Trump General Discusion II - Page 47 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-02-2016, 09:59 AM   #921
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
gump's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 9,900
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Disagree entirely. Just learn how to use them responsibly. Plenty were accurate between the primaries and the election.

To suggest "current polls" are any different than older polls is wrong. The polls made this a possibility. The way they were perceived and reported... that's where people were wrong.
Yeah, I'm with you on this. Polls were not too far off the national vote, the problem was in the state polling, which is harder (and less frequent).

What this election cycle showed is that people still generally have trouble grasping the concept of probabilities (and probability distributions, more specifically). Trump winning wasn't a huge polling miss, it was distinctly in the realm of possibilities (it was somewhat improbable, but absolutely possible). For a variety of reasons, peolple just chose to interpret the polling/modelling as "Hillary is sure to win".
__________________

gump is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 10:01 AM   #922
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
It's called identity politics and those of us on the far left are having a frank discussion about it at the moment.
Does this frank discussion include talking about how they can't think for themselves, how they're loud, and how they're more prone to being criminals? And does Bannon come to these meetings?



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 10:31 AM   #923
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
No. More about how the Democratic establishment pays lip service to these groups and calls everyone racists thinking it's a winning strategy. Yet Trump did far better with blacks and latinos than Romney despite him allegedly being the second coming of Hitler.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 10:39 AM   #924
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
And the more I read, the more I become convinced that the difference came down to GOP success in suppressing the black vote.

It's never just one thing. But that seems to be a huge difference between 2012 and 2016 in key states.
It's wrong and it has an effect, but would not have made a difference in the Electoral College. Black turnout was like 12% this time and they make up 13% of the population but probably 12% or less of registered voters, anyway. Plus, as I mentioned, Trump managed to even do better with them than Romney with them despite everything, so extra black turnout doesn't mean they would have had all of those votes in the Clinton column since he got like 9% of the black vote or whatever.

She dropped below Obama's vote totals in those key states by hundreds of thousands of people, many of them white and rural voters that have seen the worst economic rebound, if any, since the recession of any group out there. Plenty of Obama voters that switched sides and Trump even narrowly won cross party voting.

If only the Democrats could have nominated someone that could speak to the working class instead of a woman worth nearly $100 million that barely bothered to visit Wisconsin and Michigan, if at all, after the primaries. Hmm. You don't think Mrs. Free Trade might have made for an odd juxtaposition against Mr. "Nafta and Mexico and China are stealing our jobs"?

Perhaps Democrats could have held on to these jobs and voters better had they not simply ignored unions back in the 1990s. Pray tell, who was President then?

Chickens coming home to roost again. Her Iraq War vote was shameful and cost her in 2008 while her husband lying to the American people about a friggin' blowjob for his own political gain (while doing nothing for the left and working class) gave us Bush in 2000. All they have done is vacuum up the soul of the party and cost it dearly in elections. Lest we forget the DNC paying her campaign debt in 2008 when she ran it into bankruptcy on a useless ego trip into the spring and early summer.

You win one lucky election in 1992 and they act like you're gods among men. Hero worship at its finest/worst.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 10:48 AM   #925
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Oh and as far as appointees go, dare we point out that Clinton had unpopular Mayor Ed Lee of San Francisco tapped to lead HUD? Because if you want someone for housing, you go with the guy who has overseen the highest rent increases and disparity in the country and done almost nothing about it.

Again, believing that being involved with something means you're good at it (such as Clinton's environmental "win" as Secretary) and identity politics all at once. Her administration would have been just as much a laughingstock for the left as this guy's. With, again, similar Wall Street appointees (if not moreso since she was the one with most of their campaign money).

But hey, the slate is clean and we can start over. Just say no to corporatism from here on out and the public will no longer be confused with what we stand for...it's not hard to do. Stop giving passes to the people that accept the money from the natural gas industry, big banks, etc.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 11:47 AM   #926
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,457
Local Time: 10:56 PM
what we know is that Trump was winning no matter what D was running, due to voter suppression and the Brexit-effect, and the lack of the most charismatic politician of his generation on the ticket.

its erroneous to claim that the "white working class in the Rust Belt" was going to be receptive to the European Socialism-lite offered by Sanders -- to believe this is to ignore the nativism in the Trump campaign that a lot of these people found compelling, and would have drowned out the fire and vitriol spewed by a nativist, racist campaign. the "white working class" shouldn't be unduly valorized -- or prized above, say, the black working class or the Latino working class -- and we can't assume that Sanders (a DC veteran of, what, 30-some-odd-years) was going to be the agent of change these people seemed to want, and his inability to appeal to minorities would have cost even more (maybe even VA) as HRC, who had a much stronger pull with minorities, didn't do as well as Obama (and was never going to).

