U.S. Politics - the pre-pre-pre-pre Primary season edition

[The Mance]

Couldn't exactly the same analysis be aplied to the Dems position on gay marriage, though? ie: just because it's popular doesn't mean it isn't a shift to the left.

[Commodore]

Goldman Sachs probably writing up their own bailout legislation as we speak

 

QE4EVAH

[Inigima]

I think there's a qualitative difference there. The base of the left has been broadly supportive of gay rights for longer than I've been alive; Democratic politicians haven't always, because they were pandering to the middle to try to get votes. In contrast, the positions of the right's base have moved increasingly to the right.

[Fez]

My understanding is that it's seen as limiting your options for no real gain.

 

Also, the running mate is pretty often someone who was also competing for the nomination. No one wants their name floated as the VP when they still think they can get the big prize.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Couldn't exactly the same analysis be aplied to the Dems position on gay marriage, though? ie: just because it's popular doesn't mean it isn't a shift to the left.

 

It could, but my response wasn't to say that it doesn't count as a shift because it's a popular shift. I fully acknowledge that there has been a huge shift there, both in the Democratic Party and the broader public. My response was that 1) many conservatives have claimed it as a win for conservative values, opening the question of whether it really counts as movement to the left and 2) this is the only social issue Democrats have really shifted on.

 

The second point is more important. Call gay marriage a left-wing issue, and say the Democrats have moved far left on it, and still we're left with just one social issue against the Republican Party's move right on taxes, environment, immigration, health care, basically everything across the board except, perhaps, gay marriage, which they appear to have begrudgingly accepted (while gearing up for fights over "religious freedom").

[James Arryn]

Legalization of mj...I know that also counts as a libertarian win, but generally viewed more as a liberal issue, no?

[awesome possum]

Oh Scott Walker, it's okay.  Taking a definitive position on an issue is hard sometimes, I know.

 

 

Scott Walker on Sunday took his third position within seven days on Donald Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship, this time saying he opposes Trump and supports the policy.

 

The Wisconsin governor and Republican presidential candidate was asked on ABC's "This Week" whether he backs Trump's push to end the 14th Amendment's mandate that all children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship.

 

"Well, I said the law is there. And we need to enforce the laws, including those that are in the Constitution," Walker said, adding that he favors addressing illegal immigration by improving border security and requiring businesses to use a system called E-Verify to check workers' legal status.

 

ABC's George Stephanopoulos pressed further, asking: "So you're not seeking to repeal or alter the 14th Amendment?"

 

"No," Walker said.

...

It's a different answer than the one Walker gave Monday at the Iowa State Fair.

 

Asked by MSNBC's Kasie Hunt whether birthright citizenship should be ended, he said then: "Yeah, absolutely, going forward."

...

Then, on Friday, Walker offered another stance -- telling CNBC's John Harwood that he won't weigh in on birthright citizenship.

 

"I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other," he said in that interview.

 

 

 

Someone should maybe remind Walker that they have these things called video cameras that record what you say and then play it back later.  It's understandable, though.  One of the symptoms of being addicted to Koch is memory loss. 

[Commodore]

boom/bust, inflate/crash cycle, when will we learn that central banks controlling interest rates is a bad idea?

[Fez]

boom/bust, inflate/crash cycle, when will we learn that central banks controlling interest rates is a bad idea?

 

This is a response to China's crash, not anything that the Fed is doing.

[Hayyoth]

 

This is a response to China's crash, not anything that the Fed is doing.

You think they're mutually exclusive? Folks be screaming that a 25 basis point rise in interest rates, i.e. next to nothing, will be a 'disaster'. We've had ZIRP coming on 8 years and the Fed still can't put rates up. The economy is broken and the DOW is crashing. Commodore is right.

 

 

Goldman Sachs probably writing up their own bailout legislation as we speak

 

QE4EVAH

The Fed can't do QE4, pension  and insurance funds are already half way to being destroyed by this crap. The Fed ended QE not because it wanted to but because it had to, the same will go with interest rates.

[Hayyoth]

The second point is more important. Call gay marriage a left-wing issue, and say the Democrats have moved far left on it, and still we're left with just one social issue against the Republican Party's move right on taxes, environment, immigration, health care, basically everything across the board except, perhaps, gay marriage, which they appear to have begrudgingly accepted (while gearing up for fights over "religious freedom").

 

Ok off the top of my head.

 

1) Immigration. The Democratic Party is now in favor of something approaching an open border policy. Just a decade ago we had Dem politicans openly calling for a wall on the southern border, any Dem doing that now would be finished.

