"Wealth inequality". Hack, spit!

One of the stupidest, oh-poor-me whines ever invented. If you have no idea how the real world works, of COURSE you're going to be and stay poor.

The only conspiracy to keep you poor is in your head, and it occupies space there that would be better put to use learning and earning.

I wonder how many wealthy, stylishly progressive college students are aware that they're the ones people like Chad Vigorous rail about?

I wonder how many angry leftists wake up one morning to find out that they've, overnight, turned into The Enemy. I wonder if Chad Vigorous will, since all it takes is an accusation.

I wait for them to donate their Nikes to the homeless and shut off their smartphones.

The Democrats' demonization of "the rich" is not going to end well if allowed to reach its inevitable conclusion. We've seen this before, in Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Laos, Red China, and Soviet Russia.

Pick an enemy, demonize him, and eliminate him. But the enemy list must be nurtured and fed; must be kept alive. Stalin's "kulaks" started out as farmers who owned their own land and ended up being "anyone deemed an enemy of the state." Some day, you might be one of "the rich."

Before you jump on the Party hate wagon, ask yourself what the purpose of this hatred is; what the end-game will be. And remember, the revolution always eats its children.

You see, Chad Vigorous, we've seen your kind before, mindless followers, in the torchlight smiling as the lynching victim squirms at the end of his rope, screaming with joy in the mud as the guillotine blade descends on the exposed neck of a screaming "royal," or laughing as the Juden are dragged into the street and beaten. Hate for hate's sake.

RPM touches on something: In America today, most of the big money is on the Left. It's hard to distinguish people who became wealthy through honest business or investing from people who got wealthy by exploiting political and family connections. This was ultimately what brought down the Occupy movement: they made the mistake of attacking the Wealthy Left, who got tired of it and pulled strings within the movement to get it shut down. To a considerable extent now, when leftists attack the "one-percenters", they're attacking their own side.

Kids should be taught the difference between zero-sum and non zero-sum games on the same day they're taught the difference between vowels and consonants.

Human nature is largely grim, and stupidity is always with us, but I don't think most people who presume that the rich have taken all the available wealth have ever been given a chance to understand how rich their own lives can become.

I was trying to figure out last night weather Elizabeth Warren actually believes that she's a good person. I know, I know it's a stupid thing to think about, and I usually get resentful of people who consider such questions.

But it just seems more likely that she has no moral center whatsoever. She moves through life telling people what they want to hear from their own cowardice and frailty, accrues power in the process, and that's all that her life is about.

When they're done with the billionaires, they'll come for the millionaires. When they're done with them, it'll be the thousandaires.

At some point, you run out of other people's money. And it will end up in the hands of the party elite, or their children. Hugo Chavez's daughter is one of the wealthiest people in Venezuela. She didn't get that way by being their Bezos, or Jobs, or Gates. She did it the old fashioned way: graft, cronyism, insider dealings and good ol' fashioned theft.

Reminds me of a joke from Russia. Leonid Brezhnev was taking his mom around, showing her his very luxurious apartment in Moscow, the very exclusive shops he was allowed to shop in, his dacha in the country, another outside of Leningrad. His mom was impressed, and said "This is all very nice, Leonid. But aren't you afraid that the communists might come back?"

She moves through life telling people what they want to hear from their own cowardice and frailty, accrues power in the process, and that's all that her life is about.

Yes, and she tells herself that she's a good person. They all do, even if what they're proposing or doing is truly monstrous. You have to scramble some eggs to make an omelette or the death of one is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic.

I was trying to figure out last night weather Elizabeth Warren actually believes that she's a good person. ~ Cridmo at January 30, 2019 7:10 AM

I would expect she does.

Life is not like the movies with evil people advocating or praising evil - e.g., pulling out their .88 magnums and reveling in the fact that "it shoots through schools."

The self-righteous belief that one is doing "good" in the world allows one to ignore one's own transgressions against decency as necessary evils - i.e., "We had to destroy the village to save it."

She lied about being part Native American because that would get her the job and rationalized the lie with the argument that, in the job, she could do "good" in the world. Now, she has no choice but to delude herself that she believed it all along; that it wasn't a lie.

Self-delusion is a powerful narcotic.

