Jump to content

U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Just policy-wise, what's your solution for the decline in median household income?

I imagine closing borders to trade and immigration might increase median income a little, but given automation, I'm not sure it's going to be that much. And it's almost certainly going to be a net loss in purchasing power parity terms.

I'm skeptical of educating under-employed workers to be computer programmers/entrepreneurs/massage therapists.

Unions, maybe. I'm also a bit skeptical about the effectiveness of labor unions in a knowledge-based, service economy.

In fact, the only real solution I can think of is for a gradual expansion in welfare state, eventually resulting in a Basic Income.

Just a bit of history here. When unions were first formed, the main drivers were tradesmen as their skills  were knowledge based and in a service environment.  The word journeyman for a trades person reflects this fact. Without the skilled trades in a union, there is no impetus  to settle strikes as unskilled workers are much more replaceable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I'm pretty sure that addressing inequality and falling median income has been part of the Democratic platform for more than a decade at least.

If the Democrats truly wanted to address inequality and stagnant or falling median income, they can hardly have asked for a better chance than they had in 2009. They had the Presidency, substantial majorities in both houses of Congress and all of the anger of a public suffering from a severe economic downturn. We could have had a new Hundred Days, but instead we got bailouts and legislation written with input and consent from the corporate world. I am reasonably certain that no solution to this will come from the Democrats -- at least not in their current incarnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Fallen said:

These two selfies are indicative of what Republicans view as America (from Vox):

Republicans and Democrats alike are vying to lead America’s future this year as President Barack Obama concludes his second term in the White House. But a couple of new selfies with congressional interns suggest one party at least looks more like the America it’s hoping to lead.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12240656/paul-ryan-selfie

Both selfies say a lot.  The Democratic ones say, "Quick, push all the white people to the back!  We need to show how diverse we are!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Jon Stewart Returns to Take Down Trump and the GOP: ‘I See Your Bullshit’
On the day Roger Ailes resigned and Donald Trump accepted the GOP nomination, Jon Stewart returned to what he does best: ripping Republicans and Fox News.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/22/jon-stewart-returns-to-take-down-trump-and-the-gop-i-see-your-bullshit.html

Hypothetically, would it be wrong to, i dunno, say, kidnap everyone Jon Stewart loves and force him to host the Daily Show again from now until the end of the election?  All I want is the daily monologue really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

It's humorous that after being repeatedly asked about actual issues and actual reasons why Hillary Clinton is just as bad of a candidate as Trump the best you've come up with is some vague notion of her changing accents.  Twice.

I think it's humorous you think a meaningful discussion can be had about Hillary's stance on virtually anything. I find it completely pointless to discuss her stance on issues because of her incessant pandering. I believe nothing she says so what is there to discuss? When the time comes for actual decision making, her campaign promises, election platforms etc will be forgotten, She'll just judge which direction the political wind is blowing and head that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Altherion said:

If the Democrats truly wanted to address inequality and stagnant or falling median income, they can hardly have asked for a better chance than they had in 2009. They had the Presidency, substantial majorities in both houses of Congress and all of the anger of a public suffering from a severe economic downturn. We could have had a new Hundred Days, but instead we got bailouts and legislation written with input and consent from the corporate world. I am reasonably certain that no solution to this will come from the Democrats -- at least not in their current incarnation.

It's important to remember that Senator Franken wasn't sworn in until July 7th, 2009 and Senator Kennedy died on August 25th, 2009. The Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 48 days, and Kennedy was barely active during that time period. So it's not like they had this giant window to do whatever they wanted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's important to remember that Senator Franken wasn't sworn in until July 7th, 2009 and Senator Kennedy died on August 25th, 2009. The Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 48 days, and Kennedy was barely active during that time period. So it's not like they had this giant window to do whatever they wanted. 

Did they accomplish anything during that time?  i honestly can't recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the back of Trump's base, David Duke has announced his run for US Senate in Louisiana.

Quote

“The time is now. The revolution is coming in the United States of America. For the real people, for the vast majority of the American people,” Duke said. “Thousands of special interest groups stand up for African Americans, Mexican Americans, Jewish Americans, et cetera, et cetera. The fact is European Americans need at least one man in the United States Senate, one man in the United States Congress, who will defend their rights and heritage.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

I think it's humorous you think a meaningful discussion can be had about Hillary's stance on virtually anything. I find it completely pointless to discuss her stance on issues because of her incessant pandering. I believe nothing she says so what is there to discuss? When the time comes for actual decision making, her campaign promises, election platforms etc will be forgotten, She'll just judge which direction the political wind is blowing and head that way.

So.  Lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Did they accomplish anything during that time?  i honestly can't recall.

Can't say off the top of my head. I just had to add that caveat because it drives me nuts when people act like the Democrats had 60 Senators for two years, when in fact, it was for less than 50 days. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the Senate is usually only in session for a couple of days a week, that Kennedy was by and large absent during that time, the August recess cuts that time in half and that there were a half dozen or so Democratic Senators that were actively working against the party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You're not in Kansas anymore.

perspective%20funny_zpsqr7h25og.jpg

Pretty funny. 

