Watched it on YouTube, no, don't think she crushed it, Pink did though (Pink fan here).
This girl absolutely crushes/destroys/owns/kills it though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGfGpcBXxg
~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
This girl absolutely crushes/destroys/owns/kills it though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGfGpcBXxg
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 5220
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Old Salsa's bete noire:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/opin ... arris.html
"Until about a week ago, a big question in Democratic politics was whether a potential President Kamala Harris would keep Lina Khan — the pathbreaking young lawyer loved by progressives and loathed by some of Harris’s billionaire donors — as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that enforces antimonopoly law.
Some wealthy Harris backers have called for Khan’s replacement, including the LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who donated $10 million to a Democratic super PAC this year. On the financial news network CNBC, Barry Diller, chair of IAC and Expedia Group, said he’d lobby Harris to get rid of Khan, whom he called a “dope.” He later apologized for the insult, but not the promise to use his influence against her.
Because Harris’s economic views seemed fuzzy and her ties to Silicon Valley are strong, some on the left worried she might give in to the pressure. Those fears were heightened when Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, a close ally of the vice president, was asked on CNBC about jettisoning Khan, and suggested that Harris might break from President Biden’s aggressive approach to antitrust. “There are going to be different dynamics that are going to require different philosophies,” said Moore.
But it increasingly looks as if anti-Khan forces might be disappointed. As the broad outlines of Harris’s economic approach have emerged over the last week, it seems at least as populist as Biden’s.
Her plan to combat price gouging features an aggressive role for the F.T.C. At the Democratic convention, especially on the opening night, “corporate greed” was a scourge, and speaker after speaker sought to link “freedom,” the central theme of Harris’s campaign, to programs that protect the middle class from the depredations of concentrated wealth. Even the ordinarily pro-business secretary of commerce, Gina Raimondo, blasted “monopolies that crush workers and small businesses and start-ups.” And as Lauren Feiner pointed out in The Verge, the Democratic platform mentions “competition” 18 times, twice as often as it did four years ago, and emphasized policies that Khan has been closely involved with. Suddenly, Khan seems more likely to be a linchpin of a potential Harris presidency than a casualty of it.
To grasp why she matters so much, you have to understand how Khan, a 35-year-old legal wunderkind, became both so revered and so abhorred. Khan is a heroine to many on the left; Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told me that Khan is her caucus’s favorite guest speaker. But she’s also respected by many populist conservatives, including Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida and the vice-presidential candidate JD Vance, who called her “one of the few people in the Biden administration that I think is doing a pretty good job.” What brings Khan’s fans together is suspicion of Big Business, Big Finance and Big Tech, even if the reason for their suspicion differs.
“She’s been obviously a strong, committed person for consumers in ways that we’ve rarely seen,” Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, told me at the Democratic National Convention. “Too often, I think consumers were often shoved aside by many administrations.”
Khan’s fame dates to her time in law school, when a paper she wrote, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” helped revolutionize her field’s approach to technology behemoths. As F.T.C. chair, she’s focused on the manifold ways that big corporations and big finance abuse individuals. “How people experience power in their day-to-day lives is usually in their economic relationships, right?” she told me last week, when we met in the F.T.C.’s Manhattan offices. “If you’re being coerced and bullied in these economic relationships, that’s going to affect, really fundamentally, whether you do or don’t feel free in our country.”
This sort of bullying is most clear when companies stifle competition to raise prices. One of Khan’s big wins came after her office challenged so-called junk patents — an underhanded method used by pharmaceutical companies to fend off the creation of generics — leading the price of some inhalers to fall to $35 from hundreds of dollars. But she’s also working to fight corporate coercion in other ways. Under Khan, the F.T.C. moved to ban the use of noncompete agreements for most employees, challenging a practice that prevents workers from taking jobs at rival companies. (A judge appointed by President Donald Trump enjoined enforcement of the ban this week.) She’s brought lawsuits against data brokers trafficking in geolocation data, which red-state prosecutors could use to track women going to abortion clinics.
