HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HughBeaumont » Journal
Page: 1

HughBeaumont

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Aug 13, 2004, 02:12 PM
Number of posts: 24,461

About Me

If anyone's wondering why I haven't been here much lately, it's because I feel no one is learning anything from 2016. Neoliberalism is a thing and it doesn't win elections in the 21st Century. People want a candidate that's going to take strong, non-waffling stands on human rights the rest of the world enjoys. Enough living in the goddamned Reagan 1980s. Enough taking solar panels off the roof. Enough introducing more rightwingedness into American economics. Enough medical bankruptcies. Enough governing by mythology. Enough science denial. Enough of spitting on women, children, veterans and the LGBTQI community. Enough kicking the can. ENOUGH. America needs to move past it's "everything has to be about making a buck" bullshit. I'd prefer a candidate not born during the FDR/Truman administrations. No offense, but you had your time . . . and you got us Trump. Plus, I can't take another one of these still-Capitalist Boomer codgers yap on about "bootstraps" when college now costs a mortgage, necessity costs have been outpacing wage growth for 20 years and automation promises to kill more jobs than it creates. I don't want to hear what is or isn't "politically achievable". Kick-the-Can economics was never asked "How is it going to be paid for?". Tax Cuts for the rich were never given a spending limit. Folly wars were never asked "Why is this necessary?". Corporate Pork by the billions was and is always approved. America's safety net needs to be greatly expanded and retirement age needs to be drastically lowered. This country throws out far too many people that still have a decade or two of prime contribution left. If life doesn't get fairer for you or I pretty goddamned quickly, we aren't going to have much of one.

Journal Archives

"Democratic Socialism" does NOT mean "Ceaușescu's Romania" or "Brezhnev's U.S.S.R.".

CEOs who would automate or offshore/inshore every job except their own if they could (as long as their products are still bought) are not "Job Creators".

"Peace through Strength" makes about as much sense as "Sobriety through Alcoholism" or "Virginity through Fucking".

You're posting on a product of government largesse. The roof you live under was the product of governmental origination. The concept of "property" has always been rooted in law. You were educated in a government funded entity. The road you drive on is repaired on your dime. The air you breathe is made clean thanks to your tax dollars. The job you go to is safe and free of child labor thanks to government and the unions that demanded government do something about both problems. Because of these facts and many others, not a single solitary person on Earth can logically call themselves "Self Made". I'm fine with that. Aren't you?

Poor people spending money keep you employed every day of your life. Taking money away from people who have to spend every dime would cause an economic catastrophe, not motivate them to be better.

Speaking of which, logically explain to me how someone "Supersizes their Skill Set, Haw Haw" in costly 2016 making 7.25 an hour or less.

Six corporations owning all of your news, information and entertainment doesn't in any goddamned universe make that media "liberal".

We have not been practicing Keynesianism for four decades, Reagan and Dubya were not "statists", a Fair Tax benefits the idle wealthy and screws the middle/working/poor, abolishing the minimum wage will not inspire the owner to pay you better, there IS income inequality, there IS wage stagnation and Adolf Hitler was not a fucking lefty. Stop listening to right-leaning libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, they're a bunch of fuckknob men's rights activists who would rather die than blame conservatives or corporations for any of our problems.

Finally, to anyone who believes the St. Reagan chestnut "Government IS the Problem" (and when you say that, let's not play dumb, you REALLY mean "LIB'RULS IS the problem" . . . count how many moderates, center-righters, Republicans and batshit-insane Theocrat neo-fascists exist in our government compared to actual FDR progressives. Sorry kiddo, your kind is tipping that scale in a millisecond.

You are more "government" than we are by a mile, wingnuts, so stop bitching, get out of the Reagan 1980s and LIVE IN THE NOW!!

Marco Rubio: "Moderate".

He can defeat any of our candidates. For realz, yo.

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/rubio-i-could-look-a-rape-victim-in-the-eye-and-tell-her-to-have-her-rapists-baby-video/

The exception for cases of rape has always illustrated a major gap in the logic behind the pro-life movement. A fetus is still a fetus, whether it’s conceived by rape or by consenting sex. The only difference between the two is the consequences under which they’re conceived; one is done with the will of the mother, the other isn’t.


For many years, the idea that women would be forced to have the child of their rapist was so abhorrent that nearly all legislation regarding limits to abortion included language accounting for this exception. However, recent years have seen a change. As pro-life groups continue to bully Republican lawmakers into doing their bidding, there’s been a slow shift towards forcing women to have babies conceived in rape. It’s heartless, it’s anti-utilitarian, and it’s evil, but to pro-lifers at least it’s internally consistent. And it highlights how the “pro-life” movement was always those things.

Here to illustrate that transition from “I’m evil but you can’t prove it” to “Snidely Whiplash” is Marco Rubio, who told Stephanoupoulos on Sunday he preferred if rape victims kept their rapists’ babies.




"Moderate". That reinvention should be studied, if it indeed happens.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Mon Feb 8, 2016, 09:56 PM (0 replies)

Anyone think Republicans are winning the Presidency?

Name that candidate now. Name that person now.

Hearing some rumblings that "we're in danger of losing the presidency". Seriously. I'm all ears. Who does it?

Trump? PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT. Guy's a carnival barker and a comedy act. Trust me; once reason sets in, if he wins the primary, it's barely. He doesn't want to be president, he wants to be dictator. That's something he and his idiot supporters don't seem to get.

Carson? Good as done. The guy's too whacked out on Jesus Juice to be taken seriously.

Cruz? LGBTQI-hating Christo-Fascists aren't fashionable on young voters with a brain stem. Or GenX voters. Or GenY voters. The only people who would vote for this guy are white, male and in the autumn of their lives.

Rubio? Not happening. You forget whatever the guy says five minutes after he says it.

Fiorina? Yeah, let's vote for politically expedient and facially repellent ex-CEOs who fire 30,000 workers while voting pay raises for themselves. Remember Mitten's quote of "I like firing people"? Think that times 30.

The point is that nobody from the GOP field can be sold or reinvented as a moderate like they did George Dubya. Even if they tried to, they couldn't. Mitt, already somewhat of a wingnut, had no choice but to cater to the TeaHadi nutjobs. He lost huge.

The days of an extremist (and when I say "extremist", I'm talking "embracing the opposite of everything that made this country politically and economically sound" garnering appeal on a national level are over. What works in localized politics doesn't play out to the big picture. Our population at large is no longer down with a Revelation-lovin' nutbar at the helm of the United States. You might not think the Bewsh years aren't in the American voter's minds . . . but they are.

No one wants to go back to that, and while they're not forthcoming about it, it's there. Make no mistake.

That's not to say "It's in the bag". Get out and vote to make it happen and crush these bastards with force.
Go to Page: 1