|
Call Me Charlie posted:Trump has the fact that he doesn't want to destroy Social Security or Medicare. Trump has the fact that he doesn't want to have people dying in the streets. Trump has the fact he doesn't want to try to do a run around on the Supreme Court over gay marriage. Trump has the fact he wants to welcome illegal immigrants to come back through legal channels after he kicks them out. Trump has a (borderline) liberal positions on alot of issues. If you want Bernie's positions, do what Hillary did after Obama won: join her on the winning side and use the next two years to strengthen your cause before the midterms. Politics is a marathon, not a sprint.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
meristem posted:Trump is a huckster who will say anything to sell himself. It's really sad that you're falling for his bullshit. Obama was garbage and I voted third party in 2012. I don't want eight more years of Obama under Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well since Republicans are for free trade, kicking Mexicans out doesn't stop them from competing for your job then does it. It's almost like it's theatre to get you to vote for them to dismantle labor protections by selling you an ineffectual false solution. We aren't voting for Republicans. We are voting for a loudmouth populist who is promising tariffs and an antidote to globalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Wouldn't it make sense that he's talking about appointing cutthroat people to government positions to work on our behalf and not the insane idea you said that he's going to let Wall Street negotiate our trade deals? Because I'm pretty sure that Wall Street would go 'yes Globalization. yes unlimited free trade'. The same as both political parties. Call Me Charlie posted:
Who are these Wall Street negotiator friends, are they free trade true believers or do they have a record of supporting labor. Oh hm, we're not told are we, how delightfully vague. Call Me Charlie posted:Trump has the fact that he doesn't want to destroy Social Security or Medicare. Trump has the fact that he doesn't want to have people dying in the streets. Trump has the fact he doesn't want to try to do a run around on the Supreme Court over gay marriage. Trump has the fact he wants to welcome illegal immigrants to come back through legal channels after he kicks them out. Trump has (borderline) liberal positions on alot of issues. On all of those issues he is not as liberal as Hillary, and that's assuming he's telling the truth Call Me Charlie posted:If you give me the choice of a liberal pretending to be a conservative for votes or a conservative pretending to be a liberal for votes, I'm going to pick the liberal pretending to be a conservative. Hillary's voting record is one of the most liberal in the Senate, it's wishful thinking to imagine that Trump is secretly more progressive than that. If you're going to assume that Trump is lying about his views (and he is, at least the evangelical stuff) maybe he is a narcissist plutocrat pretending to be a populist, but if that's what you choose to believe we'll just have to agree to disagree. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
If you keep working at it, I'm sure you will convince everyone that neoliberalism has actually been really good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:If you keep working at it, I'm sure you will convince everyone that neoliberalism has actually been really good. If that's what you got from my posts, no wonder you eat up Trump's pretend-populism bullshit
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Who are these Wall Street negotiator friends, are they free trade true believers or do they have a record of supporting labor. Oh hm, we're not told are we, how delightfully vague. This is my biggest problem with democrats talking about Trump. They always open with "How could you possibly support Trump? Trump said [insert crazy outrageous thing]" and when you point out that he didn't actually say that, they pivot to "he basically said it" or "ok, he didn't say it but it's still insane" I imagine he has friends that either a) agree with him or b) are willing to follow orders about what he wants for the prestige of holding [whatever] position. That isn't that nutty. There are some business-people out there that disagree with unfettered free trade because it hurts the middle class' purchasing power or it transfers the money from alot of consumers to a handful of people in other countries [usually countries they've been boxed out of] VitalSigns posted:On all of those issues he is not as liberal as Hillary, and that's assuming he's telling the truth But he's significantly more liberal than Jeb!, Cruz or Rubio. And I'll assume he's telling the truth about those things because they've been consistent in his past and in his recent campaign. VitalSigns posted:Hillary's voting record is one of the most liberal in the Senate, it's wishful thinking to imagine that Trump is secretly