Before she went to law school, Khan worked as a business journalist; she was introduced to antitrust while investigating monopoly practices in the poultry industry. Today, she brings reportorial skills to her work at the F.T.C. “One thing that’s been a big focus of my time at the agency is just wanting to make sure — and this goes back to my time as a journalist as well — that we’re actually understanding the reality of how markets are working, and not just relying on models and theories and assumptions that are detached from that reality,” she said.
Khan travels around the country holding listening sessions to make sure she’s hearing voices that sometimes get lost in policymaking. She described a meeting she held in Nevada last fall about a proposed merger between the grocery chains Albertsons and Kroger, which the F.T.C. is fighting. “One person actually brought the sale papers from these two stores and said, ‘Look, right now they’re competing on the price of milk, they’re competing on the price of strawberries,’” she recalled. If that competition disappears, the man told her, “I’m going to have to start choosing, do I buy milk or do I buy strawberries?”
The vice president’s pledge to combat price gouging, an effort the F.T.C. would be central to, has elicited caterwauling from some economic commentators, who see in it the specter of price controls. Those fears seem overwrought; as Axios, hardly a left-wing website, points out, “If banning price gouging is communist, then the U.S. went Marxist long ago. Most of us live in states that already have bans in place.”
But as Casey, a sponsor of Senate legislation to counter price gouging, said, “The only part of our government that’s in the business of taking action against price gouging are our state attorneys general, and they have limited budgets.” His bill, which Harris endorsed, would even the playing field a bit by giving the F.T.C. new powers and $1 billion in new funding to exercise them.
Of course, even though Khan has a few Republican fans, it’s far from clear that such a law could ever pass. But legislative gridlock will make it only more important for a Harris administration to have regulators who can advance her economic agenda as forcefully as they can, even within the constraints of Supreme Court decisions that regularly side with corporations over administrative agencies. American politics is full of choke points protecting the rich and powerful. To get anything done, Harris will need people for whom bureaucratic audacity isn’t a contradiction in terms.
To Khan, as I suspect to Harris, price gouging means more than just corporations raising prices during emergencies. Rather, it’s shorthand for a whole range of exploitative practices that leave consumers feeling taken advantage of. “Oftentimes, the way people are taught about prices is it’s just the result of supply and demand,” she said. “These natural forces. And I think over the last few years in particular, people have started picking up on the fact that actually there are a whole bunch of other factors that can affect pricing.”
That can mean outright collusion, but it can also mean things like junk fees and subscription traps. (Under Khan, the F.T.C. has proposed a rule that companies must make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one.) “I view the price-gouging conversation as an opening to talk about that broader set of corporate tactics,” said Khan.
The fight against those tactics could be an important part of a Harris presidency. “Kamala Harris can’t be bought, and she can’t be bossed around,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts onstage at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night. If she’s right, Khan’s job should be safe."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/opin ... arris.html
"Until about a week ago, a big question in Democratic politics was whether a potential President Kamala Harris would keep Lina Khan — the pathbreaking young lawyer loved by progressives and loathed by some of Harris’s billionaire donors — as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that enforces antimonopoly law.
Some wealthy Harris backers have called for Khan’s replacement, including the LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who donated $10 million to a Democratic super PAC this year. On the financial news network CNBC, Barry Diller, chair of IAC and Expedia Group, said he’d lobby Harris to get rid of Khan, whom he called a “dope.” He later apologized for the insult, but not the promise to use his influence against her.
Because Harris’s economic views seemed fuzzy and her ties to Silicon Valley are strong, some on the left worried she might give in to the pressure. Those fears were heightened when Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, a close ally of the vice president, was asked on CNBC about jettisoning Khan, and suggested that Harris might break from President Biden’s aggressive approach to antitrust. “There are going to be different dynamics that are going to require different philosophies,” said Moore.
