2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[Horn Dog 10156]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is there anything Hunter Biden has been accused of doing that hasn't knowingly been topped by a Trump kid except 10X worse?

Volunteering to feed poor kids?

[Zonahorn 8079]

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I think America has shifted to the left and the Republicans are still stuck in the '80s-90s mentality more than anything else. It's masking how far the Democratic party base has moved. 

We're going to see some realignment after the election. Neither the current Biden coalition or Trumpism are sustainable, so something has to break.

I can’t imagine college educated suburbanites ever going to back to the Republican Party. The GOP is the party of Trump and Trumpism now

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

STOP WASTING MONEY AND FIX OUR FUCKING DEBT.

If you’re prioritizing this over investing in an infrastructure that builds more middle class wealth, then you’re fighting a losing battle IMO.  

Yeah, our spending is out of control and has been for some time but that spending has come at the cost of hollowing out the middle class and funneling money to the people at the top that do not need it.  

Amazon didn’t get to where it is today by being fiscally conservative.  The leveraged enormous debt to cut prices and buy market share and it paid off more than anyone can imagine.  

Imagine if the government invested in programs that significantly reduced the astronomical rising cost burdens most lower and middle class Americans have come to face over the last 40 years while simultaneously forcing corporations to actually pay their employees a living wage.  If you want to generate more public revenue and prosperity to tackle the debt, you’re going to have to build a better economy.  Simply cutting spending, tightening our belt, or changing tax policy isn’t going to dig us out of the hole we’re in, it will likely make things worse as more people fall through the cracks without a safety net. 

It’s not the spending that’s the problem, it’s our failure to prioritize that spending to benefit the population. This is largely due to our law makers being bought off by people that view government as an exclusive business tool to be exploited for personal profit. 

[The Dog 44771]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I disagree with this. I don't think the democratic base has moved nearly as far as the republican base in the opposite direction. I do agree that this coalition can't last, because there's a lot of people who just aren't where the far progressive democrats want to go that are stuck in the middle with no viable option. 

My point is the Rs haven't moved at all - the country as a whole has. 

Take a look at what is now normal that didn't have broad support 20 years ago - abortion rights, gay marriage, environmental policies, etc. These have far more broad acceptance than they did 20-30 years ago and are now settled law. Republicans are still fighting these battles - battles that have already been won. They aren't winnable positions in current America, so they have to adjust.

[Jive Turkey 12930]

Montana is our one hope for split-ticket voting.  Bullock (D) was re-elected governor in 2016 on the same ticket Hillary lost to Trump by 20 points.  so there's a chance Montana picks Bullock over Daines for Senate while also choosing Trump over Biden.  it's gonna be tough but it's doable.  Daines won by 18 points in 2014.  he'll likely win again (Economist has him winning 52-48), but Bullock has a fighting chance.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/8/9/1967884/-MT-Sen-WaPo-Explains-How-Split-Ticket-Voting-In-Montana-Could-Tip-The-Senate-In-The-Democrats-Favor

[gmr548 16681]

And I'm socially super liberal. Without hyperbole, I'd let people tie up farm animals in the town square and hot chicks have donkey shows for the populace to see.

TIL texags is socially liberal

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

My point is the Rs haven't moved at all - the country as a whole has. 

Take a look at what is now normal that didn't have broad support 20 years ago - abortion rights, gay marriage, environmental policies, etc. These have far more broad acceptance than they did 20-30 years ago and are now settled law. Republicans are still fighting these battles - battles that have already been won. They aren't winnable positions in current America, so they have to adjust.

It's funny you mention abortion rights as a non winnable position when the Republicans are about to tilt the Supreme Court so they can overturn Roe V Wade and go after abortion rights throughout the country.  These battles were won but not the war as the Republicans figured out a way to take their minority views in this country and turn them into laws that the majority do not want. 

[gmr548 16681]

I can’t imagine college educated suburbanites ever going to back to the Republican Party. The GOP is the party of Trump and Trumpism now

Wait until democrats invest tax dollars in programs that primarialy benefit low income people and people of color. The GOP will cry socialism, cry about the debt, cry about the "erosion of the American way of life," and it will work.

[G650 14421]

55 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

 

Im isolationist curious as a voter, so it’s something I like exploring even if I don’t find national politicians that embrace my vision of it (internationalist for humanitarian purposes/anti interventionist on military issues)

So we are diametrically opposed.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If you’re prioritizing this over investing in an infrastructure that builds more middle class wealth, then you’re fighting a losing battle IMO.  

Yeah, our spending is out of control and has been for some time but that spending has come at the cost of hollowing out the middle class and funneling money to the people at the top that do not need it.  

