arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:How's that Russian investigation and recount going?

The Russia Investigation is going well as far as I can tell. Closing in on Trump and his people so it's only a matter of time

Another 3 years and they will have something to show for it... and after another 4 they will have a definitive conclusion.

Looks like it's just another vast right-wing conspiracy.

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:How's that Russian investigation and recount going?

The Russia Investigation is going well as far as I can tell. Closing in on Trump and his people so it's only a matter of time

Another 3 years and they will have something to show for it... and after another 4 they will have a definitive conclusion.

I don't know about 3 yrs. Things are moving pretty fast for this kind of thing. Trump may resign before they Impeach him.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:So what we are trying to do is move the party back to the left. It's hard because the CENTRISTS have convinced rank and file Democratic voters that them not being in power is a TOTAL LOSS scenario. This could not be further from the truth. Policies created and approved by centrist Democrats have done incalculable damage to the middle class. We don't think Trump coddling white supremacists is that much worse than Clinton coddling Wall Street. White supremacists deciding the future of the country and Wall Street deciding it leads to equally bad outcomes for me. I don't want bWgite supremacy in the US, I also don't want the US to turn into a large Enron.

Please take this question literally and on the surface.

Does a trump presidency not combine the threat of White supremacists and Wall Street, yes or no?

And what is the endgame here? Do you genuinely feel that moving further to the left is the best counter to the populist resentment movement Trump embodies?

I didn't vote for Trump and I am not responsible for what it represents. You are trying to create a false equivalency.

Not trying to at all, you're being unnecessarily presumptive and defensive. I don't care how you voted, I was responding to what you wrote.

As written, it reads to me like a false contrast - white supremacists (representing Trump) vs. Wall Street (representing Clinton). I read your graph and immediately thought 'Doesn't trump represent both?', the combination of rather than the lesser of two evils?

This is so obvious to me I wanted to know perhaps if you have a different view of trump's economic worldview than I.

That said, from what I gather this is a conversation about principle versus pragmatism. Who are president is as a binary question. That's just a fact, so it's a legitimate argument.

I understand people think Bernie Sanders would've beat Trump, and that's entirely possible. But we also can't forget that the reason Trump won was because Clinton was a historically bad candidate. But if Sanders won you could've said the same about Trump.

The point is I don't see any evidence the country as a whole is truly ready for a progressive agenda. Sanders would've been blocked by the House at minimum, if not by members of his own party.

You've already seen what's happened with redistricting. I think there's a legitimate question that can be asked if moving the democratic party much farther to the left is political suicide.

It's not defensive to point out the fallacy which is what it was.

You haven't pointed out that there was any fallacy in the questions, you just stated that there was. In my experience people get personal and avoid questions for a reason.

The choice in Not binary

.

You're misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say the choice was binary I said who the president was going to be was. Clinton or Trump was going to win that election. Period.

Again you're getting overly defensive. I'm just stating a fact. I remain uninterested in who you voted for or why.

And no it's Not a legitimate argument.

Your lack of support of that position speaks louder than that sentence.

I read your graph and immediately thought 'Doesn't trump represent both?', the combination of rather than the lesser of two evils?

This is so obvious to me I wanted to know perhaps if you have a different view of trump's economic worldview than I.

As written it reads to me as false equivalence of telling me that I have to justify how I think about Hillary/Centrists because of what Trump represents.

I understand people think Bernie Sanders would've beat Trump, and that's entirely possible. But we also can't forget that the reason Trump won was because Clinton was a historically bad candidate. But if Sanders won you could've said the same about Trump.

The point is I don't see any evidence the country as a whole is truly ready for a progressive agenda. Sanders would've been blocked by the House at minimum, if not by members of his own party.

Instead of trying to impute how I feel (which you are really bad at doing) why don't you answer the two questions below?

1. What did Centrists and Obama do to improve the economy?
2. What in your opinion makes Trump as Wall street friendly as Clinton?- Try to stick to what Trump does and not what he says, the latter is completely worthless

Knickoftime wrote:And I'll say again, this subject was why I asked the question in the first place, to see if your position was trump is more progressive-friendly in his economic policy, and if so could you explain it to me.

He won't answer you cuz he knows damned well that there's no defending this idea that Trump and the Republicans are better for Progressive Movement than Clinton and the Dems. As flawed as Clinton and Centrist Dems are they are still much closer to the Progressive Ideals than Trump and the Repubs. All the things Trump is doing takes back gains that were made and cements things in the Supreme Courts with Conservative Judges he's adding. None of this is good for any Progressive.

