Martell Spy

U.S. Politics: A Wolff In Sheep's Clothing

402 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I do not want anyone that hasn't held some kind of office before. That includes Cuban, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, The Rock, or any of other celebrity names that get thrown around.

If somebody has not bothered to run for office, before running for the president of the United States (well of course Bloomberg has, but I object to him on other grounds), I have to wonder whether this about trying to get shit done, or is it more about said celebrity trying to get a notch in their belt.

And just because somebody has demonstrated success in one field, it does not follow they will make a good statesman or stateswoman or politician.

What you got against Bloomberg?  He actually ran a city that is bigger than many states relatively competently.  He's at least as valid in the conversation as a governor from like Arkansas, or New Hampshire, or any state with fewer than 8.5 million people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

What you got against Bloomberg?  He actually ran a city that is bigger than many states relatively competently.  He's at least as valid in the conversation as a governor from like Arkansas, or New Hampshire, or any state with fewer than 8.5 million people.  

Do you think Bloomberg should represent the face of the Democratic Party? I appreciate Bloomberg's moderation, like say Mark Cuban, on social issues. But ultimately he seems to me to be a pro business guy and his home is the Republican Party. 

Guys like Bloomberg and Cuban would do this a country a bigger favor by going into the Republican Party and smashing the white greivence/alt right block, rather than becoming the leader of Democratic Party. We already have one party that primarily caters to business interest. We don't need two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck it, I'm running for president now too. I'm only twenty-five next year (I think) but since we're throwing aside all requirements to serve anyway! 

Gonna be honest, I think we're kind of reaching the apex of where this political rollercoaster can go before it flies of the rails forever. I don't think the Republic survives another TV president, it doesn't look like it's going to survive the current one, without descending into something truly horrible to contemplate.

This is a crucial moment here, folks. The next Democratic leaders need to step up time fucking now. And I'm not talking about the left, I'm talking about anyone who is willing to actually serve the country and do the right thing. Holy shit, people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

What you got against Bloomberg?  He actually ran a city that is bigger than many states relatively competently.  He's at least as valid in the conversation as a governor from like Arkansas, or New Hampshire, or any state with fewer than 8.5 million people.  

Given what he's already achieved , Michael Bloomberg would actually  be a very good choice .  

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Do you think Bloomberg should represent the face of the Democratic Party? I appreciate Bloomberg's moderation, like say Mark Cuban, on social issues. But ultimately he seems to me to be a pro business guy and his home is the Republican Party. 

Guys like Bloomberg and Cuban would do this a country a bigger favor by going into the Republican Party and smashing the white greivence/alt right block, rather than becoming the leader of Democratic Party. We already have one party that primarily caters to business interest. We don't need two.

Im think you do need a political  leaders that understand  business and economics . In fact I think the Republican and  Democratic Party would  benefit if more of their members had a better grasp of business and economics  then they seem to. I think being being just a lawyer as a fir number them are , just isn't  enough.

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

You do need a political  leader that understands business and economic 

Like say Herbert Hoover? Or maybe Donald Trump? George W. Bush? 

There are plenty of people within the Democratic establishment that understand "economics" from which a Democratic candidate could get policy advice.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, S John said:

Agree.  Please no.  I really do not want to see this country devolve into a cycle of electing inexperienced famous faces.  Trump needs to be an anomaly not to be repeated, not the standard for the new norm of what it takes to get elected.  I have no problem with Oprah as a person, but answering Trump with Oprah?  Man, I really feel like that would be it for this country.  We will have totally jumped the shark at that point and I mean it sincerely when I say that I will not vote for her in 2020 and that I am as sure of that as I was sure that I would never vote for Trump.  To me that feels like perpetuating a death spiral.  She would need to spend at least some time in congress or as a state governor or something before I would even consider it.  Just because the Republicans have shown that they don't care about meaningful experience does not mean that the Dem's should follow them down that path.

We haven't already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

All of this serves as a windup to Wolff’s most fundamental, and perhaps scariest, conclusion — that the president is psychologically incapable of understanding the consequences of his actions. When Trump does something, like fire Comey or bomb Syria or threaten North Korea, he does so without any sense of how human beings might be affected by his actions.


