|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 07 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:
In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk.
It is weird because he named the Canadian steel industry’s sales to the US as a national security risk. So I am not sure we can safely assume that. There is a good chance, but you never know with Trump. He is unpredictable like that.
|
United States42252 Posts
On June 07 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004419922380943361In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk.
Should we conclude from this post that you disagree with using the pretext of national security sanctions, which he does have authority to impose, in order to avoid legislative involvement which would be necessary without the pretext?
|
On June 07 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004419922380943361In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk.
I would expect you, a Conservative, to be a proponent of the rule of law, and not freely labeling your neighbor a national security risk just so you can circumvent it.
|
On June 07 2018 04:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004419922380943361In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk. I would expect you, a Conservative, to be a proponent of the rule of law, and not freely labeling your neighbor a national security risk just so you can circumvent it.
I’m not approving of his behavior. You linked his quip on 1812 to his his not-joking national security risk allegation. It’s hard to believe he’s serious on either. The most likely explanation is as I described it in my post response.
|
On June 07 2018 05:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 04:55 NewSunshine wrote:On June 07 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004419922380943361In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk. I would expect you, a Conservative, to be a proponent of the rule of law, and not freely labeling your neighbor a national security risk just so you can circumvent it. I’m not approving of his behavior. You linked his quip on 1812 to his his not-joking national security risk allegation. It’s hard to believe he’s serious on either. The most likely explanation is as I described it in my post response.
If your point was that I didn't get the whole "use national security as a pretext because it's convenient, and not because I really think of them as an enemy" thing, then I got that. I don't need you to clarify. The point stands, just going "ah well, he doesn't really mean it" doesn't change the fact that he's using national security as the reason for enacting a tariff. That still means something. And otherwise, I don't see why you felt the need to split hairs with me over something I thought communicated from the original post.
|
I bet one of our oldest allies and neighbor thought the joke was super funny as their industries are slapped with tariffs for being/causing a "nation security risk". They got a good sense of humor up there and likely loved it.
|
In further news the party Trump uninvited the Eagles to yesterday was attended by RNC staffers and no one else. So it’s a bad lie that is becoming of a banana republic.
|
For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies.
I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features.
Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat.
RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said.
www.politico.com
|
On June 07 2018 05:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 04:55 NewSunshine wrote:On June 07 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004419922380943361In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk. I would expect you, a Conservative, to be a proponent of the rule of law, and not freely labeling your neighbor a national security risk just so you can circumvent it. I’m not approving of his behavior. You linked his quip on 1812 to his his not-joking national security risk allegation. It’s hard to believe he’s serious on either. The most likely explanation is as I described it in my post response.
Glad to know that the US' definition of "national security risk" is not serious. We'll keep that in mind for future international dealings.
Wouldn't be the first time this millennia a US President lied to allies to justify hostile foreign policy.
On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. Show nested quote +RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com
West Virginia, as far as I can tell, is a mining state. It's poor, it's rural, it's >90% white, and their economy lives and dies off of coal. So of course the state is in love with Trump.
|
On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. Show nested quote +RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com
To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump.
|
On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump.
Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'.
He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww
Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020?
|
On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'.
I think you need to take a look at W.Va.'s demographic to see if you think the voters are opposed to any of this.
|
5930 Posts
On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020?
We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse.
This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia.
Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed:
![[image loading]](https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/180404_states_fullwidth.png)
|
West Virginia loves Trump. The fact that seat isn’t filled with a tea party darling is sort of amazing.
|
West Virginia~
Mountain mamma
Take me home
Country roads
No one? No? ‘Kay..
