|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start.
Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that.
|
On February 18 2016 02:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 02:22 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think those economists are trying to say it's impossible to have single payer health care, or free tuition. Just that the effects of Sanders' policy on the economy will be very different, and a lot more disappointing, than Sanders is portraying it. Exactly. It's disappointing to me to see so many Sanders supporters in this thread completely dismiss the criticism levied at Sanders' claims and plans by plenty of left-wing economists purely as "Clinton propaganda", even when these economists are not affiliated in the slightest with Clinton's campaign (and suggesting that they are somehow unaware of the social programs that exist in Europe is just as stupid -- the point is that they're very skeptical of the details of Sanders' plans to achieve those social reforms). It's the classic Republican "facts don't matter, we believe it will happen" approach to policy, except in this case the blind faith is directed towards Bernie's plans. I very much support his goals, but supporting his ultimate objectives doesn't mean that we can't look critically at what he's actually put on the table.
"Clinton propaganda" usually amounts to quotidian democratic neoliberal opinion. You know, like economists from Princeton and UChicago.
|
On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that.
Also, keep in mind, just because something is effective in one country doesn't mean it can easily be transferable to another country. There may very well be economic, cultural, and geopolitical reasons why one can't simply copy/ paste an idea from one place (e.g., Finland) to another (e.g., United States).
Now that being said, *if* something is very successful in one country and our version is shitty, we can probably get at least *some* information by researching how other countries do it well, and try to work towards a solution that makes sense in the context of our country... whether that's healthcare, education, or something else.
|
It's like people have no idea how negotiating works or something?
But I see why the critique's of Sanders have picked up dramatically.
Overall, 48% of likely caucus attendees say they support Clinton, 47% Sanders. Both candidates carry their demographic strong points from prior states into Nevada, with Clinton holding an edge among women, while Sanders tops the former secretary of state among voters under age 55.
One exception emerges though: Although the pool of potential caucusgoers in Nevada is more racially diverse than those who participated in Iowa or New Hampshire, the racial divide among likely caucusgoers isn't nearly as stark as among voters in South Carolina, with both white and non-white voters about evenly divided between the two candidates.
Source
What sig is Ticklish getting again?
|
On February 18 2016 03:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that. Also, keep in mind, just because something is effective in one country doesn't mean it can easily be transferable to another country. There may very well be economic, cultural, and geopolitical reasons why one can't simply copy/ paste an idea from one place (e.g., Finland) to another (e.g., United States). Now that being said, *if* something is very successful in one country and our version is shitty, we can probably get at least *some* information by researching how other countries do it well, and try to work towards a solution that makes sense in the context of our country... whether that's healthcare, education, or something else.
precisely. see: healthcare. single payer works in a lot of developed nations to be sure. however, it's basically not gonna work in the US for a bajillion different reasons. saying "oh well other countries have it why can't we" isn't far from trump saying "make america great again".
On February 18 2016 03:34 GreenHorizons wrote:It's like people have no idea how negotiating works or something? But I see why the critique's of Sanders have picked up dramatically. Show nested quote +Overall, 48% of likely caucus attendees say they support Clinton, 47% Sanders. Both candidates carry their demographic strong points from prior states into Nevada, with Clinton holding an edge among women, while Sanders tops the former secretary of state among voters under age 55.
One exception emerges though: Although the pool of potential caucusgoers in Nevada is more racially diverse than those who participated in Iowa or New Hampshire, the racial divide among likely caucusgoers isn't nearly as stark as among voters in South Carolina, with both white and non-white voters about evenly divided between the two candidates. SourceWhat sig is Ticklish getting again?
starting from one end and working to the middle is definitely an important tactic, sure. but problem is when you cant really move from your starting position and make the outcomes essentially binary.
dunno, but remember the bet is if we hillary/bernie split it's a sig bet. i told jcarl that his is probably gonna involve dicks and his mum. i havent thought it through. have to wait until SC comes in before anything happens.
|
On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that.
