US Politics: Out in the Cold

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

My question is, is there anything worse than this that they could be covering up?  It feels to me like there's a "what that's even worse than what we already suspect could they be hiding" sentiment out there, but I can't imagine what could be worse or more important to hide.   

They've been holding Rocky and Bullwinkle all these years.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I've seen a few talking heads recently w/ respect to Trump / Russia pointing out "why did they lie so much / what are they covering up?"  Here's a question that I have related to that: 

I think it's likely that Trump colluded with Russia in the simplest sense that there was joint coordination, and I think that there was corrupt ties either / both in offers from Russia / compromat from Russia pre-election plus quid pro quo promises.  Some combination of all of this seems likely.  My question is, is there anything worse than this that they could be covering up?  It feels to me like there's a "what that's even worse than what we already suspect could they be hiding" sentiment out there, but I can't imagine what could be worse or more important to hide.   

Here's my take, that has largely not changed since the beginning.

I don't think Trump conspired with Russia directly. I don't think he ever directed anyone to do so directly. 

I think people around him probably did to some degree, but I suspect he didn't know a whole lot. 

I also think that he lied about his business dealings with Russia and has continued to lie about his business dealing with Russia for a long time. He also lied about his personal dealings. 

He lied, and told others to lie and cover things up, because this is what Trump has done with ALL his shit for 40 years. It is what he always does. Him lying about something doesn't make it special or make it something that he's hiding - it makes it something that he's talking about or thinking about. He lies about things that are totally trivial and obviously things that can be verified as otherwise; why wouldn't he lie about something important to him? 

As to firing Comey and asking him to go easy on Flynn, it's because again, that's how he has always done things. Someone makes trouble for you, you fuck with them. Someone could be trouble, you try and make that trouble go away. I don't think Flynn specifically knew a god damn thing about Trump, but as far as Trump is concerned it doesn't matter, because he assumes anyone not loyal to him and not in trouble is going to flip and lie about everything - because, of course, that's what Trump would do in that circumstance. 

I also think that once Russia got the Trump campaign's voting demographic profiles through Manafort, they had basically anything they needed to coordinate things. If there is any kind of indication that Trump directed Manafort to give that up, that's a huge crime. If there isn't - and I suspect there is not - then that's about all there is. 

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Did Bobby Baccalieri ever get shot to death in that site?

nope.  Though a couple of the 'old time greats' were active in the 60's era civil rights movement.  One, (Allen) made and photographed miniature scenes featuring black people being lynched to illustrate just how ugly things were.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The suburban white women, however, are very likely to be a given provided Dems keep doing what they're doing. 

Quote

And it was given Latinos would get Clinton the election. Stop treating these votes as if they’re a given It could very well be the turnout in 2020 isn’t really better for democrats than in 2016. 

The opioid crisis hasn’t been getting enough addressing. Undoubtedly there will plenty white-workers who know about this issue but how many will vote for Trump despite this issue is simply guessing. And no I didn’t say this was the most important issue. It’s simply is a issue that can easily appeal with white-workers without alienating the Democratic base.

 

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Promoting a more isolationist model of foreign policy - so you're basically saying that they need to be more like Trump. Good luck with that. 

 

Good luck with convincing people that the US playing the world’s policeman is s good thing. Honestly, Trump having initially having been gung ho about the idea of the US not having as big a role in policing the world doesn’t mean it’s wise for democrats to take the opposite stance. 

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Finally, you say with surety that 'these voters can be flipped'. Based on what? That they went for Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016? All that tells me is that they didn't have the option of voting for Obama, and voted for who they liked more.

Based on a lot of them having voted blue in the mid-terms. It is absurd to brush them off as a lost cause they were clearly shown to vote blue again win the policies they are given attention and have issues that affect them have reasonable/left-wing solutions offered.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The vast majority of voters are voting along party lines, period, and the ones who aren't typically vote how they did for the incumbent, especially if they voted for that incumbent. Unless...the economy sucks. 

Yeah they’re not not voting for party lines, and it’s quite possible a recession hits us in a couple months.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Which is why it's stupid to cater to them particularly much. Instead, find the people who didn't vote in the last 2016 election (there were a whole lot of them, compared to 2012 and 2008) and get them to vote. Or find the people who voted in 2018 and make sure they vote again in 2020. Those people didn't vote for Trump, don't have the psychological effect of already having 'bought' him, and can be convinced to vote for someone else. 