|
On June 07 2018 03:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 03:24 KwarK wrote:On June 07 2018 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:16 zlefin wrote:On June 07 2018 03:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:On June 07 2018 03:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:00 zlefin wrote:
not that fond of reagan myself. "a time for choosing" is 1 of the greatest political speeches i've ever heard. at the end of that thing i was like "hand me a gun and tell me which commie to shoot first". Pierre Trudeau's "Just watch me" was better only because it was ad lib. good speeches are nice; but they're fairly low in import for how I rank politicians; and even for how much I like them. i.e. no amount of nice speeches makes up for substantive policy problems. as to your edit add: I'm pretty sure he didn't turn the economy around; at least nowhere near the extent your description seems to imply. in 1980 the USA was deep into a huge and brutal recession. in 1988 the USA has 6 consecutives years of massive growth. that is why in 1984 he won so big. You've just proven you don't understand how causation works, and hence your points about reagan have no credibility  you're merely an exemplar of a fact that's been massively documented in the political science literature: presidents are given FAR more blame/credit for the economy than is actually warranted for the limited amount of influence they actually have. nah, i think Reagan was a good prez and he got re-elected in a massive marjority due to that fact. his excellent performance on the economy was only 1 aspect of his good work as Prez. Cutting taxes while raising spending has always been popular with voters while fiscal responsibility is always a hard sell unfortunately. The average voter also struggles with whether two things can happen at similar times without one having caused the other. People also forget the recession that followed Reagen and his economic policies. It’s easy to make the economy burn hot for a couple of years with tax cuts and spending. But that catches up with you real quick.
Oh yes, that brutal ~1990 recession that historians always speak of with fear. The one that was 10 years after the recession Reagan inherited in the early 80s (9 and 4 years after his two major reason cuts). It's obviously Regan's fault there wasn't a 20 year expansion after he took the helm for 8.
Sometimes it's really hard to take Plansix seriously.
|
United States42252 Posts
On June 07 2018 10:44 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 03:30 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 03:24 KwarK wrote:On June 07 2018 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:16 zlefin wrote:On June 07 2018 03:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:On June 07 2018 03:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:00 zlefin wrote:
not that fond of reagan myself. "a time for choosing" is 1 of the greatest political speeches i've ever heard. at the end of that thing i was like "hand me a gun and tell me which commie to shoot first". Pierre Trudeau's "Just watch me" was better only because it was ad lib. good speeches are nice; but they're fairly low in import for how I rank politicians; and even for how much I like them. i.e. no amount of nice speeches makes up for substantive policy problems. as to your edit add: I'm pretty sure he didn't turn the economy around; at least nowhere near the extent your description seems to imply. in 1980 the USA was deep into a huge and brutal recession. in 1988 the USA has 6 consecutives years of massive growth. that is why in 1984 he won so big. You've just proven you don't understand how causation works, and hence your points about reagan have no credibility you're merely an exemplar of a fact that's been massively documented in the political science literature: presidents are given FAR more blame/credit for the economy than is actually warranted for the limited amount of influence they actually have. nah, i think Reagan was a good prez and he got re-elected in a massive marjority due to that fact. his excellent performance on the economy was only 1 aspect of his good work as Prez. Cutting taxes while raising spending has always been popular with voters while fiscal responsibility is always a hard sell unfortunately. The average voter also struggles with whether two things can happen at similar times without one having caused the other. People also forget the recession that followed Reagen and his economic policies. It’s easy to make the economy burn hot for a couple of years with tax cuts and spending. But that catches up with you real quick. Oh yes, that brutal ~1990 recession that historians always speak of with fear. The one that was 10 years after the recession Reagan inherited in the early 80s (9 and 4 years after his two major reason cuts). It's obviously Regan's fault there wasn't a 20 year expansion after he took the helm for 8. Sometimes it's really hard to take Plansix seriously.
Have you looked at the national deficit? Nobody wanted to be the guy who put the brakes on and made the taxpayers pay for the stuff they wanted.
