|
JeffersonClay posted:How do you know trade barriers are the thing they really wanted and gutting regulations and lowering taxes was the stuff they ignored? That's pure speculation to support your narrative. You mean other than the fact that they've been saying it the whole time and polls have supported this? Edit: the trade stuff. Obviously Republicans want lower taxes and fewer regulations as well. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jan 25, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why do you have such a hard time understanding that Trump's empty promise to bring jobs back resonated with people, notwithstanding his other objectively lovely policies? I don't have any trouble understanding that argument. I have trouble understanding the assertion that people heard "trade barriers" and not the standard cut taxes and regulations pro business poo poo the republicans always run on. Or the kick out immigrants who are driving down your wages bullshit that was central to trump's campaign. You need more than bare assertion to make that case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't have any trouble understanding that argument. I have trouble understanding the assertion that people heard "trade barriers" and not the standard cut taxes and regulations pro business poo poo the republicans always run on. Or the kick out immigrants who are driving down your wages bullshit that was central to trump's campaign. You need more than bare assertion to make that case. Why? What point are you trying to make?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Obviously we need to know why people voted for trump if we're going to try to win their votes next time. If they voted for trump because they think regulations and taxes are strangling our businesses and immigrants took our jobs, that does not support the conclusion that people were desperate for more government intervention in the economy, which was the claim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't have any trouble understanding that argument. I have trouble understanding the assertion that people heard "trade barriers" and not the standard cut taxes and regulations pro business poo poo the republicans always run on. Or the kick out immigrants who are driving down your wages bullshit that was central to trump's campaign. You need more than bare assertion to make that case. Did you not see Trump mention NAFTA and "very very bad trade deals" in the same sentence where he promised to bring back jobs? People of course heard this, Trump made it a big issue of his campaign!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
The key is that when Trump promised to kick out immigrants or drain money from foreign powers it wasn't going to be by slowly establishing a bipartisan consensus and then adding a few subtle tax incentives to the right places. He promised to (and, seemingly, is going to) seize and use power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obviously we need to know why people voted for trump if we're going to try to win their votes next time. If they voted for trump because they think regulations and taxes are strangling our businesses and immigrants took our jobs, that does not support the conclusion that people were desperate for more government intervention in the economy, which was the claim. I think you're just getting held up on the word intervention. Gutting regulations is government action. Action away from government intervention in the market in some sense (It can be seen as intervention in the current status of the market though), but action all the same. They wanted the government to do big poo poo to fix the economy as it impacts them. Don't obsess over individual words. Don't obsess over individual policy. That isn't how voter's minds work. It's about the big picture story they hear about the candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Did you not see Trump mention NAFTA and "very very bad trade deals" in the same sentence where he promised to bring back jobs? People of course heard this, Trump made it a big issue of his campaign! Of course he did. He also said a lot of standard republican bullshit about government taxes and regulations stifling business. I need more than bare assertions from people who are opposed to free trade that trade was the only thing that mattered. Ferrinus posted:The key is that when Trump promised to kick out immigrants or drain money from foreign powers it wasn't going to be by slowly establishing a bipartisan consensus and then adding a few subtle tax incentives to the right places. He promised to (and, seemingly, is going to) seize and use power. So now you've abandoned the market intervention angle? I agree that's not a reasonable conclusion to teach based solely on trump's victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obviously we need to know why people voted for trump if we're going to try to win their votes next time. If they voted for trump because they think regulations and taxes are strangling our businesses and immigrants took our jobs, that does not support the conclusion that people were desperate for more government intervention in the economy, which was the claim. Stop focusing so much on bringing in racists and neonazis to our party and more in the disaffected good people who didn't bother to vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obviously we need to know why people voted for trump if we're going to try to win their votes next time. If they voted for trump because they think regulations and taxes are strangling our businesses and immigrants took our jobs, that does not support the conclusion that people were desperate for