Hmm. Giving employees the right to elect at least 40% of the boards of large companies is a good idea IMO. So is enforcing antitrust laws. Reducing big money influence on elections is a good goal. So is decriminalizing (and taxing) marijuana. And reducing military spending also seems like a good idea. Would you disagree with those things?
I don't agree with the first one, enforcing existing laws isn't much of a plan, reducing big money influence on elections is a great idea (the only one that really matters) but the Supreme Court always quashes that one. I don't care about pot but if you are going to do it don't tax it to the point that the black market is cheaper or you have done nothing. Yes, reducing military spending is another very good idea. I wasn't being literal that no candidate has no ideas. Encouraging Biden and Saunders to run isn't a winning plan. I don't see anyone with the momentum of Obama, Clinton or Carter (bad President but had momentum).
That famous eyesight again - like a little kid with their hands over their eyes, thinking the world has disappeared. The "bothsides" frame traps another victim. Nothing in my posting - not the vocabulary, not the arguments, not the priorities, not the framing of the issues, none of it - can be identified as taken from any Partisan media source. One reason is simple: The Dems don't have their own continent-wide network of TV stations, dedicated cable outlets, devoted newspapers, reliable radio hosts, etc., repeating the Party Line, so I could know what it is today and you could identify its source. Major media outlets are controlled by corporations, and the corporate money is backing the Republican Party's tax cuts. If I wanted to parrot Dem Party propaganda, I wouldn't be able to find an adequate source. Another reason is also simple: I disagree with the official Democratic Party's positions on lots of stuff, and their arguments on even more stuff. And the third - major - reason is also simple: my posting aligns with physical reality, historical event, and reasoned observation. The way you guys are identified as bubbledwellers in the Republican Party fantasy world is by your common errors and falsehoods and so forth. That doesn't work for anyone else. There's no way to separate my posting from anyone's who reasons from evidence, Dem or Rep or Other; you guys, on the other hand, are posting bs with only one source on this planet.
No really. It depends of the issue. It's it's deemed to be unconstitutional Congress can't override that. If it's just a matter of changing a law, sure.
I can tell that you are influenced by the Democratic Party Propaganda because you are so stridently one-sided and ignorant of economics. That's the giveaway. You might as well come out of the closet.
1) That's not possible. For starters, there is no Partisan side for me to be one-sided on - the Republican Party is unique in that respect, and I'm not on that side. 2) And you apparently have no idea what Democratic Party Propaganda would even look like (assuming Dems don't know their econ is kind of stupid) 3) And - cherry on top, watching you fall into that trap again - you have no idea of my personal knowledge or education in economics. it's clearly enough to mock your sillier assertions (no monopoly possible in tech? ), but beyond that you are just flailing around trying to gin up a personal attack, which you probably don't want to do. Are you sure I'm an American? That one was kind of fun.
A McGovern Democrat is partisan. Any political position is partisan. I can tell your posted online knowledge of economics. I'm not a mind-reader of course. I can tell that your posted opinions are Democratic Party Propaganda. I'm being no more personal than you are.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for the clown car: Detail of cartoon by Zach Weiner, 12 June 2015 Too clever by half. To wit, sure, I can figure out what happened by reading around and finding another time stamp—(true, there remains the possibility it wasn't a gaffe, and you wanted my attention for some reason)—but reading the line in the present thread, I cannot help but recall your post in another discussion: "Is Amazon delivering for everyone now?" #3592791/36↗ I don't know if you were too clever by half, per se, but something certainly seems to have gone awry.
To wit, a clown car, a cartoon, shall I say, ergo an attempt at humor, not particularly successful but somehow meaningful, and yet not.
