Melania barely hung with Donald for optics or anything else. He has been all over the place, of coruse. Has she been seen since January 20, 2021?
I don’t understand your post. What did she do wrong? Can you tell us? Or did you just want to post a picture of her with her tongue out? I’m starting to think you’re just not very smart. Like, eats paste dumb.
I agree that she falls into the opportunist category, but there are some caveats which must be added: 1 - Bill was a charmer (which can also read as predator), but also very clearly going places. She could have seen longer term success, and taken a career gamble which paid off. 2 - The glass ceiling was much lower in those days, so she could have been hedging her bets. 3 - Have met a few intelligent women who were like Hillary, not all of them ended up having the same success she did. I have no doubt she would have been successful had she not been with Bill, but it may not have been as successful nor as much in politics. But I also think, in this discussion, that it is incorrect to compare her to Melania.
The trouble with the logic is when you are applying to a power couple, they are both intelligent, ambitious and connected people, but at the start of their careers. So there is a survivor bias, where you then pick the couple that became President and then claim the wife must have be an opportunist. The other main criticism of HRC is she didn't leave Bill after Monica - but also why should she? How come we all get to make that value judgement?
Who knows? I have acquaintances who really don't care when their spouse has an affair - one of them even has an open arrangement in that regard. People seem to want to apply their own morality play to this - that HRC should have left and if she didn't it must have been for political gain. Why doesn't Melania leave? Oh right because she has a huge prenup and doesn't care.
I think we need to see Jen's William & Mary transcript so we can find out 1. Did she take Econ 101 and 2. If she did, did she pass: And/or sleep through the "How businesses try to make a profit and controls costs" class? Probably skipped that part of the curriculum, as she was likely too busy writing new wave feminist activist socialist idiot papers. Your economic genius White House Flack, once again demonstrating her deep deep DEEP understanding of business. Then again, as the posting of her CV noted, she's only been a Democratic party operative and Washington muck creature...so are we shocked by her ignorance and stupidity? No, we are not. Jen Psaki: It’s “unfair and absurd” that companies would increase costs for consumers in response to us taxing them more. 😳 pic.twitter.com/rHilrYdj4j— Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) September 28, 2021
If you tax profits more, it's more difficult to grow your business and expand hiring more people, it's more difficult to raise capital because your profit margins are tighter, and your business risks increase, as downturns becomes more risky. At the same time your suppliers are faced with same pressure, and they might ignore the ECON genius from William & Mary, and pass on added costs to you. But hey, you're a good little Democrat and you say Hallelujah Biden!! and you really swoon over the red head at the podium , and totally are on board with tighter riskier margins because you hated that dastardly Trump with his ill fitting Brioni suits and his sleazoid immigrant wife.who was once a nude model. That Jen...Ms William & Mary moral authority!!!! I did not think the girl could be so cruel!!! No one told me about her. The way she lied. But no told me about her. How many people cried. It's too late to say you're sorry. How would I know, why should I care. Please don't bother trying to find her. She's not there. Well, let me tell you 'bout the way she looked. The way she acts and the color of her hair. Her voice was soft and cool. Her eyes were clear and bright. But she's not there
It's about both, but mostly the former. One of your co-religionists posted her CV as evidence of her...I dunno..."competence," thinking, presumably, that somehow that would be persuasive enough to enhance one's "appreciation" of her. Well, her voice is soft and cool, her eyes are clear and bright, but she's not there.
Yeah, in theory. I totally agree. The reality of the US economy today is that corporate profits are unusually high. So in the real world rather than academia, the tweet you cited is dumb. PS...can you explain your obsession with William & Mary? I honestly, sincerely don't understand what point you're trying to make. Most of the other stuff, I get it. You're shitposting. But even as shitposting, what is the deal here? Is it some triple bank shot criticizing Jon Stewart? Did you notice I live in Virginia Beach now and think it bothers me (it doesn't)?
See, we get to the heart of the matter here, so I appreciate that. You and your co-religionists love to bandy about all the putatively high minded and wonderful phrases, like "profits are unusually high" (those greedy businesses:!!) and all these rich people don't pay their "fair share," or Whites as a minority are "a source of strength." But numbers? What minority percentage of Whites gives us "strength?" When does taxation move from "fair share" to "unfair share?" And when do profits move from "unusually high" to "acceptably high." or "just right?" Alas, you don't know, and certainly the politicians wearing the blue team kit don't know. But they FEEL things are wrong, and so they are, and they have to fix those wrong things. Hard details are irrelevant.
As to the basic policy point...I, personally, think the corporate income tax is bad policy. We shouldn't tax corporate profits, we should be taxing the stockholders who receive the dividends. The corporate income tax doesn't make sense to me. But we don't live in that world. My MAIN point is that you cited a stupid talking point. You're trying to change the subject here rather than defend that stupid talking point. I'll claim victory and move on.
Breaking my policy of not replying, but since you are labeling me without asking me.... lolololololol If you want discussion, or even proper debate, it best not assume. Lol. It was posted as you were talking about her in sexist terms. You may not like her, but she definitely has the CV to have earned her the position. And, again, attacking her on sexist terms.
I though profits came after write-downs. I thought that write-downs can be company investments. To me, the argument sounds suspiciously like trickle-down economics.
Not this time...he's quoting the lyrics of a great song from the 60s by the Zombies. I get it. I fully accept my position is very much in the minority. I don't bring it up all the time, because I'm not changing anyone's mind. But it was relevant to that post, so there you have it. All I will add is that it's not trickle down economics. That's the theory that cutting taxes on capitalists will do more to improve the economy than cutting taxes on consumers. That theory has been comprehensively dismantled by experience. Having no corporate income tax is just a way of redefining the role of the corporation in our economy. I get that. But why? Like, he references W&M over and over and over again.
Shit posting. Nice. Here's the leftist tell. They accuse you of doing what they themselves are doing.
You mean like the constant GOP projection that Democrats are protecting pedophiles, but there's a ridiculously high number of Trump Adjacent & MAGA Folks that are literally getting arrested for this, including evidence on their digital devices
She certainly has earned her position as Rationalizing Flack for an Incompetent Administration Run By a Senile Mediocrity. You forgot "WHITE SUPREMACIST sexist terms." Let's get our labels straight here.