more government intervention in the economy, which was the claim. iirc, 2/3rds of Trump's voters treated the election as a referendum on Hillary as opposed to a contest between two candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obviously we need to know why people voted for trump if we're going to try to win their votes next time. If they voted for trump because they think regulations and taxes are strangling our businesses and immigrants took our jobs, that does not support the conclusion that people were desperate for more government intervention in the economy, which was the claim. I get the impression that you're not familiar with the concept of "protectionism." Because government intervention plays a big role in that. That's what Trump promised: an end to "bad" regulations and "bad" trade deals, and renegotiating them into "good" ones. That's why people who had previously voted for Obama, voted for him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I think you're just getting held up on the word intervention. Gutting regulations is government action. Action away from government intervention in the market in some sense (It can be seen as intervention in the current status of the market though), but action all the same. Lol no. Gutting regulations is not an intervention in the market. Regulations were the intervention. If your argument has again devolved into policy is irrelevant, I don't have any interest in discussing it. Tight Booty Shorts posted:Stop focusing so much on bringing in racists and neonazis to our party and more in the disaffected good people who didn't bother to vote. I hate to break the bad news to you, but some democrats were already racists and proto--fascists. And again, turnout was not down compared to 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So now you've abandoned the market intervention angle? I agree that's not a reasonable conclusion to teach based solely on trump's victory. Seizing and using government power to prevent the influx of or outright remove workers from the economy, and to force corporations to hire and manufacture within rather than outside of US borders, isn't intervening in the market? Clinton was the one who dreamt of a big hemispheric economy, the free flow of capital to maximize total profits, a rising tide lifting all boats so long as specifically racism and sexism were tamped down, etc. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Lol no. Gutting regulations is not an intervention in the market. Regulations were the intervention. If your argument has again devolved into policy is irrelevant, I don't have any interest in discussing it. Why are you in the election thread if you only want to talk policy? Policy does not determine elections. Absolutely no voter in the country cared if Trump's proposed actions were called interventions or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The key is that when Trump promised to kick out immigrants or drain money from foreign powers it wasn't going to be by slowly establishing a bipartisan consensus and then adding a few subtle tax incentives to the right places. He promised to (and, seemingly, is going to) seize and use power. That's the whole thing isn't it. Republicans don't believe in this stupid loving Aaron Sorkin myth about the dignity of elected office and how we can make real change by appealing to the other side with an impassioned speech. These people have killed the Democrats. Politics isn't about having frank discussions and teams of rivals (the history of having parts of your government working against itself being a dumb idea in the long run never seems to get learned by these types). Politics is about gaining power and loving wielding it and Democrats seem to be averse to actually getting anything done that way they can try and walk the tight rope for as long as possible. But it turns out people what a loving party that uses that power. But Democrats well they offer up excuse after excuse and rotating bad guys of the week that are holding them back and the idea of enforcing aby sort of v party unity is dismissed as impossible. Instead they shrug their shoulders and say is too hard to change the American system it's just too slow. And we're already song how slow that movement is when the party in power actually loving uses it.but the Democrats can't even have the balls to be as obstructionist, not even half as much as the Republicans have been. And what's the rational people are offering for that being a good idea, oh well now the Republicans will have to own all of these failures they'd no way they'll just get pushed of on to the Democrats anyway! They want to be "The Resistance" fine than be even more obstructive than the Republicans were. To hell with decorum and pomp and tradition, be loving effective. But they won't. Pricks like Schumer aren't here to stand between us and oblivion, they're going to mediate it! And when they're thrown out of Congress next year and lose in 2020 and control no state houses. They won't ask how they failed. They'll cry about how the left stabbed them in the back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I get the impression that you're not familiar with the concept of "protectionism." Trump's protectionism was a market intervention. He also campaigned on gutting existing market interventions like corporate taxes and labor and environmental regulations. How do you know they voted against free trade and not against regulations and taxes (and immigrants)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:That's the whole thing isn't it. Republicans don't believe in this stupid loving Aaron Sorkin myth about the dignity of elected office and how we can make real change by appealing to the other side with an impassioned speech. These people have killed the Democrats. Politics isn't about having frank discussions and teams of rivals (the history of having parts of your government working against itself being a dumb idea in the long run never seems to get learned by these types). Politics is about gaining power and loving wielding and Democrats seem to be averse to actually getting anything done that way they can try and walk the tight rope for as long as possible. