Hansel Krankepantzen

I'm just saying your criticism has more than a whiff of "You say you support socialism, yet you have a job, you work for capitalists, you own some capital yourself .. now isn't that odd?" Just for the record, I consider that sort of thing risible conservative, right wing rhetoric.

Assets doesn't necessarily mean stocks. Also, I didn't see anything in Sen. Warren's comment suggesting she intended exempting herself, as you imply. As a general point, we must live in the world as it is, as others want or often insist it be, but doesn't mean we can't have ideas about improvements.

And of course one person's "cutting red tape" is often another person's "eliminating beneficial and advisable regulation," so one must always careful with rhetorical slogans like "cutting red tape," lest it stray into simplistic anti-democracy, anti-law, anti-social territory.

It’s called projection. Those conservative, Republicans traitors, voters and politicians alike, have been doing that sort of thing for some time now.

The issue is about having sex with, and quite likely raping, underaged minors, and the fact that it's illegal because most voters suppose it may harm the young people involved, and thus support the laws making it illegal. Just saying.

Speaking of people missing the point, I saw some conservative pundit opining it's not unusual for straight men to be attracted to underaged girls. A word, if I may. 1) The issue is not about anyone merely "being attracted" to anyone. 2) The issue is not about how "unusual" anything is.

I find it ironic fascist Leader / egomaniac grifter / crime boss Lord Dampnut has taken to calling other people "piggy," given his famously corrupt, disturbing, and expansive appetites, albeit not generally, as I suppose pigs lovely creatures, intelligent, which should be treated humanely.

Blue dots are beautiful to me. Easy enough to be blue in a field of blue, but to be blue in a sea of red? I think that takes a little something beyond what I suppose many have in them. I salute you, blue dots in red states.

Bureaucracy is what allows modern society with its system of laws and regulations to function as it does. Generalized anti-bureaucracy sentiment belong to the same category as utopian anarchist anti-law or anti-government sentiment. I suppose it's more a matter of what they're doing, how they do it.

I suppose much regulation reduction also protects or promotes some groups at the expense of others. Powerful groups, big companies, skilled professionals seem just as often to be pushing for the elimination of certain regulations as for the adoption of others. Sounds a bit like bad economics.

Funny. I read someone suggesting the investment boom relating to AI has "elements of irrationality." Stock markets having elements of irrationality? Reminds of Mr. Keynes's discussion of the matter in the 1930s, I suppose. It's been mostly bad economics in the conservative style since then, right?

It's rhetoric many ignorant or economically clueless voters may find appealing, associating a lack of regulation with "freedom" or "liberty" or perhaps free market utopianism. However, coming back to reality, it's typically simply favoring some people, interests, preferences, values over others.

Conservatives are always saying that. Indeed, it's one of the few things they say. However, may want to keep an eye on trade-offs, the winners and losers, if one wants to make sensible decisions in that area. They suggest what's good for some, but not necessarily for others or for all.

Every decent human being? Sure, but any thoughts on the others? Because quite a few of them about. For example, do you suppose most, some, no conservative, Republican voters would know it?

I suppose Americans who support the rule of law will want to see justice done at some point. Of course, criminal loving, rule of law hating conservative, Republican voters will oppose it one hundred percent, but they may not always have the political power to prevent it happening.

"Quiet, piggy," doesn't sound at all what an elderly establishment elite egomaniac rapist, pedophiliac sexual predator, and bully would say to a female reporter when he doesn't like a question she asked him. Sorry. Strike that. Reverse it.

A lack of economic power, impecunity, a relative lack of economic resources, possibly but necessarily poverty.

One supposes some may have some concerns regarding their masculinity. They talk a lot about a crisis of masculinity they observe in conservative culture, about what it means to be an "alpha male" (i.e. an egoistic jackass). Likely related to economic weakness, ignorance, feelings of inadequacy, etc.

But then conservative, Republican voters on Main St, USA, in rural hamlets and small towns especially in the southern and central regions also don't give a damn about the flag of the USA, they also hate America, democracy, the US Constitution. And, yes, they also hate Mr. Obama. So it all fits.

You know fascist Leader Lord Dampnut doesn't actually give a damn about the flag of the USA, unless he using it as a prop in a political bit, in which case he can be seen fondling it, hugging it, kissing it as though it were a little girl he was trying to go down on.

In the vernacular, I suppose most are quite happy and satisfied to be poor, as long as they can ensure others they think should be poor as a matter of ethics are poor as well. Consider the lock conservatives, Republicans have on states with poorly performing economies.

I would suggest the answer is that most conservative, Republican voters are "value voters." They care about normative economics, economic values, their own ethical views relating to economics, allocating resources, resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, rather more than actual results.

Indeed, the curious indifference of conservative, Republican voters to actual economic results, outcomes, performance seems to be a perpetual puzzle to Democrats, who typically outperform Republican administrations by a wide margin as far as actual economic results.

I don't know about that, but to the extent they want jobs and a good economy, the way they propose to get them is by rejecting democracy, the US Constitution, in favor of rule by a hand full of rich men who think they're better than us. I suspect it's more about their economic values than results.

Conservative, Republican voters are very strong supporters of terrorism, as long as it's for the right causes, of course.

Let's put it this way, the UK government has likely provided just as much actual evidence or proof immigration is harmful for the UK that the US government has provided to show immigration harmful for the USA. I think it's more about nativism, ethnic and cultural bigotry, maybe some racism.

Why are people always so damned concerned and coy about discussing normative economics, economic values, ethics in an economic context? It's OK. We can talk about them. The world will not come crumbling down about us if we broach the subject.

And by the way, what's with the odd reference to "finance?" Why not talk bluntly about economics, economic policy, tradeoffs, the allocation of resources, the resolving of interpersonal conflicts of preferences? You know, probably the main disagreements we have? Who should have what and why?

I find this constant quest to propose some fundamental unity of values on the part of The People a bit sad because it usually just highlights the real absence of any such unity. It's just wishful thinking, really. Any improvements in unity now must be through philosophical argument or conflict.

You think so? I suppose conservative, Republican voters want us to be ruled by a hand full of rich men who they think are better than the rest of us, and who think that themselves. That can happen when one buys into the dodgy normative rhetoric of bad economics in the conservative style.