Off Topic · Off Topic: six months later, do people who voted for Trump still support this guy? (page 32)

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I wish I could but I can't. I am not an economist or an expert on models - I have only studied the US economy because it applies to me the most. What Centrists and Republicans have destroyed incrementally over the last seventy years cannot be rebuild with any single or simple policy change it will take time and commitment. But I will make a good faith attempt - feel free to ridicule if you must

GAOLS
- Separation of retail and investment banks
- Slow and deliberate reversal back to the gold standard or something more earthbound - End of FIAT (look up Bretton Woods if you want details)
- Erosion, reclassification and redistribution of accumulated "paper wealth"
- Real wages to return to what they were in the late sixties
- Overhaul/Restructure Insurance industry (Consumers of the healthcare industry have ZERO purchasing power, insurance companies set prices to assure their own profits - this whole healthcare-insurance complex doesn't even follow basic supply and demand rules)
- FEDERAL government paid universal healthcare
- Set some type of results drive accountability for the federal reserve

Granular Policy Level(no specific order)
- Abolition of Capital gains tax, treat ALL income as income (including inheritance and gifts) and tax at regular income tax rate
- Dial up taxes on people making more don't stop at 35%
- Mandate absolute margin requirements and don't leave it at the discretion of rating agencies for any type of leveraged trades - Jail, punish and tarnish offenders
- Heavily regulate speculative investing
- Set debt reduction goals - x% of Govt. Debt to be paid off and not recirculated in y years
- Educate politicians on the intricacies of derivatives trading - they can't write laws for what they don't understand
- Make publicizing tax returns for all people running for public office MANDATORY when running and when in office
- Federal and State governments should publish complete breakdown of how they spend what funds at year end - and provide metrics on what that spending accomplished

These are apolitical - and doesn't require any type of party adherence

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I wish I could but I can't. I am not an economist or an expert on models - I have only studied the US economy because it applies to me the most. What Centrists and Republicans have destroyed incrementally over the last seventy years cannot be rebuild with any single or simple policy change it will take time and commitment. But I will make a good faith attempt - feel free to ridicule if you must

GAOLS
- Separation of retail and investment banks
- Slow and deliberate reversal back to the gold standard or something more earthbound - End of FIAT (look up Bretton Woods if you want details)
- Erosion, reclassification and redistribution of accumulated "paper wealth"
- Real wages to return to what they were in the late sixties
- Overhaul/Restructure Insurance industry (Consumers of the healthcare industry have ZERO purchasing power, insurance companies set prices to assure their own profits - this whole healthcare-insurance complex doesn't even follow basic supply and demand rules)
- FEDERAL government paid universal healthcare
- Set some type of results drive accountability for the federal reserve

Granular Policy Level(no specific order)
- Abolition of Capital gains tax, treat ALL income as income (including inheritance and gifts) and tax at regular income tax rate
- Dial up taxes on people making more don't stop at 35%
- Mandate absolute margin requirements and don't leave it at the discretion of rating agencies for any type of leveraged trades - Jail, punish and tarnish offenders
- Heavily regulate speculative investing
- Set debt reduction goals - x% of Govt. Debt to be paid off and not recirculated in y years
- Educate politicians on the intricacies of derivatives trading - they can't write laws for what they don't understand
- Make publicizing tax returns for all people running for public office MANDATORY when running and when in office
- Federal and State governments should publish complete breakdown of how they spend what funds at year end - and provide metrics on what that spending accomplished

These are apolitical - and doesn't require any type of party adherence

You missed it.

It's most likely the fact Trumps presidency has made the stock market steadily go up since 2009. Not Obama. Or the fact it has created so many jobs. Not Obama. Love when people that have a little bit of education think they know so much but instead just articulate their ignorance better.

https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-...

http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jone...

Sorry, was I just talking politics?

Speaking of Bretton Woods - I found this interesting chart that shows the impact of Fiat currency and low tariff rates (Free trade) on the trade deficit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Wo...

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I wish I could but I can't. I am not an economist or an expert on models - I have only studied the US economy because it applies to me the most. What Centrists and Republicans have destroyed incrementally over the last seventy years cannot be rebuild with any single or simple policy change it will take time and commitment. But I will make a good faith attempt - feel free to ridicule if you must

My ability to ridicule is lacking, I'm too literal and have no sense of humor.

But again from the discourse standpoint, I think you're somewhat dealing for the bottom of the deck. You challenge others to do the same, and ridiculed their attempts, but your own limited knowledge (not ridicule, I've already acknowledged I'm not versed in the topic either) leaves open the question, maybe there isn't any one specific answer to that question? Maybe we're all living in glass houses?

That being said, I do agree with some of the points you made earlier in the thread - what little I know about economics is just enough to know anybody who thinks they have economics figured out doesn't have economics figure out. It is as you implied more art and theory than science.

We are the world's largest economy, but were also a part of the world's economic ecosystem. It Is not an app where you can debug it, correct code and have it operate exactly as you instruct.

Moving on...

