The Sudden Unpopularity of Neoliberal Centrists

[F250 28786]

I'm not sure how accurate the title is but there does appear to be a general dislike for laissez faire capitalism growing on both the left and right. I still think the electorate is mostly made up of the center-left and center-right but its obvious that the populist movements on the Right and Left have a lot of issues with capitalism.

I've seen the neoliberal label thrown around a lot, primarily as a pejorative but there doesn't seem to be a clear definition of neoliberalism. If possible, could someone explain it or at least explain what it means to you?

As I understand it, within the framework of a mixed economy, the desire of the progressive left isn't to abolish capitalism but move towards a further leaning socialist economy within a mixed economy framework. Is this accurate?

What Presidential candidates would fall within the neoliberal label? I don't see Trump as one for sure. Biden, Buttigieg, Beto, Harris all seem to fit the bill. I am unsure about Warren, I see her as one too but I don't really understand what makes one a neoliberal.

This stood out to me because it pretty much describes myself.

It seems clear that the type of progressivism that Schultz and many tech leaders subscribe to, one that seeks to combine social progressivism with relatively laissez-faire capitalism, is quickly going out of fashion. In fact, what’s especially interesting is the extent to which this position has become disliked across the political spectrum. A poll of Schultz’s candidacy revealed a remarkably consistent negative opinion of him across not just Democrats and Republicans, but Independents as well.

 

https://quillette.com/2019/03/14/the-sudden-unpopularity-of-neoliberal-centrists/

[bad_teammate 13218]

15 minutes ago, F250 said:

I've seen the neoliberal label thrown around a lot, primarily as a pejorative but there doesn't seem to be a clear definition of neoliberalism. If possible, could someone explain it or at least explain what it means to you?

Neoliberalism is Clintonian/Bush politics. Either outright privatization or "public/private partnerships" in as many aspects of life as possible. Deregulation to the maximum extent possible. Performative tolerance and wokeness (black female prison guards and transgender CEOs).

Essentially, the economic and social policies that have made Surly posters wealthy and comfortable at the expense of everyone else but not uncouth or demonstrably racist/homophobic/xenophobic/transphobic about it.

In a foreign policy sense, the neoliberal order is one that stresses America's primacy and expectionalism. Where the neocon will cheer as brown people are annihilated by white phosphorous, the neoliberal will do the exact same thing but feel guilty about it.

Quote

 What Presidential candidates would fall within the neoliberal label? I don't see Trump as one for sure. Biden, Buttigieg, Beto, Harris all seem to fit the bill. I am unsure about Warren, I see her as one too but I don't really understand what makes one a neoliberal.

Harris, Biden, Buttigieg, and Beto for sure.

A few questions...

- Would this candidate genuinely seek to hamper the power and wealth of Wall Street?

- Does this candidate genuinely want increased worker control of corporations?

- Does this candidate actually want to shrink the wealth and income caps?

- Does this candidate genuinely oppose foreign adventure wars or the nigh-indiscriminate murder of brown foreigners?

If the answer is "no" to any of these, you're dealing with a neoliberal.

And most posters here are OK with that because most posters here are decently-well-off white men who benefit (and have benefited for centuries) from a neoliberal order.

[F250 28786]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Would this candidate genuinely seek to hamper the power and wealth of Wall Street?

- Does this candidate genuinely want increased worker control of corporations?

- Does this candidate actually want to shrink the wealth and income caps?

- Does this candidate genuinely oppose foreign adventure wars or the nigh-indiscriminate murder of brown foreigners?

If the answer is "no" to any of these, you're dealing with a neoliberal.

Correct me if I am wrong but Warren would be yes to everything except the underlined question. I don't think I've seen anything in her proposed policies or rhetoric that would indicate she is seeking this out.

[bad_teammate 13218]

She has a proposal that all corporations worth $1B+ must have a federal charter instead of a state charter and that part of that would be that the workers themselves get to elect 40% of the board of directors. Kind of like worker's councils in German corporations.

NOT a neo-liberal, in video form:

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Parliament 14261]

The Democrat Congress that Reagan sparred with (Tip O'Neil, et. al) I think fits your definition. Bill Clinton the President did too.

Joe Biden wants to be this way, but the current Democrat Party base won't allow it.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

As the poor continue to grow with wealth inequality, both parties will have to adopt a non Laissez faire stance.  The right will be less obvious about it, but trump nationalist policies will not go away when his presidency eventually ends. They will be about protectionist policies.  The left will be about taxing the rich to pay for programs/support/welfare for the poor. 

