U.S Politics; The Price of Steele

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

They want change and to shape the nation in their image. The Health Care was changed and nearly gutted though what several law experts state. The Judiciary independence does not seperate from changes in our society and how it is shaped.

And that is why we hire lawyers. If a law is properly drafted so that it does not conflict with the constitution or precedents, then it becomes much harder to strike down. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

14 minutes ago, maarsen said:

And that is why we hire lawyers. If a law is properly drafted so that it does not conflict with the constitution or precedents, then it becomes much harder to strike down. 

Until they are and new precedent is set.

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was amazed to see an interview of Putin on a big US network yesterday, where they allowed him to spread lies and hatred freely. He took a leaf out of Trump's book, where Trump claimed China or a fat guy sitting on his bed in New Jersey, were possibly responsible for hacking in the US, and claimed the election interference was done by Ukrainians or Jews or maybe Russians with green cards working for the US government.

And he said it with a smile.

Our media here is fucking clueless. 

[GAROVORKIN]

2 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

Our media here is fucking clueless. 

This is something we can actually agree on Doom. 

[DMC]

20 hours ago, unpaid comintern said:

dems: we gotta be flexible on abortion to have any hope in more conservative districts like [checks notes] illinois 3rd?!

Remember, this is the district where Arthur Jones is on the ballot as the Republican nominee, so strange things seem to happen there.  There does seem to be a belief that the district is unusually culturally conservative for a Chicago-area district, even though the GOP has never targeted Lipinski since he inherited the seat from his dad.  A primary challenge is well passed due.

[Week]

On 3/7/2018 at 5:48 PM, GAROVORKIN said:

This meeting took place after the election , but before the inauguration.  

So, what point you were trying to make and how relevant is it with the appropriate context provided by Mexal below?

On 3/7/2018 at 6:06 PM, Mexal said:

Yea, WaPost corrected to say 2017. That being said, so what? That's the 2nd time the Russians tried to open a back channel to Trump's team which seems awfully fucking weird when he becomes President in a few weeks and had no "previous contact with anyone from Russia". Oh and people lied about it to Congress.

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 3/8/2018 at 11:32 AM, Shryke said:

Tariffs won't actually help and aren't gonna hit the real issue with most of the communities in favour of this kind of shit, but they offer a simple story that pushes the right buttons and that's why they get support. There were manly man american jobs that supported a wife and 2.5 kids at home. And then they went away. And that's cause of dirty foreigners. So we stick it to foreigners with tariffs and such and the imaginary good times I remember return.

There are obvious more nuanced takes on the pros and cons of free trade. But they aren't coming out of like fucking Ohio and Pennsylvania politicians support Trump's blanket tariffs on steel. That's not what public support for these kind of policies is about.

I agree that the tariffs will do little to achieve their intended objective and will just end up mainly pissing off US trade partners and allies.

And I’d urge Democrats that have concerns about free trade to find a solution for their concerns over free trade, other than protectionism and tariffs. Perhaps they, along with the Democratic Party generally, should adopt Robert Rubin’s suggestion for a government jobs guarantee, which is interesting that would come from him since he is the sort of neo-liberal Democrat many progressives can’t stand.

That said though, I still have a very hard to time making the inference you’d like us to make with regard to Democrat support for the tarriffs.

If I were to make that inference then I’d have to conclude that somebody like Sherrod Brown who as a pretty progressive record on social issues is now the the regressive troll, while somebody like Orrin Hatch is now the progressive on social issues. We have entered a strange land.

Something does not quite compute.

Perhaps the better explanation here is that some on the left have had issues with free trade for a very long time and not without some reasons. That they are not very inclined to listen to the best technocratic advice on the matter makes some sense, since perhaps the first time around the benefits of free trade were a bit oversold.

Sherrod Brown for instance has been on the anti-free trade bandwagon for a very long time, writing a book about the subject in the mid 2000s, when everyone just knew Trump mainly as a very bad and cheesy reality TV person.

So no, I don’t think progressive Dems for the most part are just pandering to a bunch of knuckle dragging trogolodytes that just can’t get it together in the “new” economy of the 21st  Century, but instead are acting on some deeply held suspicions about free trade. As I noted previously, these suspicions go back quite awhile and don’t lack utter merit. Fact is that some person have pretty good reasons to be pissed off about how things went down, even if I think their political response, which I shall elaborate on later, was not very good and made their personal situations worse. Much like Mexican Farmers that got wacked real good under NAFTA, after cheap American agricultural imports came flooding in (something the Trumpster never mentions), some American workers got wacked real good as Davos man didn’t think too hard about their fates when these trade deals got signed.

The irony here is that although many progressives were deeply suspicious of free trade, free trade may have been a disaster for the Democratic Party and likely contributed heavily to Hillary Clinton’s defeat in several rust belt states. 

