer to boot!!!

Avoiding the question, eh? Where was your new TV made and would you have gotten it if it cost three times as much?

Why, Bashi! Yer a Trumpkin!!! Nice ta have you out of the closet.. :D heh

What are you blathering about now?

Michale

Hence the part you conveniently left out of the quote. Would you have gotten that huge TV you were boasting about around Christmas if it had cost three times as much? Was it made in the USA?

I was talking about APPLE... I wouldn't be caught DEAD with an IPHONE, hence I don't have a dog in the hunt if APPLE raises it's prices...

But, golly gee, I never seen you defend the Corporate 1%'ers with such passion... :D

Michale

I said no such thing.

Uh.. you just did..

"Certainly not by force. Sounds a bit too unconstitutional to me.."

Are you schizophrenic today???

Michale

And, as usual, I blame your cherry picking of only the facts that suit yer agenda..

What's yer point? :D

Certainly not by force. Sounds a bit too unconstitutional to me..

Really?? Government regulation is pure naked unadulterated FORCE....

So, NOW you are claiming that Government Regulation is unconstitutional??

Why, Bashi! Yer a Trumpkin!!! Nice ta have you out of the closet.. :D heh

Everyone likes to pick on apple because they are the big dog but how many electronic items in your shop are made in the USA? How many are made in China?

And a corporate sympathizer to boot!!!

Who would have thunked it!!??? Shirley not I...

Michale

I said no such thing.

"Ya know what? I think it IS funny.. It's a hoot...."
-Tony Stark, AVENGERS - AGE OF ULTRON

:D

Michale

You paraphrased a small part of what Cook said. As usual, I blame your lack of reading skills...

Yet you would agree that the government should FORCE Corporations to be more progressive..

Would I?

I don't have a dog in that hunt so I am not one to ask..

Hence the part you conveniently left out of the quote. Would you have gotten that huge TV you were boasting about around Christmas if it had cost three times as much? Was it made in the USA?

Everyone likes to pick on apple because they are the big dog but how many electronic items in your shop are made in the USA? How many are made in China?

People like the idea of forcing Apple to bring their labor back to the United States..

Certainly not by force. Sounds a bit too unconstitutional to me..

So, what you are saying is that government shouldn't FORCE corporations to do anything...

Right?? :D

Michale

Really??

Yet you would agree that the government should FORCE Corporations to be more progressive..

How is that any different??

This is such a gross over simplification that it borders on bullshit. Tax is one reason but far from the only one.

Hay, I just paraphrased Tim Cook.. You have a beef with that, blame him...

Lets turn this around, would you like Apple to make it's products in the US if it meant much higher prices?

I don't have a dog in that hunt so I am not one to ask..

I was asking the question from the context of jobs for American workers..

But overall you proved my point perfectly, Bashi..

People like the idea of forcing Apple to bring their labor back to the United States..

Right up to the point that they find out that TRUMP had that idea..

NOW, all of the sudden, it's a bad idea.. :D

Funny, iddn't it.. :D

Michale

You have written about - and I'm not sure I'm saying this right - how eliminating the cap on earnings for Social Security premiums can make that program solvent.

Have any of the Democrat presidential candidates talked about this?

That's an excellent point, Bashi, which I was going to mention. But, then I thought ... what could be done to change that part of the equation that would make it just as profitable for Apple to make their product at home as it is to make in China.

Is this where free and fair trade agreements come in. China is not part of the TPP for many good reasons. Will there come a day when labour costs in China are comparable to those in the US?

I certainly don't agree that Trump should try and force apple to bring the jobs back to the US...

According to the APPLE Chief Executive, Tim Cook, the tax code in the US sucks purple panther piss for large corporations and that's why he has to ship the labor for his country overseas...

This is such a gross over simplification that it borders on bullshit. Tax is one reason but far from the only one.

Lets turn this around, would you like Apple to make it's products in the US if it meant much higher prices? (Or swap apple out with the hardware maker of products you actually buy)...

Until Chris's next piece, then ...

Agreed...

Michale

:D

heh

Michale

Probably because it's not politically possible to give more consideration/incentives to large corporations..

Large corporations are the devil's spawn, don'tcha know.. :D

But regardless of that, do you see how we can have fun and meaningful discussions if we start with the idea that Republicans are NOT terrorists and actually CAN have good ideas???

We started with an idea that both you and Trump agree on and viola....

Instant Meaningful Discussion.. Just Add Political Agnosticity.. An old word I just made up... :D

Michale

So, why doesn't the US Congress do anything about that. Or, are they currently considering legislation to change the tax code?

I mean, this has been a problem for a long time. I don't understand why various Congresses and administrations don't work together on an issue like this to encourage US companies to do the right thing ...

But we're not talking about US CHINA relations..