GAOLS
- Separation of retail and investment banks
- Slow and deliberate reversal back to the gold standard or something more earthbound - End of FIAT (look up Bretton Woods if you want details)
- Erosion, reclassification and redistribution of accumulated "paper wealth"
- Real wages to return to what they were in the late sixties
- Overhaul/Restructure Insurance industry (Consumers of the healthcare industry have ZERO purchasing power, insurance companies set prices to assure their own profits - this whole healthcare-insurance complex doesn't even follow basic supply and demand rules)
- FEDERAL government paid universal healthcare
- Set some type of results drive accountability for the federal reserve

Granular Policy Level(no specific order)
- Abolition of Capital gains tax, treat ALL income as income (including inheritance and gifts) and tax at regular income tax rate
- Dial up taxes on people making more don't stop at 35%
- Mandate absolute margin requirements and don't leave it at the discretion of rating agencies for any type of leveraged trades - Jail, punish and tarnish offenders
- Heavily regulate speculative investing
- Set debt reduction goals - x% of Govt. Debt to be paid off and not recirculated in y years
- Educate politicians on the intricacies of derivatives trading - they can't write laws for what they don't understand
- Make publicizing tax returns for all people running for public office MANDATORY when running and when in office
- Federal and State governments should publish complete breakdown of how they spend what funds at year end - and provide metrics on what that spending accomplished

These are apolitical - and doesn't require any type of party adherence

So back to our differences - there is nothing apolitical about what you just listed. I know this for a fact because there literally isn't anything that is apolitical. That's mythological.

Abolishing capital gains tax? Raising the tax code on the rich? Apolitical? I'm making a concerted effort not to say something sarcastic right now.

As I understood it this sub-thread is about the marriage between the practical and the theoretical. Removing politics from the equation is a futile, counterproductive exercise in a conversation about choosing politicians.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I wish I could but I can't. I am not an economist or an expert on models - I have only studied the US economy because it applies to me the most. What Centrists and Republicans have destroyed incrementally over the last seventy years cannot be rebuild with any single or simple policy change it will take time and commitment. But I will make a good faith attempt - feel free to ridicule if you must

My ability to ridicule is lacking, I'm too literal and have no sense of humor.

But again from the discourse standpoint, I think you're somewhat dealing for the bottom of the deck. You challenge others to do the same, and ridiculed their attempts, but your own limited knowledge (not ridicule, I've already acknowledged I'm not versed in the topic either) leaves open the question, maybe there isn't any one specific answer to that question? Maybe we're all living in glass houses?

That being said, I do agree with some of the points you made earlier in the thread - what little I know about economics is just enough to know anybody who thinks they have economics figured out doesn't have economics figure out. It is as you implied more art and theory than science.

We are the world's largest economy, but were also a part of the world's economic ecosystem. It Is not an app where you can debug it, correct code and have it operate exactly as you instruct.

Moving on...

GAOLS
- Separation of retail and investment banks
- Slow and deliberate reversal back to the gold standard or something more earthbound - End of FIAT (look up Bretton Woods if you want details)
- Erosion, reclassification and redistribution of accumulated "paper wealth"
- Real wages to return to what they were in the late sixties
- Overhaul/Restructure Insurance industry (Consumers of the healthcare industry have ZERO purchasing power, insurance companies set prices to assure their own profits - this whole healthcare-insurance complex doesn't even follow basic supply and demand rules)
- FEDERAL government paid universal healthcare
- Set some type of results drive accountability for the federal reserve

Granular Policy Level(no specific order)
- Abolition of Capital gains tax, treat ALL income as income (including inheritance and gifts) and tax at regular income tax rate
- Dial up taxes on people making more don't stop at 35%
- Mandate absolute margin requirements and don't leave it at the discretion of rating agencies for any type of leveraged trades - Jail, punish and tarnish offenders
- Heavily regulate speculative investing
- Set debt reduction goals - x% of Govt. Debt to be paid off and not recirculated in y years
- Educate politicians on the intricacies of derivatives trading - they can't write laws for what they don't understand
- Make publicizing tax returns for all people running for public office MANDATORY when running and when in office
- Federal and State governments should publish complete breakdown of how they spend what funds at year end - and provide metrics on what that spending accomplished

These are apolitical - and doesn't require any type of party adherence

So back to our differences - there is nothing apolitical about what you just listed. I know this for a fact because there literally isn't anything that is apolitical. That's mythological.

Abolishing capital gains tax? Raising the tax code on the rich? Apolitical? I'm making a concerted effort not to say something sarcastic right now.

As I understood it this sub-thread is about the marriage between the practical and the theoretical. Removing politics from the equation is a futile, counterproductive exercise in a conversation about choosing politicians.

