a multimillionaire... who could self-finance....From the comments:
I can easily see why the Huffington Post deemed her the "democrat version of Mitt Romney". I can't wait to find out how much she makes from dividends per year. I wonder how many tax havens she has? It will be interesting to see how the dems treat her, we all know she would be crucified if she were a republican. Heck, in her professional life she's driven by profit but since she has a 'D' next to her name she'll be thought of as brilliant, if she were a republican she would be evil.And:
Let the hypocrisy begin!!
So let me get this straight, the Dems are thinking about shamelessly and hypocritically putter up as a candidate someone who:And:
1) is a 1%-er
2) comes from the Private Sector
3) relied on nepotism to succeed.
Are people that selfish, hypocritical, and willfully ignorant that they will really sacrifice their beliefs to serve their own self-interests?
Run Brett RunThat refers to this.
By the way, whatever happened to the "Occupy" movement? Maybe it's taking a break out there somewhere with the Coffee Party.
Posts
15 comments:
Shameless implies having a sense of shame. Judging from your numerous posts on WI democrats its hard to imagine WI democrats having a sense of shame and thus being shameless.
"Occupy"? It collapsed from its own internal inconsistencies and silliness. It was never anything more than a veneer of populism -- a hasty "me too!" response to the populism of the Tea Partiers -- slapped on top of the standard tangled ball of leftist grievances and whines*.
Its ideological buddies in the media and Democratic Party tried to nurse it along, but ultimately there wasn't enough popular support (kind of important for 'populism') to keep it going.
——
*Plus the new grievances arising from the realization that putting a D. in the Presidency didn't actually bring about the Millenium as hoped.
Rich, liberal elitists and authoritarians are the Democrats base. The press and cultural elites carry their water, so the hypocrisy remains unexamined in the popular culture. Instead they point fingers at the GOP, knowing they won't be called out on their bullshit within their culture.
Answer to your question: yes.
Yup - Brett can campaign in his speedo and then settle the subject for Marcotte once and for all...
Heh. I still get some Coffee Party emails every now and then to one of my troll email accounts.
When organizations like this collapse, the remnants always seem to be the same. Some tired lefty Gogos, and some anti-GMO propaganda, and a big dollop of authoritarianism.
Rich, liberal elitists and authoritarians are the Democrats base. The press and cultural elites carry their water, so the hypocrisy remains unexamined in the popular culture. Instead they point fingers at the GOP, knowing they won't be called out on their bullshit within their culture.
And predictably, SGT Ted provides an example of the ressentiment that underlies much of contemporary conservatism. Remember comrades, there is no war but the class war!
Good on the self-financing.
Wouldn't want the demmies to have to actually show support with money, would we?
It's enough to cast a couple ballots. What more do you want?
John Henry
Hey, she's a trend setter. First female president of Maple Grove Country Club. A real woman of the people.
"Are people that selfish, hypocritical, and willfully ignorant that they will really sacrifice their beliefs to serve their own self-interests?"
Yes. Democrats are sociopaths (and/or "willfully ignorant).
No ressentiment on the left, nosirreebob. Happy warriors everywhere!
Somefeller wrote: "And predictably, SGT Ted provides an example of the ressentiment that underlies much of contemporary conservatism. Remember comrades, there is no war but the class war!"
"Ressentiment" underlies conservatism? You are confused about conservatism or "ressentiment," or both. Or perhaps you are just projecting. Anyway, nice try, but silly.
And predictably somefeller provides an example of Sgt Ted's "elites" and punctuates it with ressentiment thrown in for emphasis. Good work comrade.
The September 2013 issue of MONEY magazine has an article entitled "Lessons From The Crash" that has a timeline of significant economic events between December 2007 and June 2013.
In addition to the collapse of the housing market, the Dow, Greece, and QE, I was stunned to see that one of the "significant events" during that period was the 9/17/2011 start of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Come on, seriously? OWS is a significant economic event of the last few years???
I didn't expect to see the TEA Parties listed, and they weren't, but they probably had a greater impact on economic debate than OWS.
MONEY needs fewer left wing hacks on their writing staff.
There is no difference between the Democrats or the Republicans any more, not enough anyway to result in significant changes of public policy if Dems win or Republicans win. They all work for the 1% and for American empire. With the odd exception here or there, candidates for elective office--at least at the national level--seek office to aggrandize their own power and wealth, not to serve the interests of their purported constituents, (the people who voted for them). They see their true constituents as the financial elites who finance their campaigns. They parade their credentials hoping the people who own the country will hire them. Why be surprised that when they're hired they work assiduously doing the jobs they were hired to do?
Post a Comment