Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Card

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ometer/browse/

    He's not even close to delivering his promises, and has controlled all the branches of government.
    Going back to this. The republicans will never impeach Trump. Despite many of them hating him, they know their electorate will never forgive them.
    I am even confident that if the democrats took the senate, enough of them will vote along with the republicans.

    And trump will win in 2020. I don't see a Democrat out there that will galvanise enough people to oust him. The Clintons will get involved and piss everyone off and Sanders is too old. Plus the supremacists and extremises will be happy with his work thus far.
    Finally, his strong arming of the EU, NAFTA and the Mexicans will no doubt prove popular.

    Comment


      Too right. Why should black people have voted for HRC ("superpredators"), whose husband enacted the three strikes policy and privatised prisons.

      The Dems also lack a coherent economic message. Minorities in the US are more often than not at the bottom of the economic pyramid, a pyramid that it is growing ever taller at the top and ever wider at the base. The white working class are also near the bottom of the pyramid. The key for the Dems to win is to unite the poor minorities and whites with a coherent economic message that transcends race, and get people enthusiastic enough about it to turn out. And then deliver on it, for once. But that ain't gonna happen until things like Citizens United are overturned, and the Dems stop taking corporate money. And overturning Citizens United doesn't necessarily mean that the Dems will stop taking corporate money. Obama was very good at raising corporate money in 2008. No surprise, then, that he bailed out the banks who funded his campaign.

      Until the Dems cease being corporatists and become a proper social democrat party, there will be no representation for the working class in the two party American system. This has two consequences: (1) poor minorities won't feel that their socio-economic needs are looked after and won't show up to vote, and (2) poor whites will fall for racist Republicans.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
        There are many black LGBT people and women who need those rights, but it is true obviously that most Democrat careerists see Black Lives Matters as to the left of where they want to "pivot". OTOH I think Obama did mention "police brutality or White Supremacists harassing people", at least in his own equivocal way, but it seems that white Democrats are reluctant to go there. It would need another Obama-like figure to emerge before we see that bridge crossed.

        Although I share your pessimism for black turnout in Florida, are there not hopeful signs in Georgia and N Carolina?
        LBGT rights isn't at the forefront of most black people's minds, And planned parenthood in the black community usually equates to abortion clinics so again, only a small number of people would be enthused by that.
        Obama also called people rioting against police brutality thugs so he's the last thing the black community need right now.

        There might be a decent turnout in the Florida governors race as it has taken a racial bent. I don't know too much about the candidate and if he has much credibility in the black and Latino community.

        Comment


          Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post
          Too right. Why should black people have voted for HRC ("superpredators"), whose husband enacted the three strikes policy and privatised prisons.

          The Dems also lack a coherent economic message. Minorities in the US are more often than not at the bottom of the economic pyramid, a pyramid that it is growing ever taller at the top and ever wider at the base. The white working class are also near the bottom of the pyramid. The key for the Dems to win is to unite the poor minorities and whites with a coherent economic message that transcends race, and get people enthusiastic enough about it to turn out. And then deliver on it, for once. But that ain't gonna happen until things like Citizens United are overturned, and the Dems stop taking corporate money. And overturning Citizens United doesn't necessarily mean that the Dems will stop taking corporate money. Obama was very good at raising corporate money in 2008. No surprise, then, that he bailed out the banks who funded his campaign.

          Until the Dems cease being corporatists and become a proper social democrat party, there will be no representation for the working class in the two party American system. This has two consequences: (1) poor minorities won't feel that their socio-economic needs are looked after and won't show up to vote, and (2) poor whites will fall for racist Republicans.
          This is why i love this guy. Solid post.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post
            I don't see a Democrat out there that will galvanise enough people to oust him.
            How about Cory Booker?

            Comment


              Originally posted by Wouter D View Post
              How about Cory Booker?
              He's Black and Gay, no doubt Trump will dig up a picture with him shaking hands with Farrakhan and wipe the floor with him. Can you imagine the presidential debates.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post
                Going back to this. The republicans will never impeach Trump. Despite many of them hating him, they know their electorate will never forgive them.
                I am even confident that if the democrats took the senate, enough of them will vote along with the republicans.

                And trump will win in 2020. I don't see a Democrat out there that will galvanise enough people to oust him. The Clintons will get involved and piss everyone off and Sanders is too old. Plus the supremacists and extremises will be happy with his work thus far.
                Finally, his strong arming of the EU, NAFTA and the Mexicans will no doubt prove popular.
                His trade wars aren't popular, and they hurt the US economy. The area where they were supposed to have appeal- the states with rustbelt in- look bad for the Republicans in the mid terms. A big factor was "independents" going for Trump. They're not going Republican at the moment.

                Comment


                  Too right. Why should black people have voted for HRC ("superpredators"), whose husband enacted the three strikes policy and privatised prisons.
                  Sanders voted for it too, because so many people were shit scared of crime in the mid 90s. Most of the opponents were Republicans, who presumably wanted a stricter bill.

                  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml

                  HRC recanted anyway.

                  http://time.com/4295463/hillary-clin...94-crime-bill/

                  Comment


                    The Dems also lack a coherent economic message. Minorities in the US are more often than not at the bottom of the economic pyramid, a pyramid that it is growing ever taller at the top and ever wider at the base. The white working class are also near the bottom of the pyramid.
                    Things are spectacularly shit at the bottom and further up in America, but it's fair to point out that Republicans in statehouses and blocking in Congress were a big part of that.

