Keith Olbermann

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
I used to watch this guy on SportsCenter almost nightly in the '90's. For the sake of discussion what would an economic civil war actually look like/entail between states?


 
cawacko said:
I used to watch this guy on SportsCenter almost nightly in the '90's. For the sake of discussion what would an economic civil war actually look like/entail between states?


https://twitter.com/x/status/1625736668232749058
Click to expand...

I loved his MSNBC show before Chris Hayes got his time slot, but I also like Chris Hayes.

Middle America needs to sell its agriculture wares to urban coastal America.

Even if the nation partitions, which I'd personally love to see, that trade would still be essential.

Take away writing each others laws and tax codes, there's no reason to argue.
A forced and contrived unity is the cause of the ill will.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I loved his MSNBC show before Chris Hayes got his time slot, but I also like Chris Hayes.

Middle America needs to sell its agriculture wares to urban coastal America.

Even if the nation partitions, which I'd personally love to see, that trade would still be essential.

Take away writing each others laws and tax codes, there's no reason to argue.
A forced and contrived unity is the cause of the ill will.
Click to expand...

I can tell you from living in San Francisco that even though almost everyone is on 'Team Blue' they still call local politics a blood sport and people hate each other here and are at everyone's throats and large numbers of people are unhappy. Living around only people who agree with on politics might sound great in theory but is not some panacea.

Now I know there was rhetorical bombast in what Olbermann said and he's speaking metaphorically but when you start talking about a national civil war (we're not talking Oregon vs Oregon St) that's taking things to the next level.
 
cawacko said:
I can tell you from living in San Francisco that even though almost everyone is on 'Team Blue' they still call local politics a blood sport and people hate each other here and are at everyone's throats and large numbers of people are unhappy. Living around only people who agree with on politics might sound great in theory but is not some panacea.

Now I know there was rhetorical bombast in what Olbermann said and he's speaking metaphorically but when you start talking about a national civil war (we're not talking Oregon vs Oregon St) that's taking things to the next level.
Click to expand...

He's not espousing an actual civil war with bullets like some of our Reichwingers are. He's talking about fighting back against the beloved RW fallacy that the blue states are "shit holes" caused by (D) policies, as they try desperately to disguise the fact that a majority of red states are net takers from the tax monies available. Your state, btw, is on the list of "shit holes" -- despite the fact that if it were an independent country, it would have the fourth largest economy on the planet.

Mr. Owl used to watch his MSNBC program when we first met. He was a bit over the top for my tastes but he was also really funny. He had to name Bill O'Reilly THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD at least once a week. Guess he hadn't met Tucker yet. lol
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
He's not espousing an actual civil war with bullets like some of our Reichwingers are. He's talking about fighting back against the beloved RW fallacy that the blue states are "shit holes" caused by (D) policies, as they try desperately to disguise the fact that a majority of red states are net takers from the tax monies available. Your state, btw, is on the list of "shit holes" -- despite the fact that if it were an independent country, it would have the fourth largest economy on the planet.

Mr. Owl used to watch his MSNBC program when we first met. He was a bit over the top for my tastes but he was also really funny. He had to name Bill O'Reilly THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD at least once a week. Guess he hadn't met Tucker yet. lol
Click to expand...

USED to watch his program. This piece of shit is irrelevant
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
He's not espousing an actual civil war with bullets like some of our Reichwingers are. He's talking about fighting back against the beloved RW fallacy that the blue states are "shit holes" caused by (D) policies, as they try desperately to disguise the fact that a majority of red states are net takers from the tax monies available. Your state, btw, is on the list of "shit holes" -- despite the fact that if it were an independent country, it would have the fourth largest economy on the planet.

Mr. Owl used to watch his MSNBC program when we first met. He was a bit over the top for my tastes but he was also really funny. He had to name Bill O'Reilly THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD at least once a week. Guess he hadn't met Tucker yet. lol
Click to expand...

When he's saying he wants economic civil war and to financially starve certain states that's not fighting back against right wing rhetoric.

I'll offer an example. San Francisco instituted a policy that no public employees could do business in states where those states have restrictive abortion rights, were anti LGBQ etc. The City recently rescinded it for two reasons:

1) it had no affect on the policy of the states they were boycotting

2) it made doing business for the City of SF both harder and more expensive


So it came down to do we want to continue to virtue signal our values at an economic price or stop the policy and we choose the latter.

So if you go by Olbermann's missive all blue states could/would essentially ban doing business with red states or something along those lines and then somehow draw the private sector in with it. (Of course not all states are solid red or blue so I don't know how you account for them)
 
cawacko said:
When he's saying he wants economic civil war and to financially starve certain states that's not fighting back against right wing rhetoric.

I'll offer an example. San Francisco instituted a policy that no public employees could do business in states where those states have restrictive abortion rights, were anti LGBQ etc. The City recently rescinded it for two reasons:

1) it had no affect on the policy of the states they were boycotting

2) it made doing business for the City of SF both harder and more expensive


So it came down to do we want to continue to virtue signal our values at an economic price or stop the policy and we choose the latter.

So if you go by Olbermann's missive all blue states could/would essentially ban doing business with red states or something along those lines and then somehow draw the private sector in with it. (Of course not all states are solid red or blue so I don't know how you account for them)
Click to expand...

