Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Zero Hedge — Hillary Clinton Now Blaming Socialist Democrats For Historic Election Loss


Says the former Goldwater girl.

But she is finally beginning to approach the truth: A lot of Democratic voters realized that she is really a Republican at heart. Enough to deny her the election.

Zero Hedge
Hillary Clinton Now Blaming Socialist Democrats For Historic Election Loss
Tyler Durden

22 comments:

Noah Way said...

Wait a sec ... you mean it wasn't the Russians?!

Konrad said...

The Washington Post says that Trump won 8% of the Black vote. If the U.S. population is 325,700,000, and if Blacks make up 13.3% of that population, then this means that 3,465,448 Blacks voted for Trump. That’s 760,850 more than the entire population of all races in Chicago.

(The other 17.3 million Blacks stayed home.)

Three and a half million Blacks voted for Trump because they were tired of Democrats thinking they were entitled to the Black vote, despite doing nothing for Blacks. They were tired of Democrats thinking that Hillary was entitled to the White House. They were tired of Democrats taking Blacks for granted. They were tired of Democrat self-righteousness. “We don’t have to change or fix anything. We are flawless. If you don’t vote for us, then you are deplorable.” They were tired of liberal group-think. They were tired of Democrats using Russia-gate to camouflage their corruption. They were tired of Democrats rigging primaries. They were tired of everything getting worse for Blacks, even when a Black was US President.

Republicans constantly think about how to win elections. Democrats feel they shouldn’t have to think, since Democrats are entitled to win. This is why Hillary hardly did any touring during the campaign. It’s why she will go to her grave blaming everyone but herself.

Andrew Anderson said...

Socialism ISN'T popular in the US. Yes, when desperate the population will take what it needs by any means, including socialism, but what the population actually desires, if it only knew how to get it, is justice.

Now please note the popularity of Social Security:
1) It is not means tested.
2) It is cash, not goods and so-called social services.
3) Social Security is not perceived as socialism but as EARNED income.

Likewise, a Citizen's Dividend would be popular too for the same reasons.

So would-be-US-socialists what is more important to you; what YOU want or what the American people want?

Andrew Anderson said...

They were tired of Democrat self-righteousness. Konrad

And I'm baffled by it.

But yeah, I guess they would have to proclaim their OWN righteousness since whoever else would?

Noah Way said...

Here is a comprehensive list of all the things Obama did for blacks:

Konrad said...

In case my comments about Blacks made anyone curious, I myself am white (Scotch-Irish).

Like most people, I agree with progressives on many points, but I also agree with conservatives on many points.

I do not favor extremes. I despise the liberals’ political correctness and SJW trash, and I also despise the conservatives’ neoliberalism. Both extremes are killing us.

Andrew Anderson said...

I do not favor extremes. Konrad

It seems an unjust system eventually leads to extremes, inexorably. Therefore is it extreme to insist on a just system? Is it extreme to protest the sham liabilities of the banks?

For a long time the inherent injustice of our system was tolerable since it produced a rising standard of living and good jobs. Well, now the "job creators" are job destroyers via automation and outsourcing. What now if not fundamental reform?

SJW?

Andrew Anderson said...

Not that automation or outsourcing are bad but they could have benefited everyone, not just a few, IF they had been ethically financed.

Konrad said...

ANDREW ANDERSON WRITES: “It seems an unjust system eventually leads to extremes, inexorably.”

Yes.

ANDREW ANDERSON WRITES: “Therefore is it extreme to insist on a just system? Is it extreme to protest the sham liabilities of the banks?”

Yes. In times of universal injustice, it is blasphemy to call for justice.

Today, extreme neoliberalism is called “centrism.” Extreme neoliberals are called “moderates.”

Meanwhile anyone who calls for balance and moderation is called an “extremist.” This is our world of madness. Contrary to the popular axiom, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is not a king, but a heretic.


ANDREW ANDERSON WRITES: “For a long time the inherent injustice of our system was tolerable since it produced a rising standard of living and good jobs. Well, now the ‘job creators’ are job destroyers via automation and outsourcing. What now if not fundamental reform?”

Reform is inevitable. The only question is whether it will be voluntary or involuntary. If it is involuntary (which appears to be the most likely) then poverty, inequality, and corruption will continue to eat the USA, starting with poorer communities and unstoppably moving toward the affluent communities. If you have seen the endlessly multiplying homeless people in Los Angeles, then you have seen the near future of most of the USA.

SJW = Social Justice Warrior.

ANDREW ANDERSON WRITES: “Not that automation or outsourcing are bad, but they could have benefited everyone, not just a few, IF they had been ethically financed.”

Back in 1962, Hanna-Barbera Productions envisioned the future as the “Jetsons” cartoon, in which everything was automated, and “work” consisted of spending our days relaxing with our feet up on our desks.

