invite response« First « Previous Comments 14 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
14
bob2356
2018 May 20, 5:59pm
Strategist says
and which industries will be making a 200b jump in production? will we be making more farmland while we are at it? Sorry, I agree with bloomberg. It's mathematically impossible to come anywhere near those numbers.
Where are all the numbers from people who say it's possible? It's true because I believe it should be true. All you need.
GDP growth, industrial production, low unemployment, inability to find skilled labor, all point to a much higher capacity utilization rate. This is the time for corporations to start increasing the use of robots to expand capacity and increase productivity. No one has to tell them what to do. Trust me, it's already happening.
and which industries will be making a 200b jump in production? will we be making more farmland while we are at it? Sorry, I agree with bloomberg. It's mathematically impossible to come anywhere near those numbers.
Where are all the numbers from people who say it's possible? It's true because I believe it should be true. All you need.
15
Strategist
2018 May 20, 6:05pm
Strategist
2018 May 20, 6:05pm
bob2356 says
Hello? A $200 billion jump in production is merely 1% of the GDP. It's not possible to achieve that, but very likely in the next few quarters.
By the way, you should know economists are always wrong.
Strategist saysGDP growth, industrial production, low unemployment, inability to find skilled labor, all point to a much higher capacity utilization rate. This is the time for corporations to start increasing the use of robots to expand capacity and increase productivity. No one has to tell them what to do. Trust me, it's already happening.
and which industries will be making a 200b jump in production? will we be making more farmland while we are at it? Sorry, I agree with bloomberg. It's mathematically impossible to come anywhere near those numbers.
Hello? A $200 billion jump in production is merely 1% of the GDP. It's not possible to achieve that, but very likely in the next few quarters.
By the way, you should know economists are always wrong.
16
Booger
2018 May 20, 6:19pm
Booger
2018 May 20, 6:19pm
Feux Follets says
Longshoremen are federal government employees???
- should the ILWU and it's sister unions go on strike and do more than the usual amount of damage to the economy, if Potus were to fire them like Reagan did to PATCO - how would that be ?.
Longshoremen are federal government employees???
17
marcus
2018 May 21, 7:09am
marcus
2018 May 21, 7:09am
someone else says
And perhaps trickledown will kick in big time and the tax cuts will lead to the first surplus since Clinton was President !
he may well be remembered as our most effective president ever.
And perhaps trickledown will kick in big time and the tax cuts will lead to the first surplus since Clinton was President !
18
CBOEtrader
2018 May 21, 7:11am
CBOEtrader
2018 May 21, 7:11am
marcus says
Clinton was blessed w the dotcom boom. It's the best plan we have.
Also, this whole "tax cuts for the rich" mock outrage is terrible logic. Please explain how to create tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes. By the same logic, communism is the only logical solution. Just terrible logic
someone else sayshe may well be remembered as our most effective president ever.
And perhaps trickledown will kick in big time and the tax cuts will lead to the first surplus since Clinton was President !
Clinton was blessed w the dotcom boom. It's the best plan we have.
Also, this whole "tax cuts for the rich" mock outrage is terrible logic. Please explain how to create tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes. By the same logic, communism is the only logical solution. Just terrible logic
19
bob2356
2018 May 21, 7:58am
Strategist says
You know GDP is gross domestic product, not gross domestic production right? Goods and Services. and government spending. and net exports.
Show where the Bloomberg (and many other peoples) numbers are wrong. Simple enough. Start with how much of GDP is exportable products. As usual lots of dancing around but no numbers from the trump/tea party/libertarian/faith based crowd. It's true because I believe it should be true.
Hello? A $200 billion jump in production is merely 1% of the GDP. It's not possible to achieve that, but very likely in the next few quarters.
By the way, you should know economists are always wrong.
You know GDP is gross domestic product, not gross domestic production right? Goods and Services. and government spending. and net exports.
Show where the Bloomberg (and many other peoples) numbers are wrong. Simple enough. Start with how much of GDP is exportable products. As usual lots of dancing around but no numbers from the trump/tea party/libertarian/faith based crowd. It's true because I believe it should be true.