Amazon didn’t get to where it is today by being fiscally conservative.  The leveraged enormous debt to cut prices and buy market share and it paid off more than anyone can imagine.  

Imagine if the government invested in programs that significantly reduced the astronomical rising cost burdens most lower and middle class Americans have come to face over the last 40 years while simultaneously forcing corporations to actually pay their employees a living wage.  If you want to generate more public revenue and prosperity to tackle the debt, you’re going to have to build a better economy.  Simply cutting spending, tightening our belt, or changing tax policy isn’t going to dig us out of the hole we’re in, it will likely make things worse as more people fall through the cracks without a safety net. 

It’s not the spending that’s the problem, it’s our failure to prioritize that spending to benefit the population. This is largely due to our law makers being bought off by people that view government as an exclusive business tool to be exploited for personal profit. 

Not a single thing you've just said in any way, shape, or form remotely contradicts anything I've proposed. You're stuck in a similar parochial view of what "fiscally conservative" means that you tried to mock in your original post saying people are stuck in a 1950's mindset. And that's on you, which is shitty because you're doing the same thing. And it creates a "your team" partisan divide. 

I literally said blow up the tax code. I said fix the debt. Make companies pay more. Fuck, let the US government take a stake in companies when they're leveraging our systems or tech. I don't give a fuck. Because I'm a fiscal conservative, I want everyone to pay their fair share, and I want that share not to be set on fire by a bunch of disphit irresponsible pork and fuckery. Because I'm a fiscal conservative. On a personal level, that means I don't like carrying debt and I like to spend my money well. You've made a wonderful post that in no way invalidates anything I said. I agree with most of it, almost all of it. 

Fix the problem. Fix all the problems. Spend better. Because I'm a fiscal conservative. And no that doesn't mean tighten my fucking belt. It means spend our money better because I believe there's more than enough of it to go around. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

12 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

I can’t imagine college educated suburbanites ever going to back to the Republican Party. The GOP is the party of Trump and Trumpism now

Wait until democrats invest tax dollars in programs that primarialy benefit low income people and people of color. The GOP will cry socialism, cry about the debt, cry about the "erosion of the American way of life," and it will work.

[Brisketexan 106618]

11 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I disagree with this. I don't think the democratic base has moved nearly as far as the republican base in the opposite direction. I do agree that this coalition can't last, because there's a lot of people who just aren't where the far progressive democrats want to go that are stuck in the middle with no viable option. 

Yeah, this is correct.  Polling on issues over the years shows this is the case.  The GOP has shifted MUCH farther right than the Dems have shifted left.

From 538, drawing on data:

[Bookman 4754]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

Even if I'm voting for all Democrats for as far as I can see?

Yeah I voted straight Democrat as well.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

My point is the Rs haven't moved at all - the country as a whole has. 

Take a look at what is now normal that didn't have broad support 20 years ago - abortion rights, gay marriage, environmental policies, etc. These have far more broad acceptance than they did 20-30 years ago and are now settled law. Republicans are still fighting these battles - battles that have already been won. They aren't winnable positions in current America, so they have to adjust.

Yeah man, I get your point. But I'd argue that at least under this term, the Right has shifted further their direction than the left. No spending, corporate socialism, trashing the constitution, fascism, all in favor of a cult of personality...

[Ghost of LL 15664]

29 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Who was the last fiscally conservative President? Seriously?

Hoover.  Seriously.

And I used to be a fiscal conservative/social liberal.  But then I figured out that you can't be a social liberal until you're a fiscal liberal.  It's not meaningful to say "I'm fine with people doing what they want" if our society denies them the means to do so.

[Bateshorn 9989]

7 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Montana is our one hope for split-ticket voting.  Bullock (D) was re-elected governor in 2016 on the same ticket Hillary lost to Trump by 20 points.  so there's a chance Montana picks Bullock over Daines for Senate while also choosing Trump over Biden.  it's gonna be tough but it's doable.  Daines won by 18 points in 2014.  he'll likely win again (Economist has him winning 52-48), but Bullock has a fighting chance.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/8/9/1967884/-MT-Sen-WaPo-Explains-How-Split-Ticket-Voting-In-Montana-Could-Tip-The-Senate-In-The-Democrats-Favor

MT probably ticket splits more than any other state in the Union, even ME.  It's ingrained in it's culture, even as the state is starting to show some early signs of NC/TX/GA purpling.

[Pato del Muerto 53331]

8 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Montana is our one hope for split-ticket voting.  Bullock (D) was re-elected governor in 2016 on the same ticket Hillary lost to Trump by 20 points.  so there's a chance Montana picks Bullock over Daines for Senate while also choosing Trump over Biden.  it's gonna be tough but it's doable.  Daines won by 18 points in 2014.  he'll likely win again (Economist has him winning 52-48), but Bullock has a fighting chance.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/8/9/1967884/-MT-Sen-WaPo-Explains-How-Split-Ticket-Voting-In-Montana-Could-Tip-The-Senate-In-The-Democrats-Favor

That’s a pretty brutal campaign. 

