Trump as tragicomedy

[Desert]

Here's an article I read some months ago regarding Soros:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... py/547247/

I'd like to see a source from Maddy though.

[Kbg]

The Dems have Soros, the Pubs have the Koch's. What's the difference really?

[Maddy]

Here's an article I read some months ago regarding Soros:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... py/547247/

I'd like to see a source from Maddy though.

Nope. If you're really interested (and I don't believe you are), there are a ton of sources on the internet that link to the 990s. It's all in the public record.

[clacy]

The Dems have Soros, the Pubs have the Koch's. What's the difference really?

Koch's hate Trump, and the Republican Party is now the Trump party. I predict that the Koch's will back Dems by 2020.

They want their corporatocracy and cheap labor.

[dualstow]

Some stuff is starting to overshadow the "be nice because he's dead" voices

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/op ... 9515140a77

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economic ... vkzs4AQUw/

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/27/t ... hn-mccain/

I read the first article and it was pretty frustrating. “Be nice because he’s dead” is the quintessential straw man comment. I admired his character when he was alive (though I did not vote for him). I certainly don’t think McCain was perfect, flawless. I think he had character.

But this article, jeez. A Native American with a chip on her shoulder could’ve submitted that huffpost article about virtually any person who was for the Iraq War, the Afghanistan war, or even just the surge. It is so pathetically not about McCain and his long history that I don’t know how it got published. Weak.

[moda0306]

The Dems have Soros, the Pubs have the Koch's. What's the difference really?

Koch's hate Trump, and the Republican Party is now the Trump party. I predict that the Koch's will back Dems by 2020.

They want their corporatocracy and cheap labor.

So are the Koch's part of "the left?"

Further, I don't think they hate him. Trump was actually right when he said that he gave them huge tax cuts and regulatory decreases. If they lose a bit on trade-wars they'll still be net-beneficiaries of the Trump presidency methinks.

[clacy]

So are the Koch's part of "the left?"

Further, I don't think they hate him. Trump was actually right when he said that he gave them huge tax cuts and regulatory decreases. If they lose a bit on trade-wars they'll still be net-beneficiaries of the Trump presidency methinks.

No, the Kochs are neo-cons. Neo-cons are now far more aligned with the Clinton-wing of the Dem party than Trump.

As I see it, Trump has essentially remade the Republican party into a coalition between conservatives and the working class in the upper midwest.

Now the 2 Dem factions are playing tug-of-war for control of their party. You have the Socialist/ultra-progressives battling with the old Neo-lib/corporatists for the future of the Dem party.

Then you have the displaced Neo-cons who were heavily in favor of globalism. They now are far more closely aligned with the Clinton/Obama corporatist wing of the Dems now. When people used to say that both parties are basically the same, that's what they meant (back when the Neo-cons ala Bush controlled the R's and the Clintons/Obama controlled the D's). The R's and D's duked it out politically in races, but usually had fairly minor disagreements about most economic and geo-political policy issues.

That is how I see people like Koch going. They are not going to like the rising wages from protectionist policies focused on the working class in America.

[Desert]

Here's an article I read some months ago regarding Soros:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... py/547247/

I'd like to see a source from Maddy though.

Nope. If you're really interested (and I don't believe you are), there are a ton of sources on the internet that link to the 990s. It's all in the public record.

That's a classic Alex Jones response (yes, I used to watch him occasionally on local TV back in the early 2000's in Austin, for entertainment value). I'm guessing your basic ideology comes from Jones and/or D'Souza. That's a tough mental place to live, I'm thinking. The globalist leftists are behind every bad thing that happens in the world, and only Trump can save us.

It's probably a good time to post this article. No, Trump isn't Hitler. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. And who was picking on Germany? Yes, it was the media and the evil left.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-w ... democracy/

[Mountaineer]

The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, and the most widely read weekly journal of progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis.

