|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 00:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 00:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 09 2016 23:10 farvacola wrote:
That Noah Smith article is painfully unresponsive to Sanders' platform in two major ways: first, it utterly fails to identify even a modicum of nuance. Accordingly, Noah's assumption that Bernie is going to straight up kill all forms of international trade is both wrong in plain terms and incredibly misleading in terms of giving form to a primary stumping platform. Which leads me to point two: Smith's article fails to recognize that Sanders has a strong incentive to paint in broad strokes during a primary, particularly in terms of illustrating a populist, leftist approach to trade that'll get out the vote (see Michigan).
I mean it isn't hard to see why you'd buy that spiel but there are far less transparent (and effective) means of indicting Sanders. how is it wrong to suggest sanders would unravel the free trade paradigm the u.s. has built up over the decades? talk about nuance with sanders would require him to have some, and he does not. he also lacks strategic common sense "unravel the free trade paradigm"="upset the status quo" with a negative connotation. So no, it isn't wrong, it's just a similarly incomplete and narrow minded characterization of a critique of deals like NAFTA. Lol, and then you post yet another empty attack article. Talk about strategic common sense, you routinely play the part of the smug Hillary fan who doesn't quite know how to play games of political rhetoric. You could learn from ticklish 
look at some point you have to be serious about sanders. he is a true believer on trade and will do disastrous things to the trade framework and international order based upon common market access principles.
|
On March 10 2016 00:58 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 00:42 Toadesstern wrote:On March 10 2016 00:22 Gorsameth wrote:
Yeah Sander's doesnt really care about super delegates. He is (imo correctly) focused on winning the popular vote and believes that the super delegates will not go against the majority. yeah pretty much. I really don't think that if Sanders somehow manages to get 50+% of delegates the super delegates will go against that. You have people talking about how the GOP base is revolting and how that's not happening for the DEMs but if that's the scenario we're talking about people would get mad as well. And actually Sanders has been doing fine lately. According to 538: March 5th: 52 delegates target (to get to 50% nationwide), he got 52March 6th: 15 delegates target, he got 16March 8th: 80 delegates target, he got 73that's not all that much off. He got kicked in the ass on SuperTuesday and needs to catch up but right now he's doing okay the last couple of days. If he can somehow keep this up on March 15 he'll be fine. I doubt that he can keep this up but who knows. Yeah he's doing not too bad, but not good enough yet to hope get the nomination right? I mean he wouldn't need a miracle, but a very strong performance in coming states
Had he always performed the way he has been doing the last week he'd be neck on neck with Hillary. And even then, it's only 770 delegates vs 551 delegates right now with around 2000 needed to be 50+ %. So if he does fine for another couple weeks and then picks up later on because "omg, this could actually happen?" he'd be fine.
I mean I still think he's going to get kicked in the shins on March 15. I didn't expect the Michigan upset but doing that in one state you can focus on really hard is one thing. Doing it in Florida, Illinois and Ohio all at the same time because they're all on the same day... He doesn't need to win but he needs to do better then what polling suggests and I don't think that's going to happen against Hillary in all states with all she's got behind her.
|
On March 10 2016 01:04 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 00:28 farvacola wrote:On March 10 2016 00:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 09 2016 23:10 farvacola wrote:
That Noah Smith article is painfully unresponsive to Sanders' platform in two major ways: first, it utterly fails to identify even a modicum of nuance. Accordingly, Noah's assumption that Bernie is going to straight up kill all forms of international trade is both wrong in plain terms and incredibly misleading in terms of giving form to a primary stumping platform. Which leads me to point two: Smith's article fails to recognize that Sanders has a strong incentive to paint in broad strokes during a primary, particularly in terms of illustrating a populist, leftist approach to trade that'll get out the vote (see Michigan).
I mean it isn't hard to see why you'd buy that spiel but there are far less transparent (and effective) means of indicting Sanders. how is it wrong to suggest sanders would unravel the free trade paradigm the u.s. has built up over the decades? talk about nuance with sanders would require him to have some, and he does not. he also lacks strategic common sense "unravel the free trade paradigm"="upset the status quo" with a negative connotation. So no, it isn't wrong, it's just a similarly incomplete and narrow minded characterization of a critique of deals like NAFTA. Lol, and then you post yet another empty attack article. Talk about strategic common sense, you routinely play the part of the smug Hillary fan who doesn't quite know how to play games of political rhetoric. You could learn from ticklish look at some point you have to be serious about sanders. he is a true believer on trade and will do disastrous things to the trade framework and international order based upon common market access principles.