20
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 21, 8:31am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 21, 8:31am
Longshoremen aren't angels, but the demonization campaign is from importers in order to transfer Port Jobs to Mexico, and thus the Trucker Jobs as well when the containers are unloaded from ships and then loaded onto Mexican Trucks driven by Mexican Truckers.
Imagine tens of thousands more Mexican Trucks driving around US Highways, with their highly inspected brake pads and tires. You know a Federale Vehicle Inspector never took a $20 to pass a worn tire. The cost will be dead American Families and of course, jobs.
Imagine tens of thousands more Mexican Trucks driving around US Highways, with their highly inspected brake pads and tires. You know a Federale Vehicle Inspector never took a $20 to pass a worn tire. The cost will be dead American Families and of course, jobs.
21
Strategist
2018 May 21, 8:54am
Strategist
2018 May 21, 8:54am
bob2356 says
The Bloomberg numbers represent a short term scenario only. Every economist knows everything is variable in the long run. We will never reduce the trade deficit to zero with China overnight, neither do we need to reduce it to zero over time. Lets start by Reducing the deficit in stages.
1. We make a product that no one even comes close to competing with us. Technology and Intellectual property. It's priceless.So priceless, the Chinese have to steal it. We deserve to get billions from what is already stolen.
2. The Chinese cheat by lowering the value of their currency, the Yuan, which encourages their exports. Lets fix that.
3. Automation. We can't compete with Chinese manufactured goods due to their cheap labor, but we can compete by introducing more automation.
The combination of above in a capitalistic society where millions of small decisions are made daily by businesses will steadily chip away at the excessive trade deficit. Any trade deficit that lingers is not a big deal, as it's the chronic huge deficits that are the real problem.
Show where the Bloomberg (and many other peoples) numbers are wrong. Simple enough. Start with how much of GDP is exportable products. As usual lots of dancing around but no numbers from the trump/tea party/libertarian/faith based crowd. It's true because I believe it should be true.
The Bloomberg numbers represent a short term scenario only. Every economist knows everything is variable in the long run. We will never reduce the trade deficit to zero with China overnight, neither do we need to reduce it to zero over time. Lets start by Reducing the deficit in stages.
1. We make a product that no one even comes close to competing with us. Technology and Intellectual property. It's priceless.So priceless, the Chinese have to steal it. We deserve to get billions from what is already stolen.
2. The Chinese cheat by lowering the value of their currency, the Yuan, which encourages their exports. Lets fix that.
3. Automation. We can't compete with Chinese manufactured goods due to their cheap labor, but we can compete by introducing more automation.
The combination of above in a capitalistic society where millions of small decisions are made daily by businesses will steadily chip away at the excessive trade deficit. Any trade deficit that lingers is not a big deal, as it's the chronic huge deficits that are the real problem.
22
Shaman
2018 May 21, 9:01am
Shaman
2018 May 21, 9:01am
TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says
But they are extremely diverse! That should count for something in SJW-ville. Too bad it won’t because SJWs are hand-puppets of the globalist elites. Anyone who is taken in by their extremely transparent bullshit is a fool.
Longshoremen aren't angels
But they are extremely diverse! That should count for something in SJW-ville. Too bad it won’t because SJWs are hand-puppets of the globalist elites. Anyone who is taken in by their extremely transparent bullshit is a fool.
23
Goran_K
2018 May 21, 10:20am
Goran_K
2018 May 21, 10:20am
marcus says
And perhaps trickledown will kick in big time and the tax cuts will lead to the first surplus since Clinton was President !
24
bob2356
2018 May 21, 10:26am
Goran_K says
You do know the deficit is already up 50 billion ytd from last year and climbing don't you? April always has a surplus, It's when people pay their taxes
You do know the deficit is already up 50 billion ytd from last year and climbing don't you? April always has a surplus, It's when people pay their taxes
25
CBOEtrader
2018 May 21, 10:35am
CBOEtrader
2018 May 21, 10:35am
bob2356 says
April always has a surplus, It's when people pay their taxesGoran_K says
Bob, you do realize that "largest surplus" "record tax receipts" mean this has never happened? Yet Bob: "this happens every April". Just amazing.