What do you see democrats needing to do differently this time around to actually appeal to them?  The voters who didn’t vote didn’t vote for a reason. I’ve already found a lot of the “Bernie or bust” types reciting their plans to abstain (or vote third party again) given they they find all the candidates except Sanders corrupt. I’m also seeing some popular left-wing outlets on social media platforms dig propagate a feeling of cynicism towards their audience. “Everyone is terrible so you’re vote doesn’t matter”.  Harris seems to have  been readyily  dubbed “Clinton 2.0” and Rorok an Obama rip-off(I find it does not help when people who like him compare with Barack) and Biden just another republican with some socially liberal  leanings.  So what can the future Democratic do in your mind to win over those voters who didn’t vote previously?  Something different must be done. Doing the same strategy as Clinton did in 2016 will likely result in the same outcome; failure.

And I’m not sure what to make of your find people who voted in 2018. Are you talking about first time voters? 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What do you see democrats needing to do differently this time around to actually appeal to them?  The voters who didn’t vote didn’t vote for a reason. I’ve already found a lot of the “Bernie or bust” types reciting their plans to abstain (or vote third party again) given they they find all the candidates except Sanders corrupt. I’m also seeing some popular left-wing outlets on social media platforms dig propagate a feeling of cynicism towards their audience. “Everyone is terrible so you’re vote doesn’t matter”.  Harris seems to have  been readyily  dubbed “Clinton 2.0” and Rorok an Obama rip-off(I find it does not help when people who like him compare with Barack) and Biden just another republican with some socially liberal  leanings.  So what can the future Democratic do in your mind to win over those voters who didn’t vote previously?  Something different must be done. Doing the same strategy as Clinton did in 2016 will likely result in the same outcome; failure.

Troll.  Huge fucking troll.  Also, what's a Rorok?  

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Troll.  Huge fucking troll.  Also, what's a Rorok?  

 Meh, not really, I've just expressed ideas you find really stupid.  Though here I don't really see what I said that is so outrageous.There are people on the far left proudly declaring unless Sanders gets the nomination they're not voting in the general. That is simply a fact. A lot of these people also have very negative views towards Biden, Harris, 'Rourke(whose name I accidentally spelled as Rorok). There are some left-wing platforms that basically make everyone running irredeemable monsters because they aren't to the far left  on every conceivable thing.  To be clear I'm not saying they're right; I'm referencing because I see them as a real nuisance given they actively clamp down liberals being enthusiastic to go vote.The question seems logical; what do the democrats need to do differently this time in order to appeal to those  who chose not to  vote in the last presidential election? It;s reasonable question in response to someone saying democrats need to appeal to these people. What exactly do you find so absurd? Is it me saying the Democrats employing the same strategy they used in 2016 would likely doom them to failure? 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, not really, I've just expressed ideas you find really stupid.  Though here I don't really see what I said that is so outrageous.

Outrageous?  No.  Stupid?  Yes.  Let's go through it..

16 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There are people on the far left proudly declaring unless Sanders gets the nomination they're not voting in the general.

Who?  Seriously, who is saying that?  This is just you making things up.

17 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A lot of these people also have very negative views towards Biden, Harris, 'Rourke

So these imaginary people have certain attitudes on other candidates, huh?  Prove it.  Love to see what link you come up with there.

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There are some left-wing platforms that basically make everyone running irredeemable monsters because they aren't to the far left  on every conceivable thing.

What are you talking about?  Do you have any specific examples of this actually happening?

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Is it me saying the Democrats employing the same strategy they used in 2016 would likely doom them to failure? 

No, it's you offering nothing substantive whatsoever but rather finding the most stereotypical critiques for basically every Dem candidate in a blatant attempt to try and piss somebody off.

[Varysblackfyre321]

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

Who?  Seriously, who is saying that?  This is just you making things up.