I don't know how "providing healthcare to many people" is comparable to "lets shut down the government in one of the biggest economies on the planet lol". I know that trying to paint Bernie as some kind of "extremist on the other side" sounds like a great idea but it's actually not because he's mainly just saying reasonable things, it's the climate as a whole that has gone off the deep end
If one guy argues that climate change isn't real and one guy doesn't the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, it's just that one of the two people is still sane
|
On February 18 2016 03:42 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 03:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that. Also, keep in mind, just because something is effective in one country doesn't mean it can easily be transferable to another country. There may very well be economic, cultural, and geopolitical reasons why one can't simply copy/ paste an idea from one place (e.g., Finland) to another (e.g., United States). Now that being said, *if* something is very successful in one country and our version is shitty, we can probably get at least *some* information by researching how other countries do it well, and try to work towards a solution that makes sense in the context of our country... whether that's healthcare, education, or something else. precisely. see: healthcare. single payer works in a lot of developed nations to be sure. however, it's basically not gonna work in the US for a bajillion different reasons. saying "oh well other countries have it why can't we" isn't far from trump saying "make america great again".
No one worth their salt is arguing anything remotely like "oh well other countries have it why can't we." But hey, if pretending that Sanders supporters generally adhere to entirely pie in the sky economic theory is what gets you through this election cycle, go ahead and continue pulling oneofthem maneuvers 
|
On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that.
They shot themselves so hard in the foot that they took control of both the house and the senate in the very next election? Logically it was a genius move that won them a branch of the government.
|
On February 18 2016 03:42 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 03:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that. Also, keep in mind, just because something is effective in one country doesn't mean it can easily be transferable to another country. There may very well be economic, cultural, and geopolitical reasons why one can't simply copy/ paste an idea from one place (e.g., Finland) to another (e.g., United States). Now that being said, *if* something is very successful in one country and our version is shitty, we can probably get at least *some* information by researching how other countries do it well, and try to work towards a solution that makes sense in the context of our country... whether that's healthcare, education, or something else. precisely. see: healthcare. single payer works in a lot of developed nations to be sure. however, it's basically not gonna work in the US for a bajillion different reasons. saying "oh well other countries have it why can't we" isn't far from trump saying "make america great again".
Although I agree in principle, I would also rank the argument of "there are a billion reasons why we can't, so we won't" and equally bad. We seem to specialize in talking about reasons why it won't work at all, rather than attempting to improve the plan or find way to make it work.
|
In 2014 it was Democrats disassociating themselves from Obamacare while many Republicans (you can look this up) talked about raising minimum wage. Democrats went right and Republicans went left.
It's a complete failure in strategy but it makes sense why the Democratic party chose this road after seeing how they are treating liberals in the Democratic party for 2016.
|
On February 18 2016 03:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 03:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2016 03:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that. Also, keep in mind, just because something is effective in one country doesn't mean it can easily be transferable to another country. There may very well be economic, cultural, and geopolitical reasons why one can't simply copy/ paste an idea from one place (e.g., Finland) to another (e.g., United States). Now that being said, *if* something is very successful in one country and our version is shitty, we can probably get at least *some* information by researching how other countries do it well, and try to work towards a solution that makes sense in the context of our country... whether that's healthcare, education, or something else. precisely. see: healthcare. single payer works in a lot of developed nations to be sure. however, it's basically not gonna work in the US for a bajillion different reasons. saying "oh well other countries have it why can't we" isn't far from trump saying "make america great again". No one worth their salt is arguing anything remotely like "oh well other countries have it why can't we." But hey, if pretending that Sanders supporters generally adhere to entirely pie in the sky economic theory is what gets you through this election cycle, go ahead and continue pulling oneofthem maneuvers
"no one worth their salt" is less people than you think, i think. yeah i agree with deathstar or darthfoley (i forget who) if the point is to change the conversation i can accept that. at the same time, bernie pretending his proposals aren't unworkable bullshit is kind of dishonest. there's some kind of logical disconnect here for me.