It's hard to distinguish people who became wealthy through honest business or investing from people who got wealthy by exploiting political and family connections.

When Warren Buffet was providing unsolicited advice to Teh Lightbringer, I'm sure Hathaway-Berkshire's investments were structured to take advantage of the government acting upon that advise.

“At some point, you run out of other people's money. And it will end up in the hands of the party elite, or their children. Hugo Chavez's daughter is one of the wealthiest people in Venezuela. She didn't get that way by being their Bezos, or Jobs, or Gates. She did it the old fashioned way: graft, cronyism, insider dealings and good ol' fashioned theft.”

Which is exactly how the Clinton crime syndicate made their money.

Which is why, contrary to conventional wisdom, voting for the sleazy real estate guy was the more ethical choice.

I fear people like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris who really really want to be president for all the wrong reasons.

Voting for the sleazy real estate guy is still going to be the more ethical choice. The Democratic Party isn’t even making a pretense of being on the side of working people anymore. They have gone bat shit crazy.

It's hard to distinguish people who became wealthy through honest business or investing from people who got wealthy by exploiting political and family connections. ~ Cousin Dave at January 30, 2019 7:07 AM

Not really.

• Did they found a company or establish a foundation?
  
• Is there a game-changing product or service with which they are indelibly linked?
  
• Was their money and influence gained by selling a product or collecting contributions?
  
• Is their inevitable book listed as political biography or a business book?
  
• Do powerful people come to them for advice or for political favors?
  
• Is the list of their accomplishments a list of concrete accomplishments or a list of political positions they've held?
  
• Is their last name Clinton?

Yes, that last one was facetious.

This is the best tweet I've seen on this topic.

This week, I mean.

This YOUNG week. Several days to go.

Young progressives have started believing that they should start at the top. In the real world you have always had to work your way up. My friends back in the 1980s started with a mobile home, then a small house then a nice house (by their 30s). We never ate out until we were well-along in our careers. But 20 and 30 somethings are impatient and want to drive a nice car, eat out all the time, go to Starbucks for $7 lattes, take vacations, etc. right out of college. They think that their social justice and English degrees should pay them big bucks. That is not how this all works. There are lots of good jobs that are not "fun" or "glamorous" or "status" jobs. I know people who do that not fun work.

"The Democratic Party isn’t even making a pretense of being on the side of working people anymore. They have gone bat shit crazy."

https://www.businessinsider.com/sherrod-brown-dignity-of-work-tour-2020-presidential-election-2019-1

I'm not claiming that it is hard to find bat shit crazy in the Democratic party. Plenty of bat shit crazy Republicans too, do you disagree? Pick your poison.

I'd also say that Warren's history with the CFPB is a working people bona fide.

“But 20 and 30 somethings are impatient and want to drive a nice car, eat out all the time, go to Starbucks for $7 lattes, take vacations, etc. right out of college.”

A big part of this is because of the easy availability of credit cards and also student loans with loose terms. They were doing this as students, and continue the practice after. I like to think that when parents and summer jobs were paying for college, better choices were made.
I watched many of my fellow law students in the 90’s buy 5000 laptops, new cars, and pay for study junkets to foreign counties without a thought as to when and how that money would ever be paid back.
Makes you want to bring back debtors prison.

“I'm not claiming that it is hard to find bat shit crazy in the Democratic party. Plenty of bat shit crazy Republicans too, do you disagree? Pick your poison.”

Yes, I kinda do disagree. And Sherrod Brown doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination.

What is his plan for giving “dignity” to work? A thirty buck an hour minimum wage? Maybe free medical care, and child care? You can darn sure bet it isn’t cutting welfare, and keeping out illegal foreign competition for American jobs.

You can find bat shirt crazy people in both parties, true, but the fact that the bat shit crazy faction is now apparently in control of the Democratic Party and driving the train, is a big difference.

You can can bet that these socialist children with their Che t shirts will be driving policy for the next forty years.

They have convinced themselves, wrongly I think, that Obama was elected because people were in favor of these nutty policies, when in fact, the dems have attempted to make every election about personalities to disguise the fact that their ideas haven’t changed since 1932.

I'd also say that Warren's history with the CFPB is a working people bona fide. ~ gcmortal at January 30, 2019 10:22 AM

Not for any working people who needed short-term loans or used off-the-grid banking methods.