This characterization of Sanders looks a little extreme.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:04 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2016 00:28 farvacola wrote:On March 10 2016 00:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 09 2016 23:10 farvacola wrote:
That Noah Smith article is painfully unresponsive to Sanders' platform in two major ways: first, it utterly fails to identify even a modicum of nuance. Accordingly, Noah's assumption that Bernie is going to straight up kill all forms of international trade is both wrong in plain terms and incredibly misleading in terms of giving form to a primary stumping platform. Which leads me to point two: Smith's article fails to recognize that Sanders has a strong incentive to paint in broad strokes during a primary, particularly in terms of illustrating a populist, leftist approach to trade that'll get out the vote (see Michigan).
I mean it isn't hard to see why you'd buy that spiel but there are far less transparent (and effective) means of indicting Sanders. how is it wrong to suggest sanders would unravel the free trade paradigm the u.s. has built up over the decades? talk about nuance with sanders would require him to have some, and he does not. he also lacks strategic common sense "unravel the free trade paradigm"="upset the status quo" with a negative connotation. So no, it isn't wrong, it's just a similarly incomplete and narrow minded characterization of a critique of deals like NAFTA. Lol, and then you post yet another empty attack article. Talk about strategic common sense, you routinely play the part of the smug Hillary fan who doesn't quite know how to play games of political rhetoric. You could learn from ticklish look at some point you have to be serious about sanders. he is a true believer on trade and will do disastrous things to the trade framework and international order based upon common market access principles. This characterization of Sanders looks a little extreme.
not at all. he does not understand the current trade politics.
btw i am not running for election of president of this thread so i don't really need to stylize my werds. it's just entertainment.
sanders though is just blind leading the blind.
|
Both of you: oneliners < arguments.
|
On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt.
I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i posted a long thing on why this blind hate on 'free trade' and not distinguishing the situation circa 1994 to now is misguided. it's broadly similar to the wapo piece so don't really feel like rehashing it.
the geopolitical component is really important though. the TPP/TTIP does not reduce tariffs as much as it harmonizes regulation and establish the basic momentum of a global governance structure on trade. it puts our trade leverage in concrete terms and is really ameliorative of the specific problems seen in the trade with china and so on.
TPP in particular will steer supply chain (through the country of origin rules) and thus development to our allies in the pacific region. it is very important to the future of the region.
|
On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever).
I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them.
Focusing on the future: those auto and other manufacturing jobs ain't coming back. We might get a few back and then stem the losses and keep our existing businesses competitive, but the rust belt is never going to be de-rusted.
|
On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them.
But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting.
|
On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever).
There are populists on the left and right in both countries (EU left leaning populists: Die Linke in Germany, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and plenty more; US right leaning populists: well, the tea party, Ron Paul). In fact, this is more pronounced in Europe where many countries have more proportional seat allocation systems, such that small fringe parties can still get into parliaments and be competitive.
|
On March 10 2016 01:13 oneofthem wrote:
i posted a long thing on why this blind hate on 'free trade' and not distinguishing the situation circa 1994 to now is misguided. it's broadly similar to the wapo piece so don't really feel like rehashing it.
the geopolitical component is really important though. the TPP/TTIP does not reduce tariffs as much as it harmonizes regulation and establish the basic momentum of a global governance structure on trade. it puts our trade leverage in concrete terms and is really ameliorative of the specific problems seen in the trade with china and so on.
Maybe. But you are making categorical statements vis-a-vis Sanders' understanding of International Trade agreements, or lack thereof that aren't justified. Just because he isn't delving into specifics doesn't mean he doesn't understand the issues. I will vote democrat most likely, but I am not pro-Sanders or pro-Hillary. I take his lack of specifics as just something candidates do in elections, not a genuine lack of understanding. If he were to delve into specifics then he opens up the door to a crushing deluge of political minutia that would bog down his message at a time when there is no time. Voting happens now. It's a strategic thing as I see it.
|
On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting.
That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts.
|
On March 10 2016 01:19 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). There are populists on the left and right in both countries (EU left leaning populists: Die Linke in Germany, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and plenty more; US right leaning populists: well, the tea party, Ron Paul). In fact, this is more pronounced in Europe where many countries have more proportional seat allocation systems, such that small fringe parties can still get into parliaments and be competitive.
Yeah but again that's the general idea that I had of populism, that it comes in extremes (the left wing parties that you mention are all far left). Bernie is not far left. Again I find that interesting.
|
I don't see anything wrong about bashing a candidate for what they say, as that's literally keeping them accountable to their voters. If they promise one thing and do another, that's a broken campaign promise.
If Sanders makes the strategic choice of lying to his constituents, that's a problem. If he makes the strategic choice of not outlining his policies, he should also accept that a lot of people who worry about trade are going to call him out on it, and rightly so.
|
On March 10 2016 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). There are populists on the left and right in both countries (EU left leaning populists: Die Linke in Germany, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and plenty more; US right leaning populists: well, the tea party, Ron Paul). In fact, this is more pronounced in Europe where many countries have more proportional seat allocation systems, such that small fringe parties can still get into parliaments and be competitive. Yeah but again that's the general idea that I had of populism, that it comes in extremes (the left wing parties that you mention are all far left). Bernie is not far left. Again I find that interesting.