Hanna-Barbera forgot that human greed and selfishness are perennial. If there is any way that some people can use technology to increase the suffering of other people, they will do it.

This happens because the sensation of wealth and power are relative. The rich don’t truly feel “rich” unless the masses are poor and miserable.

Put another way, the sensation of wealth and power is a product of the gap between the rich and the rest. Therefore rich people constantly seek to widen this gap.

Andrew Anderson said...

Ruthless, evil people are a given and do not explain much anyway. The problem is our fiat and credit system presents people with only two options:

1) Be a pure victim of the system.
2) Take advantage of that system, as much as you can, to avoid being, as much as you can, a victim of the system.

The system is thus INTENSELY CORRUPTING.

Andrew Anderson said...

Well, another option is:
3) Take advantage of the system only as much as one has to, seeking neither to get rich nor be driven into poverty.

Andrew Anderson said...

The origin of the "rat race" is a mystery no more to me.

The problem for bankers is that though even a single cornered rat is dangerous they have no choice, as members of the rat race themselves, but to continue cornering other rats.

Noah Way said...

Socialism ISN'T popular in the US.

Except for public roads, schools, emergency services, parks, Medicare, social security, etc.

Andrew Anderson said...

That's called a mixed economy, public and private ownership.

Nearly everyone recognizes that somethings like roads are necessarily in the public sector.

I'm just telling you as it is. People want CASH not meddling in their lives as if the victims are at fault and not the system.

Tom Hickey said...

People want CASH not meddling in their lives as if the victims are at fault and not the system.

My impression is that giving out cash "free" is not viable politically in the US. There is more political support for means-tested benefits but even that this marginal politically.

The big problem with both cash and benefits is inflation. If transfers are not indexed to inflation, they get inflated away. If they are indicted, they exacerbate inflationary trends.

The genius of the MMT JG is its price anchor to an hour of unskilled labor.

As Warren Mosler points out, there is always some price anchor. Under a convertible system it the real asset that the currency is freely convertible into, such as gold or sliver.

The present anchor is the interest rate set by the cb as the administrator of the government's monetary policy. The problem here is that the people in charge at the cb are not aware that increasing the interest is increasing the price of money, which adds to inflation.

Andrew Anderson said...

My impression is that giving out cash "free" is not viable politically in the US. Tom Hickey

It will be as more and more get wise wrt special privileges for the banks.

I'm beginning to devoutly desire the abolition of physical fiat so that elitists such as W. Mosler and Neil Wilson can explain to citizens how it is that THEY MAY NOT USE THEIR NATION'S FIAT AT ALL BUT INSTEAD MUST WORK THROUGH AN ACCURSED USURY CARTEL.

Will you care to explain it to them, Tom? Will you wish you had had a MORAL anchor then? Such as tens of thousands might have done in 1793 France?

Konrad said...

TOM HICKEY WRITES: “My impression is that giving out cash ‘free’ is not viable politically in the US.”

It depends on who gets the loot. Giving out cash is politically viable as long as the cash goes only to the rich. The federal government gives out trillions of dollars in corporate subsidies, plus Wall Street bailouts, and so on. Weapons makers enjoy a river of cash for producing garbage. Big Ag gets paid for not growing crops. For the rich, anything is politically viable.

TOM HICKEY WRITES: “The big problem with both cash and benefits is inflation. If transfers are not indexed to inflation, they get inflated away. If they are indicted, they exacerbate inflationary trends.”

Yes. Simply giving out cash would be counterproductive, since it would be sucked up to the top, as all the money is now. Without special controls, any cash given to the lower classes would cause an increase in rents, in debt payments, and so on.

Without special controls, cash outlays to the poor would just end up making rich people even richer. Cash gifts would widen the gap between rich and poor.

Andrew Anderson said...

Without special controls, any cash given to the lower classes would cause an increase in rents, Konrad

Yes but that raises the question why it is that so many have to rent in the first place?

So I suggest, at the Federal level, highly progressive taxes on land ownership with a single homestead exemption or at most two and Federal grants for the purchase of a house or condo if one does not own one.

Andrew Anderson said...

It's not a total solution but some things, like a roof over one's head, should not be winner take all.

Andrew Anderson said...

Make that high, highly progressive taxes - the purpose being to make them desperate to sell.

Andrew Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew Anderson said...

“The big problem with both cash ... is inflation Tom Hickey

You do realize that raising the demand for fiat, such as allowing the citizens to actually use fiat in convenient form, IS DEFLATIONARY?

Do you also realize that eliminating privileges for the banks IS DEFLATIONARY?

And that inflation can be countered with deflation?

So let's here no more about inflation if you are not serious about eliminating privileges for the banks. One hand washes the other; i.e. reform allows a huge fiat distribution WITHOUT INFLATION and a huge fiat distribution allows reform WITHOUT DEFLATION.