Both will make the poor worse off in the end.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

She has a proposal that all corporations worth $1B+ must have a federal charter instead of a state charter and that part of that would be that the workers themselves get to elect 40% of the board of directors.

 

Yes, it’s in her “Accountable Capitalism Act” 

[Bojack 2081]

Joe Biden is the supposed front runner of the Democratic Party and just served 8 years as VP.  Also, anyone calling it the "Democrat Party" can fuck off on discussions about democrats much the way anyone referring to The University of Texas can fuck off if they're calling us t.u. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah I mean saying the Democratic Party “won’t allow” neoliberalism while saying Biden is a neoliberal and then not acknowledging Biden is the current Democratic front runner is quite the omission in order to make a horseshit point.

But there’s a reason SOME Democrats are railing against the old O’Neill/Clinton/Biden mold.

Because we’re fucking tired of being told WE hav to be bipartisan and reach across the aisle when the people we are reaching out to are the ones who publicly stated their number one goal in 2009 was to make Obama a one term president, not to do anything for the people. When the ones we’re supposed to compromise with won’t vote on properly and legally appointed judges for political reasons. When the ones we’re supposed to extend our hand to won’t hold a single vote in the senate for the over 100 bills passed by the house.

BECAUSE WE’RE TIRED, BITCH.

Compromise and bipartisan only come up for Republicans when Democrats are in charge.

They cheer their fat faces off when Republicans are in charge and don’t move one millimeter.

So fuck the fuck off with that “DEMOCRATS WON’T COMPROMISE ANY MORE!!!!” disingenuous garbage.

The shithead Republicans started this. See how it feels for once.

[wildcat09 29355]

9 hours ago, F250 said:

Correct me if I am wrong but Warren would be yes to everything except the underlined question. I don't think I've seen anything in her proposed policies or rhetoric that would indicate she is seeking this out.

She's a yes to that as well. Her bill would require large corporations to allow their workers to elect 40% of the membership of their boards of directors.

[Guest Lobo]

How would that work for public companies?  If some large shareholders/institutional investors/market makers don't get to vote on board seats anymore, they have be heavily tempted to sell their shares.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

How would that work for public companies?  If some large shareholders/institutional investors/market makers don't get to vote on board seats anymore, they have be heavily tempted to sell their shares.  

And they'll put those dollars somewhere else or just sit on the cash.  I think this type of policy change would eventually work, but growing pains would be frequent for a while.

[GSU&UT 1798]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

How would that work for public companies?  If some large shareholders/institutional investors/market makers don't get to vote on board seats anymore, they have be heavily tempted to sell their shares.  

I've always thought of this as just some pain we're going to have to be willing to endure so that the working class is no longer held hostage by board members who only care about profits above everything else.

[bad_teammate 13218]

Well "40%" is specifically chosen to make sure labor can't really threaten capital's power, so it's not like Warren really wants the workers to actually be in control.

[wildcat09 29355]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Well "40%" is specifically chosen to make sure labor can't really threaten capital's power, so it's not like Warren really wants the workers to actually be in control.

Yeah, the German codetermination system allows workers to elect half of their company's board, which would be significantly better, but I think 40% is still an enormous step in the right direction.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Well "40%" is specifically chosen to make sure labor can't really threaten capital's power, so it's not like Warren really wants the workers to actually be in control.

They shouldn't be in control. There's a reason why they're the workers, and not the concept/management people.

[F250 28786]

25 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

They shouldn't be in control. There's a reason why they're the workers, and not the concept/management people.

The idea is new to me so it seems odd but after taking a look a the Siemens members, it seems that the members appointed by the employees are not your run of the mill employees. It's not like they have Frank from the warehouse sitting on the board.

https://new.siemens.com/global/en/company/about/supervisoryboard.html

[GSU&UT 1798]

34 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

They shouldn't be in control. There's a reason why they're the workers, and not the concept/management people.

Yeah, the reason is that they hold basically no control and have little means to move up.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Yeah, the reason is that they hold basically no control and have little means to move up.

The struggle is real comrade. I'll bet your favorite movie is Hail Caesar.

[wildcat09 29355]

36 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

They shouldn't be in control. There's a reason why they're the workers, and not the concept/management people.