[wildcat09 29556]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's weird....a lot of things that I have held my whole life, including for the bulk of it when I was firmly within the "center right" (and I still am, if you take the American batshit take on the political spectrum out of the mix -- what is "center right" here is now characterized as socialist libtard) are now taken as completely leftist.

I have always had a problem with authoritarianism.  Don't trust law enforcement, no "papers please" laws, zero tolerance for racism and racial discrimination, stuff like that.  Those are CONSERVATIVE views (back when conservatism included a real liberty-minded bent).  But those have suddenly become super leftist communist libtard positions.  WTF?

There are some things that were long-held conservative positions that I once held, but then realized, after watching them tried repeatedly, that they don't work.  Like "trickle down" economics, often embodied in top-end tax cuts.  It doesn't work.  Makes some sense on paper, but doesn't work in reality.

Then there are some positions that have been CHARACTERIZED as super-liberal that I've come around on, and realize that they make sense across the board -- fiscally, socially, etc.  Like universal healthcare.  Fucking EVERY OTHER western democracy has it.  ALL OF THEM.  It's a good idea.  It pays off to have a healthy population.  It's an investment in our greatest resource -- our citizens.  It makes sense from even a "fiscal conservative" viewpoint -- ditch the rhetoric and labels, and you realize that universal healthcare is actually compatible with a fiscal conservative viewpoint.  Our GDP will IMPROVE with universal healthcare.  

Maybe the change is this -- capitalism is fine.  It really is.  But when you realize that the single most important capital asset in a country is its PEOPLE, and investment and incentives should be geared that way, then you realize that the bullshit peddled by the Trumpist incarnation of the GOP is the functional equivalent of scarfing down our seed stock to get fat today, without setting enough aside/nurturing seedlings to ensure future good crops.  Short term profits at the expense of long-term stability and growth is a shitty investment strategy.

Just like the sabbath was made for humanity (if you believe what the Bible says), we should embrace capitalism to the extent it benefits the American people. It should serve us, not the other way around.

[G650 14421]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Hoover.  Seriously.

And I used to be a fiscal conservative/social liberal.  But then I figured out that you can't be a social liberal until you're a fiscal liberal.  It's not meaningful to say "I'm fine with people doing what they want" if our society denies them the means to do so.

I mean, I'll give you more credit than @Hugo Stiglitz, who clearly doesn't understand what fiscal conservatism is, but this is incorrect. You can fund all these things to improve society, without going on an unsustainable sugar binge of pumping up corporations, banks and defense contractors.

 

Maybe the suggestion upthread to say fiscal responsibility is correct, because people still don't seem to get it.

[ndawg 1242]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe the change is this -- capitalism is fine.  It really is.  But when you realize that the single most important capital asset in a country is its PEOPLE, and investment and incentives should be geared that way, then you realize that the bullshit peddled by the Trumpist incarnation of the GOP is the functional equivalent of scarfing down our seed stock to get fat today, without setting enough aside/nurturing seedlings to ensure future good crops.  Short term profits at the expense of long-term stability and growth is a shitty investment strategy.

I'm pretty left of center, but it seems hard to argue against capitalism being capable of serving as a beneficial component of a thriving society. Somebody like Jeff Bezos, as much as we on the left criticize his huge hoarding of wealth, has basically built a small country's economy from scratch, employing a ton of people along the way, all while simultaneously improving our nation's logistical network immeasurably. The public good has been even more obvious during the pandemic.

Most former conservatives probably already know this, but I think a lot of the younger leftists would benefit from a reminder that capitalists can actually create value; and when they do, the wealth they accumulate for themselves is itself just a portion of a much larger benefit they bring to society. Sure, it sucks that Amazon has driven out a lot of mom and pop stores, and Bezos really could provide health care for every employee that doesn't have it without any meaningful decline in his standard of living, but the American citizen still won, in aggregate.

But that's a digression. I think that America is in the process of finding out that capitalism can be lethally injected with oligarchy just like communism. When a society shifts towards sustaining a small ruling class of people who have no experience creating value, the invisible hand can no longer function properly. Capitalism relies on the assumption that your competitors will punish bad decision making, which doesn't hold when there is a system in place that puts unqualified people at the top of every company, including your competitors.

IMO the conservative movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently beneficial, rather than just one component of a thriving society, and the progressive movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently harmful.