One specific example that comes to mind is Jimmy Dore. An affiliate for  a really popular news channel on YT called, the Young Turks. He's on the far end on the bonkers left who dont see compromise as anything sort of capitulation, I mean this is what you get if you type in the words "Clinton  dont vote Dore" in the search bar of YThttps://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jimmy+dore+dont+vote+clinton voting Yo

He hasn't changed his views havent really changed now. It's either Sanders or no one in his mind. His half a million fans subcrribers tend to to show great praise for his rhetoric and yeah scrolling down his comment sections you see people proudly prouncing they're far too noble to compromise an d not vote for a flawed candidate and that everyone besides Bernie is terrible. Or saying they''ll vote third party. Seriously the  one of the first or even first  comment on a video of Kammla Harris will be someone saying something to the effect of her being a discount Hillary Clinton.https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dore+harris lik

I mean what exactly is hard to fanthom here? BernieorBust was a thing in 2015 and now that hes for sure running again,  its a thing again.  When Sanders was running for the nominee then, a thing large enough Biden himself was asked to comment on it. 

 

 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He hasn't changed his views havent really changed now. It's either Sanders or no one in his mind. His half a million fans subcrribers tend to to show great praise for his rhetoric and yeah scrolling down his comment sections you see people proudly prouncing they're far too noble to compromise an d not vote for a flawed candidate and that everyone besides Bernie is terrible. Or saying they''ll vote third party. Seriously the first comment on a video of Kammla Harris will be someone saying something to the effect of her being a discount Hillary Clinton.

So Jimmy Dore.  That's it for you?  Disregarding the fact he's just some random comedian, looking at his twitter he has 147K followers.  That guy might have an influence in Dixville Notch!  And what's a Kammla Harris?

This is too easy.  You're seriously giving me comment sections as the crux of your argument.  I feel like Bill Murray is gonna pop up any minute now.

[mormont]

On Obama-Trump voters: I do think they exist, and I think that a lot of them are very low-information voters who don't have any grasp of policy but do have a vague feeling that they want 'change' and that the status quo ('Washington') isn't working. They don't know what they want, but they know this isn't it. 

Obama promised change. Trump promised change. The changes they promised could hardly have been more different, but that's just detail to some voters. A lot of them probably like Sanders for the same reason. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

On Obama-Trump voters: I do think they exist, and I think that a lot of them are very low-information voters who don't have any grasp of policy but do have a vague feeling that they want 'change' and that the status quo ('Washington') isn't working. They don't know what they want, but they know this isn't it. 

Obama promised change. Trump promised change. The changes they promised could hardly have been more different, but that's just detail to some voters. A lot of them probably like Sanders for the same reason. 

Yeah, this the feeling I'm getting too. Vague platitudes that say a lot but tell of little substance can be the trick on some people. A lot of Sanders supporters did vote Trump. Clearly there is this yearning for change. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

43 minutes ago, DMC said:

So Jimmy Dore.  That's it for you?  Disregarding the fact he's just some random comedian, looking at his twitter he has 147K followers.  That guy might have an influence in Dixville Notch!  And what's a Kammla Harris?

This is too easy.  You're seriously giving me comment sections as the crux of your argument.  I feel like Bill Murray is gonna pop up any minute now.

There really isn't an argument here. You said I was making up that there people on the far left who won't vote for anyone but Bernie and see anyone other candidate as terrible . I pointed to some videos showing just that. Also I hoped you'd take the video of Biden responding to the BernieorBust movement as evidence as it being a real thing. Like I'm assuming you've at least heard of it. It was a big worry in 2015, among democrats, and I don't see any reason to have less worry over a break coming over Sanders' eventual defeat in 2019.

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah, this the feeling I'm getting too. Vague platitudes that say a lot but tell of little substance can be the trick on some people. A lot of Sanders supporters did vote Trump. Clearly there is this yearning for change. 

It seems to me that some of these people, or a lot of them, love the idea of change, but really have no idea of what kind of changes they want, if somebody actually gets down to brass down tacks and proposes actual concrete policy ideas, these people get rather skittish.
They love the idea of change, but that is seemingly about it.
And how one goes from being a Sanders to a Trump supporter, I have no clue how one logically gets there, unless they entertain "anything could happenism."