more progressive than that. If you're going to assume that Trump is lying about his views (and he is, at least the evangelical stuff) maybe he is a narcissist plutocrat pretending to be a populist, but if that's what you choose to believe we'll just have to agree to disagree. You can try to tell me until you're blue in the face that Hillary is a progressive but her history speaks for itself. The 13 minute video of her directly contradicting herself speaks for itself. Her husband's presidency speaks for itself. They're neoliberals. They will push neoliberal policies. If you can't see that, then yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. Maoist Pussy posted:If you keep working at it, I'm sure you will convince everyone that neoliberalism has actually been really good. Ironically, Noam Chomsky had this to say about the situation. quote:Williams: What are your opinions on the surprising progress of Donald Trump? Could it be explained by a climate of fear? Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes what's Trump's opinion on wages, did you even watch the debates? Or reducing the overhead we must all overcome. For example, my large, multinational employer literally has billions of dollars in foreign earnings sitting abroad. If it tries to invest that cash back into its U.S. operations, the government takes a huge tax bite first. The net effect is that my government is making my location 35% more expensive as we compete internally for new investment. And for what? Absolutely nothing; it's a complete pipe dream to expect that the government will ever get to tax that income. There are plenty of opportunities abroad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Hillary will compromise to cut social security, Obama was begging to do the same but the Republicans were too intransigent to get their poo poo together. Trump will defend the welfare programs that are this country's last defense against naked capitalism. This alone should make you a single issue voter.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:Or reducing the overhead we must all overcome. For example, my large, multinational employer literally has billions of dollars in foreign earnings sitting abroad. If it tries to invest that cash back into its U.S. operations, the government takes a huge tax bite first. The net effect is that my government is making my location 35% more expensive as we compete internally for new investment. We had a tax holiday on foreign earnings during the Bush years, and it did not result in more investment, only executive bonuses, stock buybacks, and some special dividends. It was a big deal when it happened. Tax-wise most domestic earnings end up as "foreign" through various means (the whole Dutch-Irish thing being the most public), so the entire thing is basically "we don't want to pay corporate income taxes despite them being 30+% of revenue during the 50's through 70's". It's a nice bullshit excuse and talking point, but only that. When Republicans bring it up as an actual policy option, the fact it was an utter failure last time is really all that's necessary to know that it's crap, must like the Laffer curve. Combine that policy with the insane notion that we shouldn't tax capital gains and you get the most regressive taxation system possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:This is my biggest problem with democrats talking about Trump. They always open with "How could you possibly support Trump? Trump said [insert crazy outrageous thing]" and when you point out that he didn't actually say that, they pivot to "he basically said it" or "ok, he didn't say it but it's still insane" I don't support Hillary by any stretch of the imagination, and I agree with your view of her. That said, I think you should ask yourself why you're willing to wave away media that's critical of Trump as "democratic hysteria" while in the same post holding up a YouTube supercut to support your argument against Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I think it depends on what the bill is. I don't want to keep going on gotcha questions to score internet points so I'll just state plainly what I'm getting at. The Republican congress has consistently attempted to pass absolutely vile poo poo into law. I think it is very likely that President Trimp will allow at least some of this poo poo into law, which will make the country measurably worse. Compare this to Clinton. I'm almost certain that her election will result in the familiar gridlock we have now, with some small steps forward in the form of executive orders and appointments. Speaking more plainly, a Republican party in complete control of the legislature and the executive will devastate this country. And Trump, acknowledging the wildcard he is, will enable some of this devastation. So that's why I think someone that believes in progressive or leftist ideas cannot support Trump for no reason other than they have not fully considered the consequences. And just to head off an objection to this argument, if the Democrats retain enough seats to filibuster bills from Congress, you are a fool if you don't think the Republicans will abolish the filibuster in a second.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