 

2) Welfare. Clinton signed into law the most radical rollback of welfare provision since WW2. Reducing ANY entitlements has become a red line for Dems.

 

3) Environment. Closing down the coal industry,  passing ever more draconian regulation of the energy, manufacturing and mining sectors all in the name of climate change. You claim Repubs have 'drifted right' on the issue? Hardly. We simply hold the position that BOTH Dems and Repubs held to until relatively recently, that providing cheap energy was essential to stimulating economic growth.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I dont want to talk about the reasons for the stock market decline (not gonna call it a crash, I think as of now it was down 6-10%?). However, in 2008 McCain's campaign basically tanked after the September crash and his bizzare calls for suspending campaigns.

 

I am just wondering if Trump may get even more of a boost because of his tough talk on China and his supposed business acumen. Not sure it will sway too many Democrats, but it may, just may give him enough staying power.

[awesome possum]

Ok off the top of my head.

 

1) Immigration. The Democratic Party is now in favor of something approaching an open border policy. Just a decade ago we had Dem politicans openly calling for a wall on the southern border, any Dem doing that now would be finished.

 

And yet under Obama more illegal immigrants have been deported than any president in history.  It's almost ... almost like you rely on pushing a false narrative straight from Bullshit Mountain rather even try to look at the actual fact of a matter.  

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Ok off the top of my head.

 

1) Immigration. The Democratic Party is now in favor of something approaching an open border policy. Just a decade ago we had Dem politicans openly calling for a wall on the southern border, any Dem doing that now would be finished.

 

2) Welfare. Clinton signed into law the most radical rollback of welfare provision since WW2. Reducing ANY entitlements has become a red line for Dems.

 

3) Environment. Closing down the coal industry,  passing ever more draconian regulation of the energy, manufacturing and mining sectors all in the name of climate change. You claim Repubs have 'drifted right' on the issue? Hardly. We simply hold the position that BOTH Dems and Repubs held to until relatively recently, that providing cheap energy was essential to stimulating economic growth.

 

First, you're wobbling and failing to defend you initial claim. None of these are social issues.

 

Next:

 

1) Utter bullshit. Declaring Democrats in favor of an "open border" is pure unsubstantiated nonsense. In contrast, Republicans are now unable to muster support for the only feasible response to illegal immigration- a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants- a policy supported in some form by the past three Republican Presidents and even proposed by current Presidential candidate Marco Rubio but scuttled by the strength of the Congressional right.

 

2) The Democratic Party's support for major entitlement programs it created several decades ago does not count as evidence of it moving significantly to the left- that's them occupying the ideological position they've held since LBJ. It's amazing to me that you even attempted this upside-down argument. As you'd say, I'm toucaned out.

 

3) More unsubstantiated bullshit- you'll have to provide some evidence that the coal industry as been 'closed down.' Further, the Democratic Party has long held a position in favor of environmental regulation (draconian though it may be in your conservative mind), of course only relatively recently have climate change and greenhouse gas emissions become the main regulatory focus- for obvious reasons given the threat climate change now represents. Meanwhile the Republican Party has gone from creating the EPA under Nixon to steadfastly refusing to acknowledge climate change science.

 

 

ETA: Let me just go straight to the empirical data here. Congressional Republicans without doubt have moved more to the right than Congressional Democrats have to the left, and that's reflective of the broader state of the parties. Throwing out unsubstantiated conservative-media-spoon-fed responses about Democrats shutting down coal or wanting an open border just doesn't stand up to actual data.

[Hayyoth]

 

First, you're wobbling and failing to defend you initial claim. None of these are social issues.

 

Next:

 

1) Utter bullshit. Declaring Democrats in favor of an "open border" is pure unsubstantiated nonsense. In contrast, Republicans are now unable to muster support for the only feasible response to illegal immigration- a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants- a policy supported in some form by the past three Republican Presidents and even proposed by current Presidential candidate Marco Rubio but scuttled by the strength of the Congressional right.

 

2) The Democratic Party's support for major entitlement programs it created several decades ago does not count as evidence of it moving significantly to the left- that's them occupying the ideological position they've held since LBJ. It's amazing to me that you even attempted this upside-down argument. As you'd say, I'm toucaned out.

 

3) More unsubstantiated bullshit- you'll have to provide some evidence that the coal industry as been 'closed down.' Further, the Democratic Party has long held a position in favor of environmental regulation (draconian though it may be in your conservative mind), of course only relatively recently have climate change and greenhouse gas emissions become the main regulatory focus- for obvious reasons given the threat climate change now represents. Meanwhile the Republican Party has gone from creating the EPA under Nixon to steadfastly refusing to acknowledge climate change science.