But it increasingly looks as if anti-Khan forces might be disappointed. As the broad outlines of Harris’s economic approach have emerged over the last week, it seems at least as populist as Biden’s.
Her plan to combat price gouging features an aggressive role for the F.T.C. At the Democratic convention, especially on the opening night, “corporate greed” was a scourge, and speaker after speaker sought to link “freedom,” the central theme of Harris’s campaign, to programs that protect the middle class from the depredations of concentrated wealth. Even the ordinarily pro-business secretary of commerce, Gina Raimondo, blasted “monopolies that crush workers and small businesses and start-ups.” And as Lauren Feiner pointed out in The Verge, the Democratic platform mentions “competition” 18 times, twice as often as it did four years ago, and emphasized policies that Khan has been closely involved with. Suddenly, Khan seems more likely to be a linchpin of a potential Harris presidency than a casualty of it.
To grasp why she matters so much, you have to understand how Khan, a 35-year-old legal wunderkind, became both so revered and so abhorred. Khan is a heroine to many on the left; Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told me that Khan is her caucus’s favorite guest speaker. But she’s also respected by many populist conservatives, including Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida and the vice-presidential candidate JD Vance, who called her “one of the few people in the Biden administration that I think is doing a pretty good job.” What brings Khan’s fans together is suspicion of Big Business, Big Finance and Big Tech, even if the reason for their suspicion differs.
“She’s been obviously a strong, committed person for consumers in ways that we’ve rarely seen,” Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, told me at the Democratic National Convention. “Too often, I think consumers were often shoved aside by many administrations.”
Khan’s fame dates to her time in law school, when a paper she wrote, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” helped revolutionize her field’s approach to technology behemoths. As F.T.C. chair, she’s focused on the manifold ways that big corporations and big finance abuse individuals. “How people experience power in their day-to-day lives is usually in their economic relationships, right?” she told me last week, when we met in the F.T.C.’s Manhattan offices. “If you’re being coerced and bullied in these economic relationships, that’s going to affect, really fundamentally, whether you do or don’t feel free in our country.”
This sort of bullying is most clear when companies stifle competition to raise prices. One of Khan’s big wins came after her office challenged so-called junk patents — an underhanded method used by pharmaceutical companies to fend off the creation of generics — leading the price of some inhalers to fall to $35 from hundreds of dollars. But she’s also working to fight corporate coercion in other ways. Under Khan, the F.T.C. moved to ban the use of noncompete agreements for most employees, challenging a practice that prevents workers from taking jobs at rival companies. (A judge appointed by President Donald Trump enjoined enforcement of the ban this week.) She’s brought lawsuits against data brokers trafficking in geolocation data, which red-state prosecutors could use to track women going to abortion clinics.
Before she went to law school, Khan worked as a business journalist; she was introduced to antitrust while investigating monopoly practices in the poultry industry. Today, she brings reportorial skills to her work at the F.T.C. “One thing that’s been a big focus of my time at the agency is just wanting to make sure — and this goes back to my time as a journalist as well — that we’re actually understanding the reality of how markets are working, and not just relying on models and theories and assumptions that are detached from that reality,” she said.
Khan travels around the country holding listening sessions to make sure she’s hearing voices that sometimes get lost in policymaking. She described a meeting she held in Nevada last fall about a proposed merger between the grocery chains Albertsons and Kroger, which the F.T.C. is fighting. “One person actually brought the sale papers from these two stores and said, ‘Look, right now they’re competing on the price of milk, they’re competing on the price of strawberries,’” she recalled. If that competition disappears, the man told her, “I’m going to have to start choosing, do I buy milk or do I buy strawberries?”
The vice president’s pledge to combat price gouging, an effort the F.T.C. would be central to, has elicited caterwauling from some economic commentators, who see in it the specter of price controls. Those fears seem overwrought; as Axios, hardly a left-wing website, points out, “If banning price gouging is communist, then the U.S. went Marxist long ago. Most of us live in states that already have bans in place.”