On February 18 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 03:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2016 03:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that. Also, keep in mind, just because something is effective in one country doesn't mean it can easily be transferable to another country. There may very well be economic, cultural, and geopolitical reasons why one can't simply copy/ paste an idea from one place (e.g., Finland) to another (e.g., United States). Now that being said, *if* something is very successful in one country and our version is shitty, we can probably get at least *some* information by researching how other countries do it well, and try to work towards a solution that makes sense in the context of our country... whether that's healthcare, education, or something else. precisely. see: healthcare. single payer works in a lot of developed nations to be sure. however, it's basically not gonna work in the US for a bajillion different reasons. saying "oh well other countries have it why can't we" isn't far from trump saying "make america great again". Although I agree in principle, I would also rank the argument of "there are a billion reasons why we can't, so we won't" and equally bad. We seem to specialize in talking about reasons why it won't work at all, rather than attempting to improve the plan or find way to make it work.
pushing value based care programs
lower deductibles
control pharma costs
access to care in rural areas
^outline of hillary's plan to improve healthcare. i don't think it's possible to really "improve" single payer (in the sense we can make it more viable far as getting it passed or implemented) except i guess considering a public option (which really isnt single payer, but would demonstrate the kind of things government would do if it ran a single payer program).
my concern beyond this is that sanders' campaign doesnt seem to understand... things. a couple examples are when they estimated his plan would save more on pharma than is currently spent per year and how long it took him to get to a decent spot in foreign policy. it's like policy is almost an afterthought/ lipservice
|
On February 18 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 03:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2016 03:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that. Also, keep in mind, just because something is effective in one country doesn't mean it can easily be transferable to another country. There may very well be economic, cultural, and geopolitical reasons why one can't simply copy/ paste an idea from one place (e.g., Finland) to another (e.g., United States). Now that being said, *if* something is very successful in one country and our version is shitty, we can probably get at least *some* information by researching how other countries do it well, and try to work towards a solution that makes sense in the context of our country... whether that's healthcare, education, or something else. precisely. see: healthcare. single payer works in a lot of developed nations to be sure. however, it's basically not gonna work in the US for a bajillion different reasons. saying "oh well other countries have it why can't we" isn't far from trump saying "make america great again". Although I agree in principle, I would also rank the argument of "there are a billion reasons why we can't, so we won't" and equally bad. We seem to specialize in talking about reasons why it won't work at all, rather than attempting to improve the plan or find way to make it work.
Well.. that's not really fair. Hillary has a plan (it is mainly just maintaining and shoring up the status quo). You can argue that it is unambitious, but not that it is unimplementable. It would of course be best if they could work out some.middle ground of a moderately ambitious plan that takes the actual US situation into account, but during primaries seems an unlikely time to do this.
|
The degree to which a candidate confronts the practical realities of their platform's implementation is not some well-established norm of campaigning. Granted, Bernie's "radical" platform invites a fair bit more of that discussion given its conflict with the status quo, but let's be real, most candidates' platforms require some kind of suspension of practical disbelief.
|
On February 18 2016 02:22 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think those economists are trying to say it's impossible to have single payer health care, or free tuition. Just that the effects of Sanders' policy on the economy will be very different, and a lot more disappointing, than Sanders is portraying it.
Close. The point is directly stated at the end of the letter:
As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.
So essentially they feel that Sanders is betraying the Democratic party's reputation by being irresponsible with numbers/projections/expectations. I can respect that, but I also think there's a bit of false equivalence here.
Sanders' numbers may or may not be wrong, but his premises are correct. Tax cuts on the wealthy have spurred immense income inequality while crippling social services, and reversing the trend is critical to the future prosperity of the country. The disagreement between Sanders and those economists isn't so much what to do, but the finer details of doing it.
Which makes it a little disingenuous to compare his plan to Republicans whose fundamental premises have been proven false both academically and in practice (SEE: Kansas). If Sanders' numbers are wrong they're wrong, but at worst he's overselling, whereas Republicans are trying to sell the economic equivalent of a flat earth.
|
May trickle down economics forever rest in peace.
|
On February 18 2016 04:06 Deathstar wrote:
May trickle down economics forever rest in peace.
i hope its burning in hell tbh
|
On February 18 2016 04:06 Deathstar wrote:
May trickle down economics forever rest in peace.