[gmr548 16681]

I'm pretty left of center, but it seems hard to argue against capitalism being capable of serving as a beneficial component of a thriving society. Somebody like Jeff Bezos, as much as we on the left criticize his huge hoarding of wealth, has basically built a small country's economy from scratch, employing a ton of people along the way, all while simultaneously improving our nation's logistical network immeasurably. The public good has been even more obvious during the pandemic.
Most former conservatives probably already know this, but I think a lot of the younger leftists would benefit from a reminder that capitalists can actually create value; and when they do, the wealth they accumulate for themselves is itself just a portion of a much larger benefit they bring to society. Sure, it sucks that Amazon has driven out a lot of mom and pop stores, and Bezos really could provide health care for every employee that doesn't have it without any meaningful decline in his standard of living, but the American citizen still won, in aggregate.
But that's a digression. I think that America is in the process of finding out that capitalism can be lethally injected with oligarchy just like communism. When a society shifts towards sustaining a small ruling class of people who have no experience creating value, the invisible hand can no longer function properly. Capitalism relies on the assumption that your competitors will punish bad decision making, which doesn't hold when there is a system in place that puts unqualified people at the top of every company, including your competitors.
IMO the conservative movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently beneficial, rather than just one component of a thriving society, and the progressive movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently harmful.

Good post.

[G650 14421]

4 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I'm pretty left of center, but it seems hard to argue against capitalism being capable of serving as a beneficial component of a thriving society. Somebody like Jeff Bezos, as much as we on the left criticize his huge hoarding of wealth, has basically built a small country's economy from scratch, employing a ton of people along the way, all while simultaneously improving our nation's logistical network immeasurably. The public good has been even more obvious during the pandemic.

Most former conservatives probably already know this, but I think a lot of the younger leftists would benefit from a reminder that capitalists can actually create value; and when they do, the wealth they accumulate for themselves is itself just a portion of a much larger benefit they bring to society. Sure, it sucks that Amazon has driven out a lot of mom and pop stores, and Bezos really could provide health care for every employee that doesn't have it without any meaningful decline in his standard of living, but the American citizen still won, in aggregate.

But that's a digression. I think that America is in the process of finding out that capitalism can be lethally injected with oligarchy just like communism. When a society shifts towards sustaining a small ruling class of people who have no experience creating value, the invisible hand can no longer function properly. Capitalism relies on the assumption that your competitors will punish bad decision making, which doesn't hold when there is a system in place that puts unqualified people at the top of every company, including your competitors.

IMO the conservative movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently beneficial, rather than just one component of a thriving society, and the progressive movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently harmful.

Amen

[Brisketexan 106618]

Just now, ndawg said:

I think that America is in the process of finding out that capitalism can be lethally injected with oligarchy just like communism. When a society shifts towards sustaining a small ruling class of people who have no experience creating value, the invisible hand can no longer function properly. Capitalism relies on the assumption that your competitors will punish bad decision making, which doesn't hold when there is a system in place that puts unqualified people at the top of every company, including your competitors.

IMO the conservative movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently beneficial, rather than just one component of a thriving society, and the progressive movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently harmful.

Man, a WHOLE lot of this.  Good post.

Shit, when I was young and thought I was philosophically clever and unique, I'd say "Communism, is a GREAT idea, except it fails to account for one thing: human nature."  That is, both humanity's inherent laziness and greed make it an approach that is destined to fail.

What young Brisket didn't do is apply the same reasoning to capitalism.  If it is not regulated in a way that accounts for human nature (given enough time, the powerful will rig any system for their exclusive benefit, destroying the greater benefits to society that the system would otherwise produce), it is a shitshow.

No system is inherently beneficial, although capitalism certainly appears to offer the greatest total upside.  A system must work WITHIN a society, though -- it shouldn't BE the society.

[PappyVanVinceYoung 85]

34 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

I can’t imagine college educated suburbanites ever going to back to the Republican Party. The GOP is the party of Trump and Trumpism now

It can easily happen. Put someone like Bernie Sanders versus someone like Mitt Romney and watch how quicky a lot of these people move back to the GOP. 

[henrygandorf 29219]

59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, that's TOTALLY what I do.  And then I put them in a folder marked "SECRET IMPORTANT STUFF - DO NOT LOOK AT THIS!"

but not top secret, because that would be too obvious.

[Willfully Horn 8204]

I, too, want the debt harnessed and addressed. In my lifetime, the party that has tried to do that is the Democratic Party.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Willfully Horn

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I, too, want the debt harnessed and addressed. In my lifetime, the party that has done that is the Democratic Party.

 

raising taxes while still spending like a motherfucker is not "addressing debt."

To be fair, the GOP ain't remotely close to solving that front either.

We have a lack of spine on Capital Hill, where lowering a proposed increase is viewed by some as "cutting spending."  No it isn't.