But as Casey, a sponsor of Senate legislation to counter price gouging, said, “The only part of our government that’s in the business of taking action against price gouging are our state attorneys general, and they have limited budgets.” His bill, which Harris endorsed, would even the playing field a bit by giving the F.T.C. new powers and $1 billion in new funding to exercise them.
Of course, even though Khan has a few Republican fans, it’s far from clear that such a law could ever pass. But legislative gridlock will make it only more important for a Harris administration to have regulators who can advance her economic agenda as forcefully as they can, even within the constraints of Supreme Court decisions that regularly side with corporations over administrative agencies. American politics is full of choke points protecting the rich and powerful. To get anything done, Harris will need people for whom bureaucratic audacity isn’t a contradiction in terms.
To Khan, as I suspect to Harris, price gouging means more than just corporations raising prices during emergencies. Rather, it’s shorthand for a whole range of exploitative practices that leave consumers feeling taken advantage of. “Oftentimes, the way people are taught about prices is it’s just the result of supply and demand,” she said. “These natural forces. And I think over the last few years in particular, people have started picking up on the fact that actually there are a whole bunch of other factors that can affect pricing.”
That can mean outright collusion, but it can also mean things like junk fees and subscription traps. (Under Khan, the F.T.C. has proposed a rule that companies must make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one.) “I view the price-gouging conversation as an opening to talk about that broader set of corporate tactics,” said Khan.
The fight against those tactics could be an important part of a Harris presidency. “Kamala Harris can’t be bought, and she can’t be bossed around,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts onstage at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night. If she’s right, Khan’s job should be safe."
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 5220
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Owns it. Jesus.DMac wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:48 pmWatched it on YouTube, no, don't think she crushed it, Pink did though (Pink fan here).
This girl absolutely crushes/destroys/owns/kills it though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGfGpcBXxg
-
cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15370
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
I've heard this story over and over and it will never end. The problem is my man the rich include all spectrums and also both parties. The problem is all those rich folk yield all the political power and influence. No way in hell they will let go of their money without a fight. No way in hell either party is going to pee off the power brokers that grease the skids of their respective parties. Your bitchin about something that is never likely to change in our lifetime. This same gripe has been going on since as long as I can remember. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Same old story same old song and dance my friend to quote Aerosmith. Any thoughts on how you think that could ever change? I'm not certain the status quo can be changed.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 11:50 amEvery last bit of it working for the .gov. How does this do anything but make my point? All of it....every last bit....in service of socialism.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:35 am Then I helped build a small business into a successful GSA, DoD, State Dept, USDA, DoF, CIA & NASA contractor + MD State Police helo base/facility + booming county airport management & FBO + aircraft rental/flight school + aircraft maint facility + hangar construction & rental + air charter operation
I don't denigrate socialism. That's YOU. Comically. Hilariously, the biggest socialist here thinks socialism is bad. You're here arguing with me about what you did to put food on the table, and make your community better------when I'm in full 100% support of what you've done with your talents.
I understand that. You are unable to understand what those noncompetes did both to the labor market, and to American innovation....trying to discuss this concept with you is impossible.
Please!!! Pretty Please!!!
Are you so blind that you don't understand that plants that pump out millions of cases of spirts per year have margins that are exponentially higher than mine?
You're too far gone with your magic R to even discuss why guys like you are paying higher prices across all business sectors because of monopolistic practices. Further, you don't care. Go walk your dogs, and leave the management of our economy to the next generation.
You guys did a great job in many places....but the monopolies and absurd gap between rich and poor need fixin'. We just need to get guys who think like you out of the way.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
-
PizzaSnake
- Posts: 5296
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:53 pmOwns it. Jesus.DMac wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:48 pmWatched it on YouTube, no, don't think she crushed it, Pink did though (Pink fan here).