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Lol no. Gutting regulations is not an intervention in the market. Regulations were the intervention. That's because the regulations Trump promised to end are those that they (mistakenly) believe are responsible for the loss of their jobs. Part of why they voted for Trump was because he promised a different type of government intervention, ie: protectionism. This isn't that hard, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Trump's protectionism was a market intervention. He also campaigned on gutting existing market interventions like corporate taxes and labor and environmental regulations. How do you know they voted against free trade and not against regulations and taxes (and immigrants)? Because the evidence strongly suggests that they did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
And this is why they win. Democratic voters don't even think the party is going to really do anything to benefit them. How many people actually believed Hilliary was going to do anything she promised, let alone the lies of the platform. Until the Democrats lean this or all the establishment funkies and policy wonks are thrown out they will only ever be at best rump party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:That's the whole thing isn't it. Republicans don't believe in this stupid loving Aaron Sorkin myth about the dignity of elected office and how we can make real change by appealing to the other side with an impassioned speech. These people have killed the Democrats. Politics isn't about having frank discussions and teams of rivals (the history of having parts of your government working against itself being a dumb idea in the long run never seems to get learned by these types). Politics is about gaining power and loving wielding it and Democrats seem to be averse to actually getting anything done that way they can try and walk the tight rope for as long as possible. If the Democrats get back into power they are going to get a term because people are going to remember Trump actually using the office and aren't going to fall for this sort of "well in 20 years our awesome plans will totally kick in and it's literally impossible to do it any other way" nonsense but they don't seem to learn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Of course he did. He also said a lot of standard republican bullshit about government taxes and regulations stifling Trade isn't the only thing that mattered in the election, many different roads led to this outcome. However, I'm not sure why you find it implausible, absent solid proof (which you'll never get in a social science as soft as this), that voters in the rust belt were swayed by Trump's rhetoric and Hillary's past positions on this issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's because the regulations Trump promised to end are those that they (mistakenly) believe are responsible for the loss of their jobs. Part of why they voted for Trump was because he promised a different type of government intervention, ie: protectionism. Also, like I said upthread, I'm sure that plenty of people of the exact kind JeffersonClay is talking about exist. You could basically draw a 3x3 chart, where in one corner you've got people who hate the market intervention of protectionism but think it's worth it to lower corporate tax rates and in the other corner you have the exact opposite and so on. What matters isn't whether every last Trump voter loves intervening in the market in way X but not way Y, but that a politician who explicitly promised to intervene in the market in ways counter to standard free-trade-is-good liberalism was not hurt, and indeed seemed to be helped by, his position. The Republican primary is an excellent example, because you had Trump up against a bunch of guys who were only peddling lowered estate taxes and got creamed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Out if curiosity JC, what is the strategy you think the Democrats should follow in order to not get destroyed in 2018 and 2020?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
This article says democrats are more likely than ever to support free trade. This only explains why republicans would vote for trump, not why democrats would flip or stay home. Majorian posted:That's because the regulations Trump promised to end are those that they (mistakenly) believe are responsible for the loss of their jobs. Part of why they voted for Trump was because he promised a different type of government intervention, ie: protectionism. Yes and I was responding to the assertion that trump's election proved people wanted more government intervention in the market which is obviously contradicted by his promises to gut regulations and corporate taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Out if curiosity JC, what is the strategy you think the Democrats should follow in order to not get destroyed in 2018 and 2020?