The Goat Pen

1996 to 2000 was an amazing economy to be in if you had even a bit of tech knowledge.

My biggest complaint about Clinton was him being all in on the global economy and NAFTA

IIRC, he had a couple of years where we ran a budget surplus. That hadn't happened in awhile and certainly hasn't come close to happening since. FWIW, Gavin Newsome has been running large budget surpluses in California for awhile. You'd think fiscal conservatives would love that, but he's a dem so forget it...

$49b would go a long way in creating a sustainable water source in the state.

Clinton II was the only Democrat I ever voted for…

Clinton made my ass a lot of money during the tech boom. You all too probably. I love the guy. The man got a blowjob in the Oval Office. I mean, come on!

Clinton signed NAFTA, the biggest dagger ever in the back of the working class, killed off Glass Steagall which brought about the crash of 2008, and gutted welfare in a vulture capitalist economy where we need all the safety nets we can get. Some people say Bush 2 was the worst POTUS of the modern era because of Iraq and Afghanistan but you could make a good argument for Bill Clinton.

"Clinton signed NAFTA, the biggest dagger ever in the back of the working class, killed off Glass Steagall which brought about the crash of 2008, and gutted welfare in a vulture capitalist economy where we need all the safety nets we can get."

Like I said, Clinton was basically a republican, and he accomplished more ostensibly republican goals than pretty much any actual republican that I can recall. Yet the repubs impeached him. Odd...

hedge wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:04 am IIRC, he had a couple of years where we ran a budget surplus. That hadn't happened in awhile and certainly hasn't come close to happening since. FWIW, Gavin Newsome has been running large budget surpluses in California for awhile. You'd think fiscal conservatives would love that, but he's a dem so forget it...

How well the economy is doing has more effect on deficits and surpluses than the rate. California just had record massive deficits just 5 years ago. Since we rely so heavily on the 5% for tax revenue, when they lose money the country loses revenue.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-33aa0PCMs7w/ ... venues.jpg

hedge wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:28 pm "Clinton signed NAFTA, the biggest dagger ever in the back of the working class, killed off Glass Steagall which brought about the crash of 2008, and gutted welfare in a vulture capitalist economy where we need all the safety nets we can get."

Like I said, Clinton was basically a republican, and he accomplished more ostensibly republican goals than pretty much any actual republican that I can recall. Yet the repubs impeached him. Odd...

So if you and I had all the same political views, would you let me have your paycheck? Nevermind. Probably a bad example.

He's a scoundrel, no doubt about that.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/17/trump-end ... n-maloney/

"Clinton signed NAFTA, the biggest dagger ever in the back of the working class, killed off Glass Steagall which brought about the crash of 2008, and gutted welfare in a vulture capitalist economy where we need all the safety nets we can get."

Like I said, Clinton was basically a republican, and he accomplished more ostensibly republican goals than pretty much any actual republican that I can recall. Yet the repubs impeached him. Odd...

Politicians don't believe in all of the bullshit that makes up their political party platforms. It's all just to try and divide the votes in the most optimal way. Bill Clinton was a Democrat and he did all the things he did in service of Democrats, which is the most anti-Republican thing possible. If he were in office in 2022 he'd be doing different things in service of the Democrats just like his wife would have if she had been elected in 2016.

What are "Republican goals?" IMO "Republican goals" are just to do and say whatever gets the absolute most possible affiliated politicians elected. Sure, there are true believers and ideologues drawn to each side, but there are no rigid morals. We have a slew of ancient dottering old folks in leadership positions of a Democrat party that is essentially a coalition of rich global elites and the urban poor and working class, but thats not what it was when they started. Rich global elites were Republican and Democrats were more like a coalition of rural and urban working class and poor. They change just to change where they can get the votes from, not because they believe in what they are doing. If a Republican got elected in 2024, and they passed legislation that led to the new ultra-left wing enviro-minority-gay utopia, but one where Republicans won every office and a Democrat could not get elected anymore, then as far as they are concerned that would be mission fucking accomplished. And its the same the other way too, if a Democrat brought about the Democrat dominated fascist, religious zealot patriarchy, that would be peachy for them too, because politicians and political parties have no morals and no soul.

I believe there are a bunch who have souls. They just can't get through the bullshit of those who don't on both sides. The older the more powerful. Get the old fucks out. All of em. Over 68? Bye bye.

Defund the Secret Service!!!

Jungle Rat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:36 am I believe there are a bunch who have souls. They just can't get through the bullshit of those who don't on both sides. The older the more powerful. Get the old fucks out. All of em. Over 68? Bye bye.

No. Not at the party level. Like I said there are some who are ideologues or believe things should be a certain way. Those people can't even really be called Republicans or Democrats. Imagine 100 politicians in a 50-50 split. 50 "Democrats" and 50 "Republicans" but there are say 5 true believers that are like anti-abortion, just to pick something that people might feel strongly about. Lets say at the start of this exercise neither party gives a fuck, and of these 5 anti-abortion people, 2 are Democrats and 3 are Republicans at the start. Lets also say that there are 5 others that are strongly pro-choice, and 4 are Democrat and 1 is Republican.

In absence of any other strong feelings among the rest and assuming that voters are similarly distributed, the Republican Party will suddenly just become pro-life and the Democrats will have to become pro-choice, and the Republicans will gain 1 rep because 2 will have to leave the Democrats and 1 will switch away for a net gain of +1 and now Republicans have a 51-49 majority. Republicans now are anti-abortion and Democrats are now pro-choice, but the parties really have no morals, no ethics they just react to the circumstances.

A handful of people in our example may have had values, but they just either stayed where they were or simply switched sides on a whim. The anti-abortion Democrat is no longer a Democrat, now they are Republican because Republicans are anti-abortion. That person was never a a "Democrat" they just were playing on the team most like them and when they didn't anymore, they switched. So the parties are just amorphous blobs that will change to gain power and people that have actual principals just switch to whichever one is the lesser of two evils at a particular time. The majority of politicians (our President is one) just change all of their positions over time to match however the party they are in changes.

Damn, you're more cynical than I am. I'm pretty cynical myself, but I'd say that most democrats are truly pro-choice in their hearts and minds and that the belief that women should have a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion played a large role in them becoming democrats. And the forming of that belief happened long before they thought about which party they were going to join or even that they were ever going to join a political party...