This girl absolutely crushes/destroys/owns/kills it though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGfGpcBXxg
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
You're not wrong...but the longer we keep the working class from opportunity and things like health care and university that every other 1st world nation enjoys? The more severe the correction will be. Our leaders are morons if they don't see what's coming if they keep this up.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:01 pm I've heard this story over and over and it will never end. The problem is my man the rich include all spectrums and also both parties. The problem is all those rich folk yield all the political power and influence. No way in hell they will let go of their money without a fight. No way in hell either party is going to pee off the power brokers that grease the skids of their respective parties. Your bitchin about something that is never likely to change in our lifetime. This same gripe has been going on since as long as I can remember. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Same old story same old song and dance my friend to quote Aerosmith. Any thoughts on how you think that could ever change? I'm not certain the status quo can be changed.
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
This is why it's so helpful to keep Old Salt talking.....he represents this way of "thinking". You get to see what's behind their hatred of Khan.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:50 pm Old Salsa's bete noire:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/opin ... arris.html
"Until about a week ago, a big question in Democratic politics was whether a potential President Kamala Harris would keep Lina Khan — the pathbreaking young lawyer loved by progressives and loathed by some of Harris’s billionaire donors — as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that enforces antimonopoly law.
Some wealthy Harris backers have called for Khan’s replacement, including the LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who donated $10 million to a Democratic super PAC this year. On the financial news network CNBC, Barry Diller, chair of IAC and Expedia Group, said he’d lobby Harris to get rid of Khan, whom he called a “dope.” He later apologized for the insult, but not the promise to use his influence against her. (snip)
Money. They want more money, and they don't care how. As we've seen, Old Salt knows that monopolies are wrong.....he just doesn't care if ending them means that instead of having $10 million, it means he has "only" $9 Million. This is how the .01% thinks, fellas.
What OS doesn't understand is: if eliminating competition leads to better outcomes? The obvious thing that follows is this: make these companies government entities.
That's what Old Salt is asking for, but he doesn't understand that's what he's asking for. The ENTIRE point to the free market is competition. If competition isn't needed? Great. Make it a government function.
This is why I keep telling the forum that these people wouldn't know what a conservative was if one fell on them. They've been so twisted by FoxNationThinking who are nothing a bullhorn for the multinational rich that they think down is up, and up is down.
-
cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15370
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
There is a bigger problem with folks who may be monetarily challenged. The social decay taking place in an ever increasing number of poor households is perhaps the start of that correction. In my neck of the woods the number of young kids becoming involved in adult like crime is terrifying. Yesterday here in Rochester the cops started chasing a vehicle that had been firing shots at a house in the city. The police chased the car where it crashed and another stolen car pulled up and the driver of the first car jumped. That car then tried to run over a police officer. The chase continued until that car hit another car turning in front of them. 92 year old man dead at the scene. The driver was 17 years old and out on parole for previous burglaries where he drove stolen vehicles into stores and steal whatever they could. Long winded story but this isn't an isolated situation. When your a teenager who has no respect for law order and has no regard for human life that is an indicator there is something seriously wrong in this country.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:17 pmYou're not wrong...but the longer we keep the working class from opportunity and things like health care and university that every other 1st world nation enjoys? The more severe the correction will be. Our leaders are morons if they don't see what's coming if they keep this up.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:01 pm I've heard this story over and over and it will never end. The problem is my man the rich include all spectrums and also both parties. The problem is all those rich folk yield all the political power and influence. No way in hell they will let go of their money without a fight. No way in hell either party is going to pee off the power brokers that grease the skids of their respective parties. Your bitchin about something that is never likely to change in our lifetime. This same gripe has been going on since as long as I can remember. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Same old story same old song and dance my friend to quote Aerosmith. Any thoughts on how you think that could ever change? I'm not certain the status quo can be changed.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 34077
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Like my buddy said when the Penn donors pushed the President out…when you give a lot of money, you get to tell people what to do. It’s true. I have been saying it for years. The ruling class buys politicians. The money picks the politicians who then picks their voters. It is how it works. It’s top down, not bottom up.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:22 pmThis is why it's so helpful to keep Old Salt talking.....he represents this way of "thinking". You get to see what's behind their hatred of Khan.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:50 pm Old Salsa's bete noire:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/opin ... arris.html
"Until about a week ago, a big question in Democratic politics was whether a potential President Kamala Harris would keep Lina Khan — the pathbreaking young lawyer loved by progressives and loathed by some of Harris’s billionaire donors — as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that enforces antimonopoly law.