Welcome to fact free America, where up is down, down is up, Trump is racist and HRC is just a loving Grandma!
Answer this: what could Trump do that you would agree with? Here we have Trump finally addressing a HUGE problem we have directly w the appropriate leaders. This is something no other president has done, and is EXACTLY what needs to happen. Bob: "We cant reduce the deficit to zero so lets pretend the problem isnt there." Nice analysis and plan, Bob.
26
Goran_K
2018 May 21, 10:46am
Goran_K
2018 May 21, 10:46am
bob2356 says
So every April is the "biggest ever"?
April always has a surplus, It's when people pay their taxes
So every April is the "biggest ever"?
27
rdm
2018 May 21, 5:58pm
May 21, 2018
WASHINGTON — By the time American negotiators wrapped up high-level talks with a visiting Chinese delegation last week, President Trump’s ambitions for a multibillion dollar trade agreement had, for the time being, shriveled (like his dick) into a blandly worded communiqué without any dollar figures. It was not clear that the talks set a path to success.
Ceaseless infighting and jockeying for influence on the White House’s trade team helped deprive Mr. Trump of a quick victory on his most cherished policy agenda, several people involved in the talks said. The deep internal divisions carried over into how officials characterized the agreement and muddied the outlook for the next phase of the negotiations between Washington and Beijing.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Sunday that the United States would hold off on imposing tariffs on China, putting the trade war “on hold,” but hours later, the United States trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, warned the Chinese that the Trump administration might yet impose tariffs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/trump-trade-china.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Who knew trade negotiations with China could be so complicated?
Just about anyone who has ever dealt with Chinese in negotiations. They will fuck you up the ass while picking your pocket. The real negotiations begin after the deal is done. In
a negotiation between Trump's crew of rejects, pikers and crooks and the Chinese, my money is on the Chinese, bigly.
WASHINGTON — By the time American negotiators wrapped up high-level talks with a visiting Chinese delegation last week, President Trump’s ambitions for a multibillion dollar trade agreement had, for the time being, shriveled (like his dick) into a blandly worded communiqué without any dollar figures. It was not clear that the talks set a path to success.
Ceaseless infighting and jockeying for influence on the White House’s trade team helped deprive Mr. Trump of a quick victory on his most cherished policy agenda, several people involved in the talks said. The deep internal divisions carried over into how officials characterized the agreement and muddied the outlook for the next phase of the negotiations between Washington and Beijing.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Sunday that the United States would hold off on imposing tariffs on China, putting the trade war “on hold,” but hours later, the United States trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, warned the Chinese that the Trump administration might yet impose tariffs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/trump-trade-china.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Who knew trade negotiations with China could be so complicated?
Just about anyone who has ever dealt with Chinese in negotiations. They will fuck you up the ass while picking your pocket. The real negotiations begin after the deal is done. In
a negotiation between Trump's crew of rejects, pikers and crooks and the Chinese, my money is on the Chinese, bigly.
28
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 21, 6:15pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 21, 6:15pm
Feux Follets says
Not one tax dollar to supporting imports. Let Walmart and Qatar Ports or COSCO or whomever pay for it.
Why subsidize imports? Which is of course the bottleneck, not exports which are a fraction of the imports. Let the Chinese pay to add more capacity if it's that important to them.
Doing some research on average turnaround times for container ships the U.S. is far from competitive. Couldn't have anything to do with humans would it ?
Not one tax dollar to supporting imports. Let Walmart and Qatar Ports or COSCO or whomever pay for it.
Why subsidize imports? Which is of course the bottleneck, not exports which are a fraction of the imports. Let the Chinese pay to add more capacity if it's that important to them.
29
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 21, 6:18pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 21, 6:18pm
CBOEtrader says
That's the Americant Philosophy.
"The Wall won't stop 100% of illegal drugs and people, so forget it. Reciprocating after decades of one sided trade might start a Trade War!"