Knickoftime wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:And I'll say again, this subject was why I asked the question in the first place, to see if your position was trump is more progressive-friendly in his economic policy, and if so could you explain it to me.

He won't answer you cuz he knows damned well that there's no defending this idea that Trump and the Republicans are better for Progressive Movement than Clinton and the Dems. As flawed as Clinton and Centrist Dems are they are still much closer to the Progressive Ideals than Trump and the Repubs. All the things Trump is doing takes back gains that were made and cements things in the Supreme Courts with Conservative Judges he's adding. None of this is good for any Progressive.

Sorry Nix, that's not how I roll. His paragraph and now new questions suggest he may actually have some thoughts about this that haven't occurred to me. I'm interested in hearing them and reacting to what they are rather than what I think it may or may not be.

I'm understand. One thing that occurred to me was the dynamic of a certain % of Bernie and Trump supporters expressing they could vote for either. It was based on a hatred for Free Trade deals and a more protectionist policy. Economic Republicans and Progressives merge. They could care less about Social Issues. There are several with this view on this forum. That's the sense I got.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:So what we are trying to do is move the party back to the left. It's hard because the CENTRISTS have convinced rank and file Democratic voters that them not being in power is a TOTAL LOSS scenario. This could not be further from the truth. Policies created and approved by centrist Democrats have done incalculable damage to the middle class. We don't think Trump coddling white supremacists is that much worse than Clinton coddling Wall Street. White supremacists deciding the future of the country and Wall Street deciding it leads to equally bad outcomes for me. I don't want bWgite supremacy in the US, I also don't want the US to turn into a large Enron.

Please take this question literally and on the surface.

Does a trump presidency not combine the threat of White supremacists and Wall Street, yes or no?

And what is the endgame here? Do you genuinely feel that moving further to the left is the best counter to the populist resentment movement Trump embodies?

I didn't vote for Trump and I am not responsible for what it represents. You are trying to create a false equivalency.

Not trying to at all, you're being unnecessarily presumptive and defensive. I don't care how you voted, I was responding to what you wrote.

As written, it reads to me like a false contrast - white supremacists (representing Trump) vs. Wall Street (representing Clinton). I read your graph and immediately thought 'Doesn't trump represent both?', the combination of rather than the lesser of two evils?

This is so obvious to me I wanted to know perhaps if you have a different view of trump's economic worldview than I.

That said, from what I gather this is a conversation about principle versus pragmatism. Who are president is as a binary question. That's just a fact, so it's a legitimate argument.

I understand people think Bernie Sanders would've beat Trump, and that's entirely possible. But we also can't forget that the reason Trump won was because Clinton was a historically bad candidate. But if Sanders won you could've said the same about Trump.

The point is I don't see any evidence the country as a whole is truly ready for a progressive agenda. Sanders would've been blocked by the House at minimum, if not by members of his own party.

You've already seen what's happened with redistricting. I think there's a legitimate question that can be asked if moving the democratic party much farther to the left is political suicide.

It's not defensive to point out the fallacy which is what it was.

You haven't pointed out that there was any fallacy in the questions, you just stated that there was. In my experience people get personal and avoid questions for a reason.

The choice in Not binary

.

You're misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say the choice was binary I said who the president was going to be was. Clinton or Trump was going to win that election. Period.

Again you're getting overly defensive. I'm just stating a fact. I remain uninterested in who you voted for or why.

And no it's Not a legitimate argument.

Your lack of support of that position speaks louder than that sentence.

I read your graph and immediately thought 'Doesn't trump represent both?', the combination of rather than the lesser of two evils?

This is so obvious to me I wanted to know perhaps if you have a different view of trump's economic worldview than I.

As written it reads to me as false equivalence of telling me that I have to justify how I think about Hillary/Centrists because of what Trump represents.

I purposely qualified even asking the questions to try to avoid that. I actually asked you genuine questions, it wasn't a set up.

You don't have to justify your thoughts or your vote. You are participating in a conversation, I was just participating too.

Reading the paragraph again it still reads to me like an either/or premise you introduced. So I asked if that's what you meant.

The point is Nix and I were discussing economic policy failure of Centrists before you chose to muddle the issues with Obamacare, Sanders and other irrelevant stuff.