[Born to Run 6598]

Hoover.  Seriously.
And I used to be a fiscal conservative/social liberal.  But then I figured out that you can't be a social liberal until you're a fiscal liberal.  It's not meaningful to say "I'm fine with people doing what they want" if our society denies them the means to do so.

Same here.

[RomaVicta 30500]

15 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think GHWB and LBJ are both aging very well.

Clinton and Reagan are aging pretty poorly.

In light of Trump, Nixon--not really as awful as you thought?

LBJ is the last of the great presidents for me. Vietnam was a sure disaster.  Clinton, as some colmnist pointed out at the time, never really had a great issue to deal with. I imagine he might have changed the world had 9/11 happened on his watch. Imagine what an able president could have done with that outpouring of world support for the US. HW Bush would likely have served well in that moment as well.

Trump makes Nixon look better because he does point out the difference between a malign idiot with no regard for the country and a villain looking to maintain power who actually did care about the country and had a notion of what a president should be. Nixon opted for a divisive, racist strategy but my guess is that he likely thought it would all be for the best in the long run. He bothered to rationalize his wicked acts where Trump feels no need to account for anything he does or says.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

25 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Somebody like Jeff Bezos, as much as we on the left criticize his huge hoarding of wealth, has basically built a small country's economy from scratch, employing a ton of people along the way, all while simultaneously improving our nation's logistical network immeasurably.

To be fair, Bezos couldn’t have done shit without the US Postal System. 

This might be one of the best examples of American prosperity built on a foundation of publicly funded infrastructure. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Thatguy 9289]

3 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I say this dead honestly:  the only socially liberal, fiscally conservative moderate GOP official left nationally is the Senior senator from Alaska and she’s isn’t up for election until 2022.  
 

The problem with your split ticket activity, while sound in theory, is it doesn’t work in practice.  There is no room in the modern GOP for dissent.  A vote for somebody who seems non Trumpy and moderate is effectively same voting for a Trump person. Mike McCaul is a very pleasant person.  I’ve met with him several times.  I genuinely like him. FOr all intents and purposes tho, he’s the same as Louie Gohmert.  
 

I appreciate your thoughtful approach, and I pass along my thoughts as somebody who has worked for both Democrats and Republicans as a congressional staffer.  We are not in normal times.  Our democracy is frighteningly vulnerable to autocracy because it’s a lot more norm based than rule based.  If the GOP is not repudiated at the ballot box at all levels now, I’m deeply worried that even if Trump loses, a more effective version of him is going to re appear and it’s your local county official who is going to help that  person seize power at the local level. 

      This right damned here!!!!!

    I cannot say with enough volume that this should be what's on everyone's mind. All the things that Trump is doing point to Authoritarianism with thoughts on dictatorship. People may not notice the signs, but a lot of smart people do. Creating imaginary enemies everywhere. Secretly bolstering the military while no one is looking. Using fear to slowly make the public believe they need a police state. All of these things and more are classic traits. Once we get him out, we have the responsibility to make sure it never happens again. That starts by cutting the legs out from under what propped him up in the first place....the GOP.

[troph 25089]

Many democrats embrace modern conservative economic policy or at least tolerate it.  They’re fine with funding the war machine at absurd levels while catering to the corporate oligarchs by allowing them to loot the population without investing anything back into the infrastructure that built their wealth. The Republicans are just more overt about it b/c they can politically afford to be. 

I disagree with some of your line of thinking, I actually think you can be liberal socially and fiscally conservative, it just requires a rebalancing of spending based on priorities. Smaller government (not small government) is possible and still enable better access to opportunity but major cuts to military spending would be required for one. But your right, a fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter and politician is simply conservative without significant spending shifts and reprioritization.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

From the Bulwark 

I am not saying that West Virginia is in play.

But I am here to tell you that if Trump is really only +23 in West Virginia right now, then November 3 is going to be an absolute bloodbath for Republicans. Because it means that all of the demographic trends we’re seeing in the national numbers—Biden’s strength with seniors, Biden’s strength with non-college white women, Biden’s strength with all college-educated voters—are so real that they’re cutting 45 percent out of Trump’s margin in a homogenous state where neither side is playing.

[ndawg 1242]

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, a WHOLE lot of this.  Good post.

Shit, when I was young and thought I was philosophically clever and unique, I'd say "Communism, is a GREAT idea, except it fails to account for one thing: human nature."  That is, both humanity's inherent laziness and greed make it an approach that is destined to fail.

What young Brisket didn't do is apply the same reasoning to capitalism.  If it is not regulated in a way that accounts for human nature (given enough time, the powerful will rig any system for their exclusive benefit, destroying the greater benefits to society that the system would otherwise produce), it is a shitshow.