Good thing we don't apply that "Logic" to Drunk Driving or Murder or Bypass Surgery.
"Well this type of treatment only helps 40% of the patients so let's just scrap it. We only stop 40% of estimated DUIs on Highway 11 on Friday, so let's stop flagging suspects down entirely... We only find homes for 40% of the stray animals, so let's shut down the pound and just euthanize them all right away ... "
Answer this: what could Trump do that you would agree with? Here we have Trump finally addressing a HUGE problem we have directly w the appropriate leaders. This is something no other president has done, and is EXACTLY what needs to happen. Bob: "We cant reduce the deficit to zero so lets pretend the problem isnt there." Nice analysis and plan, Bob.
That's the Americant Philosophy.
"The Wall won't stop 100% of illegal drugs and people, so forget it. Reciprocating after decades of one sided trade might start a Trade War!"
Good thing we don't apply that "Logic" to Drunk Driving or Murder or Bypass Surgery.
"Well this type of treatment only helps 40% of the patients so let's just scrap it. We only stop 40% of estimated DUIs on Highway 11 on Friday, so let's stop flagging suspects down entirely... We only find homes for 40% of the stray animals, so let's shut down the pound and just euthanize them all right away ... "
30
Goran_K
2018 May 22, 9:36am
Goran_K
2018 May 22, 9:36am
Feux Follets says
This is why I don't see a blue wave. Not enough focus on actual issues (who gives a fuck about the royal wedding). Too much denial of reality from the left.
For the current Potus the answer will be yes. Just like those "biggest ever" crowds at the inauguration that were blown out of the water by the crowds for the royal marriage of which he wasn't invited to.
This is why I don't see a blue wave. Not enough focus on actual issues (who gives a fuck about the royal wedding). Too much denial of reality from the left.
32
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 22, 10:28am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 22, 10:28am
Feux Follets says
Seriously: What's competitive here?
Is there an alternative market bigger and richer than America that the Chinese can sell to?
"Well that's it Guai Los, your port is all backed up. We'll going to sell our hundreds of billions in Products somewhere else, maybe in another Parallel Dimension. Kiss your Trade Deficit Goodbye"
LOL
We don't need compete to help other people sell us crap, especially when we have a massive trade deficit.
Quigley has previously stated the automation etc. at the Port of Long Beach is in place and we still can't be competitive in turn around times etc. when the Asians are doing the same damn thing with less people ?
Seriously: What's competitive here?
Is there an alternative market bigger and richer than America that the Chinese can sell to?
"Well that's it Guai Los, your port is all backed up. We'll going to sell our hundreds of billions in Products somewhere else, maybe in another Parallel Dimension. Kiss your Trade Deficit Goodbye"
LOL
We don't need compete to help other people sell us crap, especially when we have a massive trade deficit.
33
Shaman
2018 May 22, 11:40am
Shaman
2018 May 22, 11:40am
Aphroman says
If you don’t understand even this much of the Shipping industry, how do you know that I didn’t answer his question? My point was that the capacity is there, fully there, and would actually make things run better if it were utilized.
Not sure if you even realized it, but you quoted his question and proceeded with a whole bunch of buzzwords that have been marketed at you heavily, without ever attempting to answer the question.
If you don’t understand even this much of the Shipping industry, how do you know that I didn’t answer his question? My point was that the capacity is there, fully there, and would actually make things run better if it were utilized.
34
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 22, 11:54am
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 22, 11:54am
China is about to copy and attack head-on all the western industries it left untouched so far: cars, planes, cell phones, software, movies, etc...
It is set to become a larger percent of the world economy than the US was at the end of WW2.
Meaning the US companies absolutely need access to China's market.
Meaning the days when the US could push its weigh around are gone.
Get used to it and prepare to compete like crazy.
And hope you enjoyed the cheap crap of the past couple decades. That was a super smart strategy!
It is set to become a larger percent of the world economy than the US was at the end of WW2.
Meaning the US companies absolutely need access to China's market.
Meaning the days when the US could push its weigh around are gone.
Get used to it and prepare to compete like crazy.