I think it's much more likely that Hillary engages in some grand bargaining with a Republican Party humbled by their foray into extremism, assuming a Hillary victory. She's always been a pragmatist and she wants to have some sort of meaningful legacy. She'll trade away social security, Medicare, the whole social safety net is up for sale if she gets into office. There will be meaningless executive actions in regards to identitarian concerns but when you're starving in the street it won't matter. Additionally the Clinto-Obama foreign policy has resulted in at least three civil wars breaking out, it has been a complete and utter disaster. The fact that Republicans support most of the same policies restricts then to conspiratorially accusing her of some perfidy in Benghazi, but the bigger story is that Clinton transformed the wealthiest nation on the African continent into a post-apocalyptic wasteland controlled by the worst Islamists in history. Trump on the other hand has already promised to protect social security, protect welfare, protect healthcare for all while fixing Obamacare's corporate handouts, and more. He'll work with Russia to bring stability to Syria and while I don't think he can fix Libya at this point he won't get us into another. If you're a progressive, the choice is pretty clear.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:I think it's much more likely that Hillary engages in some grand bargaining with a Republican Party humbled by their foray into extremism, assuming a Hillary victory. She's always been a pragmatist and she wants to have some sort of meaningful legacy. She'll trade away social security, Medicare, the whole social safety net is up for sale if she gets into office. The flaw in this reasoning is that Democrats won't support her re-election if she does this. Like you said, she's a pragmatist. Also lol at: rakovsky maybe posted:Clinton transformed the wealthiest nation on the African continent into a post-apocalyptic wasteland controlled by the worst Islamists in history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 18:48
|
|
computer parts posted:The flaw in this reasoning is that Democrats won't support her re-election if she does this. They supported Obama when he did most of those same things or attempted to? So um yeah I'm pretty sure she will. Since the 90s democrats have been much more effective at moving this country rightward policy-wise than any Republican.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:They supported Obama when he did most of those same things or attempted to? So um yeah I'm pretty sure she will. This makes for some sick burns but is demonstrably untrue. Like have you forgotten the 8 year catastrophe that was George w Bush? e: like the Iraq war? The Patriot Act? loving Roberts and Alito??? A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Hillary has always been to the left of Bill, so assuming HRC is just a re-branded Bill is naive. She's more neoliberal than I'd like but that's the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:They supported Obama when he did most of those same things or attempted to? So um yeah I'm pretty sure she will. I'm pretty sure she won't, since Obama hasn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If that's what you got from my posts, no wonder you eat up Trump's pretend-populism bullshit You can't really blame the reader for your defense of continued neoliberal policy. Maoist Pussy fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fhGS0tAcQg Trump's election acceptance speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
The Obama foreign policy seems to be working with respect to Iran. They just had an election that was about as favorible as it could be to moderates. Liberals were barred from running but it is a giant step in the right direction- without bombing weddings or sacrificing American blood and resources.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:This makes for some sick burns but is demonstrably untrue. Obama said he'd try for single payer healthcare and have the debate for it in public. First thing off the table in closed door discussions with insurance companies was single payer. Obama said he'd close Guantanamo Bay. He signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill which tied his hands on it. Obama said he'd get us out of Iraq. He wanted to stay longer than the timetable set by Bush until the Iraqis forced us out by refusing to continue to grant immunity to our soldiers. Obama said "no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient". He continued Bush's spy policies, signed executive death orders and started multiple drone wars. Obama's Administration cracked down hard on whistleblowers. Obama's Administration continued DEA raids on