What Fire and Fury tells us about Trump’s foreign policy is terrifying
If even a tenth of what Michael Wolff reports is true, we should really be worried.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/8/16863064/fire-and-fury-book-trump-michael-wolff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Like say Herbert Hoover? Or maybe Donald Trump? George W. Bush? 

There are plenty of people within the Democratic establishment that understand "economics" from which a Democratic candidate could get policy advice.

Advisors  on economics and business  tend to be of limited value to politicians who have little understanding what they're trying to explain them.  

 

No, Im sorry I don't agree with you on this. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Advisors  on economics and business  tend to be of limited value to politicians who have little understanding what they're trying to explain them.  

 

No, Im sorry I don't agree with you on this. 

 

Once again on trusting the CEO business guy on economics.

I’ve read, heard, or seen too many of them blow policy matters to give them any great degree of deference.

1. Herbet Hoover, unlike Trump, was actually a successful businessman and largely like Trump didn’t come into the world born on third base. But, he blew it during the Great Depression.

2. His secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon blew it, as well.

3. Carly Fiorina blew it when she said back in 2012 that “everyone agrees the fiscal defifict is our biggest issue”. No Carly not everyone agreed.

4. Jamie Dimon is sellin’ bullshit when he whines about equity capital requirements.

5. Business Donald Trump bleats out nonsense all the time.

6. The “MBA President” Bush certainly didn’t know what in the hell he was doing.

7. The CEO business clowntable crowd were largely talking out of there ass when they started to talk about a “skills gap” a few years back, when that wasn’t the biggest issue.

So, no I don’t think it’s prudent to give CEO business guy a lot of deference on economic matters or assume he’s not bleating out bullshit or he knows what he is talking about.

The business guy as a competent economic steward cliche needs to die. 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Lol Sanders and Warren aren't far left. 

 

Bernie Sander window o opportunity closed  in 2016. 

 

There are people who want Elizabeth Warren to run for the Whitehouse in 2020.But  I don't think she can garner enough support nationally to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Do you think Bloomberg should represent the face of the Democratic Party? I appreciate Bloomberg's moderation, like say Mark Cuban, on social issues. But ultimately he seems to me to be a pro business guy and his home is the Republican Party. 

Guys like Bloomberg and Cuban would do this a country a bigger favor by going into the Republican Party and smashing the white greivence/alt right block, rather than becoming the leader of Democratic Party. We already have one party that primarily caters to business interest. We don't need two.

Well, I'm pretty far to the right to you (though, to be sure, pretty far to the left of the current Republican party :P) and relatively uncomfortable being labeled a Democrat :)  But my comment was more towards the grouping of him with others who have no political experience whatsoever.  He actually is competent and experienced. I would be pretty happy with a Bloomberg as president.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, I'm pretty far to the right to you (though, to be sure, pretty far to the left of the current Republican party :P) and relatively uncomfortable being labeled a Democrat :)  But my comment was more towards the grouping of him with others who have no political experience whatsoever.  He actually is competent and experienced. I would be pretty happy with a Bloomberg as president.  

Unlike the current clown that's in office, I don't doubt Bloomberg's basic intelligence or diligence. But if all he does is go around bleating out stuff we hear from the Jamie Dimon/CEO Business Roundtable Crowd, I think I'll take a pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Once again on trusting the CEO business guy on economics.

I’ve read, heard, or seen too many of them blow policy matters to give them any great degree of deference.

1. Herbet Hoover, unlike Trump, was actually a successful businessman and largely like Trump didn’t come into the world born on third base. But, he blew it during the Great Depression.

2. His secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon blew it, as well.

3. Carly Fiorina blew it when she said back in 2012 that “everyone agrees the fiscal defifict is our biggest issue”. No Carly not everyone agreed.

4. Jamie Dimon is sellin’ bullshit when he whines about equity capital requirements.

5. Business Donald Trump bleats out nonsense all the time.

6. The “MBA President” Bush certainly didn’t know what in the hell he was doing.

7. The CEO business clowntable crowd were largely talking out of there ass when they started to talk about a “skills gap” a few years back, when that wasn’t the biggest issue.

So, no I don’t think it’s prudent to give CEO business guy a lot of deference on economic matters or assume he’s not bleating out bullshit or he knows what he is talking about.