And hope you enjoyed the cheap crap of the past couple decades. That was a super smart strategy!
35
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 22, 2:27pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 22, 2:27pm
Heraclitusstudent says
Many people think the Chinese just picked themselves up by the bootstraps and started making all these laptops, smartphones, washing machines, fridges, etc.
NOPE. 100% Tech Transfer via US Multinationals who demanded "Free Trade" did that by outsourcing to Chinese subcontracts and importing the products at minimal to no tariff, while Chinese companies stole and imitated these products and flipped the bird at IP protections that no US President since 1994 has been arsed to really enforce.
Trump is Cleaning up a disgusting Neoliberal Mess, but it's too far to reverse 100%. At the very least though we can level the playing field.
The Environment didn't get cleaner, it just polluted Shanghai and Xi'an instead of LA and Detroit.
And hope you enjoyed the cheap crap of the past couple decades. That was a super smart strategy!
Many people think the Chinese just picked themselves up by the bootstraps and started making all these laptops, smartphones, washing machines, fridges, etc.
NOPE. 100% Tech Transfer via US Multinationals who demanded "Free Trade" did that by outsourcing to Chinese subcontracts and importing the products at minimal to no tariff, while Chinese companies stole and imitated these products and flipped the bird at IP protections that no US President since 1994 has been arsed to really enforce.
Trump is Cleaning up a disgusting Neoliberal Mess, but it's too far to reverse 100%. At the very least though we can level the playing field.
The Environment didn't get cleaner, it just polluted Shanghai and Xi'an instead of LA and Detroit.
36
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 22, 2:44pm
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 22, 2:44pm
Aphroman says
I'm wondering how naive you have to be to think the 2 parties were not together in the corporatism and the short term profits. Clinton loved free trade agreements. And Democrats never made 1 move against that trend.
I find this really amazing that some people still think Democrats stand for labor in this country.
That Giant Sucking Sound isn’t the collective Betas cramming their tongues up Donalds bunghole in adulation like ignorant, disgusting children, no. It’s our economy being sucked across the sea by Republicans
I'm wondering how naive you have to be to think the 2 parties were not together in the corporatism and the short term profits. Clinton loved free trade agreements. And Democrats never made 1 move against that trend.
I find this really amazing that some people still think Democrats stand for labor in this country.
37
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 22, 3:32pm
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 22, 3:32pm
Aphroman says
You attacked Republicans. If you were not defending Democrats, you would attack both sides, not 1 side.
Where have you ever seen me defending Democrats, or offering them up as a solution?
You attacked Republicans. If you were not defending Democrats, you would attack both sides, not 1 side.
38
Goran_K
2018 May 22, 3:40pm
Goran_K
2018 May 22, 3:40pm
Feux Follets says
The DNC will become relevant again when it gives up collectivism and begins to embrace individualism and personal liberty. Their losses and failures are because they have embraced socialism plain and simple.
Socialism and Fascism are inherently leftist traits (both are branches of of collectivism), and right now the DNC is on the path to full on communism or fascism (both examples of extreme leftism).
Agee 100% and then some. The best I see is perhaps getting control of one of the houses of congress.
If Pelosi and the rest of the "old guard" maintain their control on power, things look bleak. Failure to keep Hillary out of the news isn't going to help either.
DNC losses /failure will be a self inflicted wound, not the result of anything positive from the other side. This will carry all the way into 2020.
The opportunities are there however the DNC and other party leader have shown themselves to be oblivious to the obvious.
The DNC will become relevant again when it gives up collectivism and begins to embrace individualism and personal liberty. Their losses and failures are because they have embraced socialism plain and simple.
Socialism and Fascism are inherently leftist traits (both are branches of of collectivism), and right now the DNC is on the path to full on communism or fascism (both examples of extreme leftism).
39
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 22, 3:55pm
Heraclitusstudent
2018 May 22, 3:55pm
Goran_K says
I think they are irrelevant for the exact opposite reason: they are corporatists plain and simple.
Obama and Clinton were fighting to blow every banksters in sight, and Obamacare is a market based solution, with a subsidy and idiosyncrasies that are there purely to profit insurances.
