Noam Chomsky: Trump is a Distraction

[helltoupee]

Individuals move humanity forward. Organisations maintain the status quo.

What an incredibly short sighted statement.

If the European powers had not financed geographical, zoological, and botanical research around the world, neither Charles Darwin nor Alfred Wallace would have had the necessary empirical data to develop the theory of evolution. I can think of countless other examples. Individuals do not operate in a vacuum, as you consistently insist.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's hack savage, for Christ's sake. Does anybody take that guy's comically hackish posting seriously? Even other left wingers have called the guy a dildo for trying to rewrite history and his asinine claims that CNN is too pro-Trump. The guy's said enough stupid shit to have been several people's sigs.

Looks like I struck a nerve with this clown. He's still embarrassed about how he reacted after getting caught lying about SNAP usage and his huge mistake on immigration (which was one of many non-partisan indicators that he's of significantly sub-average intelligence).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Major Donors to Clinton 2016
Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&src=c&type=f
Alphabet Inc $1,604,837
University of California $1,596,903
Microsoft Corp $906,705
Harvard University $770,411
EMILY's List $757,477
US Dept of State $690,838
Stanford University $666,877
Apple Inc $653,584
US Government $634,945
Morgan & Morgan $628,361
Columbia University $575,148
JPMorgan Chase & Co $558,281
Time Warner $557,183
Bank of America $550,531
Kaiser Permanente $541,091
New York University $535,968
Comcast Corp $522,850
Wells Fargo $479,483
Facebook Inc $478,466
Morgan Stanley $471,841

That's aggregating totals from individuals. The organizations did not make any contributions. Read your own link better.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

That's aggregating totals from individuals. The organizations did not make any contributions. Read your own link better.

Dude you're absolutely right. Thank you for showing me the way. Hillary is a champion of regular people, just like you and me. I am truly saddened that we elected that horrible, horrible man.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Dude you're absolutely right. Thank you for showing me the way. Hillary is a champion of regular people, just like you and me. I am truly saddened that we elected that horrible, horrible man.

If you were legitimately basing your view on your understanding of the situation on your understanding of the facts, finding out that your understanding of the facts is wrong should cause some re-evaluation rather than juvenile snarkiness. I note that neither you nor the other guy has defended the claim that Trump is not working for the elite (or whatever the exact quote was) or that Chomsky and Clinton are.

I think you realize it's silly but you wanted to signal tribal solidarity. And you lack the integrity to simply admit that that's what you were doing.

 

[b-hop]

President Trump will go down as the greatest president of the twenty-one century. I have zero doubt about this.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

If you were legitimately basing your view on your understanding of the situation on your understanding of the facts, finding out that your understanding of the facts is wrong should cause some re-evaluation rather than juvenile snarkiness. I note that neither you nor the other guy has defended the claim that Trump is not working for the elite (or whatever the exact quote was) or that Chomsky and Clinton are.

I think you realize it's silly but you wanted to signal tribal solidarity. And you lack the integrity to simply admit that that's what you were doing.

I already said Trump is working for the elite. It's in the first post of mine you quoted. However I stand by my assertion that Hillary also has rich benefactors. And they both have working stiffs that they need to throw an occasional, sometimes purely rhetorical, bone to.

As far as "tribal solidarity" goes, I don't even know that guy, but I guess you have a point.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

@Trotsky is a troublemaker.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I already said Trump is working for the elite. It's in the first post of mine you quoted. However I stand by my assertion that Hillary also has rich benefactors. And they both have working stiffs that they need to throw an occasional, sometimes purely rhetorical, bone to.

As far as "tribal solidarity" goes, I don't even know that guy, but I guess you have a point.