The plan so stupid it can proven wrong giving someone $100 and telling them to take what they need and hand out the rest.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On February 18 2016 03:42 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 03:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2016 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:18 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. I don't know. I do know that it will never happen if you don't start. Sure and I get this. But let's take the government shut down as an example. The GOP believed extremely strongly in getting rid of tons of spending, so they shut down the government. In the end, they stuck to their guns so strongly that they shot themselves in the foot. One of my big Bernie concerns is essentially being a democrat version of that. Also, keep in mind, just because something is effective in one country doesn't mean it can easily be transferable to another country. There may very well be economic, cultural, and geopolitical reasons why one can't simply copy/ paste an idea from one place (e.g., Finland) to another (e.g., United States). Now that being said, *if* something is very successful in one country and our version is shitty, we can probably get at least *some* information by researching how other countries do it well, and try to work towards a solution that makes sense in the context of our country... whether that's healthcare, education, or something else. precisely. see: healthcare. single payer works in a lot of developed nations to be sure. however, it's basically not gonna work in the US for a bajillion different reasons. saying "oh well other countries have it why can't we" isn't far from trump saying "make america great again". Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 03:34 GreenHorizons wrote:It's like people have no idea how negotiating works or something? But I see why the critique's of Sanders have picked up dramatically. Overall, 48% of likely caucus attendees say they support Clinton, 47% Sanders. Both candidates carry their demographic strong points from prior states into Nevada, with Clinton holding an edge among women, while Sanders tops the former secretary of state among voters under age 55.
One exception emerges though: Although the pool of potential caucusgoers in Nevada is more racially diverse than those who participated in Iowa or New Hampshire, the racial divide among likely caucusgoers isn't nearly as stark as among voters in South Carolina, with both white and non-white voters about evenly divided between the two candidates. SourceWhat sig is Ticklish getting again? starting from one end and working to the middle is definitely an important tactic, sure. but problem is when you cant really move from your starting position and make the outcomes essentially binary. dunno, but remember the bet is if we hillary/bernie split it's a sig bet. i told jcarl that his is probably gonna involve dicks and his mum. i havent thought it through. have to wait until SC comes in before anything happens.
I never realized single payer wasn't going to work in the U.S.
Please tell me more about why it wouldn't work o' great practicalist.
|
On February 18 2016 04:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 04:06 Deathstar wrote:
May trickle down economics forever rest in peace. The plan so stupid it can proven wrong giving someone $100 and telling them to take what they need and hand out the rest.
Related anecdote from my college days:
+ Show Spoiler [Who likes Monopoly?] +I roomed with two Political Science majors and an English major who were all staunch Republicans, and one day we decided to play Monopoly with some friends.
Through a little luck and some good deals I took a commanding lead, and one of my friends had the misfortune to land on a space of mine they couldn't afford. They also held a property that could have completed a monopoly vital to another player, my chief rival, who decided to try to bail the unfortunate player out.
However, I viciously undercut the rival's offer. I promised to waive all that the unfortunate player owed me for the low, low price of that one property. I could easily afford to ignore the rest of the gains if it meant preventing my rival from gaining a leg up on me, and given the sheer value of what I was owed my rival couldn't possibly match the offer. The unfortunate player accepted, and denied the only credible threat to me any possibility of victory.
To my surprise my Republican friends started citing this as evidence of the natural predilection of advantaged persons to philanthropy. As far as they were concerned my actions hadn't been out of greed or a cutthroat maneuver to consolidate power and leverage, they thought my intentions were noble, honorable, and a vindication of their political philosophy.
They continued to believe this as I fleeced the lot of them and turned them into walking paychecks by slowly stripping them of everything except their ability to pass go and collect me another $200. Eventually I put them and my rival out of their misery but they didn't ever stop extolling my virtuous philanthropy and the merits of trickle down economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
