Red Mosquito

Mickey wrote:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:Certainly the party of billionaire president trump and his cabinet full of fellow out-of-touch billionaires who pose at the US Mint with piles of money and think a can of beans costs a nickel and that $1200 is 8 weeks’ liquidity aren’t going to push the other side as rich and out of touch, are they?

I mean he literally already won an election doing this so.

Yea, he barely won against an unpopular candidate, while promising to drain the swamp & help the little guy. Now it's more swampy and the little guy either lost his job or works a low paid "essential" job which seems to be a busy nightmare these days (at least in parts of the country). We only need 3-4% of his voters to lose support.

Polls this far out don't mean too much, but Biden is doing better with the white college degree folks than Hillary did. These numbers, if they held, would be better than Obama's with the "educated" white folk as well.

Don't disagree with any of that, just want to note that there's a difference between what you're arguing (that Trump is, in this specific moment, losing ground with part of his voting base) and what I'm arguing against (that Trump cannot, at any point in this election cycle, successfully paint himself as the anti-elite candidate).

That’s stupid. Let her enjoy her ice cream and nice fridge. It’s the American dream.

So the lesson is that poor white trash only hate the rich when it’s convenient to do so. Trump literally shit on golden toilets, so really, how can anyone who supports him complain about Nancy Pelosi’s choice of ice cream?

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:So the lesson is that poor white trash only hate the rich when it’s convenient to do so. Trump literally shit on golden toilets, so really, how can anyone who supports him complain about Nancy Pelosi’s choice of ice cream?

You think this logical inconsistency is going to be a gotcha moment that undoes thirty-plus years of ideological inculcation wherein the tax cut party is the party of working people? Ok.

Mickey wrote:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:So the lesson is that poor white trash only hate the rich when it’s convenient to do so. Trump literally shit on golden toilets, so really, how can anyone who supports him complain about Nancy Pelosi’s choice of ice cream?

You think this logical inconsistency is going to be a gotcha moment that undoes thirty-plus years of ideological inculcation wherein the tax cut party is the party of working people? Ok.

Of course not. It's just to point out how fucking stupid people are.

Anders wrote:That’s stupid. Let her enjoy her ice cream and nice fridge. It’s the American dream.

But his wine caves!

Well, there is a difference between hating people for being wealthy (stupid), and hating to see people raise most of their campaign money from wealthy people (not stupid, though not black/white).

I certainly don't think hating the ultra-rich is stupid.

Mickey wrote:I certainly don't think hating the ultra-rich is stupid.

*those who inherited their wealth

Strat wrote:

Mickey wrote:I certainly don't think hating the ultra-rich is stupid.

*those who inherited their wealth

Sure, them too.

Mickey wrote:I certainly don't think hating the ultra-rich is stupid.

Top 1% (nationwide) begins at $421k income. Top .1% would include many athletes, actors, big bands... I'm not saying many ultra-rich people don't deserve the hatred, but the $$ alone isn't enough.

Rob wrote:

Mickey wrote:I certainly don't think hating the ultra-rich is stupid.

Top 1% (nationwide) begins at $421k income. Top .1% would include many athletes, actors, big bands... I'm not saying many ultra-rich people don't deserve the hatred, but the $$ alone isn't enough.

That's fine, I don't just hate the wealthy.

Strat wrote:

Mickey wrote:I certainly don't think hating the ultra-rich is stupid.

*those who inherited their wealth

He means that if tomorrow you invented a cure for cancer and sold it for Beyonce makes in a month, you should fucking die. He's been pretty consistent on that one.

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

Mickey wrote:I certainly don't think hating the ultra-rich is stupid.

*those who inherited their wealth

He means that if tomorrow you invented a cure for cancer and sold it for Beyonce makes in a month, you should fucking die. He's been pretty consistent on that one.

Though to be fair to Mickey, you are definitely a better person if you take the position that the cure belongs to the people, like the polio guy did.

Selling the cure for cancer for tens of millions of dollars--which would mean a protracted period where you have the cure but are unwilling to share it until you're compensated for it--is perhaps not the robust argument for the morality of the wealthy you think it is!

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

Mickey wrote:I certainly don't think hating the ultra-rich is stupid.

*those who inherited their wealth

He means that if tomorrow you invented a cure for cancer and sold it for Beyonce makes in a month, you should fucking die. He's been pretty consistent on that one.

Threats of death notwithstanding, if someone comes up with the cure for cancer and delay it getting to the people who need it in search of the highest bidder, it's not really irrational to consider that an asshole move. I'm not even really sure that's a far left position.

digster wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

Mickey wrote:I certainly don't think hating the ultra-rich is stupid.

*those who inherited their wealth

He means that if tomorrow you invented a cure for cancer and sold it for Beyonce makes in a month, you should fucking die. He's been pretty consistent on that one.

Threats of death notwithstanding, if someone comes up with the cure for cancer and delay it getting to the people who need it in search of the highest bidder, it's not really irrational to consider that an asshole move. Is that honestly even a far-left position?

It would be an objectively immoral position, that's for sure.

Okay I'm not necessarily saying that either.