By attacking alternative banking, the CFPB did more to ingrain big banks into the American financial fabric than the big banks themselves could have ever done.

By design, the CFPB had little-to-no oversight by either the executive branch or the legislative branch and served as a de facto back-door financing channel for Democrat Party allied interests, including lawyers.

You don't know how expensive something is until it's free.

Socialism is easy to get into, but requires shooting irons to exit.

Thank you for admitting both parties. The occupant of the White House is a shining example.

I hope Brown has a better chance than that. The far left makes a lot of noise and grabs a lot of headlines. At a minimum they will have influence on the Dem platform. I agree the far left is on the rise (ugh), but not convinced that they are in control. Could be that 2020 is the beginning of that projected forty years, too soon to tell.

Please elaborate on how the Pub's ideas have changed, preferably evolved, since 1932. As a contast, since this seems important.

At a minimum they will have influence on the Dam platform. ~ gcmortal at January 30, 2019 12:01 PM

The influence of the far left on the platform could have negative effects for the Democrat candidate at the potential cost of the election. It's happened before.

See also the Nav-meister, the Nav-asaures, the linty Naval, from just three days ago.

Ravikant is a real schmart feller.

Conan, thanks for the links. I like to learn.

Still, I consider Warren's advocacy and drive on the issue of consumer protection to be on the side of working people, as a counterpoint to Isab's assertation regarding Dems.

"The influence of the far left on the platform could have negative effects for the Democrat candidate at the potential cost of the election. It's happened before."

1000% agree. I'm terrified of this.

The influence of the far left on the platform could have negative effects for the Democrat candidate at the potential cost of the election. It's happened before."

1000% agree. I'm terrified of this.

gcmortal at January 30, 2019 12:54 PM

And most of us are praying for it.

Personally I think the Democratic party echo chamber is so busy reinforcing crazy hard left socialism as the new normal, that they can’t help themselves. They honestly think if you don’t agree with them, you are stupid and evil. At best, you should shut up, and let them run things (into the ground) At worst, you should be shot.

As far as Trump being crazy. This is a guy whose beliefs and policies line up perfectly with the Democratic Party of 1950-2004. He registered as a Republican because the primary system of the Republican Party had not been locked down against outsiders. He remains a traditional democrat. And yes, this is what I had to vote for to insure the Clinton crime syndicate didn’t take over again.

Darn well worth it, and I will do it again.

I agree the far left is on the rise (ugh), but not convinced that they are in control.

They've learned that to win within the party, the merely need to show up and be loud. Also, consider NY State's recent passage of "abortion is legal until a birth certificate is issued" law.

Tell me, how is that going to play in Peoria? or to any blue-collar allegedly Democrat voter in the rust belt? add on all that socialist talk? I didn't leave my party. My party left me.

Sherrod Brown is an Old White Cisnormative Guy. He has zero chance of winning the nomination in a party that establishes members bona fides by intersectionality. That's why anti-semitic hijab-wearing Democrats are not confronted about their anti-semitism, or for that matter, homophobia and transphobia.

2016 had the two worst choices of all time.

I respect and understand people that held their nose as they voted, either side.

You, all of us, chose one crime syndicate over another.

2020 may only have one crime syndicate on the ballot. I know who you're going to vote for, no one here would mistake you for a Dem (which I know you're grateful for :)

"This is a guy whose beliefs and policies line up perfectly with the Democratic Party of 1950-2004."

I'm... gobsmacked. Can't get any traction on this at *all*. Firstly, does Trump have any beliefs and policies more relevant than the Trump brand? Which Dem from your time period do you think Trump most resembles? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm... gobsmacked. Can't get any traction on this at *all*. Firstly, does Trump have any beliefs and policies more relevant than the Trump brand? Which Dem from your time period do you think Trump most resembles? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

gcmortal at January 30, 2019 2:01 PM

Reagan with perhaps a bit of Truman thrown in. But you are going to have to do some reading. I’m not spoon feeding U.S History to some credentialed millinial.

I know the liberal socialists have been describing the real estate and development business, actually any captitalist business as a “crime syndicate” for some time now. It plays to their base.

But there is a real and fundamental difference between playing monopoly with family money, and your own money, and doing it on the tax payers dime, and pay for play.