It's really funny because pretty much everyone who knows anything about this stuff knows there's a lot of thoughtful ideas for how to reform our corporate and financial systems to perform better for more people, and it's not even the guys who know better but stand to lose money that keep us from actually enacting any meaningful reforms, it's idiots like this who know literally nothing but are certain that they understand the issues perfectly.

[Guest Lobo]

Does her proposal suggest that workers have 40% board seats and the other 60% is shareholder approved?  At many corporations, the workers still have stock in the company, be it in form of ISO, NQSO, ESPP, etc.  wouldn’t that basically make the 40% position be a hostile takeover of minority shareholders/activist investors?  Granted their aggregate ownership may be on the single digits, but a group with 40% board control, 10% of shares, and all of the door keys and passwords would be a different animal than I think warren understands   I like the idea but as stated above, the mechanics and transition pains are far beyond what most realize

Carl Icahn has been called much worse for board activism at 20%, and he couldn’t turn on a light switch if you showed him how.  

Plus, what’s to stop a large privately held billion dollar corporation from just splitting itself in two entities to avoid the charter mandate?   XYZ Gas stations becomes ABC fuel stations and 123 Convenience stores, two separate companies who share real estate just like an optometry Office /frames dispensary.   Be tougher to do that as a public company, but there’s a couple hundred privates of this market cap.

think about the potential for bribery.   Telling an employee if they vote your way on the board, they’ll get a bonus/raise.   It’s not illegal if you game their contract so it says they get 5000 shares if they sell 5000 widgets that year despite their track record indicating they sell far more than that anyway.  How will we protect the employees that aren’t intimately involved with the board selection process?  How does this avoid the embedded issues of corruption we see with other unions and boards?

finally, the mandated shift from state charter to federal charter?   You want to tell Cargill or Koch they need to but up and federally register, I’m all for it.   Their business lines demand it   But why does a large grocery store, liquor distributor, real estate developer, et al that only deals in one state and adheres to that states rules have to go federal?   It’ll open them up to all kinds of issues and legal problems.   My retail stores of Texas number 100 but are only in Texas and every other state is different for my sale of trees and bourbon, let’s say.   We are worth two billion and now I’m federally vulnerable because every state deals with tree and liquor sales differently.  

State domicile, commerce clause, and two guys name Joe Biden and Harry Reid are all going to have a lot to say about this.   You think Delaware and Nevada are gonna give up their oligopolies on corporate domicile for big companies?   You’re outta your fucking mind Senator Warren.  Otherwise, this is certainly a good idea worth fleshing out.   But watch your back in the Senate shower where those two still have alumni memberships   

 

 

 

[DaysOff 7956]

Well "40%" is specifically chosen to make sure labor can't really threaten capital's power, so it's not like Warren really wants the workers to actually be in control.

No shit. Our union master chairman has a seat at the UAL board. Pretty sure he gets a coloring book at the kid's table during meetings, but WE HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE LOLZ.

[wildcat09 29355]

20 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Does her proposal suggest that workers have 40% board seats and the other 60% is shareholder approved?  At many corporations, the workers still have stock in the company, be it in form of ISO, NQSO, ESPP, etc.  wouldn’t that basically make the 40% position be a hostile takeover of minority shareholders/activist investors?  Granted their aggregate ownership may be on the single digits, but a group with 40% board control, 10% of shares, and all of the door keys and passwords would be a different animal than I think warren understands   I like the idea but as stated above, the mechanics and transition pains are far beyond what most realize

 Carl Icahn has been called much worse for board activism at 20%, and he couldn’t turn on a light switch if you showed him how.  

 Plus, what’s to stop a large privately held billion dollar corporation from just splitting itself in two entities to avoid the charter mandate?   XYZ Gas stations becomes ABC fuel stations and 123 Convenience stores, two separate companies who share real estate just like an optometry Office /frames dispensary.   Be tougher to do that as a public company, but there’s a couple hundred privates of this market cap.

 think about the potential for bribery.   Telling an employee if they vote your way on the board, they’ll get a bonus/raise.   It’s not illegal if you game their contract so it says they get 5000 shares if they sell 5000 widgets that year despite their track record indicating they sell far more than that anyway.  How will we protect the employees that aren’t intimately involved with the board selection process?  How does this avoid the embedded issues of corruption we see with other unions and boards?

 finally, the mandated shift from state charter to federal charter?   You want to tell Cargill or Koch they need to but up and federally register, I’m all for it.   Their business lines demand it   But why does a large grocery store, liquor distributor, real estate developer, et al that only deals in one state and adheres to that states rules have to go federal?   It’ll open them up to all kinds of issues and legal problems.   My retail stores of Texas number 100 but are only in Texas and every other state is different for my sale of trees and bourbon, let’s say.   We are worth two billion and now I’m federally vulnerable because every state deals with tree and liquor sales differently.  