Finally you have hit something on the head - I am sarcastic and I definitely poke fun at people and probably in ways that annoy them - I get it. When I said "ridicule it of you must" - I was still kind of doing that. I don't think you ridicule me - I just think you take this stuff very seriously. I am offering you an olive branch - see if you can hold on it. You post a lot here and I read it with interest regardless of what I say about it and how I respond to your reading skills. I think you are quite smart and you demonstrate a high degree critical thinking and reasoning abilities. But you are centrist so finding "common ground" maybe difficult. Did I mention something about centrists and the black plague couple of pages ago? (BTW there's no overt or implied racism in calling it the "black plague" or "black death" it's a technical term. - see what I am doing now?? Yes I am still making fun of you ) And one other thing if you smile a little from time to time it won't hurt your face - I promise

"apolitical" - was the wrong choice of wording, maybe I should have said not specifically aligned to either of the two dominant political agendas. Simplifying tax code, paying of debt and auditing government spend will make conservatives happy too. I am not trying to remove politics I have no issue with it. But being a Socialist my POV will obviously resonate more with liberal people than with conservatives.

POGS

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I wish I could but I can't. I am not an economist or an expert on models - I have only studied the US economy because it applies to me the most. What Centrists and Republicans have destroyed incrementally over the last seventy years cannot be rebuild with any single or simple policy change it will take time and commitment. But I will make a good faith attempt - feel free to ridicule if you must

My ability to ridicule is lacking, I'm too literal and have no sense of humor.

But again from the discourse standpoint, I think you're somewhat dealing for the bottom of the deck. You challenge others to do the same, and ridiculed their attempts, but your own limited knowledge (not ridicule, I've already acknowledged I'm not versed in the topic either) leaves open the question, maybe there isn't any one specific answer to that question? Maybe we're all living in glass houses?

That being said, I do agree with some of the points you made earlier in the thread - what little I know about economics is just enough to know anybody who thinks they have economics figured out doesn't have economics figure out. It is as you implied more art and theory than science.

We are the world's largest economy, but were also a part of the world's economic ecosystem. It Is not an app where you can debug it, correct code and have it operate exactly as you instruct.

Moving on...

GAOLS
- Separation of retail and investment banks
- Slow and deliberate reversal back to the gold standard or something more earthbound - End of FIAT (look up Bretton Woods if you want details)
- Erosion, reclassification and redistribution of accumulated "paper wealth"
- Real wages to return to what they were in the late sixties
- Overhaul/Restructure Insurance industry (Consumers of the healthcare industry have ZERO purchasing power, insurance companies set prices to assure their own profits - this whole healthcare-insurance complex doesn't even follow basic supply and demand rules)
- FEDERAL government paid universal healthcare
- Set some type of results drive accountability for the federal reserve

Granular Policy Level(no specific order)
- Abolition of Capital gains tax, treat ALL income as income (including inheritance and gifts) and tax at regular income tax rate
- Dial up taxes on people making more don't stop at 35%
- Mandate absolute margin requirements and don't leave it at the discretion of rating agencies for any type of leveraged trades - Jail, punish and tarnish offenders
- Heavily regulate speculative investing
- Set debt reduction goals - x% of Govt. Debt to be paid off and not recirculated in y years
- Educate politicians on the intricacies of derivatives trading - they can't write laws for what they don't understand
- Make publicizing tax returns for all people running for public office MANDATORY when running and when in office
- Federal and State governments should publish complete breakdown of how they spend what funds at year end - and provide metrics on what that spending accomplished

These are apolitical - and doesn't require any type of party adherence

So back to our differences - there is nothing apolitical about what you just listed. I know this for a fact because there literally isn't anything that is apolitical. That's mythological.

Abolishing capital gains tax? Raising the tax code on the rich? Apolitical? I'm making a concerted effort not to say something sarcastic right now.

As I understood it this sub-thread is about the marriage between the practical and the theoretical. Removing politics from the equation is a futile, counterproductive exercise in a conversation about choosing politicians.

Finally you have hit something on the head - I am sarcastic and I definitely poke fun at people and probably in ways that annoy them - I get it. When I said "ridicule it of you must" - I was still kind of doing that. I don't think you ridicule me - I just think you take this stuff very seriously. I am offering you an olive branch - see if you can hold on it. You post a lot here and I read it with interest regardless of what I say about it and how I respond to your reading skills. I think you are quite smart and you demonstrate a high degree critical thinking and reasoning abilities. But you are centrist so finding "common ground" maybe difficult. Did I mention something about centrists and the black plague couple of pages ago? (BTW there's no overt or implied racism in calling it the "black plague" or "black death" it's a technical term. - see what I am doing now?? Yes I am still making fun of you ) And one other thing if you smile a little from time to time it won't hurt your face - I promise

Two things here:

1.) I'm not a centrist, I'm a pragmatist. Those are not even close to being the same things.

2.) Me responding to things very dryly and watching the reaction is me having fun.

When I wrote "My ability to ridicule is lacking, I'm too literal and have no sense of humor," I honestly thought you'd get the joke.

"apolitical" - was the wrong choice of wording, maybe I should have said not specifically aligned to either of the two dominant political agendas. Simplifying tax code, paying of debt and auditing government spend will make conservatives happy too. I am not trying to remove politics I have no issue with it. But being a Socialist my POV will obviously resonate more with liberal people than with conservatives.