Yeah they support some unions, but that is just an other kind of corporatism.
There are still republicans who think Reagan is the model for GOP politicians, and anything on the left is communism. These people live 40 yrs in the past and are as lost as those on the left who believe Democrats actually want to help American working class families. Things are just no longer cut out that way.
IMHO
The DNC will become relevant again when it gives up collectivism and begins to embrace individualism and personal liberty. Their losses and failures are because they have embraced socialism plain and simple.
I think they are irrelevant for the exact opposite reason: they are corporatists plain and simple.
Obama and Clinton were fighting to blow every banksters in sight, and Obamacare is a market based solution, with a subsidy and idiosyncrasies that are there purely to profit insurances.
Yeah they support some unions, but that is just an other kind of corporatism.
There are still republicans who think Reagan is the model for GOP politicians, and anything on the left is communism. These people live 40 yrs in the past and are as lost as those on the left who believe Democrats actually want to help American working class families. Things are just no longer cut out that way.
IMHO
40
FortWayne
2018 May 22, 4:03pm
FortWayne
2018 May 22, 4:03pm
marcus says
Clinton inherited that nice economy, and was smart enough not to fuck it up. Can't say that about modern day liberals, who just want free stuff, and think world is just made of money and unicorns. Somehow it always results in taking more from working people to pay the moochers and overpaid government bureaucrats.
And perhaps trickledown will kick in big time and the tax cuts will lead to the first surplus since Clinton was President !
Clinton inherited that nice economy, and was smart enough not to fuck it up. Can't say that about modern day liberals, who just want free stuff, and think world is just made of money and unicorns. Somehow it always results in taking more from working people to pay the moochers and overpaid government bureaucrats.
41
Goran_K
2018 May 22, 4:39pm
Goran_K
2018 May 22, 4:39pm
Heraclitusstudent says
There is truth to that.
But there is a movement in the GOP for a more moderate libertarian form of government. This is headed by guys like Rand Paul, Laura Ebke, Justin Amash, etc. These people are more foundational constitutional politicians as opposed to guys like Paul Ryan, Mccain, and Romney.
You don't have this same movement in the DNC, in fact, you have more radicalism in the pursuit of collectivism (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, anyone in the California Assembly who is a Democrat). This ideology leads to bigger and more powerful government and less individual freedom, proven time and time again over the past 2 millennia.
In fact, I challenge anyone to find 5 elected DNC politicians who primarily advocate for smaller government policies.
That's why I believe the left is far more dangerous, there is more collectivist thought and much less internal dissent. Luckily their power was severely checked in 2016.
There are still republicans who think Reagan is the model for GOP politicians, and anything on the left is communism. These people live 40 yrs in the past and are as lost as those on the left who believe Democrats actually want to help American working class families. Things are just no longer cut out that way.
IMHO
There is truth to that.
But there is a movement in the GOP for a more moderate libertarian form of government. This is headed by guys like Rand Paul, Laura Ebke, Justin Amash, etc. These people are more foundational constitutional politicians as opposed to guys like Paul Ryan, Mccain, and Romney.
You don't have this same movement in the DNC, in fact, you have more radicalism in the pursuit of collectivism (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, anyone in the California Assembly who is a Democrat). This ideology leads to bigger and more powerful government and less individual freedom, proven time and time again over the past 2 millennia.
In fact, I challenge anyone to find 5 elected DNC politicians who primarily advocate for smaller government policies.
That's why I believe the left is far more dangerous, there is more collectivist thought and much less internal dissent. Luckily their power was severely checked in 2016.
42
HowdyThere
2018 May 22, 5:28pm
Goran, what policies of Bernie Sander or Elizabeth Warren do you consider to be radical collectivism?