? Seems confused. McGovern Democrats are populating these forums? All political positions have Parties? Where's mine? But no problem: whether "Partisan" or not, mine's not Democratic. You said it was, you were wrong. Then how come you're consistently wrong about it? I'd have thought you'd have learned better, after embarrassing yourself a few times trying to guess my personal info for the purpose of personal denigration - but no, you guys have a limited number of tricks, and that one is central to your posting here. If you don't know, you have to guess, apparently. So learn to guess better, maybe? At any rate, learn to not post claims such as 'there is no monopoly in tech', especially when trying to claim superior knowledge of economics. And - another tip - don't use terms like "strident", or "Democratic Party Propaganda". You don't know what they mean, and they are bubbleboy terms - they reveal your source. Not that there's any mystery. You don't know what my posted opinions are, and you don't know what Democratic Party Propaganda is. Meanwhile: have you gone back and reviewed Reagan's tenure as President? A while ago you seemed unaware that Trump's Republican Presidency was essentially a continuation of Reagan's damaging misrule - that is basic political information Americans can't do without.
I'm still waiting to hear an original thought. I'm already aware of the Democratic Party Propaganda. Unless you are autistic (and if you are I apologize) you don't need to take things so literally. Tech companies, if they get them, tend to have natural monopolies (no laws broken...just the first to have a good idea) and since there are plenty of good ideas around those concentrations don't tend to be absolute or to last. You are obsessed on this subject, apparently, calling for Amazon to be "broken up". You don't understand economics.
... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law understanding trade regulations ... understanding how to make money ... there is a difference between making money and navigating trade regulation it is not difficult to make money in small amounts or illegal amounts... it is difficult to make money legally and in large amounts because large amounts of trade ownership dictates social culture and civil society(equally that illegal money propagates crime) its all well n good to claim business should not care about society, however... if there were no society there would be no business. putting the kart before the horse ? Society owns the space that business asks to operate in. business wants civil society to pay for policing to ensure the business has equal protection to living individuals. bring back less sleazey business ? = no more outsourcing ? no such thing as tax free shopping ? this sounds like your reading from a bible ... whats the bible called ?
alt-right economic jungle theory for conservative apologists ? ... "no i wont say, you guess and tell me what you think so can try an make sure you wont guess so i can not answer and make it look like im continuing to engage while i just try and play you" ... u huh i get it bit boring
"Alt-right jungle theory for conservative apologists". Who can have an intelligent discussion when the other side is only interested in word salad?
You have no idea what "Democratic Party Propaganda" would look like. Apparently you think it must exist (maybe because Republican Party propaganda exists and you are trapped in the bothsides schtick) but that isn't enough of a clue to what it would be, and so you substitute your presumptions for the missing reality. As far as being original? The mistakes you are making are not original, or sophisticated - pretty much the standard wingnut spiel, Saint Reagan larded with "bothsides" rhetoric from the Republican media feed. So the responses are essentially rote - mostly references to actual economic theory, which anyone who thinks Reagan's Presidency and supply side bs was good for America needs to brush up on right now, and observations of economic reality, which aligns poorly with the early chapters of Econ textbooks. The tech monopolies you can see by looking around have not been "temporary", were not the product of somebody being first with a "good idea", and were not supplanted by the good ideas that came later (they have proved willing and able to either suppress or incorporate threats). Likewise with Amazon, Walmart, et al. So you need to read up a bit on this "natural monopoly" concept - either you've forgotten, or you never got it straight in the first place. I handed you a link, or you could revisit your old books, it's not rocket science. I am "obsessed", "hysterical", "strident", - in a minute here I expect to have been "screeching", "ranting", and so forth. It's the only way you guys know. Meanwhile, you are of course wrong again about my personal stuff - and once again with the evidence right in front of you: breaking up Amazon is just one possible approach mentioned among my posts. Regulation would be another, re-establishing the basic structure of a free market - and I'm not obsessed with that either. I haven't even been focused on Amazon, let alone "obsessed". What I have been focused on, if you want to quit screwing around attempting personal insults, is the Republican Party's propaganda domination of the public discussion in the US. The revision of Reagan's godawful tenure into something good, a time of progress and so forth, marks the propaganda-mediated transition into bubbleworld that has brought us a fascist takeover of one of our major political parties. It's not a benign or innocent delusion - it is a separation of political thought from reality itself. Harm will come of it. More harm. Trump=Reagan Reagan=Trump.