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It seems to me that some of these people, or a lot of them, love the idea of change, but really have no idea of what kind of changes they want, if somebody actually gets down to brass down tacks and proposes actual concrete policy ideas, these people get rather skittish.
They love the idea of change, but that is seemingly about it.
And how one goes from being a Sanders to a Trump supporter, I have no clue how one logically gets there, unless they entertain "anything could happenism."

Meh, they were "anti-establishment" they both called out corruption(though one is undoubtedly corrupt) and both had a platform that catered more specifically  to white men. That's good enough for them I guess. I mean I doubt Most these sanders supporters are even social conservatives but I get the impression many simply don't care if Trump is a facist-he's a break from the typical standard quo and that's what they want. Besides, if Trump goes full dictator unlikely most of them(white men) will suffer. I've encountered a similar sentiment when debating some people on the far left in regards to Tucker Carlson. Sure the man is a white supremacist but the important thing to them is his anti-capitalistic rhetoric

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I mean I doubt Most these sanders supporters are even social conservatives but I get the impression many simply don't care if Trump is a facist-he's a break from the typical standard quo and that's what they want. Besides, if Trump goes full dictator unlikely most of them(white men) will suffer. 

The fact that these people just want a break from the status quo, but don't really care what form or direction that takes, makes me tend to believe these aren't the most rational group of voters. And I wonder whether it's worth even pursuing them.

I'd agree things need to be changed, but just saying I want change and don't care what form that change takes is just bonkers.

[DanteGabriel]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

So Jimmy Dore.  That's it for you?  Disregarding the fact he's just some random comedian, looking at his twitter he has 147K followers.  That guy might have an influence in Dixville Notch!  And what's a Kammla Harris?

This is too easy.  You're seriously giving me comment sections as the crux of your argument.  I feel like Bill Murray is gonna pop up any minute now.

This is strikingly similar to that other poster who wailed that "people are being thrown in jail because of their social media posts!" and it turned out it was one guy in the UK who got fined for a racist post.

[OldGimletEye]

Okay reasonable centristry sort of people, we all know the left is gone ka-ka-krazy!

Reasonable centristy sort of people know and understand people like AOC are just completely out to lunch. She’ll turn the country into Venezuela by golly!

And what about the deficit! Everyone knows we must be completely freaked out about the deficit! That is the hallmark that you’re a reasonable centrist sort.

And let’s not even get started on the left’s nutball ideas on healthcare or climate change!
Somebody tell those left wing nutballs to cool it, as centristy sorts are getting mighty nervous.
What’s reasonable centristry sort to do if the likes of Joe Lieberman doesn’t become the future of the Democratic Party! I guess vote Republican.

Now back to reality.

The case that many “reasonable centrist” sorts aren’t as nearly reasonable or astute as they would like to believe or have us believe.

Krugman on Venezuela fear mongering:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opinion/the-venezuela-calumny.html

Quote

Alas, Michael Bloomberg. You aren’t the man I thought you were.
On Tuesday, asked about Elizabeth Warren’s (very smart) proposal for a wealth tax, he responded with the favorite right-wing calumny of the moment – suggesting that her plan would turn us into Venezuela.
That’s a shameful line of argument. In fact, whenever you see someone invoking Venezuela as a reason not to consider progressive policy ideas, you know right away that the person in question is uninformed, dishonest, or both. It basically shows that the speaker or writer isn’t willing to engage in serious discussion, preferring to scare people with a boogeyman of which he or she knows nothing.

Bloomberg is just being a conservative nincompoop here.

...............................................................................................................................................................

Summers and Furman on the deficit:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-01-27/whos-afraid-budget-deficits

Quote

The United States’ annual budget deficit is set to reach nearly $1 trillion this year, more than four percent of GDP and up from $585 billion in 2016. As a result of the continuing shortfall, over the next decade, the national debt—the total amount owed by the U.S. government—is projected to balloon from its current level of 78 percent of GDP to 105 percent of GDP. Such huge amounts of debt are unprecedented for the United States during a time of economic prosperity.

 

Quote

Moreover, the lower interest rates that would result from smaller deficits would not be an unambiguously good thing. Many economists and policymakers, including former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and the economist Martin Feldstein, worry that interest rates are already too low. Cheap borrowing, they argue, with some merit, has led investors to put their money in unproductive ventures, created financial bubbles, and left central bankers with less leeway to cut rates in response to the next recession. If the United States cut its deficits by three percent of GDP, enough to stabilize the national debt, interest rates would fall even further.