Some wealthy Harris backers have called for Khan’s replacement, including the LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who donated $10 million to a Democratic super PAC this year. On the financial news network CNBC, Barry Diller, chair of IAC and Expedia Group, said he’d lobby Harris to get rid of Khan, whom he called a “dope.” He later apologized for the insult, but not the promise to use his influence against her. (snip)
Money. They want more money, and they don't care how. As we've seen, Old Salt knows that monopolies are wrong.....he just doesn't care if ending them means that instead of having $10 million, it means he has "only" $9 Million. This is how the .01% thinks, fellas.
What OS doesn't understand is: if eliminating competition leads to better outcomes? The obvious thing that follows is this: make these companies government entities.
That's what Old Salt is asking for, but he doesn't understand that's what he's asking for. The ENTIRE point to the free market is competition. If competition isn't needed? Great. Make it a government function.
This is why I keep telling the forum that these people wouldn't know what a conservative was if one fell on them. They've been so twisted by FoxNationThinking who are nothing a bullhorn for the multinational rich that they think down is up, and up is down.
“I wish you would!”
-
cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15370
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Same as it every was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was... Be they Democrats or Republicans we can all feel confident knowing we have the best politicians that money can buy.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 2:00 pmLike my buddy said when the Penn donors pushed the President out…when you give a lot of money, you get to tell people what to do. It’s true. I have been saying it for years. The ruling class buys politicians. The money picks the politicians who then picks their voters. It is how it works. It’s top down, not bottom up.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:22 pmThis is why it's so helpful to keep Old Salt talking.....he represents this way of "thinking". You get to see what's behind their hatred of Khan.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:50 pm Old Salsa's bete noire:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/opin ... arris.html
"Until about a week ago, a big question in Democratic politics was whether a potential President Kamala Harris would keep Lina Khan — the pathbreaking young lawyer loved by progressives and loathed by some of Harris’s billionaire donors — as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that enforces antimonopoly law.
Some wealthy Harris backers have called for Khan’s replacement, including the LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who donated $10 million to a Democratic super PAC this year. On the financial news network CNBC, Barry Diller, chair of IAC and Expedia Group, said he’d lobby Harris to get rid of Khan, whom he called a “dope.” He later apologized for the insult, but not the promise to use his influence against her. (snip)
Money. They want more money, and they don't care how. As we've seen, Old Salt knows that monopolies are wrong.....he just doesn't care if ending them means that instead of having $10 million, it means he has "only" $9 Million. This is how the .01% thinks, fellas.
What OS doesn't understand is: if eliminating competition leads to better outcomes? The obvious thing that follows is this: make these companies government entities.
That's what Old Salt is asking for, but he doesn't understand that's what he's asking for. The ENTIRE point to the free market is competition. If competition isn't needed? Great. Make it a government function.