We're talking about whether or not Trump is right insofar that APPLE should make their products here in the US....

Michale

But you DO agree with Trump that APPLE should make their products in the US with US workers...

Right??

I see you didn't answer my questions ...

Yea, I did to you what is always done to me. Ignoring questions that don't serve my agenda...

But I felt like crap doing it so I'll answer.. :D

According to the APPLE Chief Executive, Tim Cook, the tax code in the US sucks purple panther piss for large corporations and that's why he has to ship the labor for his country overseas...

Michale

The world does not work that way.

I see you didn't answer my questions ...

So.. You agree with Donald Trump.....

Trump: Apple should build 'their damn things' in US
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/19/trump-apple-should-build-their-damn-things-in-us.html

Michale

Why isn't Apple doing that?

Is there a role for the US government in ensuring that Apple does that?

Do you think it's a good idea to have APPLE quit shipping all it's labor for it's products and build them here in the US instead??

Don't you think that's a good idea??

Michale

Not at all.. I often point to GOOD things coming from the Right *AND* the Left..

But ya'all want to discuss nothing but the bad aspects of Republicans ONLY...

I'm here to discuss the issues and the future of US policy, foreign and domestic. So far, I have been unable to have such a discussion with you turning into something else altogether.

Probably because the starting point of ANY discussion here is "OBAMA GOOD REPUBLICANS TERRORISTS" and then branches off from there..

If you can admit that Democrats aren't ALL good and Republicans aren't ALL bad, THEN... and only then... could we have an "enlightened" discussion..

But no one here can admit that...

Can anyone here admit that Donald Trump might ACTUALLY be a good POTUS for this country??

Nope.. No one can...

So how is ANY enlightened discussion even possible???

Until anyone here can admit that they MIGHT be wrong about Democrats and Republicans.... well, I can't see how any enlightened discussion is possible...

The problem is that CW.com is not really the best site to engage in your idea of an enlightened discussion and yet, that is mostly what we get here.

My idea of enlightened discussion begins with the idea that there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans..

THAT is the objective and reality-based foundation of my position...

But ya'all can't come to grips with the idea that Democrats MIGHT be frakin' things up and Republicans MIGHT actually be doing good for the country...

Until ya'all can get to that point, then I have to agree with you..

No "enlightened" discussion is possible...

Michale

Meant to say WITHOUT you turning it into ...

You want to discuss nothing but the bad aspects of Democrats, Republicans and God knows what else.

I'm here to discuss the issues and the future of US policy, foreign and domestic. So far, I have been unable to have such a discussion with you turning into something else altogether.

The problem is that CW.com is not really the best site to engage in your idea of an enlightened discussion and yet, that is mostly what we get here.

What do you call a discussion where FACTS are "pedantic" and unwelcome???

A day in the life of a typical Weigantian... :D

Michale

The two are exact opposites in theory only...

In practice, here in Weigantia, they are identical..

Because we can never have a discussion or debate on any aspect of politics if that aspect casts the Obama Administration or Democrats in general in a bad light. Only discussions that treat Obama and the Democrats as pure angels are "enlightened discussions"...

Our discussion in the last FTP on racism is a perfect example..

Everyone was all in when discussing Trump's alleged (and unproven) racism... When the issue of DEMOCRATS and THEIR racism was brought up.... All of the sudden it became an unenlightened discussion that was, apparently, beneath the discussion participants...

No one wants to discuss the BAD aspects of the Democrat Party and the Obama administration..... Such discussions are "un-enlightened" discussions..

Isn't that the very definition of an "echo chamber"???

Michale

And your MO is to ignore anything bad about the Left Wingery...

But you won't find me complaining about it.. Well, not about you specifically.. :D

We debate with the partners we have, not with the partners we would like to have... :D That's my motto...

Michale

By all means, point it out and we can discuss it...

What could possibly be more fair than that??

Michale

Oh, I realize that.. :D

But the fact that you can do it without your tongue turning to fire....

"If the Evil One speaks those words, his tongue will surely turn to fire!!"
-Cloud William, STAR TREK

:D

... indicates that you can look past the '-D'/'-R' phenomena.. :D

Michale

For example???

Michale

Stop your futile attempts to change the meaning of words. I won't tolerate any longer!

Don't get me wrong. You deserve massive accolades for your efforts..

The mere fact that you mention Trump in a positive light w/o any of the normal Left Wingery affectations that pass for "enlightened" and "meaningful" discussions indicates to a political agnostic such as myself that you do, in fact, get it..

But yours is a single rational voice in a sea of Left Wingery and Right Wingery hysteria...

But, as I said.. Kudos for trying...

Michale

The reason why your ideas won't work is because Party Loyalty takes precedence over ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION...

Donald Trumps candidacy is the EPITOME... The textbook definition of EXACTLY what you describe...