Godwin's Law rules! It appears a goal of The Nation is to create heaven on earth via its articles. The bias against Trump (via not so subtle allusions to Hitler) is obvious in the linked article. The articles I looked at are not quite SJW on steroids but lean heavily that way in my opinion. Not to get too religious, but this is a case where the proper distinction of God's Law and God's Gospel is really helpful. Life is so much less stressful and more peaceful when we try to build each other and our government up rather than tear each other down.

[moda0306]

Here's an article I read some months ago regarding Soros:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... py/547247/

I'd like to see a source from Maddy though.

Nope. If you're really interested (and I don't believe you are), there are a ton of sources on the internet that link to the 990s. It's all in the public record.

That's a classic Alex Jones response (yes, I used to watch him occasionally on local TV back in the early 2000's in Austin, for entertainment value). I'm guessing your basic ideology comes from Jones and/or D'Souza. That's a tough mental place to live, I'm thinking. The globalist leftists are behind every bad thing that happens in the world, and only Trump can save us.

While I hate to immediately rush to D'Souza/Jones conspiracy nonsense, since Maddy didn't name them specifically when I asked for sources, it certainly feels a bit off...

"The truth is out there! Somewhere... but EVERYWHERE... if you can find it... but its OBVIOUS... but I don't have regular sources."

IDK it just feels like one of those things that make sense if you pre-suppose all the premises buried in the conclusions its trying to get you to believe, as a narrative that constantly "begs the question."

But IDK I probably used to say the same about some conspiracies that I believe in large parts of today. I try to glean the gems out of people's narratives even if I don't agree with all of them. For instance, for all the garbage analysis Austrian Economics has put out since the Great Recession & Financial Crisis, I think they have a lot to add that I effectively brushed aside regarding the Federal Reserve (from a corruption/cronyism standpoint... not a "OMG HYPERINFLATION AND ARTIFICIALLY LOW INTEREST RATES" perspective).

Also I think "conspiracy theories' get way too much negative press and attitude by folks. The "conspiracy theory" of 9/11 trutherism did WAY less damage than the establishment media/govt/publicly-parroted narrative of almost anything positively related to national security & foreign interventions for several years after 9/11. So I have a lot more patience with conspiracy theories than I did back then. There's usually something in their narratives that has some very useful truth.

So anyway, I just wish Maddy would just build us a better roadmap to these conclusions we are supposed to be arriving at. All the stuff Chomsky quotes in his "conspiracy theory narratives" is "public information" as well, but I would never ask folks to just sort through state department documents to believe me when I say "the government has rarely had good intentions overseas." I'd link you to one of 20 Chomsky lectures, where he specifically lists his sources. I just don't know how Maddy is building up those conclusions about "The Left" being such a unique and monolithic political force...

[l82start]

I just don't know how Maddy is building up those conclusions about "The Left" being such a unique and monolithic political force...

its not that the left is a unique an monolithic political force, its that those who would seek to be at the top of any monolithic political force have shared goals and therefore shared methodology, (almost always requiring more government in some form) I have come to a point where I struggle to see any real difference between the Dick Cheney's of the world riling up the "patriotism of fly over country red-necks (useful idiots) to get the military industrial complex more power control money, and the George Soros's of the world riling up the antifa left wing militants and sjw millennials (useful idiots) to get more power control and money.. especially when neither one of those "great changes in direction" ever reduces the amount of power control and money that was just given to the so called "other side" ...

[Maddy]

No, Moda, as I said before, I'm just not interested in engaging you. You've done this "Show me your sources" routine so many times that by now the script has become predictable. No matter what my source, you'll find some reason for rejecting it, and when confronted with evidence you cannot deny, you'll simply move to a new and different reason for deprecating the thesis. And I'll have wasted precious hours throwing evidence at you that you're predisposed to reject. Yesterday, your comeback was that the connection between Soros and Antifa is solely in the imagination of Alex Jones. If I showed you the 990 from AGJ or OSI, you'd simply come up with some other reason to reject my point. Maybe it would be that the relationship between Soros and AGJ is too attenuated, or that a handful of Republicans have provided funding to similar organizations, or that Antifa is not representative of the Left. I'm just not interested in going through this again. You've simply lost your credibility with me at this point.