43
mell
2018 May 22, 6:40pm
Goran_K says
I supported Rand Paul but it was clear he isn't going to win. As explained many times, Libertarians are especially vulnerable to leftoid venom of bullshit spewed all over them since they tend to be more docile when attacked, similar to mainstream Recucklicans, but with much better constitutional policies. Trump is neither mainstream Republican nor Libertarian nor right-wing religious Republican, you can't put him in a bucket, but he runs tight game and gives zero fucks about his political career - coming from a highly profitable private enterprise - which is the secret of his success. He like no other can put a mirror in front of the leftoids and mainstream Republicans, can agree and amplify (since he is not a politician so it doesn't put him in a bad light) in light of corruption allegations and put his yuge fingers into their wounds, right where they are vulnerable: they are all politicians who essentially have done nothing to curb higher taxes and immigration while lining their own pockets and (a specialty of the left) alienating and vilifying the common man, no matter what spin they put out on the floor.
HowdyThere says
I'd start with their stances on taxes and immigration as well as discrimination against straight white males in the spirit of collectivism. Well for Warren that backfired since she won't do genetic testing which will show she is as white as whitey whiteman.
This is headed by guys like Rand Paul, Laura Ebke, Justin Amash, etc. These people are more foundational constitutional politicians as opposed to guys like Paul Ryan, Mccain, and Romney.
I supported Rand Paul but it was clear he isn't going to win. As explained many times, Libertarians are especially vulnerable to leftoid venom of bullshit spewed all over them since they tend to be more docile when attacked, similar to mainstream Recucklicans, but with much better constitutional policies. Trump is neither mainstream Republican nor Libertarian nor right-wing religious Republican, you can't put him in a bucket, but he runs tight game and gives zero fucks about his political career - coming from a highly profitable private enterprise - which is the secret of his success. He like no other can put a mirror in front of the leftoids and mainstream Republicans, can agree and amplify (since he is not a politician so it doesn't put him in a bad light) in light of corruption allegations and put his yuge fingers into their wounds, right where they are vulnerable: they are all politicians who essentially have done nothing to curb higher taxes and immigration while lining their own pockets and (a specialty of the left) alienating and vilifying the common man, no matter what spin they put out on the floor.
HowdyThere says
Goran, what policies of Bernie Sander or Elizabeth Warren do you consider to be radical collectivism?
I'd start with their stances on taxes and immigration as well as discrimination against straight white males in the spirit of collectivism. Well for Warren that backfired since she won't do genetic testing which will show she is as white as whitey whiteman.
44
Goran_K
2018 May 22, 6:42pm
Goran_K
2018 May 22, 6:42pm
Those are good ones. I’d add their stances on health care, taxation and then being advocates for equality of outcome to round out their socialist tendencies.
45
mell
2018 May 22, 6:56pm
I'd like to add that the Republicans have done similar assholery such as the failed war on drugs incarcerating people sometimes needlessly. However with free speech and being treated as equal people can advocate for a change in such laws while they can live without smoking a joint at work place or in public places, but they cannot live with the thought/speech police surveilling every word they say and discriminating against them for what they cannot change. That is why I think the modern left is losing, their policies are far more dangerous and people have started realizing that.
46
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 22, 6:58pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 May 22, 6:58pm
Heraclitusstudent says
It's shocking that somebody would say that the Clintons - who ran the Democratic Party from 1992 onwards and were the #1 Allies of Outsourcing, Free Trade, H1-B Visas, and never, ever any reciprocal Tariffs or trade retailiation for IP Threft - were somehow defenders of American Manufacturing and Labor.
The Media still parrots the failed Neoliberal Policies of unlimited outsourcing, unlimited immigration, H1Bs to the Maximum, and the benefits of offshoring $20/hr jobs in exchange for fewer $9-12/hr jobs warehousing and moving imported goods.
It wasn't until 2016 that Hillary distanced herself from any Trade Deal, and that's because the TPP was quite rightly outed as another big transfer of jobs abroad. But her criticism was so weak and vague "As it's written" - anybody with half a brain knew that once she was elected she'd announce some token change fit her criteria. In fact, TPP would have signed by April 2017, if she had won.
I'm wondering how naive you have to be to think the 2 parties were not together in the corporatism and the short term profits. Clinton loved free trade agreements. And Democrats never made 1 move against that trend.
