|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 18 2016 04:00 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 02:22 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think those economists are trying to say it's impossible to have single payer health care, or free tuition. Just that the effects of Sanders' policy on the economy will be very different, and a lot more disappointing, than Sanders is portraying it. Close. The point is directly stated at the end of the letter: Show nested quote +As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates. So essentially they feel that Sanders is betraying the Democratic party's reputation by being irresponsible with numbers/projections/expectations. I can respect that, but I also think there's a bit of false equivalence here. Sanders' numbers may or may not be wrong, but his premises are correct. Tax cuts on the wealthy have spurred immense income inequality while crippling social services, and reversing the trend is critical to the future prosperity of the country. The disagreement between Sanders and those economists isn't so much what to do, but the finer details of doing it. Which makes it a little disingenuous to compare his plan to Republicans whose fundamental premises have been proven false both academically and in practice (SEE: Kansas). If Sanders' numbers are wrong they're wrong, but at worst he's overselling, whereas Republicans are trying to sell the economic equivalent of a flat earth.
Kansas did experience lower unemployment & wage growth, and increased revenues. Legislatively, the situation was murky since he fought opposition. Maybe you'll have to imagine it as Sanders getting less than he wanted, having the outcome still be a success, but not magic-pill fixing everything else wrong present in the state (pensions, etc, see article). If you're a Sanders supporter, of course what he did worked, how could it do otherwise? It's just stupid Republicans blaming unrelated things acting like he has to be a socialist messiah for socialism to work.
You play the typical redistributionist language like a fiddle. No tax cuts for people not paying any taxes are tax cuts for the rich. You must cut the lower tax rates more than the highest tax cuts or it won't be fair. If the rich earn an extra dollar, it must come at the cost of the lowest earners, because income inequality is universally a bad thing, and we must enact immense redistribution schemes to correct the problem. What's disingenuous are the characterizations you throw; I doubt you can accept any less restrictive ways of governing society in premise whatsoever.
|
I think tickle-down economics work a lot better
|
On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows.
Maybe you need Trump first 'to make America great again', then when they are 'great', they can improve their country along mainstream fist world lines.
Sanders can't change US. Obama couldn't even close Guantanomo, let alone change the US. A US president is trapped by power. They can't even say what they think. Those people that were US presidents and have done great things for the US did so after they got out of office, their hands freed to go after the main issues.
|
On February 18 2016 04:55 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2016 02:01 KwarK wrote:
There's nothing Sanders is promising that doesn't exist in some shape in another first world country. This idea that it's impossible is American exceptionalism at its very worst. How quickly did these changes happen, though? Is single payer possible in America? Yes. Could we get it done in Bernie's first year? First term? 2nd term? Who knows. Maybe you need Trump first 'to make America great again', then when they are 'great', they can improve their country along mainstream fist world lines. Sanders can't change US. Obama couldn't even close Guantanomo, let alone change the US. A US president is trapped by power. They can't even say what they think. Those people that were US presidents and have done great things for the US did so after they got out of office, their hands freed to go after the main issues.
That's exactly what they said about FDR, didn't accomplish anything until he left office.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is fairly easy to misrepresent my views given my lazy presentation but anyway here is the way i look at it.
both trickle down and crass big spending by govt suffer similar flaw in that they have simple models rather than either empirical info or more refined model/ontology. it is rather easy to imagine a solution where one is desired, or preclude vulnerability where interests are at stake.
roughly classical economics does not see power, is rather similar to general strength and weakness of contractarian political theory. it is based on rational agent, an object with status rather similar to the soul. first person:third person::conscious experience:soul::constrained optimization:rational agent. basic tldr is that model is carved along natural cleavage lines of thought but is an abstraction with both inaccuracy and incompleteness.
the left does see power but perhaps due to drawing exclusively from the experience of the input side of production it does not see agency and enterprise, the hand behind capital. rather it sees necessary goods and imbalances of power. perhaps due to blame the victim tactics by opposition there is some stigma around seeing developing the agency and competence of its various needy folks.
first principle i would advocate is simply be aware of how much information your thinking is based on and what it precludes. there are vital lessons from both sides, and we have more questions than answers.
|
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump went against the conventional wisdom of the Republican Party again this weekend when he issued scathing criticism of the way former President George W. Bush handled 9/11. But many conservatives made clear this week that they weren't on board with Trump's latest broadside.
"The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign. Remember that," Trump told rival Jeb Bush at Saturday's GOP debate. "That’s not keeping us safe."
Trump showed he was aware of 9/11's currency within the party when he invoked the terror attacks in a previous debate to defend himself against rival Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) "New York values" diss. Since his dour take on Bush's handling of 9/11—which the debate audience actually booed him for—contrasted so sharply with party orthodoxy, many prominent Republicans and conservative commentators vehemently pushed back.
The real estate mogul had terse words Wednesday on Fox News for those who were critical of his thoughts about Bush. When the hosts of "Fox & Friends" played a clip of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) saying Trump was "absolutely wrong" about Bush, the real estate mogul said he didn't care about Giuliani's comments.