Here's a problem - we live in a post-ideologically pure society now. Being against the left - whatever that is - is now a predominant 'conservative' ideology. Is why people like George Will no longer recognize their party and he's more at home now on MSNBC than he is on Fox

Bipartisanship is increasingly becoming a political liability in many areas of this country, and it doesn't even matter what it's over.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I am by no means confused about what socialism is. Nor do I have any ideological opposition to it. Believe me, in an ideological vacuum, I'd probably make you look like Tucker Carlson.

But I recognize the United States of America is a different animal than anywhere else in the world and that has ever been ever.

If memory serves you outright rejected political pragmatism as a concern, you vote (or at least voted) ideologically, which is 100% you're right, but whether voting ideologically will take you farther away from achieving ideological goals is a legitimate question, even if you don't want to entertainment it.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I am by no means confused about what socialism is. Nor do I have any ideological opposition to it. Believe me, in an ideological vacuum, I'd probably make you look like Tucker Carlson.

But I recognize the United States of America is a different animal than anywhere else in the world and that has ever been ever.

If memory serves you outright rejected political pragmatism as a concern, you vote (or at least voted) ideologically, which is 100% you're right, but whether voting ideologically will take you farther away from achieving ideological goals is a legitimate question, even if you don't want to entertainment it.

Ok. I thought you asked for examples of whether the types of policies I advocate for had actually helped an economy. Also thought the video provided fairly self evident examples of that. Even tried to make that clear where I posted it.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I am by no means confused about what socialism is. Nor do I have any ideological opposition to it. Believe me, in an ideological vacuum, I'd probably make you look like Tucker Carlson.

But I recognize the United States of America is a different animal than anywhere else in the world and that has ever been ever.

If memory serves you outright rejected political pragmatism as a concern, you vote (or at least voted) ideologically, which is 100% you're right, but whether voting ideologically will take you farther away from achieving ideological goals is a legitimate question, even if you don't want to entertainment it.

Ok. I thought you asked for examples of whether the types of policies I advocate for had actually helped an economy. Also thought the video provided fairly self evident examples of that. Even tried to make that clear where I posted it.

You already answered my question.

"I wish I could but I can't."

You are asking for specific Obama policies that improved our economy, I was asking for specific anyone's policies that improved our economy.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I am by no means confused about what socialism is. Nor do I have any ideological opposition to it. Believe me, in an ideological vacuum, I'd probably make you look like Tucker Carlson.

But I recognize the United States of America is a different animal than anywhere else in the world and that has ever been ever.

If memory serves you outright rejected political pragmatism as a concern, you vote (or at least voted) ideologically, which is 100% you're right, but whether voting ideologically will take you farther away from achieving ideological goals is a legitimate question, even if you don't want to entertainment it.

This is purely your opinion, I am probably every bit as pragmatic as you are we just see things from very different perspectives. The party in power can stay in power just through gerrymandering and math. I don't think there's any chance of taking over the senate and the house unless the electoral college understands just how fukked up the republican thought process is. You have to turn right wing voters left or at least make them reconsider - these are practical needs not idealism. I think they are finding out first hand. The dumbasses own all three branches now and still can't pass a law. This IS the best possible outcome.

Another 4 years of dysfunction, obstructionism and Meryk Garlands would have accomplished nothing.

Ok. I thought you asked for examples of whether the types of policies I advocate for had actually helped an economy. Also thought the video provided fairly self evident examples of that. Even tried to make that clear where I posted it.

You already answered my question.

"I wish I could but I can't."

You are asking for specific Obama policies that improved our economy, I was asking for specific anyone's policies that improved our economy.

Yeah missed that - our economy hasn't improved from a policy change in the last 70-80 years don't know what to tell you.

TIMELINE

The great depression (late twenties?)

- Roosevelt signs Glass-Stegall in 1933
- Roosevelt signs Social Security law
- Roosevelt signed Bretton Woods in 1941 - put us on the gold standard (unfair advantage against European countries)
- At least some good came out of these
.
.
.
- Nixon took us off gold standard, FIAT currency, creation of the Petrodollar (unfair advantage against whole world), strong dollar = huge buying power, weakened trade +++
- Ford inherited Stagflation from Nixon - reversed course twice, increased spending and cut taxes (Democratic congress)
- Carter followed with deregulation to spark "growth"
- Reagan perpetrated a fraud on the sheeple by hard selling Trickle Down Economics, kicked out Volcker and appointed Greenspan(Chief Architect of the Bubble economy)
- HW Bush - Inherited economic collapse of Reagan's creation**
- Clinton repealed Glass-Stegall, more deregulation more fraud(IMO) - This time Free Trade
- Bush made even more deregulation possible, balance of power in SC changed, Citizens United, Iraq War based on "fake news", 9/11- aftermath - Afghanistan war and Helicopter Ben
- Obama - Inherited Financial Meltdown - kept Bush appointees in place,let them create bailout package - more deregulation but also had Dodd -Frank, did not regulate derivatives when the whole country supported it

Really hard to find anything good here.