No system is inherently beneficial, although capitalism certainly appears to offer the greatest total upside.  A system must work WITHIN a society, though -- it shouldn't BE the society.

Indeed, we don't get a better society by picking the correct "-ism," as I thought in my early 20s when I was more interested in perceiving myself as an intellectual than actually improving the world around me. What I didn't realize is that improvement happens when our policy becomes informed by a comprehensive study of all the "-isms," including their real world application (and how it intersects with culture, geography, etc). But that would have required hitting the books and being humbled by how much I didn't know. Youth is wasted on the young...

Edited October 14, 2020 by ndawg

[Brisketexan 106618]

2 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Indeed, we don't get a better society by picking the correct "-ism," as I thought in my early 20s when I was more interested in perceiving myself as an intellectual than actually improving the world around me. What I didn't realize is that improvement happens when our policy becomes informed by a comprehensive study of all the "-isms," including their real world application (and how it intersects with culture, geography, etc). But that would have required hitting the books and being humbled by how much I didn't know. Youth is wasted on the young...

Yep.  Spent so much time when I was younger thinking about a "capitalist society," or a "communist society."  What bullshit.  Any society is a human society, and an economic system is something the society USES to achieve its goals.

Capitalism can be a force and wealth multiplier -- it can CREATE additional wealth.  That's good.  More wealth makes it much more likely to produce a healthier, more prosperous society.  But if it is treated as a wealth creator only by one segment (the top tier), and a zero-sum game with respect to all other tiers (lower and middle classes), then it utterly fails in the goal of producing a healthier, wealthier SOCIETY.

But taking it back to this election.....what is objectively fascinating is that the core issues really aren't about any nuances of policy or economics.  It's about whether we have a government that works for the people, or a government that works only for the authoritarian cabal at the top.  And whether we will have a system that even allows for the people to wrest back control.  This isn't an argument about whether the plane should go to destination X or destination Y -- it's just about keeping the plane from crashing into the goddamn mountain.

[ztejas 44114]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If you’re prioritizing this over investing in an infrastructure that builds more middle class wealth, then you’re fighting a losing battle IMO.  

Yeah, our spending is out of control and has been for some time but that spending has come at the cost of hollowing out the middle class and funneling money to the people at the top that do not need it.  

Amazon didn’t get to where it is today by being fiscally conservative.  The leveraged enormous debt to cut prices and buy market share and it paid off more than anyone can imagine.  

Imagine if the government invested in programs that significantly reduced the astronomical rising cost burdens most lower and middle class Americans have come to face over the last 40 years while simultaneously forcing corporations to actually pay their employees a living wage.  If you want to generate more public revenue and prosperity to tackle the debt, you’re going to have to build a better economy.  Simply cutting spending, tightening our belt, or changing tax policy isn’t going to dig us out of the hole we’re in, it will likely make things worse as more people fall through the cracks without a safety net. 

It’s not the spending that’s the problem, it’s our failure to prioritize that spending to benefit the population. This is largely due to our law makers being bought off by people that view government as an exclusive business tool to be exploited for personal profit. 

Yeah. The national debt is what it is at this point. Unless China wants to go to war over it (and they don't) no one is going to come calling for their money back anytime soon. The US dollar still holds the entire global economy together.

[ndawg 1242]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

To be fair, Bezos couldn’t have done shit without the US Postal System. 

This might be one of the best examples of American prosperity built on a foundation of publicly funded infrastructure. 

For sure. Even if Amazon had managed without a public postal system, it would have still depended upon a public transportation network of some kind. And Ford could never have built Highland Park without people being able to leverage those same roads, either. Not to mention, just to be even in a position to spend money on the embarrassing amount of junk I buy from Amazon, I need my government to provide safety for my person and property. Public utility (currency, roads) is always at the mesh point between producers and consumers.

[jimmyjazz 46972]

48 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I'm pretty left of center, but it seems hard to argue against capitalism being capable of serving as a beneficial component of a thriving society. Somebody like Jeff Bezos, as much as we on the left criticize his huge hoarding of wealth, has basically built a small country's economy from scratch, employing a ton of people along the way, all while simultaneously improving our nation's logistical network immeasurably. The public good has been even more obvious during the pandemic.

Most former conservatives probably already know this, but I think a lot of the younger leftists would benefit from a reminder that capitalists can actually create value; and when they do, the wealth they accumulate for themselves is itself just a portion of a much larger benefit they bring to society. Sure, it sucks that Amazon has driven out a lot of mom and pop stores, and Bezos really could provide health care for every employee that doesn't have it without any meaningful decline in his standard of living, but the American citizen still won, in aggregate.

regarding the bolded statement:  Do we know the net employment and financial gain?  Surely someone has tried to put a number on that.