"The fact is he got a free pass because after the World Trade Center came down, we didn't have an attack," Trump said. "But the World Trade Center was the single biggest attack in the history of our country—bigger than Pearl Harbor because it was an attack on civilians."
Host Brian Kilmeade repeatedly defended Bush, pressing Trump to give examples of how the former President could've prevented the attack.
"How is he supposed to find random people throughout the country, nine months into the job," Kilmeade asked, "that are going to be doing something we couldn't even possibly imagine, that the CIA didn't anticipate, nor did anyone specifically brief him on?"
Trump responded that there was "tremendous disorganization" at the top of the Bush administration. He went on called the Iraq War a "disaster" and one of the "worst decisions ever made in this country's history" before host Steve Doocy changed the topic of their discussion to immigration.
Source
|
On February 18 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's exactly what they said about FDR, didn't accomplish anything until he left office.
You are comparing the world of politics as it is now, or has been the last few decades, with the first half of the previous century?
|
The announcement by 17 governors yesterday to jointly pursue clean energy goals was perhaps most noteworthy in what it did not include—any mention of climate change.
That omission was necessary to bring a bipartisan swath of states together on energy efficiency and renewable energy, modernizing the electricity grid and promoting electric and alternatively fueled vehicles—all subjects often mentioned in the same breath as climate change.
“That really wasn’t a topic of conversation,” Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) said yesterday in a call with reporters, noting that next week’s National Governors Association meeting might provide an opportunity to discuss climate issues.
Instead, the “Governors’ Accord for a New Energy Future” makes an economic case for expanding cooperation between states on renewable energy. The document cites “extreme weather events,” including sea-level rise, droughts, floods and wildfires, that can affect electric reliability and the economy, but it does not explicitly mention global warming.
That didn’t stop some environmentalists from holding up the agreement as an example of progress on climate, especially in the wake of last week’s Supreme Court ruling that put a hold on U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
“While the court may have temporarily blocked the Clean Power Plan, it can’t block progress toward wind and solar energy, affordable electric vehicles, and a more modern and efficient electric grid,” said Rob Sargent, senior director of Environment America’s clean energy program. “Kudos to these governors for pledging to forge a path forward for climate progress and clean air.”
Other observers said that while it might have been politically advantageous to leave climate out of the conversation, the agreement will still help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Source
|
On February 18 2016 05:56 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
You are comparing the world of politics as it is now, or has been the last few decades, with the first half of the previous century?
One of the greatest failings all people have is assuming their time is so different, special and unique that nothing from the past compares. FDR accomplished a lot of things during the great depression, a period in US history that we have almost no ability to truly understand.
|
SUMMERVILLE, S.C.—Jeb Bush is having a rough day.
Fighting for his political life in the final days of this primary battle, Bush took the stage intent on showing toughness and drawing a sharp contrast between himself and Marco Rubio. Just moments earlier, he’d gotten devastating news that South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, whose endorsement he’d sought, was backing Rubio, who poses the biggest threat to his own chances of survival.
"Disappointed," Bush told reporters, summing up his feelings about Haley's endorsement as he was leaving the town hall here. "She's a very good governor and should I win the nomination, there'll be a role for her in the campaign."
But many of the voters who attended Bush's town hall had just laid bare their own doubts about Bush's chances to be the GOP nominee. During the question and answer period following an unusually hot-tempered 30-minute rendition of his stump speech, Bush received unsolicited advice from three audience members in succession, all of them encouraging him to be tougher.
When Bush began speaking to a crowd of 150 people at a country club here, the microphone on his lapel didn’t work. “I can’t do anything about it,” he snapped at someone in the crowd who said they couldn’t hear him. “I’ve got to keep on talking.”
Grabbing a hand-held microphone from a staffer, Bush barreled ahead, showing uncharacteristic flashes of emotional intensity as he responded to his former protégé’s assertion that he lacks foreign policy experience.
“It’s hard for me to be lectured by a gifted young guy who thinks going to a committee hearing means you think you know something about the world,” Bush said after ticking off the three bills Rubio touts as his Senate accomplishments and dismissing them as inconsequential.
Source
|
Hillary is so pathetic:
The exchange tees me up perfectly to ask: If New York City still isn’t ready for its first female mayor, is the United States ready for its first female president? Why is this still such a hurdle for women in our country? “You know,” she says with a sigh, “I really don’t know. I think it’s gotten better. But I think there still is a very deep set of concerns that people have, which very often they’re not even aware of or they couldn’t articulate. There’s nothing overt about it in most instances. People are very convinced they want to vote for the right person. And then . . . you know, you get little hints that maybe they’re not as comfortable with a woman being in an executive position. Especially in a big, rough-and-tumble setting like New York City or the United States of America. But I think it’s changing. I’ve noticed a big improvement between now and the last time I ran.”
Source.
Bernie supporters -- guess what? Hillary thinks you're a bunch of misogynists. This shit is just too insulting.
|
Hillary says something almost every woman in professional fields have said at one point or another, including my attorneys. That sexism is still real and not overt, but passive and sometimes unconscious. Literally called unconscious bias. Our boy XDaunt puts some hard spin on it and claims she is talking about people voting for Bernie.