**
This is an excerpt from a Bush Clinton debate, gives you an appreciation for the level of financial savvy from the highest officeholders in the nation-

On Oct. 15, 1992, toward the end of a presidential debate, an African-American woman asked a confusing question: "How has the national debt personally affected each of your lives? And if it hasn't, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what's ailing them?"

HWBush: "I'm sure it has. I love my grandchildren. I'm not sure I get... help me with the question."
Q: "Well, I've had friends who've been laid off from their jobs."
Moderator: "I think she means the recession, rather than the deficit."
HWBush: "Well, listen, you ought to be in the White House for a day and hear what I hear. I was in an AME Church and I read the bulletin about teenage pregnancies, about the difficulties people are having making ends meet."
After more struggle, it was Clinton's turn--and he asked her, "Tell me how it affected you again?"
The woman was speechless.

+++
Economic Nobel Prize winner Krugman - The current world monetary system assigns no special role to gold; indeed, the Federal Reserve is not obliged to tie the dollar to anything. It can print as much or as little money as it deems appropriate. There are powerful advantages to such an unconstrained system. Above all, the Fed is free to respond to actual or threatened recessions by pumping in money. To take only one example, that flexibility is the reason the stock market crash of 1987—which started out every bit as frightening as that of 1929—did not cause a slump in the real economy. - The rest as the say, is history

--------
The sent closk is definitely ticking
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/DemWrite/status/902780364388794368

Click here to view the Tweet

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I am by no means confused about what socialism is. Nor do I have any ideological opposition to it. Believe me, in an ideological vacuum, I'd probably make you look like Tucker Carlson.

But I recognize the United States of America is a different animal than anywhere else in the world and that has ever been ever.

If memory serves you outright rejected political pragmatism as a concern, you vote (or at least voted) ideologically, which is 100% you're right, but whether voting ideologically will take you farther away from achieving ideological goals is a legitimate question, even if you don't want to entertainment it.

This is purely your opinion, I am probably every bit as pragmatic as you are we just see things from very different perspectives. The party in power can stay in power just through gerrymandering and math. I don't think there's any chance of taking over the senate and the house unless the electoral college understands just how fukked up the republican thought process is. You have to turn right wing voters left or at least make them reconsider - these are practical needs not idealism. I think they are finding out first hand. The dumbasses own all three branches now and still can't pass a law. This IS the best possible outcome.

The problem is what practically divides the country politically is decreasingly idealogical and increasingly cultural. You just aren't moving farther to the left, winning back independents and making inroads on the right at the same time with the same personalities and the same tpolicies, particularly if the executive and legislative branches are divided. That's when you get seven purely symbolic bills appearing on the President's desk repealing the ACA.

What I read from this is the pure progressive agenda is misunderstood by conservatives, but once in action they'll be won over in a 4 year administration.

Look we are clearly in a subjective area here, but I don't think the judicial branch and the Armed Forces for at least four years was a wise sacrificial lamb on the gambit political dysfunction was going to cause people to question their cultural and ideological values. Strikes me as postmortem justification.

I'm not talking about you per se, but I suspect a lot of Bernie voters assumed Clinton would win and they could still claim their ideological purity while getting their preferred results at the same time.

Ok. I thought you asked for examples of whether the types of policies I advocate for had actually helped an economy. Also thought the video provided fairly self evident examples of that. Even tried to make that clear where I posted it.

You already answered my question.

"I wish I could but I can't."

You are asking for specific Obama policies that improved our economy, I was asking for specific anyone's policies that improved our economy.

Yeah missed that - our economy hasn't improved from a policy change in the last 70-80 years don't know what to tell you.

I think what that suggests is expectations should be extremely tempered about what can be accomplished from an economic policy standpoint in four years.

Our economy is something of a runaway train.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I am by no means confused about what socialism is. Nor do I have any ideological opposition to it. Believe me, in an ideological vacuum, I'd probably make you look like Tucker Carlson.

But I recognize the United States of America is a different animal than anywhere else in the world and that has ever been ever.

If memory serves you outright rejected political pragmatism as a concern, you vote (or at least voted) ideologically, which is 100% you're right, but whether voting ideologically will take you farther away from achieving ideological goals is a legitimate question, even if you don't want to entertainment it.

This is purely your opinion, I am probably every bit as pragmatic as you are we just see things from very different perspectives. The party in power can stay in power just through gerrymandering and math. I don't think there's any chance of taking over the senate and the house unless the electoral college understands just how fukked up the republican thought process is. You have to turn right wing voters left or at least make them reconsider - these are practical needs not idealism. I think they are finding out first hand. The dumbasses own all three branches now and still can't pass a law. This IS the best possible outcome.

The problem is what practically divides the country politically is decreasingly idealogical and increasingly cultural. You just aren't moving farther to the left, winning back independents and making inroads on the right at the same time with the same personalities and the same tpolicies, particularly if the executive and legislative branches are divided. That's when you get seven purely symbolic bills appearing on the President's desk repealing the ACA.