i don't have time to write much more, but i'll just cut and paste some articles from mainstream, credible sources on a couple of these subjects:

Quote:
The enraged focus on Clinton ignores the broader historical forces at work. This was clearly a change election, a wave that was bound to dispel pretty much any Democratic candidate in its path. For the first time in decades, stalwart Democratic states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania went to the Republicans. It is all the more remarkable given that, unlike the last change election in 2008, we live in a time of relative peace and prosperity. The inequalities embedded in our economic system are undeniable. The U.S. continues to have a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and has abetted wars in Yemen and elsewhere. But in the past eight years under President Barack Obama, the U.S. has made steady progress toward full employment and has vastly reduced its military commitments abroad, which in the Bush era resulted in thousands of American deaths, hundreds of thousands of injuries, and untold psychological damage to military veterans. In the simplest sense, one candidate in 2016 promised to uphold that progress; the victor promised to reverse it.

This election was about a much greater phenomenon than Hillary Clinton. We know this is true because a nearly identical political undertow has gripped other Western democracies. In Britain, a nativist campaign preying on the fears of immigration and economic dislocation resulted in the Brexit, throwing the country into total chaos. In France, the right-wing National Front is the preeminent political force in the country, after spending decades on the fringes. Britain’s Nigel Farage and France’s Marine Le Pen and America’s Trump have all succeeded by sowing fear and hatred of the other. They lead movements that, at their core, are propelled by white revanchism, a raging against an increasingly globalized world that has threatened white power and diluted white identity.

But it is also becoming clear that the racist face of the resurgent right wing is, in important respects, superficial. To be clear, I find it almost impossible to forgive any person who voted for a blatant racist and misogynist like Trump. I agree with Slate’s Jamelle Bouie that, in attempting to sympathize with the plight of the downtrodden white who voted for Trump, we are in danger of perpetuating a false narrative of white innocence. And I think his election will set back racial progress by decades. However, the rise of the new right also has its roots in the financial crisis, a political earthquake whose deep, radiating repercussions didn’t quite register until Trump’s election. This is a response to what is seen as a corrupt order, one that perpetuates the power of a global elite at the expense of common people. It encompasses Republicans and Democrats, New Labourites and Tories, a Socialist like Francois Hollande and a conservative like Nicolas Sarkozy. It is a protest against liberal democracy as we know it, and it is no surprise that these grievances have found outlet in vulgar authoritarians whose core supporters want to blow up the system.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1386...illary-clinton

we don't know if Sanders would have won. unlike you, i would have gladly voted for Sanders (even though my vote in DC counts for even less than one in CA) and i would not have spent a summer sobbing and screaming and demonizing him -- i knew what we were up against, i dreaded the time we're in now, and i know that the Democratic candidate, whoever that is, was all that was standing between us and this end-of-the-end-of-history abyss we're now tumbling down.

certainly, people disliked HRC. it also occurs to me that misogyny is even more ingrained than racism, that men have great difficulty seeing women in power (remember when Mrs G heard that she was "a bitch" and wanted to sincerely discuss that, as if it were somehow not misogynist? that encapsulated pretty much everything).

but Sanders would have had unique weaknesses as a candidate, and many point to the current leader of the Labour Party in the UK (Jeremy Corbyn) as an example of what a Sanders candidacy would have been about. and the Burning Man, "I want free college!" aspect of the Sanders crowd would have been a major turn off to exactly these Rust Belt voters.

Quote:
It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.

When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.

Which leads back to the main point: Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.

The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them the Presidential Election


i'm not going to revisit this topic any further. obviously, no one knows, and now, it's not helpful beyond any lessons to be learned for 2018 and 2020.

my hope for Sanders is that he uses his apparent powers to get people to actually vote in the midterm elections. "the young" aren't so good at that.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:03 PM   #927
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
There was a poll funded by Alan Grayson before the election that showed Sanders would have won in a landslide...so it's clear there's a lot of voters at least would have been willing to vote for him and not for Clinton. I think those general election polls from around the time of the primary where actually pretty damn predictive in hindsight and 538 even had an argument for them, historically, in an article this year. Obviously, Sanders never faced the ensuing backlash that he would have as the nominee, and surely would have made things closer, but a hell of a lot of people were going to consider him before he would have faced that inevitable GOP opposition over the closing months. Plus, those Sanders rallies would have been massive once the general public started paying attention to the guy as the election neared. 100,000-plus would have been normal.