I specifically responded to this question:

"What according to you have Democrats done to save the economy? What did Obama and Democrats do different from what Bush, his appointees did and proposed? Care to lay it out?"

Healthcare is an economic issue.

Instead of trying to impute how I feel (which you are really bad at doing) why don't you answer the two questions below?

I'll be glad to address your questions directly, which will be a first in this exchange.

1. What did Centrists and Obama do to improve the economy?

I am hardly an economic wonk. What I know about this issue is largely derived from what I've read this issue (which is why I'm asking questions). From my perspective, Obama, while in no means a solo act is generally credited for his response to the unprecedented financial crisis he inherited. I haven't seen many perspectives arguing he botched it. I understand viewpoints about what you should've done and how that would have worked better are speculative, but I don't reject them out of hand by any means.

I think Obama used his first-term political capital on healthcare, which again is an economic issue.

Personally, I think also trying to push through significant economic policy changes while the economy was at the beginning stages of what no one argues was a steady but slow recovery in the first four years was likely politically difficult if not impossible.

I perfectly understand, however, the perspective that his administration wasn't aspirational enough, particularly in the area of income inequality.

2. What in your opinion makes Trump as Wall street friendly as Clinton?- Try to stick to what Trump does and not what he says, the latter is completely worthless

I think that's a hopelessly subjective question. I'll try to answer The Trump part anyway.

In my view trump has a generally very oligarchical worldview, which in my mind he demonstrates on a regular basis as President. But that answer will probably be unsatisfactory to you.

Based on policy Trump has a limited record, obviously. I know his administration has signaled it wants to block the 'fiduciary rule', an Obama regulation. I know he signed executive orders in February and April designed to move towards loosening much of the Dodd-Frank regulations, and I know the chairman of the Fed is a critic of these efforts/approach.

I won't even get into get into the make-up of his economic advisory panels, because that's a rabbit hole.

And I'll say again, this subject was why I asked the question in the first place, to see if your position was trump is more progressive-friendly in his economic policy, and if so could you explain it to me.

Thanks for your answer - this is the context I was looking for - I couldn't tell where the question was coming from, so I appreciate the explanation. I will later try to post a high level of why I think they played this wrong during the bailout. And I mean both parties.

Overall I do not believe Obama helped the economy a lot and I do think he missed opportunities to harness the momentum and enact real change (regulatory reform) when the whole country was behind him. Trump has not done anything of consequence yet, but based on his philosophy (or what I can make of it - not his tweets) I think he is actually more aligned to less conservative ideas like protectionism and less aligned with hard core conservative positions like free trade.

All the noise and back and forth sometimes obscures the truth that the democrats like Clintons championed core conservative philosophy like Free Trade and Deregulation - that is the key reason why, I call them complete schmucks - because in my opinion it led to the destruction of the last few real checks and balances still in place - the result was Enron and big banks and subprime. Unfortunately those will probably pale in comparison to whatever happens next. And I am not trying to build a conspiracy theory though I realize it may sound like one.

Politicians in my opinion do not understand risk (investment risk, accounting fraud risk and so on) and they care too much about short term popularity to take real positions that would or should have stemmed the tide of the disasters that unfolded post Clinton era. This is not just on Clinton but all politicians. The derivatives market is still COMPLETELY unregulated and massive risks are being compounded by errors of judgment on a daily basis. The banking crisis was crisis of liquidity because the money to make debt payments and stave off margin calls ran out - providing the money back stemmed the bleeding but didn't fix the issues.

The economy is doing well exactly because Trump has done nothing of substance. In two years, if the Republicans pass their tax cuts for the rich, we will watch the economy fall off just like it did with Reagan and just like it did with George W. Bush after their tax cuts to the rich. The best hope for the Republicans is that they continue to do nothing and can ride the solid economy that Obama left the country in.

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

smackeddog wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

People have started to twig on that the economic system is rigged. Until the democrats accept and embrace that and start offering some genuine change, Trump will continue to give the illusion that only he will change things (even though he is the chief of the rigged economy), and attract support accordingly.

The problem again is that we can't stop bringing up Trump, Bush and republicans to divert the blame from the Democrats. Why is Trump chief of the rigged economy? What did he rig to deserve that claim? This is what we have seen centrists do forever - deflect blame.