[Tuco 5093]

37 minutes ago, slorch said:

raising taxes while still spending like a motherfucker is not "addressing debt."

To be fair, the GOP ain't remotely close to solving that front either.

We have a lack of spine on Capital Hill, where lowering a proposed increase is viewed by some as "cutting spending."  No it isn't.

How much do you think we should cut military spending?

[RomaVicta 30500]

14 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’ve heard lots of people argue that Nixon could have been an all time great president, and also was way less conservative than he was made out to be, if he could have gotten his shit together on a personal level and not gotten in his own way. 
I have no real frame of reference on Nixon as I wasn’t born when he was president, and he’s not really old enough to have gotten a proper treatment from history as it’s sort of still too early for lots of that heavy lifting to be done. 

Vietnam policy=disaster that broadened the war. Also plenty of evidence that he undermined Johnson's attempt  at a peace accord for fear it would damage Nixon's chances of being elected in 1968. Le Duc Tho of N. Vietnam refused his Nobel Peace Prize because he didn't think the peace accord he hammered out with Kissinger would actually bring peace. He was right.

Latin American policy=muderous disaster that had us overthrowing elected government, training death squads, supporting murderous dictators. Kissinger cannot travel to many countries because he'd be arrested for crimes against humanity.

Economic policy=disaster. Nixonomics actually meant the unprecedented combination of high unemployment and inflation. It wasn't just a term applied to the time he was president as it is mistakenly done now.

Cold War Policy=Fair. Pretty much a continuation of the bi-partisan anti-Red position. Him recognizing China was, as one pundit put it, the equivalent of recognizing the Pacific Ocean. Still, it was a good move even if overrated.

Protest Policy=Law and Order frenzy. Heads busted, Kent State, domestic spying, enemies lists, IRS abuse.

FBI=Corrupted. Patrick Gray, director of the FBI, hides incriminating evidence against Nixon in his underwear drawer before burning it in the backyard.

 

Nixon had die hard adherents. He left office with about 25% still backing him. A columnist from the International Wall Street Journal whom I happened to meet in 1994 was still arguing that Nixon was done in by a hostile press. Trump will get the same support from his deplorables who can't be bothered to read and believe a newspaper article with pictures.

[jimmyjazz 46972]

37 minutes ago, slorch said:

raising taxes while still spending like a motherfucker is not "addressing debt."

So balancing the budget and reducing debt over time is not "addressing debt"?  You have a really odd definition of the phrase.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

28 minutes ago, ndawg said:

IMO the conservative movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently beneficial, rather than just one component of a thriving society, and the progressive movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently harmful.

I’d argue the perception of capitalism got warped by both sides along the way.  Conservatives got suckered into believing government regulations are a liability to capitalism when in reality, without regulatory guard rails or market watchdogs, capitalism destroys everything including capitalism itself by abolishing fair and competitive marketplaces. 

Leftists/socialists bought into believing capitalism can’t be reasonably regulated democratically over time to benefit society and must be rejected.

The most frustrating thing about this conversation today is we know exactly what works because we’ve done it before.  The boomer generation had it all but failed appreciate what had been given to them. The American dream was more real for them than any generation in our history but they insist on believing the paths to prosperity are just as easy today as they were back then, or they falsely believe the only road blocks today are the populations that get demonized and scapegoated by politicians. 

[mchookem 16728]

14 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

LBJ is the last of the great presidents for me. Vietnam was a sure disaster.  Clinton, as some colmnist pointed out at the time, never really had a great issue to deal with. I imagine he might have changed the world had 9/11 happened on his watch. Imagine what an able president could have done with that outpouring of world support for the US. HW Bush would likely have served well in that moment as well.

 

ahh this paragraph made me have a thought, which in turn made me feel really sad and even more pissed off...

given our current leadership and how horribly he has impacted our standing in the world, i hate to think how the world would react to us today if another 9/11-esque event occurred.

i imagine leaders worldwide and citizens worldwide just like...

 

 

[ztejas 44114]

24 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Secretly bolstering the military while no one is looking.

That's not really a president thing. The MIC along with the CIA operate pretty independently of who's in office. There are/is plenty of black budget projects and classified information that the president is not privy to.

But that might be too much "conspiracy" for this forum. It seems like y'all are against that sort of stuff but I could be wrong.

[RomaVicta 30500]

14 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’ve always had a ton of respect for Truman. He did a pretty damn good job for getting tossed in the deep end without knowing how to swim when he got thrown in. 
 

Good, I can pick on a Dem this time. Truman was key in setting up what Gore Vidal called the National Security State where the people of the US were stirred up by fear to support huge expenditures on the military and crackdowns on their fellow citizens. Truman creates the military industrial complex that Eisenhower recognized and brilliantly warned against. I recall reading something or seeing on TV a dismissal of Eisenhower's warning when I was a kid in the late 60s. 