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Out if curiosity JC, what is the strategy you think the Democrats should follow in order to not get destroyed in 2018 and 2020? Resist trump at every opportunity and ride the backlash into office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This article says democrats are more likely than ever to support free trade. This only explains why republicans would vote for trump, not why democrats would flip or stay home. And yet it's still a full quarter of Democrats who say free trade has hurt their jobs. Now, where, exactly, do you think those Democrats predominantly live, JC? quote:Yes and I was responding to the assertion that trump's election proved people wanted more government intervention in the market which is obviously contradicted by his promises to gut regulations and corporate taxes. "Job killing" regulations and taxes. He promised different regulations and taxes, because he knew his base supported protectionism - which requires government intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Resist trump at every opportunity and ride the backlash into office. So you don't think the Democrats should adopt more coherent and impactful social programs, even if only to stave off the "back-biting left"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Resist trump at every opportunity and ride the backlash into office. You probably didn't even mean to do it, but I'll just point out you didn't put a single policy point or actual idea in your post. I'm also curious what you think by "resist"? Do you think the Democrats are doing that now? And, when they resist Trump who is their audience?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes and I was responding to the assertion that trump's election proved people wanted more government intervention in the market which is obviously contradicted by his promises to gut regulations and corporate taxes. It's asinine to look at exertion of executive power on the economy as, like, some kind of fungible liquid resource, so if you lower taxes but make it harder for businesses to cross state lines that's a net +0 to intervention in the market and therefore neutral on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Resist trump at every opportunity and ride the backlash into office. This didn't work in 2016; why should it work in 2020? The Dems need to propose a concrete alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Hahaha we are so hosed if you represent how the Democratic establishment thinks. Policy only matters AFTER the election, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This didn't work in 2016; why should it work in 2020? The Dems need to propose a concrete alternative. The democrats are responding to Clinton's loss in the exact same way they would have responded to Clinton's win: by changing absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Look, The Platform is perfect and as long as someone on team D wins by default at some point in the future after the Republicans have burned down the country sufficiently it will all be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
I got some bad news fellas: The Democrats will probably pick up a handful of seats in the House in 2018 without coming anywhere near actual control of the chamber. They will lose seats in the Senate but keep just enough to have a theoretical threat of a filibuster provided Senate Democrats act as a unified bloc, which they will never do. Center-right Democrats like JeffersonClay will take this as a sign that their ideas work, because they picked up seats in the House and didn't lose as many seats as they expected in the Senate. Maybe some shitbird conservative Democrat will unexpectedly win a seat in some shitbird red state, "proving" that Liebermanism is the last hope of the Democratic party. In 2020 the Democratic Presidential candidate will not be able to run on a platform of "Trump is bad for America" because he or she has voted for half of the horrible poo poo supported by Donald Trump. So they'll run a campaign of "gee Donald Trump sure is an awful person, don't vote for him" and lose. Nevertheless center-right Democrats like JeffersonClay will still insist the Democratic party was stabbed in the back by leftists and cling to power in the Democratic party (for they will have none anywhere else). I can't imagine what excuses they'll come up next time with because I'm not insane. Point being, people like him aren't worth our loving time. Get involved in the Democratic party until we have enough influence to show these people where the door is shortly before kicking their rear end through it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Resist trump at every opportunity and ride the backlash into office. So no actual policy or priority changes are needed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Radish posted:If the Democrats get back into power they are going to get a term because people are going to remember Trump actually using the office and aren't going to fall for this sort of "well in 20 years our awesome plans will totally kick in and it's literally impossible to do it any other way" nonsense but they don't seem to learn. You can't teach people something they are paid not to learn. As of right now the Democrats are a dead end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:You can't teach people something they are paid not to learn. As of right now the Democrats are a dead end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
a purestrain socialist party would need 34% of the vote to be socialist to win. meanwhile under a 50/50 two-party system requires only like 26% (50%+1 to win the primary, then you get the other 50% of democrats for free!) like why the gently caress, as a socialist, wouldn't you want the free party line voters?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:06
|
|