56 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Both selfies say a lot.  The Democratic ones say, "Quick, push all the white people to the back!  We need to show how diverse we are!"

Sadly, the Republican selfie doesn't have even one black or brown face they can push to the front to even front like they care about the actual US of A.

Thus is a response to Rory:

Trump isn't trying to do anything for anyone. If he really did state that he'll delegate all his responsibilities to others, well then, there's your proof.

And just generally, the RNC was a hatefest extraordinaire. Especially the ire directed at Hillary. I don't know how any self-respecting Republican could associate themself with this candidate. You would think that all these politicians would be shunned by sane people, but their support for Trump will be merely shrugged off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's important to remember that Senator Franken wasn't sworn in until July 7th, 2009 and Senator Kennedy died on August 25th, 2009. The Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 48 days, and Kennedy was barely active during that time period. So it's not like they had this giant window to do whatever they wanted. 

This is not exactly true: on September 25th, 2009, Kennedy's seat was filled by Democrat Paul G. Kirk which gave the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate until Kirk was replaced by Scott Brown on February 4th, 2010. Thus, they had an additional 130 days or so beyond the ones that you mention. However, these technicalities are besides the point: whether with or without a filibuster-proof majority, the 2009 Democrats never even proposed any legislation that would have a significant impact on inequality. It's not a question of being defeated by the filibuster (which, after all, could be overcome by changing the rules as was eventually done in November 2013), but simply of the issue not being on the agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is not exactly true: on September 25th, 2009, Kennedy's seat was filled by Democrat Paul G. Kirk which gave the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate until Kirk was replaced by Scott Brown on February 4th, 2010. Thus, they had an additional 130 days or so beyond the ones that you mention. However, these technicalities are besides the point: whether with or without a filibuster-proof majority, the 2009 Democrats never even proposed any legislation that would have a significant impact on inequality. It's not a question of being defeated by the filibuster (which, after all, could be overcome by changing the rules as was eventually done in November 2013), but simply of the issue not being on the agenda.

The Lily Leadbetter Fair Pay Act does not qualify? And I believe they also expanded SCHiP, enacted the Credit Card Act, and some other stuff I can't now remember. And let's not forget the PPACA, the largest transfer of wealth in recent history. None of that addresses inequality in the slightest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Rory Snow said:

I believe nothing she says so what is there to discuss? 

Coming from someone who's repeatedly accused Clinton supporters of being blind robots, the unilateral thinking on display here is odd.

Have you ever thought of perhaps examining your own internal confirmation bias? I mean, you readily acknowledge that Trump is a less-than-perfect candidate and have claimed you're voting 3rd party. 

Try considering the possibility that Clinton isn't just a lying liar who lies. I mean, it's fine if you disagree with her platforms, but to just refuse to even consider examining them because you will believe nothing she says, especially while defending a candidate who, by all metrics available, is objectively, a a lot more dishonest and racist, is just odd to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is not exactly true: on September 25th, 2009, Kennedy's seat was filled by Democrat Paul G. Kirk which gave the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate until Kirk was replaced by Scott Brown on February 4th, 2010. Thus, they had an additional 130 days or so beyond the ones that you mention. However, these technicalities are besides the point: whether with or without a filibuster-proof majority, the 2009 Democrats never even proposed any legislation that would have a significant impact on inequality. It's not a question of being defeated by the filibuster (which, after all, could be overcome by changing the rules as was eventually done in November 2013), but simply of the issue not being on the agenda.

Well not exactly. Senator Byrd was in very poor health during the second half of 2009 with health issues of his own. The best you can argue is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for 4 months and one week, with Byrd missing about 70% during that time. 

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/

And your assertion that Democrats didn't propose any legislation that would have a significant impact on inequality is just laughably inaccurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

The Lily Leadbetter Fair Pay Act does not qualify?

Or the ACA?  Or the ARRA that was clearly aimed at those impacted by the Great Recession?

And are we really to the point of just ignoring the dumpster fire that was the economy during that time to criticize democrats from dealing with every issue the GOP has created since 1980?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

Just a bit of history here. When unions were first formed, the main drivers were tradesmen as their skills  were knowledge based and in a service environment.  The word journeyman for a trades person reflects this fact. Without the skilled trades in a union, there is no impetus  to settle strikes as unskilled workers are much more replaceable.  

Are you taking about unions or medieval guilds? Because guilds were indisputably impediments to economic develop and scientific and societal progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aceluby said:

And are we really to the point of just ignoring the dumpster fire that was the economy during that time to criticize democrats from dealing with every issue the GOP has created since 1980?

Seems like it. We've already forgotten that Bush had terrible job creation numbers throughout his presidency. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/08/guess-what-barack-obama-has-been-a-great-president-for-job-creation/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...