You’re not exactly wrong to point out that there is a gendered component to this. But, even more than the gendered component, it would appear the race/ethnic component appeared to play a larger role. David Autor, who I think is a fairly respected labor economist, has done a study of the political polarization caused by the China trade (I think there are similar conclusions with regard to NAFTA). I think one of the key take aways from that study is that after experiencing job loss to important competition, people get much more tribal and in group identification becomes stronger. Primarily white counties exposed to import competition started to vote more heavily conservative Republican, while counties that were primarily non-white went the more liberal Democrat route. It would appear that white working class men went strongly towards conservative Republicans. While working class white women didn’t do go as strongly for conservative Republicans as their male counterparts did, they hardly went for liberal or moderate Democrats, seemingly preferring “moderate” Republicans, it would seem. See Table 9.

I bring these issues up because it’s my impression based on the work of Autor and others, free trade has not been kind to the political fortunes to center left parties and I think they need to understand how it works as a matter of political economy if 1) they are to maintain free trade, 2) promote socially progressive goals, and 3) out maneuver right wing nationalistic parties who are able to exploit some of the issues free trade has caused. These issues are too important to be left to Davos man and it’s my contention that center left parties will have to fix them.

In the US, it’s of course deeply disappointing that so many white working class men sided with the R’s and one may feel it’s just time to write them off permanently and that maybe true, but certainly that is not the case with white working class women, not if the Democrats plan to re-take the white house in 2020, unless there is some viable route to get their that does not include the midwest, I don’t know about.

And I just think that too much talk of Uhaul rentals and such is likely to get the Democratic Party ass handed to it in 2020.

Nor all of them have to be won back of course. Just a few of them in order to defeat Trump, which may mean with the right pitch, the Democrats won’t have to give up much or anything on social policy.

But anyway, this dispute about free trade has been an issue on the left for quite awhile, causing some division and rancor on the left. And I just think, the left needs figure out where it is going to be at on it. And it’s hard to do that unless you understand why some on the left have historically held it with some suspicions and you know acknowledge that some of their concerns didn’t lack substance. And try to fix those concerns. And then you know, I think it’s important for it to understand how the political economy of it has worked out, which would seem to me, not very well.

[GAROVORKIN]

45 minutes ago, Week said:

So, what point you were trying to make and how relevant is it with the appropriate context provided by Mexal below?

 

Just an observation. I thought  I saw something there.  But was mistaken. 

[GAROVORKIN]

Back in the 1990's the Democrats supported restriction on Immigration  and the Republican  were in favor of more  immigration. and now it it s the other way around with Democrats favoring more immigration and Republicans favoring Restriction on immigration.  

 

 

[DMC]

53 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In the US, it’s of course deeply disappointing that so many white working class men sided with the R’s and one may feel it’s just time to write them off permanently and that maybe true, but certainly that is not the case with white working class women, not if the Democrats plan to re-take the white house in 2020, unless there is some viable route to get their that does not include the midwest, I don’t know about.

I agree with pretty much all of this post, particularly that plenty of Democratic constituents have valid reasons to harbor animus towards free trade and the party needs to figure out how to maintain appeal towards these voters so as to not have them fall back on racial resentment and switch sides, put there's technically a very simple answer to this query:  taking back Florida and North Carolina.

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Back in the 1990's the Democrats supported restriction on Immigration  and the Republican  were in favor of more  immigration. and now it it s the other way around with Democrats favoring more immigration and Republicans favoring Restriction on immigration.  

Think this is a bit of a misnomer. Democrats aren't really for more immigration. They just want to keep the immigration at the levels they are today while giving kids who came to America 25 years ago through no fault of their own a path to citizenship. There were more deportations under Obama than I think any other president (this needs to be fact checked but it's close). The idea that Democrats want open boarders and no restrictions is in the same vein as Dems want to take the GOPs guns.

[GAROVORKIN]

17 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Think this is a bit of a misnomer. Democrats aren't really for more immigration. They just want to keep the immigration at the levels they are today while giving kids who came to America 25 years ago through no fault of their own a path to citizenship. There were more deportations under Obama than I think any other president (this needs to be fact checked but it's close). The idea that Democrats want open boarders and no restrictions is in the same vein as Dems want to take the GOPs guns.

 Obama deported about two and a half million illegal immigrants

[LongRider]

Funny how a few hours in the barrel seemed to change Sam's tune.

 

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I agree that the tariffs will do little to achieve their intended objective and will just end up mainly pissing off US trade partners and allies.

And I’d urge Democrats that have concerns about free trade to find a solution for their concerns over free trade, other than protectionism and tariffs. Perhaps they, along with the Democratic Party generally, should adopt Robert Rubin’s suggestion for a government jobs guarantee, which is interesting that would come from him since he is the sort of neo-liberal Democrat many progressives can’t stand.

That said though, I still have a very hard to time making the inference you’d like us to make with regard to Democrat support for the tarriffs.

If I were to make that inference then I’d have to conclude that somebody like Sherrod Brown who as a pretty progressive record on social issues is now the the regressive troll, while somebody like Orrin Hatch is now the progressive on social issues. We have entered a strange land.