This is why I keep telling the forum that these people wouldn't know what a conservative was if one fell on them. They've been so twisted by FoxNationThinking who are nothing a bullhorn for the multinational rich that they think down is up, and up is down.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
... kill them, cook them and eat them! Feed the poor!a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:17 pmYou're not wrong...but the longer we keep the working class from opportunity and things like health care and university that every other 1st world nation enjoys? The more severe the correction will be. Our leaders are morons if they don't see what's coming if they keep this up.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:01 pm I've heard this story over and over and it will never end. The problem is my man the rich include all spectrums and also both parties. The problem is all those rich folk yield all the political power and influence. No way in hell they will let go of their money without a fight. No way in hell either party is going to pee off the power brokers that grease the skids of their respective parties. Your bitchin about something that is never likely to change in our lifetime. This same gripe has been going on since as long as I can remember. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Same old story same old song and dance my friend to quote Aerosmith. Any thoughts on how you think that could ever change? I'm not certain the status quo can be changed.
-
PizzaSnake
- Posts: 5296
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
The real golden rule: he with the gold calls the tune.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Wrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of the multiple revenue streams in aviation & airports.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 11:50 amEvery last bit of it working for the .gov. How does this do anything but make my point? All of it....every last bit....in service of socialism.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:35 am Then I helped build a small business into a successful GSA, DoD, State Dept, USDA, DoF, CIA & NASA contractor + MD State Police helo base/facility + booming county airport management & FBO + aircraft rental/flight school + aircraft maint facility + hangar construction & rental + air charter operation
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
You can stop worrying on my behalf. Madame Khan has likely already done as much damage to my portfolio as she can. My other holdings may even benefit, depending on who she targets in the future. ILMN has started it's long crawl back upward.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:50 pm Old Salsa's bete noire:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/opin ... arris.html
"Until about a week ago, a big question in Democratic politics was whether a potential President Kamala Harris would keep Lina Khan — the pathbreaking young lawyer loved by progressives and loathed by some of Harris’s billionaire donors — as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that enforces antimonopoly law.
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27083
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
13 years oldDMac wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:48 pmWatched it on YouTube, no, don't think she crushed it, Pink did though (Pink fan here).
This girl absolutely crushes/destroys/owns/kills it though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGfGpcBXxg
But yes this much older young woman does
Last edited by MDlaxfan76 on Fri Aug 23, 2024 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
And who owns the airport? Oh, that's right. The government. Socialism.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 4:12 pmWrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of the multiple revenue streams in aviation & airports.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 11:50 amEvery last bit of it working for the .gov. How does this do anything but make my point? All of it....every last bit....in service of socialism.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:35 am Then I helped build a small business into a successful GSA, DoD, State Dept, USDA, DoF, CIA & NASA contractor + MD State Police helo base/facility + booming county airport management & FBO + aircraft rental/flight school + aircraft maint facility + hangar construction & rental + air charter operation
Why do you even try and argue these facts? Why do you find your life's choices so odious?
I think what you did with your life is fabulous. Yet you're on here, lecturing me about how "the government is bad".
I'll NEVER understand this.
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 34077
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Every single one of those things transferred tax payer funds into those projects and Old Sailor benefitted from that wealth transfer. He sucked those titties dry. Left America’s bosoms shriveled up like a 2 week old apple sitting in the sun…. And is upset because he couldn’t make more money via a monopoly… still whining about it.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 4:58 pmAnd who owns the airport? Oh, that's right. The government. Socialism.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 4:12 pmWrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of the multiple revenue streams in aviation & airports.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 11:50 amEvery last bit of it working for the .gov. How does this do anything but make my point? All of it....every last bit....in service of socialism.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:35 am Then I helped build a small business into a successful GSA, DoD, State Dept, USDA, DoF, CIA & NASA contractor + MD State Police helo base/facility + booming county airport management & FBO + aircraft rental/flight school + aircraft maint facility + hangar construction & rental + air charter operation
Why do you even try and argue these facts? Why do you find your life's choices so odious?
I think what you did with your life is fabulous. Yet you're on here, lecturing me about how "the government is bad".
I'll NEVER understand this.
“I wish you would!”
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
13 year old crushed it seen here,MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 4:58 pm13 years oldDMac wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:48 pmWatched it on YouTube, no, don't think she crushed it, Pink did though (Pink fan here).