The business guy as a competent economic steward cliche needs to die. 

I don't need to tell you that FDR's new deal policy didn't get us out of the  Depression . In fact in 1937 -38   the US economy slid  into recession and the only thing that stopped it from going to depression was FDR injected money into the economy. It took WW 2 to get us out that one and not Roosevelt's  polices .

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

I don't need to tell you that FDR's new deal policy didn't get us out of the  Depression . In fact in 1937 -38   the uUS economy slid  into recession and the only thing that stopped it from going to depression was FDR injected money into the economy. It took WW 2 to get us out that one and not Roosevelt's  polices .

There is so much crap here I don't even know where to start. The fact of the matter is that GDP and industrial production took off right after Roosevelt's election in early 1933. The main reason for this was because Roosevelt was able to engineer higher inflation expectations lowering the real rate of interest. Roosevelt was doing forward guidance before forward guidance was cool. He was able to engineer higher inflation expectations because 1) he talked quite a bit about returning us the pre 1929 price level, 2) he suspended the gold standard, and 3) restored confidence in the banking system so monetary policy could operate.

Now you say, "FDR injected money into the economy". Yeah, well of course he did because the origins of the Great Depression was largely a monetary problem. Even Milton Friedman would agree. What in the hell do you think a Monetary History of The United States was about? And most likely the whole great Depression got started because the Bank of France and the United States Federal Reserve started to hoard gold, and that started to depress the price of commodities. And you know, since Walrasian market clearing is a fantasy, that's a real problem.

And the 37-38 recession was because the Fed tightened too quickly.

Finally, I think it's ridiculous for conservative sorts of people to say but, but, it was WW2 that got us out of the Great Depression!, but then turn around and reject Keynesian explanations. I agree though that the onset of World War 2 brought about then end of the Great Depression and finally delivered the fiscal spending that was needed. And according to Robert Gordon, who wrote a paper on the topic it looks like multipliers were fairly high until about 1942. 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Oh yes, Oprah for President by all means. Maybe Dr. Phil can be Surgeon General. What other hucksters has she elevated with her platform?

No, Dr. Oz would be Surgeon General. I'd see Dr. Phil as press secretary:

"Dr. Phil! How will the President handle the overseas meeting with foreign leaders?"

"This ain't her first time at a rodeo."

"Dr. Phil! What is the administrations reaction to the GOP's new proposed bill?"

"That dog won't hunt."

 

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What does everyone think about Oprah 2020?

Boondocks animated series called it in 2006.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTCKcm0VAAAt4Oi.jpg:large

http://comicbook.com/movies/2018/01/08/oprah-winfrey-golden-globes-2018-president-2020-boondocks/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drawkcabi said:

No, Dr. Oz would be Surgeon General. I'd see Dr. Phil as press secretary:

"Dr. Phil! How will the President handle the overseas meeting with foreign leaders?"

"This ain't her first time at a rodeo."

"Dr. Phil! What is the administrations reaction to the GOP's new proposed bill?"

"That dog won't hunt."

 

George Clooney would be the ambassador to the UN, with his fancy espresso machines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mexal said:

I mean, the Democratic party isn't going to do much soul searching if they run Biden or Sanders/Warren and their far left agenda isn't going to help either. The party has issues that I don't see being resolved by the 2020 candidate.

Don't take it personally, you just happen to be the one to say it today, but I take issue with the label "far left" here. It seems to me that most of the US's problems come from a lack of redistributive policies* that will have to be addressed at some point or the other. In other words, what you call "far left" may just be the most viable policies to fix things.

*And to be clear, this is no longer a leftist's opinion. The OECD, the IMF and the World Bank have all condemned the economic policies that the US has been implementing under Republicans since Reagan. There's a growing consensus that trickle-down, supply-side or whatever you want to call it, has been a disaster. The question then becomes: how do you fix this disaster without policies that will seem to be "far left" at a glance? Especially when the current administration is busy maklng everything even worse?

I personally think it's time to stop thinking about socialist or even keynesian policies as "far left" and start assessing them on their own merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, Oprah started Dr. Oz????  I can't imagine anything more disqualifying except perhaps kicking off Dr. Phil's career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.