It's not an absolute scale, but relative to the status quo and political situation.
But furthermore, Sanders is to the left of France's Hollande who I have down as the most left-wing major player in Europe (think TTIP, climate change, trade union support, security policy). 
|
I am a Trump supporter, but have you guys looked at their stances on issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ted_Cruz.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kasich.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Marco_Rubio.htm
Cruz is absolutely insane, like 100x worse than Trump looking at it from the libertarian perspective, Kasich is too religious, saying things like: "I can't figure out how anyone gets along without the Bible. (May 2006)" and "The Lord wants America to succeed and for America to lead. (Aug 2015) ", and Marco Rubio is already out of the race, but he's just a confused little puppy, not knowing for what he stands at all. I think his positions are most similar to a normal voter, but he seems so slow mentally, that I dunno... I just imagine another George W. Bush, I think you want someone more influential.
Anyway, my point is that Trump might not be perfect, but are the other candidates really better? The media and the establishment is trying to bring him down, but what for? I don't think the others are any better. The most logical thing I see is the democratic voters trying to bring him down, because he'd likely crush Hillary, while I think regardless of what polls suggest, all the others would stand no chance.
|
On March 10 2016 01:20 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:13 oneofthem wrote:
i posted a long thing on why this blind hate on 'free trade' and not distinguishing the situation circa 1994 to now is misguided. it's broadly similar to the wapo piece so don't really feel like rehashing it.
the geopolitical component is really important though. the TPP/TTIP does not reduce tariffs as much as it harmonizes regulation and establish the basic momentum of a global governance structure on trade. it puts our trade leverage in concrete terms and is really ameliorative of the specific problems seen in the trade with china and so on. Maybe. But you are making categorical statements vis-a-vis Sanders' understanding of International Trade agreements, or lack thereof that aren't justified. Just because he isn't delving into specifics doesn't mean he doesn't understand the issues. I will vote democrat most likely, but I am not pro-Sanders or pro-Hillary. I take his lack of specifics as just something candidates do in elections, not a genuine lack of understanding. If he were to delve into specifics then he opens up the door to a crushing deluge of political minutia that would bog down his message at a time when there is no time. Voting happens now. It's a strategic thing as I see it.
Moreover, this language of "true believer" fear belies the simple belief that Sanders is, in one way or another, incompetently ideological, and though his career as a politician is certainly full of "true believer" moments, whether or not he'll fulfill his duties as executive-in-chief competently is mostly an item of measured faith. oneofthem believes in "globalization" as a primary, realizable objective of trade based foreign policy and likes to pretend that anyone who disagrees is a dangerous ideologue. I, and many others on both sides of the aisle, happen to believe in something else 
|
On March 10 2016 01:22 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting. That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts.
Well that's just not really an argument. If America is so out there that a normal 'world' candidate appears out of place and you can't do what you should be able to because of that, you should still want the people who have the potential to bring it somewhat less out of balance as opposed to the candidates that will keep it as out of place as it is. Your argument only works when there's a second part that says it's okay for America to be this out of place. I don't think you're making that argument.
|
On March 10 2016 01:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:I am a Trump supporter, but have you guys looked at their stances on issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htmhttp://www.ontheissues.org/Ted_Cruz.htmhttp://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kasich.htmhttp://www.ontheissues.org/Marco_Rubio.htmCruz is absolutely insane, like 100x worse than Trump looking at it from the libertarian perspective, Kasich is too religious, saying things like: "I can't figure out how anyone gets along without the Bible. (May 2006)" and "The Lord wants America to succeed and for America to lead. (Aug 2015) ", and Marco Rubio is already out of the race, but he's just a confused little puppy, not knowing for what he stands at all. I think his positions are most similar to a normal voter, but he seems so slow mentally, that I dunno... I just imagine another George W. Bush, I think you want someone more influential. Anyway, my point is that Trump might not be perfect, but are the other candidates really better? The media and the establishment is trying to bring him down, but what for? I don't think the others are any better.
So, don't vote republican if all of their candidates are complete lunatics?
|
On March 10 2016 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). There are populists on the left and right in both countries (EU left leaning populists: Die Linke in Germany, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and plenty more; US right leaning populists: well, the tea party, Ron Paul). In fact, this is more pronounced in Europe where many countries have more proportional seat allocation systems, such that small fringe parties can still get into parliaments and be competitive. Yeah but again that's the general idea that I had of populism, that it comes in extremes (the left wing parties that you mention are all far left). Bernie is not far left. Again I find that interesting.
Well, populism can coalesce around an issue such as national sovereignty (quebec) that isn't really so much a left/right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