What I read from this is the pure progressive agenda is misunderstood by conservatives, but once in action they'll be won over in a 4 year administration.

What I am trying to communicate has nothing to do with progressive agenda, I am completely aligned that trying to push that on the country as currently constructed would self implode. What I am saying is I want the rank and file republican voters (at least the ones that can still read and process information) to see the financial outcomes that follow when the policies they support play out in full. I don't need them to understand progressive agenda, I would be happy to see them acknowledge the failure of their own agenda. That and only that will move enough people to switch allegiance for more than one or two election cycles. There was lot of frustration and Trump has channeled it in the wrong direction - whether we see him getting impeached or the GOP self implodes or other types of outcomes which cause more pain directly to the middle class - I am completely agnostic at this point. Basically I have had it with the waiting game and incremental bullshit - we need more drastic change. For that change to be in the right direction (ok I really mean the left direction) - we need the GOP to show their own supporters how truly fukked up they are. My opinion.

Look we are clearly in a subjective area here, but I don't think the judicial branch and the Armed Forces for at least four years was a wise sacrificial lamb on the gambit political dysfunction was going to cause people to question their cultural and ideological values. Strikes me as postmortem justification.

I'm not talking about you per se, but I suspect a lot of Bernie voters assumed Clinton would win and they could still claim their ideological purity while getting their preferred results at the same time.

We will obviously not agree on this. There is more than one way to skin a a cat.

Ok. I thought you asked for examples of whether the types of policies I advocate for had actually helped an economy. Also thought the video provided fairly self evident examples of that. Even tried to make that clear where I posted it.

You already answered my question.

"I wish I could but I can't."

You are asking for specific Obama policies that improved our economy, I was asking for specific anyone's policies that improved our economy.

Yeah missed that - our economy hasn't improved from a policy change in the last 70-80 years don't know what to tell you.

I think what that suggests is expectations should be extremely tempered about what can be accomplished from an economic policy standpoint in four years.

Our economy is something of a runaway train.

Yes it's been that way for a while - what is needed is hardcore gut wrenching reform not wimpy incremental bipartisan Kumbaya singing bullshit. I have no fantasies about that ever happening.
Again in my opinion it will stay a train wreck till it's completely burned itself out.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-m...

Special counsel Bob Mueller has teamed up with the IRS. According to sources familiar with his investigation into alleged Russian election interference, his probe has enlisted the help of agents from the IRS’ Criminal Investigations unit.

This unit—known as CI—is one of the federal government’s most tight-knit, specialized, and secretive investigative entities. Its 2,500 agents focus exclusively on financial crime, including tax evasion and money laundering. A former colleague of Mueller’s said he always liked working with IRS’ special agents, especially when he was a U.S. Attorney.

And it goes without saying that the IRS has access to Trump’s tax returns—documents that the president has long resisted releasing to the public.

Hopefully the irs probe will convince someone to rat out he Donald. Can't wait for the next round of legislative failures. Hopefully; dems can stop allot the plan tax cuts on the rich.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

Very insightful and fair analysts in this video.
We learned all this in Soviet school and collage.
It was a mandatory subjects on this matters with final exam.
For some reason they forget to mention Israel Kibbutz system which is 100% communism and works very well already 60 years.
This social experiment with free entry and exit from Kibbutz communist community shows that up to 2% of people can leave a happy productive life.
Most of the socialist countries tried to create "new kind of person" which will be willing to leave for others and society benefits and be happy with that.
In my opinion society had to have majority of this kind of people in first place.
After this and after abundance of resources socialism utopia can became reality.
But as absolute majority of people anywhere in the world are complete opposite there is long long time before it will be possible.
So the few who wanted this NOW very badly used extreme violence and lies to force people to be what they cannot be.
Scandinavian half-socialism is in fact most successful because this countries due to small population and strong economy have more wealth per capita comparing to other countries.
They also have culture of mutual support due to the history of survival in very difficult conditions of the north with cold weather and limited natural resources.
I am not opposing socialist ideas of brotherhood of man and people loving each other. I just don't see this being possible in our lifetime.

The Dems are bringing back Eric Holder to help out with redistricting. You would think they learned their lesson.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...

Four: There is a huge misconception, pushed equally by odd bedfellows in the financial community and Obama supporters, that Eric Holder didn't send anyone from Wall Street to jail because "no one broke any laws."

This preposterous meme grew out of something Barack Obama said on 60 Minutes. Here are the president's exact words:

"Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street — in some cases some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street — wasn't illegal."

Obama, a brilliant lawyer and wordsmith, was not saying that all of the behavior leading to the crash was legal. He merely said that some of the worst behavior wasn't illegal. Which is true. Meaningless, but true.

Of course, some of the worst behavior was very illegal. This is confirmed in the fact that Holder extracted billions of dollars in settlement monies and even, in a few cases, obtained guilty pleas for crimes like fraud, manipulation, bribery, money laundering and tax evasion.