|
On June 07 2018 10:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 10:44 mozoku wrote:On June 07 2018 03:30 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 03:24 KwarK wrote:On June 07 2018 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:16 zlefin wrote:On June 07 2018 03:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:On June 07 2018 03:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:00 zlefin wrote:
not that fond of reagan myself. "a time for choosing" is 1 of the greatest political speeches i've ever heard. at the end of that thing i was like "hand me a gun and tell me which commie to shoot first". Pierre Trudeau's "Just watch me" was better only because it was ad lib. good speeches are nice; but they're fairly low in import for how I rank politicians; and even for how much I like them. i.e. no amount of nice speeches makes up for substantive policy problems. as to your edit add: I'm pretty sure he didn't turn the economy around; at least nowhere near the extent your description seems to imply. in 1980 the USA was deep into a huge and brutal recession. in 1988 the USA has 6 consecutives years of massive growth. that is why in 1984 he won so big. You've just proven you don't understand how causation works, and hence your points about reagan have no credibility you're merely an exemplar of a fact that's been massively documented in the political science literature: presidents are given FAR more blame/credit for the economy than is actually warranted for the limited amount of influence they actually have. nah, i think Reagan was a good prez and he got re-elected in a massive marjority due to that fact. his excellent performance on the economy was only 1 aspect of his good work as Prez. Cutting taxes while raising spending has always been popular with voters while fiscal responsibility is always a hard sell unfortunately. The average voter also struggles with whether two things can happen at similar times without one having caused the other. People also forget the recession that followed Reagen and his economic policies. It’s easy to make the economy burn hot for a couple of years with tax cuts and spending. But that catches up with you real quick. Oh yes, that brutal ~1990 recession that historians always speak of with fear. The one that was 10 years after the recession Reagan inherited in the early 80s (9 and 4 years after his two major reason cuts). It's obviously Regan's fault there wasn't a 20 year expansion after he took the helm for 8. Sometimes it's really hard to take Plansix seriously. Have you looked at the national deficit? Nobody wanted to be the guy who put the brakes on and made the taxpayers pay for the stuff they wanted.
Gotta keep cutting those taxes until Medicaid goes bankrupt. Then the entitlement reform can happen and every rural hospital in America will shut down!
|
On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020? We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed:
This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership.
|
On June 07 2018 10:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 10:44 mozoku wrote:On June 07 2018 03:30 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 03:24 KwarK wrote:On June 07 2018 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:16 zlefin wrote:On June 07 2018 03:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:09 zlefin wrote:On June 07 2018 03:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 03:00 zlefin wrote:
not that fond of reagan myself. "a time for choosing" is 1 of the greatest political speeches i've ever heard. at the end of that thing i was like "hand me a gun and tell me which commie to shoot first". Pierre Trudeau's "Just watch me" was better only because it was ad lib. good speeches are nice; but they're fairly low in import for how I rank politicians; and even for how much I like them. i.e. no amount of nice speeches makes up for substantive policy problems. as to your edit add: I'm pretty sure he didn't turn the economy around; at least nowhere near the extent your description seems to imply. in 1980 the USA was deep into a huge and brutal recession. in 1988 the USA has 6 consecutives years of massive growth. that is why in 1984 he won so big. You've just proven you don't understand how causation works, and hence your points about reagan have no credibility you're merely an exemplar of a fact that's been massively documented in the political science literature: presidents are given FAR more blame/credit for the economy than is actually warranted for the limited amount of influence they actually have. nah, i think Reagan was a good prez and he got re-elected in a massive marjority due to that fact. his excellent performance on the economy was only 1 aspect of his good work as Prez. Cutting taxes while raising spending has always been popular with voters while fiscal responsibility is always a hard sell unfortunately. The average voter also struggles with whether two things can happen at similar times without one having caused the other. People also forget the recession that followed Reagen and his economic policies. It’s easy to make the economy burn hot for a couple of years with tax cuts and spending. But that catches up with you real quick. Oh yes, that brutal ~1990 recession that historians always speak of with fear. The one that was 10 years after the recession Reagan inherited in the early 80s (9 and 4 years after his two major reason cuts). It's obviously Regan's fault there wasn't a 20 year expansion after he took the helm for 8. Sometimes it's really hard to take Plansix seriously. Have you looked at the national deficit? Nobody wanted to be the guy who put the brakes on and made the taxpayers pay for the stuff they wanted.
I'm not sure what your point is. That the 90-91 recession is Reagan's fault or the 2018 national debt is Regan's fault? I think both are terrible arguments fwiw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