The statement being examined was that A) Trump is not working for elites and B) Clinton and Chomsky are. Are you saying that you disagree with two-thirds of it, but think that Clinton is also working for elites ("has rich benefactors" is quite a bit more mild than what the other guy was saying)? That's wrong, IMO, but not as blatantly stupid. Might be best to have responded to Trotsky with that.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

The statement being examined was that A) Trump is not working for elites and B) Clinton and Chomsky are. Are you saying that you disagree with two-thirds of it, but think that Clinton is also working for elites ("has rich benefactors" is quite a bit more mild than what the other guy was saying)? That's wrong, IMO, but not as blatantly stupid. Might be best to have responded to Trotsky with that.

IDK man I've never had to defend a like so vigorously. Do all of your likes provide a perfect mirror of your soul?

 

[Trotsky]

@Trotsky is a troublemaker.

I call them like I see them. To say that Trump is "anti-elite" compared to really any contemporary politician is ludicrous. Even relative to the Republican Party, he is the most pro-elite politician of the post-New Deal era, besides perhaps (perhaps) Ronald Reagan, if we are speaking about actual policy and not just rhetoric.

And, yes, Hillary Clinton would have been much, much more a champion of regular people than Donald Trump. She wouldn't have attacked worker rights, consumer protections, environmental protections, lendee rights, and radically redistributed wealth upwards.

 

[Trotsky]

It's hack savage, for Christ's sake. Does anybody take that guy's comically hackish posting seriously? Even other left wingers have called the guy a dildo for trying to rewrite history and his asinine claims that CNN is too pro-Trump. The guy's said enough stupid shit to have been several people's sigs.

Can I take this as a concession that you will not debase yourself into defending that colossally stupid post you liked?

Like, I'm not even trying to get you to substantiate your support for Trump or concede support for an alternative: just that you admit that, on this point, the claim about him is asinine.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

She wouldn't have attacked worker rights, consumer protections, environmental protections, lendee rights, and radically redistributed wealth upwards.

Income inequality has been steadily rising for over 40 years including the Clinton and Obama years. I'm sure it would have continued under the Hill dawg.

 

[Trotsky]

Income inequality has been steadily rising for over 40 years including the Clinton and Obama years. I'm sure it would have continued under the Hill dawg.

You're right: it would have. But it would have risen at an exponentially lower rate than under Trump for the reasons I just outlined.

I mean, even putting aside the huge upward distribution of income via the tax cuts, we haven't even broached the topic of what the AHCA would have done, since the ACA was itself funded by shifting the tax burden to the top 1% to extend healthcare to the working class.

 

[nostradumbass]

Can I take this as a concession that you will not debase yourself into defending that colossally stupid post you liked?

Like, I'm not even trying to get you to substantiate your support for Trump or concede support for an alternative: just that you admit that, on this point, the claim about him is asinine.

I hit the like button, I didn't write the post. I don't have to agree with all of it to agree with some of it. It depends on what is meant by "elite". Hillary was without question more embedded in the political ruling class, which I find more concerning than business interests with whom Trump generally sides. Trump was by no means my first pick for president, but I'm pleasantly surprised that he's kept one of the more conservative presidencies in a good few decades and numbers on the economy and employment have been good.

In general, I would prefer representatives be plucked from the population for short terms rather than career politicians.

 

[Trotsky]

Hillary was without question more embedded in the political ruling class, which I find more concerning than business interests with whom Trump generally sides.

You'll have to explain this for me.
What is a "political ruling class"? How does that affect you, me, or the country outside of the ideology of said class, which in the case of Clinton is a far less extreme and more sophisticated version of Trump's ideology?
Why do "business interests," which seek to loot the economy in pursuit of shaping wealth distribution and government regulation in their own image and not in the image of the public good, concern you less than these supposed career politicians that, to the extent that they are not bound by the democratic will of their constituents, can only be said to be improving their own stock at a level that is minuscule compared to the policy effect of corporate interests?

I'm pleasantly surprised that he's kept one of the more conservative presidencies in a good few decades and numbers on the economy and employment have been good.

What about "conservative" ideology do you like?
What about "numbers on the economy and employment" do you like? Job growth has dramatically slowed compared to under Obama, unemployment reduction has slowed compared to under Obama, wages has fallen more than at any point since 2009, and the deficit has exploded (mind you, without any mitigating explanation such as war or recession).