Anyone who even tries to claim that none of the banks actually did anything illegal should be directed to the HSBC settlement of December 2012. In this deferred prosecution agreement, Europe's largest bank paid $1.92 billion to settle their responsibility for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and other laws.

This is from a description of HSBC's crimes by Holder's Justice Department:

"As a result of HSBC Bank USA's AML failures, at least $881 million in drug trafficking proceeds – including proceeds of drug trafficking by the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico…were laundered through HSBC Bank USA."

You might remember the Sinaloa cartel for their ISIS-style, unforgettably upsetting torture videos. HSBC washed their cash. They even created special teller windows to make their deposits easier. This is admitted, not alleged.

But Holder went out of his way to let them keep their U.S. charter. He gave their executives a grand total of zero days in jail, zero dollars in individual fines.

To reiterate: HSBC laundered money for guys who chop peoples' heads off with chainsaws. So we can dispense with the "but no one broke any laws" thing.

GustavBahler wrote:The Dems are bringing back Eric Holder to help out with redistricting. You would think they learned their lesson.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...

Four: There is a huge misconception, pushed equally by odd bedfellows in the financial community and Obama supporters, that Eric Holder didn't send anyone from Wall Street to jail because "no one broke any laws."

This preposterous meme grew out of something Barack Obama said on 60 Minutes. Here are the president's exact words:

"Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street — in some cases some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street — wasn't illegal."

Obama, a brilliant lawyer and wordsmith, was not saying that all of the behavior leading to the crash was legal. He merely said that some of the worst behavior wasn't illegal. Which is true. Meaningless, but true.

Of course, some of the worst behavior was very illegal. This is confirmed in the fact that Holder extracted billions of dollars in settlement monies and even, in a few cases, obtained guilty pleas for crimes like fraud, manipulation, bribery, money laundering and tax evasion.

Anyone who even tries to claim that none of the banks actually did anything illegal should be directed to the HSBC settlement of December 2012. In this deferred prosecution agreement, Europe's largest bank paid $1.92 billion to settle their responsibility for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and other laws.

This is from a description of HSBC's crimes by Holder's Justice Department:

"As a result of HSBC Bank USA's AML failures, at least $881 million in drug trafficking proceeds – including proceeds of drug trafficking by the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico…were laundered through HSBC Bank USA."

You might remember the Sinaloa cartel for their ISIS-style, unforgettably upsetting torture videos. HSBC washed their cash. They even created special teller windows to make their deposits easier. This is admitted, not alleged.

But Holder went out of his way to let them keep their U.S. charter. He gave their executives a grand total of zero days in jail, zero dollars in individual fines.

To reiterate: HSBC laundered money for guys who chop peoples' heads off with chainsaws. So we can dispense with the "but no one broke any laws" thing.

Where they can get from their shared submarine?
They can survive together or go down to the bottom together.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I am by no means confused about what socialism is. Nor do I have any ideological opposition to it. Believe me, in an ideological vacuum, I'd probably make you look like Tucker Carlson.

But I recognize the United States of America is a different animal than anywhere else in the world and that has ever been ever.

If memory serves you outright rejected political pragmatism as a concern, you vote (or at least voted) ideologically, which is 100% you're right, but whether voting ideologically will take you farther away from achieving ideological goals is a legitimate question, even if you don't want to entertainment it.

This is purely your opinion, I am probably every bit as pragmatic as you are we just see things from very different perspectives. The party in power can stay in power just through gerrymandering and math. I don't think there's any chance of taking over the senate and the house unless the electoral college understands just how fukked up the republican thought process is. You have to turn right wing voters left or at least make them reconsider - these are practical needs not idealism. I think they are finding out first hand. The dumbasses own all three branches now and still can't pass a law. This IS the best possible outcome.

The problem is what practically divides the country politically is decreasingly idealogical and increasingly cultural. You just aren't moving farther to the left, winning back independents and making inroads on the right at the same time with the same personalities and the same tpolicies, particularly if the executive and legislative branches are divided. That's when you get seven purely symbolic bills appearing on the President's desk repealing the ACA.

What I read from this is the pure progressive agenda is misunderstood by conservatives, but once in action they'll be won over in a 4 year administration.

What I am trying to communicate has nothing to do with progressive agenda, I am completely aligned that trying to push that on the country as currently constructed would self implode. What I am saying is I want the rank and file republican voters (at least the ones that can still read and process information) to see the financial outcomes that follow when the policies they support play out in full. I don't need them to understand progressive agenda, I would be happy to see them acknowledge the failure of their own agenda. That and only that will move enough people to switch allegiance for more than one or two election cycles.

97% of Americans on both sides don't fundamentally understand why the 2008 implosion happened. The way people absorb "news" today means an entire voting block is never going to confront any harsh ideological realities, because they'll never actually be exposed to them, or believe it even if they are.

The idea that FOX News and Rush Limbaugh would during a financial crisis start "informing" their audience that it was their conservative ideology that was the culprit all along is frankly ludicrous.