 State domicile, commerce clause, and two guys name Joe Biden and Harry Reid are all going to have a lot to say about this.   You think Delaware and Nevada are gonna give up their oligopolies on corporate domicile for big companies?   You’re outta your fucking mind Senator Warren.  Otherwise, this is certainly a good idea worth fleshing out.   But watch your back in the Senate shower where those two still have alumni memberships   

  

 

 

This is a lot of effort put into a concern troll post.

[Bozo_Casanova 26494]

I disagree that ideological alignment is important outside of VERY deep blue districts and the very loud fringes who dominate social media. Joe Biden is leading the field and Elizabeth Warren's policy ideas are about as extreme as a middle of the road Democrat in 1965.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

If Warren can bridge the gap between the yas kween Hillary resistance wine moms and the racist misogynistic communist Bernie Bros while still keeping her same platform that would be ideal. I still wouldn't vote for her due to electability issues, but I bet a bunch of other people would. 

[bad_teammate 13218]

Bernie supports Warren's co-determination project, and something I really like is that he wants to start special loan/grant programs for co-ops and other worker-control corporate structures.

If the government is giving corporations money, we absolutely should have either a federal ownership piece of the company or, at the very least, worker control of the company (depending on the amount of government investment relative to company size/output and all that).

Right now we just shovel cash into the unaccountable hands of stupid freaks like Elon Musk and watch them set it on fire while the workers and taxpayers get fucking nothing.

[Guest]

when have we had laissez-faire capitalism?

 

we have an aversion to consequences.  Consequences help steer the ship.

 

"I hate that we keep going around in circles."

 

"Duh.  You never let correction take place."

Edited June 10, 2019 by slorch

[bad_teammate 13218]

36 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Well "40%" is specifically chosen to make sure labor can't really threaten capital's power, so it's not like Warren really wants the workers to actually be in control.

No shit. Our union master chairman has a seat at the UAL board. Pretty sure he gets a coloring book at the kid's table during meetings, but WE HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE LOLZ.

And here's the thing that's PURE Democrat about it: It pre-negotiates with Republicans who will never go for it anyway. 

The only way ANY level of co-determination would pass is by increasing the power of the left, so why not just give the fucking left what it wants to actually motivate them to come vote for it?

Warren: "I'll make it 40% so it looks good to the workers, but the capital class will know that it's not really a threat so they won't oppose it."

Capital Class: "Fuck you, no."

Warren: "BUT MY LOGIC WAS SO SOUND!"

[bad_teammate 13218]

All the candidates (except Biden, who is perpetually in hiding) had their people show up at a big Democratic talk/party/conference thing in Iowa recently. They all mobilized as much as possible to wave signs and such. Bernie got his supporters to show up at local McDonald's to march with McD's workers who were striking for a higher wage.

Here, as Bernie's people are marching and chanting with the McD's strikers, Kamala's people are chanting at them, "It's time for a woman in the White House!"

That's neo-liberalism in a nutshell. Politics of the people vs woke image and identity politics that are about the candidate, not the people.

 

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

This is a lot of effort put into a concern troll post.

Doesn’t change that she’ll have to address these concerns one day and that my employees have a plurality board stake.  I do weird shit like think things through and reward stakeholders.   But good luck with your screenplay.  

[Biff Tannen 45692]

They could be fascist anarchists and it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car.

[Bozo_Casanova 26494]

when have we had laissez-faire capitalism?

 

we have an aversion to consequences.  Consequences help steer the ship.

 

"I hate that we keep going around in circles."

 

"Duh.  You never let correction take place."

we essentially had laissez-faire capitalism following the end of reconstruction and it lead to a 23 year period of deflationary stagnation from 1873-1896 and the crises of 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1896, 1901 and 1907. It is unquestionably the worst period of American economic history, which is why we protect capitalism with public referees and healthy regulation today.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

we essentially had laissez-faire capitalism following the end of reconstruction and it lead to a 23 year period of deflationary stagnation from 1873-1896 and the crises of 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1896, 1901 and 1907. It is unquestionably the worst period of American economic history, which is why we protect capitalism with public referees and healthy regulation today.