Truman had admirable traits and was no villain, but he set us up for the paranoid, stupid, scared, and violent country that we've become.

[NAVY 6910]

Strong page folks. Damn I love surly 

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

13 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

I voted for several Republican judges because 1) they looked more qualified and 2) they didn't look Trumpy.

Yeah- the judges stuff I don't really get if you have knowledge of the person and think they are better than their contemporary, but to each their own.  When my wife asked me how to vote down ballot in 2018 (I didn't vote) I told her don't feel strongly about anything but Emmett as County Judge for Harris county- I mean- I'm going to go out and vote for that guy b/c I thought he did a really good job and don't see him as a tool of Trump or anything- but to each his own.  
I don't see how it's a good thing to actively vote for someone you think is worse to punish someone they don't have anything to do with- but I also don't care one way or another- it's your vote do what makes you happy. I don't see that as making me happy though.  To each his own.  

[Brisketexan 106618]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

Good, I can pick on a Dem this time. Truman was key in setting up what Gore Vidal called the National Security State where the people of the US were stirred up by fear to support huge expenditures on the military and crackdowns on their fellow citizens. Truman creates the military industrial complex that Eisenhower recognized and brilliantly warned against. I recall reading something or seeing on TV a dismissal of Eisenhower's warning when I was a kid in the late 60s. 

Truman had admirable traits and was no villain, but he set us up for the paranoid, stupid, scared, and violent country that we've become.

And here's the deal: considering the scope, reach, and impact of the job of POTUS, it's impossible for someone to have held that job and NOT made some decision(s) that turn out to be shitty/lead to shitty results.  Everybody is going to end up with some significant demerits.

So, to some degree, we have to grade them all on a curve -- how did he do relative to OTHER presidents?

Oh, and racism/doing/saying racist shit is even more complicating.  We're talking about (but for Obama) white males, none of whom was born before 1950.  Every person is a product of their environment and times.  We have to judge them with some latitude for the time from which they came and in which they matured.

[hayden_horn 11401]

there are too many good posts to quote, but i'm another fiscal conservative/social liberal self-identifier. however, like many of the rest of you, i've realized that fiscal conservatism should be focused on where we source and then spend our tax revenue. trump's tax cut was obscene, and that is not a "fiscally conservative" move. we need to fund health care. we need to examine universal basic income. i actually believe we need a green new deal which also ropes in massive infrastructure upgrades, hand in hand. o&g people who vote republican need to realize that they won't get fucked if we have a green new deal. you can still turn a wrench installing green infrastructure. we'll still need truck drivers to move things from a to b. as we rebuild our infrastructure, which will result in a ton of jobs, btw, we can install smart cities technology to introduce efficiency, which will save a ton of public money.

we need to tax corporations at levels much higher than we currently do, and we need to tax the richest 1(0)% at a much higher rate.

like @Brisketexan, i used to have a binary way of thinking about socialism and capitalism. a i've aged and seen more of the world, and faced some of my preconceptions about things, i've realized that american society is still a collective. a fiercely independent one, but we are still a society, and we should find a way to take care of one another.

kind of a scattered post, but this idea that the democrats have moved further left than republicans right is fucking insane. as the briskets, @Ghost of LL, @SydneyCarton, et al, start to vote democratic, it's pulling the electorate to the center. we need aoc's and bernie's out there promoting progressive ideas, but we need the biden's out there to try and implement the best parts of those ideas in a fiscally responsible manner. 

most importantly, we need to focus on better allocation of revenue. that's fiscal conservatism, and frankly, we've only seen it effectively used by the fucking democratic party. this world is on its head, or i've just started to realize that it was me that was on my head, most likely.

[Brisketexan 106618]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah- the judges stuff I don't really get if you have knowledge of the person and think they are better than their contemporary, but to each their own.  When my wife asked me how to vote down ballot in 2018 (I didn't vote) I told her don't feel strongly about anything but Emmett as County Judge for Harris county- I mean- I'm going to go out and vote for that guy b/c I thought he did a really good job and don't see him as a tool of Trump or anything- but to each his own.  
I don't see how it's a good thing to actively vote for someone you think is worse to punish someone they don't have anything to do with- but I also don't care one way or another- it's your vote do what makes you happy. I don't see that as making me happy though.  To each his own.  

Vote against GOP candidates down ballot ecause they are seedlings in the scourge of the Trump party.  Scorched earth is the only reasonable approach.  And to the extent you say "but they're just judges," note that John Cornyn was a Texas supreme court justice.  It's a political step.  Destroy the entire ladder.