Do you think the Clinton’s ever declared bankruptcy? Or have they been bailed out under the table by their oligarch friends?
Remember Whitewater? A lot of people went to jail, and fell on their sword for the Clintons.

Do you think that the president is above it all, the Captain of the party?
In reality, he or she is a captive of the party at best. Every politician who comes into office broke, and leaves with millions is dirty. So assuming that a dirty politician is going to be president, I will take one whose policies more closely align with mine which is often a 55-45 proposition.

That will, by definition, include no presidential candidate currently running as a democrat. (See earlier discussions on crazy socialist Fascists and the federal judges that they appoint)
They could have gotten my vote thirty years ago. I come from a democratic family. Seriously, my grandfather was a delegate to the Democratic National convention in 1940.

You seem quite young with an alarming tendency to want to stick a label on a politician without actually examining what they have done during their tenure. Want me to recommend a few good history books, and some biographies?

I'm always happy to learn, I know just enough to realize how ignorant I am.

Won't patronize you by believing that you think Reagan was a Democrat. Care to change your answer?

I agree with the "captive of the party" concept.
Some POTUS have tried to do more with policy and direction, and others have been content to let the party drive.

Don't know why the Clinton's dirty laundry is in this conversation, I've never tried to defend them.

Please give me the example of the label you speak of. If you are referring to my usage of "crime syndicate" that was your phrase.

Not young anymore, not that it matters.

"Tell me, how is that going to play in Peoria? or to any blue-collar allegedly Democrat voter in the rust belt? add on all that socialist talk? I didn't leave my party. My party left me."

It's not going to play. At all.

Which is a reason that Brown or another more centrist candidate has a chance, maybe even a good chance. Electability matters lots.

Won't patronize you by believing that you think Reagan was a Democrat. Care to change your answer?

Another biography you need to read.

Won't patronize you by believing that you think Reagan was a Democrat. Care to change your answer? ~ gcmortal at January 30, 2019 4:28 PM

Actually, gc, Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat. He felt the party veered too far left and became a Republican, saying "I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me."

Reagan famously managed to craft an appeal that worked with all three disparate wings of the Republican Party: the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives, and the Northeastern pro-business liberals.

Bill Clinton repeated Reagan's trick with the Democrats, calling it "triangulation," when the Democrats had a much more diverse party.

Today, the Democrat Party is not nearly as diverse in philosophy as it was when Clinton ran. The left-wing has gained too much power.

A party's nomination is usually controlled by its hardcore base. For Democrats, that's the SJWs. For Republicans, it's the religious right. The Republicans still have enough powerful moderates to avoid a a purity test for the nomination (after all, Trump won it). The Democrats do not have enough powerful moderates left to avoid a purity test; a moderate candidate stands no chance of getting the nomination. In the last fight, 2016, the DNC had to rig the voting so their last left-of-center moderate, Hillary Clinton, could win. That won't fly with the base a second time.

• Joe Lieberman failed the SJW test and was bounced as the party's candidate for Senate. He won the election without the party's backing, running as an Independent.
  
• Dianne Feinstein has been twice rejected by the California Democratic Party because she was not left-wing enough for it. Feinstein, thanks to years in the Senate, had a bigger war chest and more political connections, so she won the election. Her replacement-in-waiting is the far-left (and Hispanic) California state senator, Kevin de León.

A moderate candidate does not stand a chance of getting the Democratic presidential nomination in the near future. Too many in the party have convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she was not left wing enough; that she was too cozy with Wall Street.

Both Obama and Bernie Sanders ran to the left of Hillary and made huge inroads with younger voters, a voting bloc both parties are desperate to capture. Obama stole the 2008 nomination right out from under her nose and won two elections while Bernie almost stole another nomination from her, but for the DNC rigging the voting. She subsequently lost an election that all polls had pointed to her winning easily; to Trump no less. Party stalwarts have convinced themselves that a farther-left candidate will appeal to Millennials and minorities and win the 2020 election.

Another great post, Conan. Thanks for taking the time. I graciously admit I've a lot to learn. So, former Democrat, but a hero and legend among the Pubs.

Not booking any action, but for now I'm going to stick with my hypothesis. A chance, I said... it's early! There are going to be many far lefties, will they split the vote in the first several states? The centrist better win or come close in Iowa, and in general start near the top.

