10-26-2016, 06:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2016, 06:46 PM by Eric the Green.)
Now, it's not trust anyone UNDER 50! You haven't seen the revised T-shirts? 
".....The success of the Watergate Baby worldview over the old populists can be seen in what did not happen in response to this quiet yet extraordinarily radical revolution: There was no fight to block Reagan’s antitrust restructuring......."
The problem with this idea is first, no-one is really a "populist" if they favored the Vietnam War and segregation, whatever else they favor. Illegal war and segregation were not "policies for the people." The original populist leader and candidate W.J. Bryan was ardently anti-war and anti-imperialist.
Second, in the Reagan era the Watergate Democrats' power was severely reduced; Democrats still controlled the House, but the Senate was Republican through his first six years. Those Democrats who supported Reagan's trickle-down tax plan in 1981 were probably the older ones. But I'm not sure. But a majority of Democrats voted against it. The point is that Reagan was too popular, and some Democrats buckled under and didn't resist his doctrines and slogans.
That didn't happen because of Democrats' opposition to war, corruption and segregation in the 60s and 70s. Democrats continued to speak out loudly against Reagan and his policies during his term. If the Reagan administration did not pursue anti-trust actions, what could congress have done about it anyway? They couldn't "block" it. Anti-trust cases are prosecuted by the administration, or not. All they could do was speak out, which some of them did. But it was futile; they had no power to block him. But people like me; we did speak out. I hate mergers and I always hated mergers. It goes against the Green ideal big time.
Trickle-down economics has a racist undertone. It means those whites who don't want to spend their tax money to help poor and non-white people. It was the southern strategy. Being against segregation, is not to be in favor of racist trickle-down economics or its anti-government, self-reliance slogans.
It was not because of Watergate Democrats that Reagan beat Mondale in a landslide in 1984. Reagan was just a better candidate (though not a good president). 19-5, versus 10-13. The horoscope score says plenty. With Reagan winning all but 1 state and DC in 1984, it was not as popular then to resist his policies. Blame Reagan, and those who voted for him; not Watergate Democrats. Trickle-down economics militates against anti-trust actions. That's interference in the market, it says. It was the pervading ideology, and you can't blame Watergate Democrats for that. Blame Reagan and his followers for that!
".....The success of the Watergate Baby worldview over the old populists can be seen in what did not happen in response to this quiet yet extraordinarily radical revolution: There was no fight to block Reagan’s antitrust restructuring......."
The problem with this idea is first, no-one is really a "populist" if they favored the Vietnam War and segregation, whatever else they favor. Illegal war and segregation were not "policies for the people." The original populist leader and candidate W.J. Bryan was ardently anti-war and anti-imperialist.
Second, in the Reagan era the Watergate Democrats' power was severely reduced; Democrats still controlled the House, but the Senate was Republican through his first six years. Those Democrats who supported Reagan's trickle-down tax plan in 1981 were probably the older ones. But I'm not sure. But a majority of Democrats voted against it. The point is that Reagan was too popular, and some Democrats buckled under and didn't resist his doctrines and slogans.
That didn't happen because of Democrats' opposition to war, corruption and segregation in the 60s and 70s. Democrats continued to speak out loudly against Reagan and his policies during his term. If the Reagan administration did not pursue anti-trust actions, what could congress have done about it anyway? They couldn't "block" it. Anti-trust cases are prosecuted by the administration, or not. All they could do was speak out, which some of them did. But it was futile; they had no power to block him. But people like me; we did speak out. I hate mergers and I always hated mergers. It goes against the Green ideal big time.
Trickle-down economics has a racist undertone. It means those whites who don't want to spend their tax money to help poor and non-white people. It was the southern strategy. Being against segregation, is not to be in favor of racist trickle-down economics or its anti-government, self-reliance slogans.
It was not because of Watergate Democrats that Reagan beat Mondale in a landslide in 1984. Reagan was just a better candidate (though not a good president). 19-5, versus 10-13. The horoscope score says plenty. With Reagan winning all but 1 state and DC in 1984, it was not as popular then to resist his policies. Blame Reagan, and those who voted for him; not Watergate Democrats. Trickle-down economics militates against anti-trust actions. That's interference in the market, it says. It was the pervading ideology, and you can't blame Watergate Democrats for that. Blame Reagan and his followers for that!