Basically I have had it with the waiting game and incremental bullshit - we need more drastic change. For that change to be in the right direction (ok I really mean the left direction) - we need the GOP to show their own supporters how truly fukked up they are. My opinion.

It's interesting in theory, but fantastical in application.

And while this demonstration of the abject failure of conservative fiscal ideology is occurring, we'll have the abject failure of conservative social ideology to enjoy on top of it.

Politics aren't every REALLY the problem.

People are.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:At least he is consistent. Rather than avoid another political issue, Trump goes and pardons the former sheriff in Arizona. Trump is the trainwreck that won't stop until he destroys the republican party. The democrats need to get focused on a message directed at the economy (which the Democrats and Obama are responsible for improving from the disaster that was George Bush and the republicans). Democrats, stop focusing on race and civil rights and explain to people why democratic policies will create jobs and balance the budget. Cutting taxes is not the answer and the democrats need to do a better job explaining that. Clinton focused to much on what a bad person Trump was and not enough about how Obama's policies got us out of the worse depression since the Great depression.

This is a good example of what I find wrong with the narrative. The disastrous turn of events in the financial crisis want created by Bush alone. It's just played out when he was in the White House. Democrats did nothing to fix the economy other than agreeing to proposals set forth by Republican appointed people in various positions. I have asked you guys to provide specifics on how the economy was improved and I have heard zero. Dodd-Frank was a law being passed unless you can show me how it impacted the economy there's no case for it. Instead of repeating centrist talking points how about you come up with some real evidence of what the actually did to make anything better in the economy.

Lots of unpacking to do in the thread, so I'll try to stick to some of the major points. I think discourse is important so let me say as a preamble "instead of repeating centrist talking points" is a talking point.

That said, it's hard to have discussion like this given the limitations of the forum show when much time is spent back=and-forthing just finding a common reference point.

So in order to find common ground, can you identify a economic policy (contemporary, ideally) or two that improved the economy in the manner you're looking for, and how it did it?

I couldn't give you examples of other economies but this video will walk you through some examples where egalitarian models based on socialist principles had actually helped. A lot of people in this board will find this disturbing, it won't for their worldview. But you asked, and I found it - hope you like it. Please do listen to the whole thing.

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I am by no means confused about what socialism is. Nor do I have any ideological opposition to it. Believe me, in an ideological vacuum, I'd probably make you look like Tucker Carlson.

But I recognize the United States of America is a different animal than anywhere else in the world and that has ever been ever.

If memory serves you outright rejected political pragmatism as a concern, you vote (or at least voted) ideologically, which is 100% you're right, but whether voting ideologically will take you farther away from achieving ideological goals is a legitimate question, even if you don't want to entertainment it.

This is purely your opinion, I am probably every bit as pragmatic as you are we just see things from very different perspectives. The party in power can stay in power just through gerrymandering and math. I don't think there's any chance of taking over the senate and the house unless the electoral college understands just how fukked up the republican thought process is. You have to turn right wing voters left or at least make them reconsider - these are practical needs not idealism. I think they are finding out first hand. The dumbasses own all three branches now and still can't pass a law. This IS the best possible outcome.

The problem is what practically divides the country politically is decreasingly idealogical and increasingly cultural. You just aren't moving farther to the left, winning back independents and making inroads on the right at the same time with the same personalities and the same tpolicies, particularly if the executive and legislative branches are divided. That's when you get seven purely symbolic bills appearing on the President's desk repealing the ACA.

What I read from this is the pure progressive agenda is misunderstood by conservatives, but once in action they'll be won over in a 4 year administration.

What I am trying to communicate has nothing to do with progressive agenda, I am completely aligned that trying to push that on the country as currently constructed would self implode. What I am saying is I want the rank and file republican voters (at least the ones that can still read and process information) to see the financial outcomes that follow when the policies they support play out in full. I don't need them to understand progressive agenda, I would be happy to see them acknowledge the failure of their own agenda. That and only that will move enough people to switch allegiance for more than one or two election cycles.

97% of Americans on both sides don't fundamentally understand why the 2008 implosion happened. The way people absorb "news" today means an entire voting block is never going to confront any harsh ideological realities, because they'll never actually be exposed to them, or believe it even if they are.

The idea that FOX News and Rush Limbaugh would during a financial crisis start "informing" their audience that it was their conservative ideology that was the culprit all along is frankly ludicrous.

Basically I have had it with the waiting game and incremental bullshit - we need more drastic change. For that change to be in the right direction (ok I really mean the left direction) - we need the GOP to show their own supporters how truly fukked up they are. My opinion.

It's interesting in theory, but fantastical in application.

And while this demonstration of the abject failure of conservative fiscal ideology is occurring, we'll have the abject failure of conservative social ideology to enjoy on top of it.

Politics aren't every REALLY the problem.

People are.

+1
And regular people get what they deserve.
They act like Trump - they get Trump.
They want reality show - they get reality show.
But some group of people who wrote and knew the script get all money and power.
And deservedly so.