medical marijuana. Obama's Administration escalated the deportation of illegal immigrants (ironic, isn't that one of the horrible things Trump wants to do because he's racist?) Obama's Administration was the one pushing for budget sequestration as a compromise. (source) Obama's Administration (at the behest of Hillary Clinton) helped destabilize Libya. The entire country was begging for the blood of Wall Street or at least some kind of consequence after the recession, nothing happened under Obama. I guess he has the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as a feather in his cap but reversing a compromise put in place by Bill Clinton seems like a hollow victory. But hey, politics is a marathon not a sprint. Sometimes you have to wait 18 years for something to become fashionable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Obama said he'd close Guantanamo Bay. He signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill which tied his hands on it. Yes, this is Obama's fault. Obviously it was a better use of time and resources to veto a bill because you want to bring terrorists onto the mainland. That will play out well in the media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:I think it's much more likely that Hillary engages in some grand bargaining with a Republican Party humbled by their foray into extremism, assuming a Hillary victory. She's always been a pragmatist and she wants to have some sort of meaningful legacy. She'll trade away social security, Medicare, the whole social safety net is up for sale if she gets into office. There will be meaningless executive actions in regards to identitarian concerns but when you're starving in the street it won't matter. Additionally the Clinto-Obama foreign policy has resulted in at least three civil wars breaking out, it has been a complete and utter disaster. The fact that Republicans support most of the same policies restricts then to conspiratorially accusing her of some perfidy in Benghazi, but the bigger story is that Clinton transformed the wealthiest nation on the African continent into a post-apocalyptic wasteland controlled by the worst Islamists in history. Seriously? You really think that Trump only going to follow through on the campaign promises you like? The man who has built his support on groups so radical that he can't denounce the KKK for fear of alienating them? The embodiment of every negative corporate stereotype. I can't see how anybody could be so thoroughly snowed by his pitiful act while still being convinced that they're being progressive for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, this is Obama's fault. Yes, let's forget what we stand for and the human right violations going on because it won't play well in the media. Also quote:In January 2011, WikiLeaks revealed that Switzerland accepted several Guantanamo detainees as a quid pro quo with the U.S. to limit a multibillion tax probe against Swiss banking group UBS. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
nelson posted:Movement is already severely restricted. Legal movement in particular. Why do you hate your fellow man so much? Who What Now posted:You not wanting to live a life of abject misery isn't the problem, it's that you actively want brown people to live in abject misery when neither of you has to. But how could you feel good about yourself if you don't have someone to look down upon? This is just the argument that "sweatshops are OK because some job is better than no job" but with tech workers. Dropping trade barriers and letting capital find the third-world hellhole that is most willing to race to the bottom is what destroyed America's middle class. It's a good deal as long as you're the one left with a job when the music stops playing, but fact is that this automation party is just getting started and it's going to take a massive chunk out of the service sector in the next 10-20 years. As a software engineer, you're sensibly pretty confident that you'll have a job when the music stops. It's easy for you to sit on your high-horse and preach about how immoral it is to oppose sweatshops, you'll always be able to pivot into a high-paying job within a month or two, tops, and you accrue all the benefits of access to dirt-cheap goods made on the back of sweatshop laborers. The "stop fighting for scraps and guillotine the 1%" strategy probably sounded pretty good in your poli-sci course but in the real world we don't have global parity of wages and working conditions and we do need to protect against racing to the bottom. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Yes, let's forget what we stand for and the human right violations going on because it won't play well in the media. Sorry that voters were okay with closing Gitmo because they hadn't thought of where the terrorists would go. Like you can't really spin that as a failed campaign promise when the voters themselves changed their mind and said "nah we don't really want this here, you can keep it open".