Immigration isn't a social issue? Anyway

 

1) Nope you're deflecting. I was referring to the border specifically, of which many Dem politicians used to be in favor of closing, now they're not, definite drift leftwards.

 

2) Dems under Clinton supported, or at least went along with, quite radical welafre reform, now they'd run a mile from even a the smell of it. Definite drift leftwards.

 

3) And yes as you say, Dems used to be in favor of cheap energy, as they understood how vital it was in supporting  blue collar industries, now they're against.

 

 

 

And yet under Obama more illegal immigrants have been deported than any president in history.  It's almost ... almost like you rely on pushing a false narrative straight from Bullshit Mountain rather even try to look at the actual fact of a matter.  

As ever AP an insightful and thought provoking post. Obama is defintely very tough on immigrants, I'm mistaken.

[awesome possum]

 

As ever AP an insightful and thought provoking post. Obama is defintely very tough on immigrants, I'm mistaken.

 

The sad thing, buddy, is that in this thread I'm like junior varsity and I still manage to make you look like a fool every single time.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1. Are they? Last thing I heard was, that they were trying to find a way to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants who had been living and working in the US for years (some even for decades). Without pushing it too far, but I don't think that Lazarus poem Americans used to love to recite so often said.

Show the finger to your tired, your poor, your huddled masses to breath free. Toss your firstborns as an Anchor into the Hudson. 

But American Poetry is not really my strong suit, so I might be wrong there. Anyway, my point is, that public opinion in America as a whole once had a very different spin on immigration than the one shown by the political right. 

 

All that Anchorbaby shenanigans, which afaik originated on Faux News is an assault on your precious constitution. I know, the conservative mindset only needs the second Amendment to be happy. 

 

2. No, idea. I will leave that one to the yanks, who are quite a bit more familar with American politics than I am. 

 

3. Enviroment is not that new afterall.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

 

Just this time it's about trying to limit carbon emissions, which has bigger drawbacks for the economy. But putting the enviroment before the industry has happened before. I am just not sure, but I think Reagen was the one who signed the Montreal Protocol on behalf of the American people. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

boom/bust, inflate/crash cycle, when will we learn that central banks controlling interest rates is a bad idea?

Those have nothing to do with central banking.

That is Capitalism.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Immigration isn't a social issue? Anyway

 

1) Nope you're deflecting. I was referring to the border specifically, of which many Dem politicians used to be in favor of closing, now they're not, definite drift leftwards.

 

2) Dems under Clinton supported, or at least went along with, quite radical welafre reform, now they'd run a mile from even a the smell of it. Definite drift leftwards.

 

3) And yes as you say, Dems used to be in favor of cheap energy, as they understood how vital it was in supporting  blue collar industries, now they're against.

 

 

1) Bullshit, offer some evidence for the claim that Democrats want an open border or shut up about it.

 

2) Welfare reform under Clinton was extremely divisive in the Democratic Party and, again, supporting programs they created decades and decades ago is not evidence of moving left on them. This is a plainly stupid claim.

 

3) What the fuck are you talking about? This doesn't engage with what I said, at all, it responds to some bizarrely imagined statement I never made. Support the claim that Democrats have closed down the coal industry or shut up about it. Respond to the fact that Democrats have long supported environmental regulations, and greenhouse gases are just the present continuation of this, or back down. Finally, deal with the fact that your party, which created the EPA, has now gone to the right of science, refusing to acknowledge the broad consensus on the reality of climate change. Don't come back with addle nonsense bearing no relation to what I said.

 

And I know I added this late to my last post so I'll repeat it:

 

Let me just go straight to the empirical data here. Congressional Republicans without doubt have moved more to the right than Congressional Democrats have to the left, and that's reflective of the broader state of the parties. Throwing out unsubstantiated conservative-media-spoon-fed responses about Democrats shutting down coal or wanting an open border just doesn't stand up to actual data.

 

 

Also, no, immigration is not a social issue unless your problem with immigration is its effect on American culture. I don't put that past you or many other conservatives, of course, but most arguments which see daylight in political discourse focus on immigration's effect on employment and public services.

[BloodRider]

Trump's biggest selling point is he can't be bought. Yeah he throws lots of red meat to the Repub base, but folks on the right are fucking sick of pay for play politics.

Well, welcome to the party.  Where have you been since Reagan?