Add the further potential for another liquidity trap situation.

Quote

The tax cuts passed by Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump totaled three percent of GDP—much more than the projected increases in entitlement spending over the next 30 years. Those cuts meant that in 2018, the federal government took in revenue equivalent to just 16 percent of GDP, the lowest level in half a century, except for a few brief periods in the aftermath of recessions. Without the Bush and Trump tax cuts (and the interest payments on the debt that went with them), last year’s federal budget would have come close to balancing. As things stand, however, the Congressional Budget Office projects that revenue over the next five years will continue to average less than 17 percent of GDP, a percentage point lower than under President Ronald Reagan.

.................................................................................................................................................................

Blanchard’s paper about debt and deficits:

https://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2019conference/program/pdf/14020_paper_etZgfbDr.pdf

................................................................................................................................................

Moving on to global climate change:

Economist that support a carbon tax.

https://www.econstatement.org/original-cosignatories/
I really don’t know if a carbon tax would be sufficient to address global climate change. But what is interesting here is that the signers of this document aren’t the usual left wing or left of center suspects. 
People like Robert Lucas, and Kydland have signed it. These people aren't associated with left wing politics, having pretty conservative views.If people like this now believe that climate change has become a significant threat, then I really have no idea why a proposal for a New Green Deal is considered that radical.

And healthcare:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/28/18192674/medicare-for-all-cost-jacob-hacker

Quote

The pile of Medicare-for-all plans just keeps growing. A new contender is Medicare for America, put forth by Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). It was heavily informed by the work of Yale professor Jacob Hacker.

I caught up with Hacker, who has been working on and writing about the thorny problem of universal health care for going on 20 years now.

“If you look at other rich countries, their systems work well because they cover everyone basically as a right of citizenship and they exert system-wide control over costs,” Hacker told me during our 40-minute conversation. “Our system has pockets that work that way. Medicare does exert control over its portion of the costs. But a lot of it doesn’t.”

 

Quote

“Even 15 years ago, there were a lot of people saying we have the best health care in the world and you didn’t want to screw that up by getting government too involved — even though government is heavily involved from day one in health care because the markets are so screwed up,” Hacker said. “But it’s almost impossible to sustain that argument today.

I'm old enough to remember this line of argument, that routinely got trotted out.  It's something that "reasonable centrist" were probably inclined to believe. I hope they don't believe it now.

 

Quote

We have a system that is truly distinctive in advanced democracies and distinctively poorly performing. We spend more than other countries. We don’t do a lot better or sometimes we do worse on health outcomes and we don’t cover everyone even after the Affordable Care Act.

Yes we spend way more than any else does, not getting much in return. And you know if your somebody that worries a lot about the deficit, I'd hope you see the relationship.

America can afford universal healthcare. What it can't afford is its current system. I'd hope the Schultz's of the world would get this.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

It seems to me that some of these people, or a lot of them, love the idea of change, but really have no idea of what kind of changes they want, if somebody actually gets down to brass down tacks and proposes actual concrete policy ideas, these people get rather skittish.
They love the idea of change, but that is seemingly about it.

Yeah, that's my point. There is no policy position you can take to specifically appeal to these voters. 

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Yeah, that's my point. There is no policy position you can take to specifically appeal to these voters. 

Yes, these people make me want to go full blown Spicoli. Make up your mind dude, is he gonna shit or he is gonna kill us?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Well, at my local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, there are less than 5% who are Bernie or Bust types when the general rolls around.  The rest will vote for whoever is on the Dem ticket.  Admittedly I'm sure there are further left groups, but whoever Varys is talking about, these Bernie or Bust people don't fucking vote anyway.  

A friend of mine is active in the Berkshires chapter of DSA, I just asked her and she said all of them are voting for whoever has the Dem nomination.  

Another much more radical friend is active in Uhuru and even she is voting against Trump and the GOP despite massive reservations about voting for colonizers.  So .. @Varysblackfyre321, if these people exist they are such a small and insignificant part of the population and probably some are Russian bots.  I mean maybe I don't hang out in circles that are far enough to the left but I'm pretty sure the people you're talking about don't vote.