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Sorry that voters were okay with closing Gitmo because they hadn't thought of where the terrorists would go. You're doing a very good job disproving this guy's statement. rakovsky maybe posted:Since the 90s democrats have been much more effective at moving this country rightward policy-wise than any Republican. Can you please pivot over to defending the Affordable Care Act over universal healthcare to really drive home his point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's easy for you to sit on your high-horse and preach about how immoral it is to oppose sweatshopsl
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 23:11
|
|
nelson posted:The Obama foreign policy seems to be working with respect to Iran. They just had an election that was about as favorible as it could be to moderates. Liberals were barred from running but it is a giant step in the right direction- without bombing weddings or sacrificing American blood and resources. Iran is the only major Obama-era foreign policy victory and Hillary had nothing to do with it. Interestingly, Trump has said its a terrible deal but pointedly refused to say he would rip it up like the other Republicans were promising to do. Hillary has never seen a wedding she didn't want to bomb - whether it was in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen Jesus Christ she's a monster.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:I think that this is a big part of the 'why now' for the right wing populist backlash. In Europe and at home, the working classes have been betrayed by the parties that ostensibly supported them- and the only people offering answers or hopes, false or otherwise, have been rightist. i think the issue is pretty much that. the working class/ working poor feel betrayed by both parties and are looking for a third(probably worse) way. they tried with the left and eventually the left stopped caring about them. the right catered/cockteased them with dog whistling and blaming their problems on other poor people of different races or other minority's. but at the end of the day the establishment right only cared about the rich. now trump is giving them the full plater. none of it will help or work. but its a good placebo for the uneducated and or intolerant. rakovsky maybe posted:Iran is the only major Obama-era foreign policy victory and Hillary had nothing to do with it. Interestingly, Trump has said its a terrible deal but pointedly refused to say he would rip it up like the other Republicans were promising to do. i thought he did said he would tear it up. guess, i am wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 23:28
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i thought he did said he would tear it up. guess, i am wrong. No, he's said repeatedly that it's a terrible deal but he also refused to say he'd tear it up when prompted at one of the debates. He previously expressed support for it before he became a candidate so it's reasonable to say he's just playing to the base. At the last Republican he also came out as about as pro-Palestinian as a major US candidate can be.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
nelson posted:I never said it is immoral to oppose sweatshops. What is immoral though is opposing other workers just because they were born somewhere else. Globalization has lifted millions out of poverty. It is wrong to turn back the clock on that. Globalization also kept millions more in poverty. It is right to turn the clock back on that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Taking manufacturing jobs that paid a living wage and turning them into slavery inside a suicide proof box was not a winning proposition for either group of workers!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Pervis posted:We had a tax holiday on foreign earnings during the Bush years, and it did not result in more investment, only executive bonuses, stock buybacks, and some special dividends. It was a big deal when it happened. Tax-wise most domestic earnings end up as "foreign" through various means (the whole Dutch-Irish thing being the most public), so the entire thing is basically "we don't want to pay corporate income taxes despite them being 30+% of revenue during the 50's through 70's". Even if what you say is 100% true, it helps a little, cost the government nothing, and indirectly increases tax revenue (from your executive bonuses and some special dividends). It's a no brainer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Businesses are taxed on profits, meaning net revenue. Businesses can pay no taxes on that money anytime they like by investing it in the USA and using it to buy buildings and pay employees. Cutting taxes on businesses doesn't spur investment because investment is driven by demand, supply-side economics is poo poo. E: Come on, if you're going to pretend that you like Trump because he's the real progressive, at least have the self-awareness to not parrot the conservative republican line that the answer to everything is more tax cuts on the Job Creators, that gives the game away too easily. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Businesses are taxed on profits, meaning net revenue. Why not just borrow the money from your overseas subsidiary and pay tax-deductible interest to them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
LOL at the idea that if you slap some tariffs on Chinese electronics and try to deport some Mexicans all those sweet factory jobs will come streaming back. Read some Piketty dum dums.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:You're doing a very good job disproving this guy's statement. Thank you, I appreciate it. Maybe you should tell me with a straight face how Trump's going to close Gitmo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Ugh every other person on my twitter feed is gloating about Hillary winning. Reason? "aHAHAHAHAHA THAT WILL SHOW BERNIE! HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT MINORITIES AND ONLY FOCUSED ON WHITE COLLEGE STUDENTS!" I'm so goddamned sick of the Bernie Bro. poo poo. Who the hell do these people want me to support? I'm being sincere. The Clinton administration continued many of the Reagan/Bush policies against minorities in this country. Is she somehow better than Bernie Sanders for some unknown reason? I'm not saying she's not better than Trump. Hillary will be a mediocre lame duck president that likely continues the gridlock we've seen for the past 4 years or so. But she won't I don't know...make things worse. Sorry to vent in this thread. Just frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 02:42
|
|