The bait is strong with this one.
|
On February 18 2016 06:33 xDaunt wrote:Hillary is so pathetic: Show nested quote +The exchange tees me up perfectly to ask: If New York City still isn’t ready for its first female mayor, is the United States ready for its first female president? Why is this still such a hurdle for women in our country? “You know,” she says with a sigh, “I really don’t know. I think it’s gotten better. But I think there still is a very deep set of concerns that people have, which very often they’re not even aware of or they couldn’t articulate. There’s nothing overt about it in most instances. People are very convinced they want to vote for the right person. And then . . . you know, you get little hints that maybe they’re not as comfortable with a woman being in an executive position. Especially in a big, rough-and-tumble setting like New York City or the United States of America. But I think it’s changing. I’ve noticed a big improvement between now and the last time I ran.” Source. Bernie supporters -- guess what? Hillary thinks you're a bunch of misogynists. This shit is just too insulting.
It's really not a huge stretch to say that some of the opposition to Hillary is caused by sexism... it's well documented that people (men and women) are uncomfortable with women in positions of authority.
|
On February 18 2016 06:44 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 06:33 xDaunt wrote:Hillary is so pathetic: The exchange tees me up perfectly to ask: If New York City still isn’t ready for its first female mayor, is the United States ready for its first female president? Why is this still such a hurdle for women in our country? “You know,” she says with a sigh, “I really don’t know. I think it’s gotten better. But I think there still is a very deep set of concerns that people have, which very often they’re not even aware of or they couldn’t articulate. There’s nothing overt about it in most instances. People are very convinced they want to vote for the right person. And then . . . you know, you get little hints that maybe they’re not as comfortable with a woman being in an executive position. Especially in a big, rough-and-tumble setting like New York City or the United States of America. But I think it’s changing. I’ve noticed a big improvement between now and the last time I ran.” Source. Bernie supporters -- guess what? Hillary thinks you're a bunch of misogynists. This shit is just too insulting. It's really not a huge stretch to say that some of the opposition to Hillary is caused by sexism... it's well documented that people (men and women) are uncomfortable with women in positions of authority.
Sander’s literally called out a section of his supporters for being sexist assholes recently. There are numerous stories of women that support Sanders being harassed by them online. And I doubt Sander’s would disagree with anything Clinton said in that article.
|
On February 18 2016 06:44 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 06:33 xDaunt wrote:Hillary is so pathetic: The exchange tees me up perfectly to ask: If New York City still isn’t ready for its first female mayor, is the United States ready for its first female president? Why is this still such a hurdle for women in our country? “You know,” she says with a sigh, “I really don’t know. I think it’s gotten better. But I think there still is a very deep set of concerns that people have, which very often they’re not even aware of or they couldn’t articulate. There’s nothing overt about it in most instances. People are very convinced they want to vote for the right person. And then . . . you know, you get little hints that maybe they’re not as comfortable with a woman being in an executive position. Especially in a big, rough-and-tumble setting like New York City or the United States of America. But I think it’s changing. I’ve noticed a big improvement between now and the last time I ran.” Source. Bernie supporters -- guess what? Hillary thinks you're a bunch of misogynists. This shit is just too insulting. It's really not a huge stretch to say that some of the opposition to Hillary is caused by sexism... it's well documented that people (men and women) are uncomfortable with women in positions of authority.
It's true Sanders has some jerky supporters (and plenty of undercover trolls) but this is part of a concerted narrative they've been trying to build for a while and have failed.
It comes on the heels of trying to make Killer Mike sound like a misogynist for bringing up that some (usually older) women were trying to guilt other women into supporting Hillary because she's a woman (Remember Albright).
So both are basically true. Hillary's campaign and especially her supporters are trying to make Sanders supporters out to be a bunch of misogynists who don't support Hillary because she's a woman, and there are some supporters being assholes in a particularly sexist way (some intentionally some from unknown bias').
Hillary is good at what she does (or at least has good writers) so she did what she could to feed that narrative without explicitly saying it.
|
The phrase “feed the narrative” has lost all meaning for me and my eyes just gloss over whenever I see it.
|
a lot of rather underhanded tactics are used by both campaigns, some sanctioned, some not. not worth going down that rabbit hole. again, albright's go to hell quote is something she's been saying since before most of us were born, and while the connotation was bad the context is/was sorely lacking.
btw, don't paint hillary campaign + supporters with one brush if you say not to paint all bernie people with one brush.
|
There is no question that Hilary or any member of congress has faced and continues to faces sexism. If directly asked the question, she should answer. Claiming it part of some “narrative” has less to do with Hilary and more to do with your view of her and her supporters.
|
Explain what underhanded tactics have been used by the Sanders campaign and how are they comparable to Clinton attacks and deceit?
The "misogynist" meme has been forced (IE made up) by the same people who tried to spread it when Hillary competed against Obama.
|
Here is a better question: If we listed out all those "underhanded tactics" right now, what would that accomplish and why would it matter? Would it accomplish anything but fueling the great debate of to prove who has the shittiest supporters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