I'm hopeful that I may still receive clarification on my alarming tendency to thoughtlessly affix labels. I ask again only because this assertion was personal rather than policy or beliefs.

Y'all need to see the "Kaus" comment in Amy's Thursday playtime thread: Woke has the wad.

All you OrangeBots might wanna take care that your smugness and love of dinnertable cusswords don't cost you any votes.

I.e, see Cousin Dave at January 30, 2019 7:07 AM

...Though I never actually had any idea what OWS wanted from the world, but to smoke dope and rape dropped-out daughters of divorce in lice-infested encampments on public property. No one offering a manifesto seemed to have any signatories beyond their immediate circle of friends.

Who also had time to sign silly things.

It is one of the many wierd similarities between Trump and Reagan, Gcmortal. They both were life long Democrats until they switched parties and became successful Republican politicians. They are both actors. Reagan more obviously than Trump (and better too in my opinion). They both came to power when the Democrat party veered sharply left and ended up trashing the economy. And yes, Trump is starting to get that same cult of personality on the Republican side that Reagan had.

What can you say? Life if weird some times.

I think Trump is a bit more apolitical than Regan.

He viewed both Democrats and Republicans much the same way he viewed the Mafia. People that had to be paid off in order for him to remain in business.

I have no personal liking for Trump, but unlike others on this board, I don’t let my emotions, and the non stop media shit storm guide my opinion of his administration.

I am quite happy with the attempts to reform the judiciary and replace members of the Lawyers Guild with members of the Federalist society.
Also happy with his attempts to pare down the alphabet agencies, and rein in the Department of Education.
Securing the border, and reforming immigration are also big issues for me. Preventing election fraud is another. We need voter ID, and some real restraints and verifications on absentee ballots.

Other things I am less happy about, but Congress and unelected and unaccountable Federal agencies share a larger percentage of the blame.

Do I think things are infinitely better than they would have been under President Hillary? Oh God, yes.

If nothing else, Trump’s election has ripped the mask off, and exposed the young Democratic Socialists as the new brown shirts.

Ultimately there are only two solutions to this kind of thug behavior -- gated communities, and surveillance cameras, not in the hands of police but of residents (possibly accompanied by private enforcement when the police won't bother, whether they approve or not). We need a lot more of both.

Being able to have nice things is far more important than the lives of thugs, no matter what motivates them. The law needs to accept that.

"I think Trump is a bit more apolitical than Regan."

Reagan was before my time so I can't really comment on him. But I won't dispute you on Trump's views on both parties. He lived mostly in New York, of course he was a Democrat. Or at least appeased them more.

My wife's uncle is a an outspoken radical leftist on the Daily Kos and in other socialist circles, always pounding the "eat the rich" drum.

I must constantly fight the temptation to "out" him to his fellow Kossacks as a trust fund baby living off his deceased father's oil industry investments.

The centrist better win or come close in Iowa, and in general start near the top. ~ gcmortal at January 30, 2019 9:03 PM

Which centrist? The only one with enough name recognition and political capital is Joe Biden and he'll be almost 80 by the 2020 election. His time is past. Besides, his history of gaffes on the campaign trail is legendary; who'd risk him as the candidate now?

No other centrist in the party has the name recognition and support from the base to win the nomination. Jim Webb tried to run in 2016, but was quickly eliminated.

Rahm Emanuel has too many enemies from his Clinton days and would not win a general election. Same for Terry McAuliffe.

No Democrat governor has the national name recognition except Andrew Cuomo, and both the right and the left hate him.

Granholm has been out of politics too long. Sebelius killed her chances with the botched Obamacare implementation. Napolitano is dead in the water with her antics in Miami and Berkeley.

Nope, the Democrats are stuck running the race with the hard left senators in the stable.

“No other centrist in the party has the name recognition and support from the base to win the nomination. Jim Webb tried to run in 2016, but was quickly eliminated.”

Jim Webb is a Democrat I could probably vote for, if he switched parties and ran as a Republican.

Conincidentally the fact that he did not break ranks with his party to defeat Obamacare, was the day that I decided that party was always going to trump principles, and that it was not safe to elect a Democrat to national office.....ever.