This girl absolutely crushes/destroys/owns/kills it though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGfGpcBXxg
But yes this much older young woman does
Pretty incredible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKjDRyC2PkU
-
Farfromgeneva
- Posts: 23812
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Don’t you mean “face down…”Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 2:00 pmLike my buddy said when the Penn donors pushed the President out…when you give a lot of money, you get to tell people what to do. It’s true. I have been saying it for years. The ruling class buys politicians. The money picks the politicians who then picks their voters. It is how it works. It’s top down, not bottom up.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:22 pmThis is why it's so helpful to keep Old Salt talking.....he represents this way of "thinking". You get to see what's behind their hatred of Khan.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:50 pm Old Salsa's bete noire:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/opin ... arris.html
"Until about a week ago, a big question in Democratic politics was whether a potential President Kamala Harris would keep Lina Khan — the pathbreaking young lawyer loved by progressives and loathed by some of Harris’s billionaire donors — as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that enforces antimonopoly law.
Some wealthy Harris backers have called for Khan’s replacement, including the LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who donated $10 million to a Democratic super PAC this year. On the financial news network CNBC, Barry Diller, chair of IAC and Expedia Group, said he’d lobby Harris to get rid of Khan, whom he called a “dope.” He later apologized for the insult, but not the promise to use his influence against her. (snip)
Money. They want more money, and they don't care how. As we've seen, Old Salt knows that monopolies are wrong.....he just doesn't care if ending them means that instead of having $10 million, it means he has "only" $9 Million. This is how the .01% thinks, fellas.
What OS doesn't understand is: if eliminating competition leads to better outcomes? The obvious thing that follows is this: make these companies government entities.
That's what Old Salt is asking for, but he doesn't understand that's what he's asking for. The ENTIRE point to the free market is competition. If competition isn't needed? Great. Make it a government function.
This is why I keep telling the forum that these people wouldn't know what a conservative was if one fell on them. They've been so twisted by FoxNationThinking who are nothing a bullhorn for the multinational rich that they think down is up, and up is down.
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 34077
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: ~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~
Face down and bottom up.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 6:44 pmDon’t you mean “face down…”Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 2:00 pmLike my buddy said when the Penn donors pushed the President out…when you give a lot of money, you get to tell people what to do. It’s true. I have been saying it for years. The ruling class buys politicians. The money picks the politicians who then picks their voters. It is how it works. It’s top down, not bottom up.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:22 pmThis is why it's so helpful to keep Old Salt talking.....he represents this way of "thinking". You get to see what's behind their hatred of Khan.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:50 pm Old Salsa's bete noire:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/opin ... arris.html
"Until about a week ago, a big question in Democratic politics was whether a potential President Kamala Harris would keep Lina Khan — the pathbreaking young lawyer loved by progressives and loathed by some of Harris’s billionaire donors — as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that enforces antimonopoly law.
Some wealthy Harris backers have called for Khan’s replacement, including the LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who donated $10 million to a Democratic super PAC this year. On the financial news network CNBC, Barry Diller, chair of IAC and Expedia Group, said he’d lobby Harris to get rid of Khan, whom he called a “dope.” He later apologized for the insult, but not the promise to use his influence against her. (snip)
Money. They want more money, and they don't care how. As we've seen, Old Salt knows that monopolies are wrong.....he just doesn't care if ending them means that instead of having $10 million, it means he has "only" $9 Million. This is how the .01% thinks, fellas.
What OS doesn't understand is: if eliminating competition leads to better outcomes? The obvious thing that follows is this: make these companies government entities.
That's what Old Salt is asking for, but he doesn't understand that's what he's asking for. The ENTIRE point to the free market is competition. If competition isn't needed? Great. Make it a government function.
This is why I keep telling the forum that these people wouldn't know what a conservative was if one fell on them. They've been so twisted by FoxNationThinking who are nothing a bullhorn for the multinational rich that they think down is up, and up is down.
“I wish you would!”