Something does not quite compute.

Yes, but what doesn't compute is that your comment here does not match what I said. The problem is that you are continually not getting the point.

Sherrod Brown can be as progressive as he wants, he still has to win in Ohio. And that means pandering to the perceived interests in protectionist policies from these kind of areas, especially on traditional industries for this kind of behaviour like steel.

It is not some crazy coincidence that the strongest backing you are seeing here is from OH and PA and WV.

There's been suspicion about free trade from the left, yes, but it's not what drives the strong support from states like this. Which is why you get much more mixed reactions from other progressive Senators who are lukewarm on free trade, like oh say Bernie Sanders. This difference is a huge signal you are ignoring about what is going on here.

One of your big problems seems to be a refusal to see the difference between the politicians and the voters they represent. Brown may have a more nuanced view on free trade but his statements are designed to appeal to people who don't. The other is a refusal to acknowledge that there are multiple groups who aren't all gung ho for free trade.

There are many reasons for opposition to free trade. Some of them are nuanced and based on an assessment of the impact on local economies, the ability to balance targets of the gains and losses, the primacy it gives to capital over labour, etc, etc. Others are simplistic stories about mexicans stealing american jobs. The difference in reactions to this are based on an assessment of the appeal of these various ideas to the people the politicians in question represent. The strong support among some Democrats for these Trump tariffs is a reflection of the perceived power of the "they took er jerbs" narrative among the people they have to pander to.

[OldGimletEye]

7 hours ago, Shryke said:

Yes, but what doesn't compute is that your comment here does not match what I said. The problem is that you are continually not getting the point.

Sherrod Brown can be as progressive as he wants, he still has to win in Ohio. And that means pandering to the perceived interests in protectionist policies from these kind of areas, especially on traditional industries for this kind of behaviour like steel.

It is not some crazy coincidence that the strongest backing you are seeing here is from OH and PA and WV.

There's been suspicion about free trade from the left, yes, but it's not what drives the strong support from states like this. Which is why you get much more mixed reactions from other progressive Senators who are lukewarm on free trade, like oh say Bernie Sanders. This difference is a huge signal you are ignoring about what is going on here.

One of your big problems seems to be a refusal to see the difference between the politicians and the voters they represent. Brown may have a more nuanced view on free trade but his statements are designed to appeal to people who don't. The other is a refusal to acknowledge that there are multiple groups who aren't all gung ho for free trade.

There are many reasons for opposition to free trade. Some of them are nuanced and based on an assessment of the impact on local economies, the ability to balance targets of the gains and losses, the primacy it gives to capital over labour, etc, etc. Others are simplistic stories about mexicans stealing american jobs. The difference in reactions to this are based on an assessment of the appeal of these various ideas to the people the politicians in question represent. The strong support among some Democrats for these Trump tariffs is a reflection of the perceived power of the "they took er jerbs" narrative among the people they have to pander to.

Which point or points am I not getting, again?

I understand that backing for tarriffs would come from places like OH, PA, WV. But, I also understand, that the people there have point about the effects of trade, that go beyond the "Mexican took our jobs" meme, and their skepticism about the effects of trade before these trade deals were signed were not off in la la land.

And I also understand, that many progressive Democrats, have had issues with free trade, not without reason, for a very long time, long before Trump ever arrived on the scene, something that you seem to only grudgingly acknowledge.

Brown has been anti-free- trade for a very long time. If he were to get on the free trade band wagon now, he'd look like he was just playing team Democrat, rather than sticking to what he has been saying for a very long time. In short, he'd look like a Republican whose position on the deficit, depended upon who was in office.

But beyond the case of Brown, there have been other progressive who don't represent rust belt states that have been skeptical of free trade, like Sanders and Warren. And given the traditional progressive skepticism about free trade, I think it' is an error to just boil this down to Uhaul truck rentals or just pandering to troglodytes that just can't get it together.

[Fragile Bird]

Trump, last night. He could do ‘presidential’, that’s much easier to do than what he does, and so boring, you would all leave.

 

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Trump, last night. He could do ‘presidential’, that’s much easier to do than what he does, and so boring, you would all leave.

 

Don't forget the bit about the death penalty for drug dealers.

Duterte must have sent him a selfie.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

35 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Trump, last night. He could do ‘presidential’, that’s much easier to do than what he does, and so boring, you would all leave.

 

tbh he's at least partially right in this one. I wasn't all that interested in politics before he ran and became president.

[Fragile Bird]

18 minutes ago, TsarGrey said:

tbh he's at least partially right in this one. I wasn't all that interested in politics before he ran and became president.

How old are you, 15?

And are you a Russian troll?

[Jace, Extat]

17 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

How old are you, 15?

And are you a Russian troll?

These words are side by side. Fifteen year olds always type single file to hide their numbers.

And these comments, too accurate for teen people. Only Russian Troll Troopers are so precise.