Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (214351)	10/10/2021 6:35:41 PM
From: puborectalis	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway CentralParkRanger Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 358407

When Wallace asked multiple times if Scalise believes the election was “stolen,” the congressman continued to repeat the same lies about states not following the Constitution. He evaded directly answering whether he believes the election was fraudulent. This is not the first time Scalise publicly refused to rebuke the so-called “Big Lie” peddled by Trump and his allies that the election was “stolen” and rife with voter fraud. In February, the Republican acknowledged that “Biden’s the president” but did not directly say whether the election wasn’t stolen. Following his comments on Sunday, Rep. Liz Cheney blasted Scalise. The Wyoming Republican’s rejection of the voter fraud lie has led to her alienation from most of her party. She is now vice chair of the Jan. 6 House select committee investigating the Capitol insurrection. “Millions of Americans have been sold a fraud that the election was stolen,” she tweeted. “Republicans have a duty to tell the American people that this is not true. Perpetuating the Big Lie is an attack on the core of our constitutional republic.”

To: Lane3 who wrote (214351)	10/12/2021 11:24:35 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358407

In which case, the ideological challenge for progressives is to redefine what it means to be “entitled” — to return, in a sense, to that older meaning, in which it is the owners of capital who are the takers and the ordinary citizens of this country who are the makers. I gave some further thought to that piece by Jamelle Bouie about entitlement and producerism. I was not award of the 19th century version of producerism so I pondered his notion that progressives could flip the notion back to when the little guys were considered producers and the money guys were considered idlers. The more I thought about it, the less it made sense given the safety net, which did not exist in the earlier era. The more progressives extend the safety net, the harder it is to intellectually justify calling the little guys producers. They'd have to propagandize the notion to get buyers. Although, propaganda worked for Trump so maybe it could work for the progressives, as well.