 

Healthy regulation

 

pos  rep for laugh of the day. 

Edited June 10, 2019 by slorch

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

4 hours ago, Lobo said:

Does her proposal suggest that workers have 40% board seats and the other 60% is shareholder approved?  At many corporations, the workers still have stock in the company, be it in form of ISO, NQSO, ESPP, etc.  wouldn’t that basically make the 40% position be a hostile takeover of minority shareholders/activist investors?  Granted their aggregate ownership may be on the single digits, but a group with 40% board control, 10% of shares, and all of the door keys and passwords would be a different animal than I think warren understands   I like the idea but as stated above, the mechanics and transition pains are far beyond what most realize

Carl Icahn has been called much worse for board activism at 20%, and he couldn’t turn on a light switch if you showed him how.  

Plus, what’s to stop a large privately held billion dollar corporation from just splitting itself in two entities to avoid the charter mandate?   XYZ Gas stations becomes ABC fuel stations and 123 Convenience stores, two separate companies who share real estate just like an optometry Office /frames dispensary.   Be tougher to do that as a public company, but there’s a couple hundred privates of this market cap.

 think about the potential for bribery.   Telling an employee if they vote your way on the board, they’ll get a bonus/raise.   It’s not illegal if you game their contract so it says they get 5000 shares if they sell 5000 widgets that year despite their track record indicating they sell far more than that anyway.  How will we protect the employees that aren’t intimately involved with the board selection process?  How does this avoid the embedded issues of corruption we see with other unions and boards?

finally, the mandated shift from state charter to federal charter?   You want to tell Cargill or Koch they need to but up and federally register, I’m all for it.   Their business lines demand it   But why does a large grocery store, liquor distributor, real estate developer, et al that only deals in one state and adheres to that states rules have to go federal?   It’ll open them up to all kinds of issues and legal problems.   My retail stores of Texas number 100 but are only in Texas and every other state is different for my sale of trees and bourbon, let’s say.   We are worth two billion and now I’m federally vulnerable because every state deals with tree and liquor sales differently.  

State domicile, commerce clause, and two guys name Joe Biden and Harry Reid are all going to have a lot to say about this.   You think Delaware and Nevada are gonna give up their oligopolies on corporate domicile for big companies?   You’re outta your fucking mind Senator Warren.  Otherwise, this is certainly a good idea worth fleshing out.   But watch your back in the Senate shower where those two still have alumni memberships   

  

  

 

I printed off this post and mailed it to her campaign and they just called me and said she's not running anymore. She even said facts don't care about her feelings and then she started crying because she knew how wrong she was. 

[Guest Lobo]

Show me where I said she was wrong.  I even agree with her a handful of times.  What I did, was something wild and whacky, I proposed an open and respectful discussion as an anti-Trump, pro-liberty political activist.  Her proposal is politically popular.  What I thought we could do as adults was discuss the logistics and mechanics of something this intricate.  So I asked a few questions with a few facts and a lot of respect.  But you have to dismiss out of hand and you seemingly at least had the decency to go back and edit your post where you called me a Nazi four times.  She is very much on to something original, at leasts in terms of the other empty shitbags she is running against.  We could do something cool here and discuss and arrive at a few action items.  But you can't wrap your head around that.  Because anyone who doesn't give this plan carte blanche is a Nazi, even though MOST of your party's candidates don't advocate something like this.  Here I am actually proposing a good faith effort at implementation and your one and only reaction is hyperbolic bullshit.  

I am honestly sorry you aren't taken seriously in politics.  As Uncle Jeff once said, if you were 10% less conceited, I could make you President.  

[wildcat09 29355]

12 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Show me where I said she was wrong.  I even agree with her a handful of times.  What I did, was something wild and whacky, I proposed an open and respectful discussion as an anti-Trump, pro-liberty political activist.  Her proposal is politically popular.  What I thought we could do as adults was discuss the logistics and mechanics of something this intricate.  So I asked a few questions with a few facts and a lot of respect.  But you have to dismiss out of hand and you seemingly at least had the decency to go back and edit your post where you called me a Nazi four times.  She is very much on to something original, at leasts in terms of the other empty shitbags she is running against.  We could do something cool here and discuss and arrive at a few action items.  But you can't wrap your head around that.  Because anyone who doesn't give this plan carte blanche is a Nazi, even though MOST of your party's candidates don't advocate something like this.  Here I am actually proposing a good faith effort at implementation and your one and only reaction is hyperbolic bullshit.  