The way I see it, practically every Democrat that voted for Hillary Clinton said they would have been willing to vote for Sanders, so he literally would have got all their votes, plus the millions of liberals like me who either didn't vote or cast a vote for Stein. So that's a big improvement over her end results. Sanders would obviously shed the anti-Trump right-wingers that Hillary received, but that's a laughably small share of the vote as evidenced by her massive failures in key rural and suburban counties in Pennsylvania and the like.

The minority argument just doesn't really make any sense because those black voters that supported Hillary weren't suddenly going to jump to Trump because Sanders was the nominee - a champion of civil rights and the working poor and someone with an even much higher favorability rating within the party. They'd still support him and he'd have had the backing of Michelle and the like, etc. But Sanders had plenty of independent, particularly rural voters supporting him (such as in the Michigan primary where he won thanks to so many non-Democrats turning out) that it proves that there were plenty of non-Democrats willing to support him. Exactly the voters outside the party bubble that Hillary needed to succeed.

We'll never know and it does not matter one iota. In 2020, if we can agree to have an actual liberal nominee, then we won't need to have these arguments or talk about could-have-beens. Warren, Gabbard, Ellison, whomever. I'm down. Are you?
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:09 PM   #928
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
The truth and a viable strategy from Sanders supporters. Ellison needs to be chair.

Sanders Supporters Withhold DNC Donations Unless Ellison Is Elected | Observer
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:16 PM   #929
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 11:56 PM
My own view on the First Amendment is that freedom of speech means you are free to say whatever you want without fear of being prosecuted or incarcerated by the government, which is sadly what happens in many countries around the world.

The First Amendment, however, does not protect you from getting fired for saying offensive, bigoted, or racist things. There still are consequences to your actions.

Alas, it seems that the First Amendment doesn't really mean much to the Trumpsters, and that's scary.

Lewandowski: Times editor Dean Baquet 'should be in jail' for publishing Trump tax docs - POLITICO
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:22 PM   #930
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,325
Local Time: 09:56 PM

Just a little humor for your friday:


"See You Tomorrow"



One sunny day in late January of 2017, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.

He spoke to the Marine standing guard. "I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton."

"Sir, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn't reside here." The old man sighed and walked away.



The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton".

"Sir, as I said yesterday, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn't reside here." The man thanked him and again walked away.



The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same Marine. "I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man. "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mrs. Clinton. I've told you already several times that Mrs. Clinton is not the President and doesn't reside here. Don't you understand?"



"Oh, I understand you fine. I just love hearing your answer!" The Marine snapped to attention and saluted. "Sir, see you tomorrow."
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:23 PM   #931
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
I'm in the same ballpark as you, BoMac. Anything goes, but the workplace is the one environment where harassment can't be allowed because people need to make a living and your actions reflect on your employer.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:25 PM   #932
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
"Oh, I understand you fine. I just love hearing your answer!" The Marine snapped to attention and saluted. "Sir, see you tomorrow."


Pretty good. The schadenfreude is particularly fun given that she's been so dead set on this goal for, what, like 17 years now?

The way I feel is that the worst of the two monsters got in, but we were always going to have to wait until 2020 to get the other one out. At least Trump will be easier to remove for us liberals than trying to challenge Hillary and her sheeple in the primary.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:39 PM   #933
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:56 PM
My God can we stop re-litigating the primaries.

I notice that there are crickets in here from the Trump supporters about how the Carrier deal goes against every basic principle of conservatism. You all are now on the books as supporting corporate welfare and expecting hard working TAXPAYERS to foot the bill for companies as bribes. Well done, guys.

What Trump did there is a terrible thing in terms of economic policy. Put so well by an American Enterprise economist:

Quote:
"We certainly don't want to take as our guide to creating jobs special tax breaks for a company that earned $7.5 billion in profits last year, got $6 billion in defense contracts, paid its top five executives $50 million, in order to preserve 1,000 out of 2,100 jobs," said Shapiro.