What about Obama's economic performance was unsatisfactory compared to Trump?

In general, I would prefer representatives be plucked from the population for short terms rather than career politicians.

Again...why? So they can serve themselves without being held accountable by subsequent reelection? So our elected representatives can lack the utmost experience to deal with extremely complicated matters? So that our government lacks institutional competence and experience?


I'm not trying to sea-lion you here, but none of what you are saying makes logical sense to me without explanation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

IDK man I've never had to defend a like so vigorously. Do all of your likes provide a perfect mirror of your soul?

You didn't have to defend it all. If you came out of the gate with this ("I don't necessarily agree with it, but the guy seemed like a Republican" or something), it would be fine. But you were shucking and jiving, which led me to try to keep it focused and honest.

 

[TheGreatA]

@Trotsky is a troublemaker.

Being a troublemaker is kind of a prerequisite to posting here, I would think.

Everybody here, no matter who, has some kind of a game that they're working in order to push the buttons and annoy the crap out of their deemed political/ideological opposition.

Regardless of whether it's the "low-level trolls" or the so-called "high quality posters", everybody pretty much shares this one trait, if nothing else.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Being a troublemaker is kind of a prerequisite to posting here, I would think.

Everybody here, no matter who, has some kind of a game that they're working in order to push the buttons and annoy the crap out of their deemed political/ideological opposition.

Regardless of whether it's the "low-level trolls" or the so-called "high quality posters", everybody pretty much shares this one trait, if nothing else.

Well put dingus!

 

[nostradumbass]

You'll have to explain this for me.
What is a "political ruling class"? How does that affect you, me, or the country outside of the ideology of said class, which in the case of Clinton is a far less extreme and more sophisticated version of Trump's ideology?
Why do "business interests," which seek to loot the economy in pursuit of shaping wealth distribution and government regulation in their own image and not in the image of the public good, concern you less than these supposed career politicians that, to the extent that they are not bound by the democratic will of their constituents, can only be said to be improving their own stock at a level that is minuscule compared to the policy effect of corporate interests?



What about "conservative" ideology do you like?
What about "numbers on the economy and employment" do you like? Job growth has dramatically slowed compared to under Obama, unemployment reduction has slowed compared to under Obama, wages has fallen more than at any point since 2009, and the deficit has exploded (mind you, without any mitigating explanation such as war or recession).

What about Obama's economic performance was unsatisfactory compared to Trump?



Again...why? So they can serve themselves without being held accountable by subsequent reelection? So our elected representatives can lack the utmost experience to deal with extremely complicated matters? So that our government lacks institutional competence and experience?


I'm not trying to sea-lion you here, but none of what you are saying makes logical sense to me without explanation.

I'll try to expound fairly crisply, without writing a novella on a karate forum, though this might be a lengthy post. You can, for the most part, get private businesses out of your life if you so chose. The government can insert themselves into your life and you have no say in the matter. I prefer more conservative governments because changes should be incremental to test them out rather than a huge fundamental change that's very difficult to take back.

I'm absolutely not on board with Trump's spending. My complaint with Obama's economy was pet projects that resulted in the worst economic recovery in almost a century. Bush started this shit before him, so it's not all on Obama, but I am for lower taxes and less regulation with the citizens taking some responsibility for themselves and the problems their economic decisions create. The problem with a ruling class is that they don't have to go back to the real world when they're done. Politics shouldn't be a game where you live an upper-crust life governing where you're largely exempt from the policies you create, and politicians shouldn't have their fingers in the ingredients enough to have these favors to give. They seem to have gotten this fairly right with jury duty, where it's a "jury of your peers" where people know the shoe could be on the other foot at some point, but with policy, they don't seem to think that's relevant. You and I both know politicians are hardly accountable by reelection because there aren't many choices and there is a hard cap on what information voters are even given, as evidenced by the outrage and FBI investigation over somebody releasing evidence of DNC corruption.