I am honestly sorry you aren't taken seriously in politics.  As Uncle Jeff once said, if you were 10% less conceited, I could make you President.  

Who called you a nazi four times and then edited their post to remove it?

[TwiceHorn 31505]

Having given some thought to it, while Warren's proposal probably deliberately does not give workers a majority share, lobo raises the valid point that getting near 50% could create a voting bloc necessary to achieve major corporate governance issues and many takeover types thus create havoc with far less than 40%.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

That 40% could be a damned valuable bargaining chip ala proxy vote.

[wildcat09 29355]

23 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That 40% could be a damned valuable bargaining chip ala proxy vote.

Fun fact, pretty much every shareholder vote for any publicly traded corporation is cast via proxy. This is due to another fun fact, which is that all of the publicly traded companies in the country only actually have one record shareholder. You don’t actually own any of that stock you think is yours, but you get to vote via proxy on behalf of the record owner because we have a very stupid system for shareholder voting.

[Guest Lobo]

Good point.  And speaking of "stupid system for shareholder voting"...I wonder if it'll take 10 minutes or 30 minutes for these "federally chartered corporations" to invent a new share class to usurp Sen. Warren's mandate.  Because as well know, A, B, C, et. al.  Those share classes with myriad voting privileges and board authority always cleanly and nearly fall under the authority of the sitting POTUS.  I mean, the precedent on this is just robust as hell.  But yeah, you ask questions about her plan and you get back sassiness from folks that are looking to make shift manager by October.  

[wildcat09 29355]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Good point.  And speaking of "stupid system for shareholder voting"...I wonder if it'll take 10 minutes or 30 minutes for these "federally chartered corporations" to invent a new share class to usurp Sen. Warren's mandate.  Because as well know, A, B, C, et. al.  Those share classes with myriad voting privileges and board authority always cleanly and nearly fall under the authority of the sitting POTUS.  I mean, the precedent on this is just robust as hell.  But yeah, you ask questions about her plan and you get back sassiness from folks that are looking to make shift manager by October.  

I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer my question. Who called you a nazi?

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer my question. Who called you a nazi?

Anyone who doesn't agree with her idea is a Nazi.  Despite being an anti-Trump registered Libertarian, I have been called a Nazi more times than I can count on this board.  however, you are correct-in this particular thread---I was made a villain and called other things, but not Nazi.  So for that, I walk in your shadow and all of my questions regarding the Warren policy suggestion are null and void despite their complete validity.  You would have been a great activist.  

[wildcat09 29355]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Anyone who doesn't agree with her idea is a Nazi.  Despite being an anti-Trump registered Libertarian, I have been called a Nazi more times than I can count on this board.  however, you are correct-in this particular thread---I was made a villain and called other things, but not Nazi.  So for that, I walk in your shadow and all of my questions regarding the Warren policy suggestion are null and void despite their complete validity.  You would have been a great activist.  

Oh I see, you’re just being hysterical. Carry on, then.

[Guest Lobo]

Do you want to get back to the logistics or her policy proposal or?  

[wildcat09 29355]

I don’t really see the point in attempting a good faith discussion with someone who invents an accusation against someone else that said someone else called them a nazi four times. It indicates an unlikeliness that the conversation will be productive in any meaningful sense.

[Guest Lobo]

 I have admitted two things---that my line of questioning on the policy proposal is valid and thought out.  And that I was used to being name-called and lumped in with others on this board and I mistakenly lumped that in with what I still say is a valid line of logistics on a policy I think has legs.  How about this?  I won't ask anything else on this thread and you agree to just let my mistake rot in hell?  And we can get back to what almost has the chance to be a valid thread?  My inquiries on this policy thread and your redundancy are both about as welcomed as...well, each other.  

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

 Despite being an anti-Trump registered Libertarian,  

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

That is something like the flip side of when SC Republicans booed Ron Paul for citing the Golden Rule:

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26494]

 

They may take our lives, but they will never take OUR TOASTERS!

[GSU&UT 1798]

If you like Toaster Guy, watch him have a meltdown when Sam Seder asks him some very very basic questions about how a society should exist. He has a meltdown about 10 minutes in