I find this really amazing that some people still think Democrats stand for labor in this country.
It's shocking that somebody would say that the Clintons - who ran the Democratic Party from 1992 onwards and were the #1 Allies of Outsourcing, Free Trade, H1-B Visas, and never, ever any reciprocal Tariffs or trade retailiation for IP Threft - were somehow defenders of American Manufacturing and Labor.
The Media still parrots the failed Neoliberal Policies of unlimited outsourcing, unlimited immigration, H1Bs to the Maximum, and the benefits of offshoring $20/hr jobs in exchange for fewer $9-12/hr jobs warehousing and moving imported goods.
It wasn't until 2016 that Hillary distanced herself from any Trade Deal, and that's because the TPP was quite rightly outed as another big transfer of jobs abroad. But her criticism was so weak and vague "As it's written" - anybody with half a brain knew that once she was elected she'd announce some token change fit her criteria. In fact, TPP would have signed by April 2017, if she had won.
47
HowdyThere
2018 May 22, 7:20pm
Okay, we have some examples.
Taxes. I'd say policy on taxes is irrelevant in the face of spending, unless you believe that deficits don't matter. Spending is what counts. Neither party is able to cut spending in a meaningful way.
Immigration. Putting aside the sabre rattling by the Rs, there is no significant difference in outcomes. In fact, Trump is deporting fewer than Obama.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/12/14/donald-trump-is-deporting-fewer-people-than-barack-obama-did
Discrimination vs white males in the spirit of collectivism. I'll start off by saying I've been a victim of white male discrimination, over 20 years ago. Was not happy about it. But I'd like to know what policies either Bernie or Elizabeth have proposed that fit this description.
Health Care. Universal health care, single payer, whichever, is common throughout the world including many close US allies. Hard to call this radical collectivism. Maybe the US should invade the UK and Canada to stamp out the extremism of universal health care. Keep in mind, universal health care has significant benefits for employee mobility and minimizing lost days of productivity.
Equality of Outcome. Need a policy attached this. I've talked about the problem of D and R talking points in other threads. This sounds like an R talking point without substantiation.
mell says
This is important. There are people on the left side of the political spectrum that want to silence reasonable debate. There are people on the right side of the political spectrum that want to use free speech for protect hate speech. Moderates on both sides need to come together to find a reasonable compromise. As long as the general public keeps accepting the extreme messaging by Ds and Rs of the 'other side', the reasonable compromise is impossible.
Taxes. I'd say policy on taxes is irrelevant in the face of spending, unless you believe that deficits don't matter. Spending is what counts. Neither party is able to cut spending in a meaningful way.
Immigration. Putting aside the sabre rattling by the Rs, there is no significant difference in outcomes. In fact, Trump is deporting fewer than Obama.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/12/14/donald-trump-is-deporting-fewer-people-than-barack-obama-did
Discrimination vs white males in the spirit of collectivism. I'll start off by saying I've been a victim of white male discrimination, over 20 years ago. Was not happy about it. But I'd like to know what policies either Bernie or Elizabeth have proposed that fit this description.
Health Care. Universal health care, single payer, whichever, is common throughout the world including many close US allies. Hard to call this radical collectivism. Maybe the US should invade the UK and Canada to stamp out the extremism of universal health care. Keep in mind, universal health care has significant benefits for employee mobility and minimizing lost days of productivity.
Equality of Outcome. Need a policy attached this. I've talked about the problem of D and R talking points in other threads. This sounds like an R talking point without substantiation.
mell says
they cannot live with the thought/speech police surveilling every word they say and discriminating against them
This is important. There are people on the left side of the political spectrum that want to silence reasonable debate. There are people on the right side of the political spectrum that want to use free speech for protect hate speech. Moderates on both sides need to come together to find a reasonable compromise. As long as the general public keeps accepting the extreme messaging by Ds and Rs of the 'other side', the reasonable compromise is impossible.
« First « Previous Comments 14 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
Goddamn Trumpler is starting a Trade War. We're all Doomed Doomed, DOOMED!
Oh. Well the North Korea talks will fall apart, then.