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

When Bush took office there was a surplus in the budget. Rather than actually being the fiscal conservative that republicans claim to be, he sent most Americans a $300 check and gave millions back to the rich and corporations. He then started a war in Iraq without adequate basis that costed the country trillions and based on his lax regulations the financial crisis was allowed to occur. I understand that other forces also played a role but don't try to talk down to me or act like republican policies did not contribute too and increase the Great Recession America experienced. Obama placed regulations that stabilized the financial markets, he bailed out industries, such as the auto industry that was about to implode and which is now thriving, And Obama signed a stimulus package that was the driving force behind keeping the country afloat during the recession. After his first year, the deficient went down in each of obama's years. The result is a country that has a growing economy. You ask what have the democrats done, tell me what they haven't done. For the last 40 years, it is only when the country is run by republicans that the economy goes into the tank. It happened with Reagan and bush I and it happened with Bush I.

meloshouldgo wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

People have started to twig on that the economic system is rigged. Until the democrats accept and embrace that and start offering some genuine change, Trump will continue to give the illusion that only he will change things (even though he is the chief of the rigged economy), and attract support accordingly.

The problem again is that we can't stop bringing up Trump, Bush and republicans to divert the blame from the Democrats. Why is Trump chief of the rigged economy? What did he rig to deserve that claim? This is what we have seen centrists do forever - deflect blame.

Because he's an inherited wealth, tax dodger with extensive vested business interests and who stuffed his office with billionaires and millionaires who have vested interests in maintaining the rigged economy.

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:And I'll say again, this subject was why I asked the question in the first place, to see if your position was trump is more progressive-friendly in his economic policy, and if so could you explain it to me.

He won't answer you cuz he knows damned well that there's no defending this idea that Trump and the Republicans are better for Progressive Movement than Clinton and the Dems. As flawed as Clinton and Centrist Dems are they are still much closer to the Progressive Ideals than Trump and the Repubs. All the things Trump is doing takes back gains that were made and cements things in the Supreme Courts with Conservative Judges he's adding. None of this is good for any Progressive.

Sorry Nix, that's not how I roll. His paragraph and now new questions suggest he may actually have some thoughts about this that haven't occurred to me. I'm interested in hearing them and reacting to what they are rather than what I think it may or may not be.

I'm understand. One thing that occurred to me was the dynamic of a certain % of Bernie and Trump supporters expressing they could vote for either. It was based on a hatred for Free Trade deals and a more protectionist policy. Economic Republicans and Progressives merge. They could care less about Social Issues. There are several with this view on this forum. That's the sense I got.

You are now showing a complete lack of understanding of a complex and nuanced issue. In a very American way you are trying to boil it down to a sound byte that resonates with your way of thinking. Republicans are NOT protectionists, they are advocates for free trade. You can look all the way back to the civil war, the Northern States were protectionists and the South wanted free trade. Alexander Hamilton as treasury secretary imposed tariffs of 50% on imported merchandise under Washington's Presidency. Trump is a protectionist it's something the Democrats should not opposed even if they don't embrace it, if they were true to their own ideology. Unfortunately they don't seem to know what their ideology is any more.

It's the ultimate irony of history that a populist Republican President is trying to enforce protectionism to undo the damages caused by a law signed into action by the most popular Democratic President of our times (Clinton).

The free trade, capitalist crowd will point out the evils of protectionism but history has shown over and over again that no country ever accomplished industrial strength without employing some degree of protectionism.

My meaning didn't come across clearly in my post. I know that Republican Politicians are not protectionist but a large swath of the Republican VOTERS certainly are. That's why they were all over Trump and Bernie. They took to the message that BOTH Trump and Bernie were pushing regard Free Trade Deals and Anti War. I'm not as expert in Economics as you are but I do get why a notable % of Bernie Voters went for Trump.

I don't know what percentage of who's supporters went for who, nor do I care to delve into the details of it. Economics is not as cut and dried as science and the mainstream narrative from both parties has bungled he issues sufficiently so that for most Americans today it's clear as mud. I have no expertise in this field nor do I claim any. I do try to research and read as much as possible and completely tune out the political talking points. I believe that's my responsibility as a voter.

Protectionism is a Populist message and BOTH Trump and Bernie ran populist campaigns and the message resonated with voters who care about their day to day life above everything else. Somehow all this is very hard for you to accept, but it's kind of what people vote for.