"It's essentially a transfer from the taxpayers of Indiana, who are providing these tax breaks, to the shareholders of United Technology plus those 1,000 workers. That's really not a model for creating jobs across America," he added.
As I have been saying over and over again, watch the rich get off like bandits. Trump voters in the rust belt, really, really well done. Enjoy the allocation of your tax dollars.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:44 PM   #934
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,440
Local Time: 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
There's no way you can tell me polling has stayed the same. You're trying to tell me that polling in the days of landlines and pre caller id is the same as today? There are entire demographics now that are likely not to even take a poll. Pollsters don't even have access to me.

Where was the accurate polling in these swing states? And why weren't you predicting a Trump win if they were accurate?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

You're undermining statistics. Assuming that somehow those who conduct polls have lost the ability or understanding of how to create a random sample. Older polls exhibit similar biases to newer ones. Bias isn't some personal insult to a poll. It's a qualitative factor in results.

Most robust models interpreted the polls as Clinton-Trump being roughly 70-30. Personally? Since you brought me into it... my thought process was 70-30 is high Clinton odds mixed with "how can a rational human being fall for this?"

I also repeatedly backed the domino theory. I said several times, whoever wins... will win multiple states. I even said if Trump wins, it won't be on some 271-269 tightrope battle where he wins Ohio and Clinton wins Florida blah blah blah. That's a qualitative assessment on my part -- suggesting that there's causation behind voting leaning one way (of course there is, it's why people vote).

But in all of those states... swing states alike, Trump was well within the margin of error, even when she was up 1/2/3/4 points. It wasn't impossible. It was never 98%. This discussion happened already.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 12-02-2016, 01:10 PM   #935
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Yeah, everyone on FiveThirtyEight along with myself were pointing out that the states move in unison with one another. People around here would try and argue that if it was a coin flip in Ohio and Florida, etc. that his odds would be terrible because he would need it to go his way each time when it actuality a scenario where he wins one makes him more likely to win the rest, etc. Otherwise, his chances on FiveThirtyEight would have been like 2% instead of 30%. Too many were arguing that he would need a lot of luck when all he really needed was a favorable enough national situation as states like Michigan, demographically, boded much better for him than the rest of the country.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 01:50 PM   #936
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 32,030
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
I'm in the same ballpark as you, BoMac. Anything goes, but the workplace is the one environment where harassment can't be allowed because people need to make a living and your actions reflect on your employer.
So harassment is fine so long as its outside the workplace?
Gotcha.
Hewson is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 02:05 PM   #937
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. So, yes. Let people say whatever they want.


This was great on Counterpunch, so I'll post it in full:

The Future of Identity Politics by Yvette Carnell



President Obama was supposed to
bring ‘change we can believe’. He
was supposed to pass the baton
to his heir apparent—Hillary Clinton.
Instead of clearing a path for Clinton,
however, Obama seeded it with landmines
that blew up as Clinton clumsily
sought to plant her neoliberal
flag in not-so fertile ground. So what
happened?
Even before Donald Trump’s election
victory on Tuesday, Democrats had
already lost over 900 state legislature
seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats and
13 Senate seats during Obama’s tenure.
Under President Obama, Congressional
Democrats walked the plank in the 2010
midterms after voting for an unpopular
and conservative health care plan. And
instead of throwing a lifeline to these
Democrats, Obama selfishly hoarded
what was left of his political capital
and used it for his own 2012 reelection
campaign.
Thus, laying the blame for this election
solely on Donald Trump’s nativism
or Hillary Clinton’s awkwardness
as a candidate, or even her corruption,
would be a mistake. In an attempt to
galvanize African-American voters,
Hillary Clinton intentionally framed
her candidacy as building on Obama’s
two successful terms. As it turns out,
most Americans, especially those in the
rust belt, didn’t view Obama’s tenure as
successful at all.
Obama has worked harder to
pick up support for the Trans Pacific
Partnership which, according to The
Economic Policy Institute’s estimates,
would result in the U.S. losing more
than 130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan
alone, than he worked to promote single
exit strategies
By Yvette Carnell
payer health care.
This election wasn’t about Obama’s
inability to connect with white working
class voters. It was about his refusal to
do anything for working class voters of
any race during his eight years in the
White House.
Some will point to gay marriage as a
victory for Obama, but much as I’m in
favor of marriage equality, rights are
not redistribution. The heroin epidemic
sweeping white communities, decreasing
life expectancies, and the increasing
number of suicides point to a reduction
in the quality of life for ordinary white
Americans. While their lives were imploding,
black Obama apologists were
accusing any white person who dared
criticize Obama of being a racist.
It’s even deeper than that though. In
2004, while giving the keynote address
at the Democratic National Convention,
Obama said there is not a blue America
and a red America, but that there is only
one America.
This central thesis has been proven
a lie. Americans have learned the hard
way that there really is a them versus an
us; the ruling elite and the rest of us. For
8 years, Obama worked for the wrong
side. He allowed Citibank to map out
his cabinet, then began bailing out Wall
Street while foreclosing on Main Street.
So the tweet from Upshot’s Nate
Cohn, revealing that “Clinton suffered
her biggest losses in the places where
Obama was strongest among white
voters” should come as no surprise.
The landmines that Hillary Clinton
set off were already buried by Obama.
The nativism buttressing Trump’s
election has triggered a wave of hysteria
in the black community, with
social media provocateurs sharing
each racial or xenophobic incident
with melodramatic fervor. This fails to
address Trump receiving a larger share
of the black and Hispanic vote than
Mitt Romney. NBC news reports that
Trump won 29 percent of the Hispanic
vote on election day, compared to Mitt
Romney’s 27 percent in 2012. Trump
won 8 percent of the black vote, compared
to Romney’s 6 percent. Viewing
Trump’s victory solely through the lens
of white nationalism is lazy thinking
that doesn’t benefit anyone. In fact, it’s
how we got here.
Trump’s election isn’t all bad either.
People beat money. The black misleadership
functionaries who red-baited
Bernie Sanders during the primaries
have no sway with this administration.
The Clintons have been vanquished.
The identity politics that worked so
well for Obama held far less sway for
Clinton. Now, our challenge is to not be
led by our fear. Our reaction matters.
African-Americans voted for Hillary
Clinton out of fear. Let’s not be driven
by our fear at this critical juncture as
well.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 02:06 PM   #938
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
My God can we stop re-litigating the primaries.



I notice that there are crickets in here from the Trump supporters about how the Carrier deal goes against every basic principle of conservatism. You all are now on the books as supporting corporate welfare and expecting hard working TAXPAYERS to foot the bill for companies as bribes. Well done, guys.



What Trump did there is a terrible thing in terms of economic policy. Put so well by an American Enterprise economist:







As I have been saying over and over again, watch the rich get off like bandits. Trump voters in the rust belt, really, really well done. Enjoy the allocation of your tax dollars.

You are hearing crickets because this is not a crisis. Until Trump can push through his corporate rate tax cut across the board, Him and Pence picked up the phone to negotiate a business deal with good optics for both parties involved. Carrier was in the public eye, and a move would result in a boycott, a positive move would reinforce their brand stateside. Trump also leveraged Carrier's parent company which already has (under Obama) 7 billion in federal government contracts.

This is far cry from the Obama 800 billion stimulus that mainly propped up public sector unions in lieu of the shovel-ready jobs he promised. Later Obama joked "Those shovel ready jobs weren't quite as shovel ready as we thought".

Trump made a play that at the time required some finagling through tax credits, which has been the standard operating procedure in DC for 20 years. His eventual plan is an across the board play that upends widespread cronyism within the Beltway. Trump was going to get criticism, but he valued the risk-reward in the eyes of the public and optically he has come out well ahead.

The globalization view in both parties preceding Trump is to just let companies like Carrier go. Trump is asserting himself in the economic health of the country in a way not seen since Teddy R.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 02:10 PM   #939
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:56 PM
I'm hearing crickets from you lot.

Certainly not from conservative economists or papers. This has been roundly criticized in those corners. You must not have taken a look at the National Review or WSJ in recent days.

Quote:
Trump is asserting himself in the economic health of the country in a way not seen since Teddy R.
That doesn't make it any less of a wrong move. But yeah, I guess to you guys him asserting something different is good enough.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-02-2016, 02:16 PM   #940
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Ultimately, just let him do his job and arguing over this Carrier stuff won't really get anyone anywhere. The fact that we give out billions in government contracts to the military already makes both parties complicit in subsidizing corporate interests of a most heinous nature.

The economy will either be good for the constituents in swing states when Trump faces re-election or it will be terrible and that will determine everything. He's either going to get lucky or do some things that work or he'll have egg on his face and be bounced out of office four years from now. Nothing you can point out and nothing he can do other than getting us into another endless war will really affect how America sees him.
__________________

BigMacPhisto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×