My guess is that you can't separate states out like that. A better course of action might be to entice corporations away from the "bad" states and attract them to the "good" states with tax incentives and so on. Corporations that rely on consumer goodwill might be very interested in moving away from a repressive regime to a more inclusive, free one... good for PR.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
My guess is that you can't separate states out like that. A better course of action might be to entice corporations away from the "bad" states and attract them to the "good" states with tax incentives and so on. Corporations that rely on consumer goodwill might be very interested in moving away from a repressive regime to a more inclusive, free one... good for PR.
Click to expand...

Your challenge is many businesses are leaving the high priced blue states like California, New York and Illinois because the cost of doing business is so high and the cost of living is as well and it affects their ability to get employees. Those states tend to have more restrictive land policies which makes building harder and more expensive. You can make arguments in favor of why they do that but the result is many businesses leave because not every business is a multi-billion dollar national to whom money isn't an object.

So you would have basically have to change the entire business model of those states to achieve that.
 
That guy is a kook, but... Its true the Blue states could economically strangle the reds.
 
cawacko said:
Your challenge is many businesses are leaving the high priced blue states like California, New York and Illinois because the cost of doing business is so high and the cost of living is as well and it affects their ability to get employees. Those states tend to have more restrictive land policies which makes building harder and more expensive. You can make arguments in favor of why they do that but the result is many businesses leave because not every business is a multi-billion dollar national to whom money isn't an object.

So you would have basically have to change the entire business model of those states to achieve that.
Click to expand...

Some might be moving, but its not enough to make the difference you claim. Additionally, those corporations still could not survive without the wealth of the blue states (for the most part). When established companies move to cheaper states, they are using the resources of those cheaper states and taking advantage of their people, without having to support that state. It happens here in Florida. Scripps moved here about 10 years ago with all kinds of tax giveaways that they got from Rick Scott. They collected all that money, raped the city of Palm Beach Gardens and somewhat the State of Florida, paid almost 0 taxes. The State and City and county built them all kinds of infrastructure..... Guess what, the second all the give away slowed down, they moved right back to California.

The Californians who owned the land that the taxpayers spend so much on improvements for... Made BANK!
 
cawacko said:
I used to watch this guy on SportsCenter almost nightly in the '90's. For the sake of discussion what would an economic civil war actually look like/entail between states?


Click to expand...

He is the Tucker Carlson of the left.
 
Jarod said:
Some might be moving, but its not enough to make the difference you claim. Additionally, those corporations still could not survive without the wealth of the blue states (for the most part). When established companies move to cheaper states, they are using the resources of those cheaper states and taking advantage of their people, without having to support that state. It happens here in Florida. Scripps moved here about 10 years ago with all kinds of tax giveaways that they got from Rick Scott. They collected all that money, raped the city of Palm Beach Gardens and somewhat the State of Florida, paid almost 0 taxes. The State and City and county built them all kinds of infrastructure..... Guess what, the second all the give away slowed down, they moved right back to California.

The Californians who owned the land that the taxpayers spend so much on improvements for... Made BANK!
Click to expand...

You're not following the discussion. The position Olbermann took is blue states can starve red states. My question was how would that in look in practice. Blue states can declare they will no longer do business with any red states. As I showed with the SF example, that can hurt the blue states as well. Due to costs in many blue states simply telling businesses to leave red states and operate only in blue states wouldn't fly. Not only that people would, in theory, leave the red states to come to blue states because that's where the jobs are but there would be no where for them to live.

We are too interconnected.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
My guess is that you can't separate states out like that. A better course of action might be to entice corporations away from the "bad" states and attract them to the "good" states with tax incentives and so on. Corporations that rely on consumer goodwill might be very interested in moving away from a repressive regime to a more inclusive, free one... good for PR.
Click to expand...

so your opinion on the best course of action is to NOT increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy???????? isn't that the OPPOSITE of the DNC platform?
 
any attempt at implementing economic terrorism on red states is only going to ESCALATE the real civil war. Now, if the left WANTS to completely destroy America, great. I look forward to rebuilding it in the name of freedom and liberty. It makes for a great population reduction program as well.
 
cawacko said:
When he's saying he wants economic civil war and to financially starve certain states that's not fighting back against right wing rhetoric.

I'll offer an example. San Francisco instituted a policy that no public employees could do business in states where those states have restrictive abortion rights, were anti LGBQ etc. The City recently rescinded it for two reasons:

1) it had no affect on the policy of the states they were boycotting

2) it made doing business for the City of SF both harder and more expensive


So it came down to do we want to continue to virtue signal our values at an economic price or stop the policy and we choose the latter.

So if you go by Olbermann's missive all blue states could/would essentially ban doing business with red states or something along those lines and then somehow draw the private sector in with it. (Of course not all states are solid red or blue so I don't know how you account for them)
Click to expand...

Starve? How about just not doing business with them? They have other blueball states to trade with. They ewoill not starve, Hate will keep them together.
 
cawacko said:
I used to watch this guy on SportsCenter almost nightly in the '90's. For the sake of discussion what would an economic civil war actually look like/entail between states?


Click to expand...

Do you remember when he would get all faux angry and (poorly acting) stab at the desk with his finger? I always will wonder how often he had to do a retake because he spilled his water in that coffee cup stabbing at the desk in faux anger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top