And yet, in spite of that, Trump is vilified on a daily, sometimes HOURLY basis...

The *ONLY* thing that matters is the '-D' or '-R' that is after the person's name..

ANY other consideration is a distant, a far distant second..

PARTY UBER ALLES...

Michale

Kudos on the allusion.. :D

Michale

...both candidates furthered their cause with a particular emphasis towards appealing to South Carolina and minority voters..."

"Hillary Clinton's campaign is smarter than some progressives now might think."

The above is consistent with CW's spot-on analysis of the best mid game strategies for H. and B. Both campaigns ought post these put these rules on the wall in big block letters"

Camp Clinton:

C1. "When Republicans control Congress (even just the House), it is nearly impossible to pass any truly revolutionary or even progressive changes...This paints Clinton into a corner."

C3. "Clinton should spin her incrementalist nature as being a positive thing."

Camp Sanders

S1. "Bernie Sanders has finally broken through the media's previous silence about his campaign."

S3. "Bernie should absolutely hammer Clinton on how, when she talks about compromising and do-able achievements, she always seems to move towards the Republican position.

I would only add my take that the objectives driving the strategies of Clinton and Sanders campaign are very different.

Clinton's strategy is to win the nomination and go on to win the general election, period.

Sanders' primary objective is to drive Clinton more towards the center. He may feel that this actually enhances the chances of her winning (with bigger coat tails) or he may not. Winning the nomination is a secondary "target of opportunity" that is possible, but fairly unlikely. This is fully consistent with Sanders' Senatorial career-he doesn't initiate legislation, he modifies other politicians legislation to make it more progressive.

Ooops...

At NO TIME, in the history of this country, has a Party retained the White House when the incumbent's approval rating has been below 50%..

My bust... :D

Michale

Put another way...

At NO TIME, in the history of this country, has a Party retained the White House when the incumbents approval rating has been below 50%..

Never... Not once... Ever....

"Yea, well.. History is going to change. "
-Michael J Fox, BACK TO THE FUTURE

:D

Michale

Just run a campaign ad with Bill Clinton saying, over and over, "Com'on! A few years ago this guy would have been carrying our luggage!"

South Carolina would feel The Bern then, I can tell you.. :D

"Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
-Louis Tulley, GHOSTBUSTERS

:D

Michale

. He basic position might be summed up as "the politics of the possible."

Forgot the 'r'... :D

Hillary needs to make this one of her core arguments against Bernie, even more so than she did last night. The most interesting thing Hillary's now doing is to (as one pundit put it) "wrap herself in Obama." I actually do give Clinton a lot of credit for her full-throated defense of Obama's record and legacy, which (in the larger sense) is a rebuke of how Democrats ran for office in 2010 and 2014. Defend Obamacare (Hillary is telling the rest of the party), defend and praise Obama's record in general, and remind everyone why they voted for him in the first place. If Obama's approval with the public goes up, it will benefit Democrats all up and down the ballot next year.

That's a BIG "if", my friend.. :D Obama's numbers are going down, remember??

But the biggest problem with Hillary selling herself as Obama's third term is that the American People have OVERWHELMINGLY (over 70%) and EXPLICITLY stated that they DON'T WANT an Obama third term! (Aside to Joshua... pppfffffffttttttttttt :D heh)

So, if Hillary tries to sell herself as Obama's third term, the American people won't buy it and she will lose...

There's a very good reason why Hillary Clinton is making such a big deal out of gun control, of course -- because that's the only real issue on which she can position herself to Bernie's left.

That's another reason why Hillary will lose... Gun Control is a dead issue. Only the most rabid anti-gun fanatic believes that a gun ban is possible..

Liz,

And that is the proposition that the fundamental challenge to democracy itself is the influence of big money on the political process and that until that is properly removed as an obstacle to governing in the public interest very little progress can be made on any of the issues that most Americans care about.

You won't see that happen in any meaningful way, either by Democrats or Republicans..

Democrats have too much invested in the status quo to allow anything to be done about it.. They only pay lip service to the idea just to get the sheeple to vote for them...

Republicans just don't give a flying frak and don't even bother with lip service.. At least the GOP is honest about their attitude...

Michale

And that is the proposition that the fundamental challenge to democracy itself is the influence of big money on the political process and that until that is properly removed as an obstacle to governing in the public interest very little progress can be made on any of the issues that most Americans care about.

My advice to Hillary is to take on this issue as her own and build a coalition with Americans of both parties who believe in real campaign finance reform and work towards eliminating the need for elective office holders to spend the bulk of their waking hours on fundraising for their campaigns.

This may take nothing short of a major shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court but there must be other ways to begin to move forward on this ...

I have heard that Senator Sanders is not "presidential" and, therefore, I assume that means he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination or that, if he does, he can't win the general.

Would you concur with that assessment?