                    In terms of stuff being shit "for regular folks", as tapped into by Trump, median incomes did pretty well in Obama's second term, up by 10.5%. Looking at the St Louis Fed graph, which goes back to 1984, I can't see a 4 year period with a rise as strong.
                    Last edited by Tubby Isaacs; 22-10-2018, 15:33.

                    Comment


                      Much in this? Our pal Rick Scott might be lying about his government's responsibility for a bridge collapse.

                      https://www.alternet.org/election-03...se-fdot-report

                      Actually, the argument that his government's not involved already seems to be "our engineer was out of the office". I don't go as far as Nye Bevan and his bedpan, but that sounds to me like Scott ought to be taking responsibility for it anyway.

                      Comment


                        Could shift at least five votes

                        Comment


                          It's a close race.

                          Sounds like Andrew Gillum did well in the debate. Talking about things that probably don't shift many votes.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                            Sanders voted for it too, because so many people were shit scared of crime in the mid 90s. Most of the opponents were Republicans, who presumably wanted a stricter bill.

                            http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml
                            He explained it. It was a huge bill with loads of stuff tacked on to it. Bill doesn't go through, the other bits don't go through.

                            Here he is explaining it

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                              Things are spectacularly shit at the bottom and further up in America, but it's fair to point out that Republicans in statehouses and blocking in Congress were a big part of that.

                              In terms of stuff being shit "for regular folks", as tapped into by Trump, median incomes did pretty well in Obama's second term, up by 10.5%. Looking at the St Louis Fed graph, which goes back to 1984, I can't see a 4 year period with a rise as strong.
                              Dems have done f all to reverse the trend that Reagan started.



                              And this is pre-tax, not even factoring all the 1%er loopholes into account.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post
                                He explained it. It was a huge bill with loads of stuff tacked on to it. Bill doesn't go through, the other bits don't go through.

                                Here he is explaining it
                                That's feeble. Like Blair not opposing the 1994 Criminal Justice Bill because it was a big bill with stuff in he liked. And he only abstained.

                                Comment


                                  I guess he's just a big fat centrist then. You should like him

                                  Comment


                                    Nah, I think that lots of people panicked about awful rates of violent crime and supported stuff they shouldn't have. The homicide rate was about double what it is now, and had been seriously shit for 20 years.
                                    Last edited by Tubby Isaacs; 22-10-2018, 22:21.

                                    Comment


                                      https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1054528129534955521

                                      Comment


                                        "And yeah, I'm white, okay? Guilty. So I'm a white nationalist, and I'm proud to be a white nationalist!"

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                                          Nah, I think that lots of people panicked about awful rates of violent crime and supported stuff they shouldn't have. The homicide rate was about double what it is now, and had been seriously shit for 20 years.
                                          Yes, but the mass incarceration policies enacted at the state and federal level under Clinton had little to do with violent crime and more to do with targeting certain communities. Like the terrorism legislation in the uk over the last decade the gereal population went ahead with it as the implication it would not be used against them.

                                          Comment


                                            Very much so.

                                            It's an essential truth that many observers miss. Policies can appear to be "neutral" or even "common sense" on their face, but everyone involved knows (and relies on) the fact that they will not be implemented in anything resembling an impartial way.

                                            Comment


                                              Indeed. The fear of crime had been a racist dogwhistle since the late 1960s when Nixon alighted on it as a safe way to enable racist whites to talk about race issues. The Clintons crime bill was entirely constructed within the franework of this racist narrative. Which Sanders acknowledged, but voted for it primarily because it provided 1.8Bn in funding to tackle crimes against women.

                                              You might call it feeble, but I do wish you'd let us know when pragmatism is feeble and to be condemned, and when it's a sensible grown up politician kind of thing to do. I can't keep up.

                                              Comment


                                                everyone involved knows (and relies on) the fact that they will not be implemented in anything resembling an impartial way.
                                                e.g. "nobody is talking about leaving the single market"

                                                Comment


                                                  You might call it feeble, but I do wish you'd let us know when pragmatism is feeble and to be condemned, and when it's a sensible grown up politician kind of thing to do. I can't keep up.
                                                  I was talking about the framing here, rather than Sanders. This was a definingly awful bill that meant nobody should vote for Hillary Clinton one minute, but when it's pointed out Sanders voted for it, it seemed to become a bill full of good stuff that deserved support.

                                                  I'm well aware of how American crime rhetoric works, Willie Horton etc. It was an awful bill that I wouldn't defend. What I was saying was that I can see why lots of people who weren't dogwhistling racists might have gone along with it. You're talking about a murder rate getting on for 10 times what ours was for 20 odd years. I don't think it makes Sanders a centrist or anything else, I think his vote for it was just of its time.

                                                  I wasn't thinking in terms of pragmatism, and don't think it's all that relevant for an individual congressman when the bill's going to pass anyway by miles. But I had assumed that Sanders' Vermont At Large district was fairly safe. But now I look at the next election (the Gingrich "Contract with America" 1994 crap), he was run very close. So perhaps he did feel he needed to be looking over his shoulder on this stuff?

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post
                                                    Yes, but the mass incarceration policies enacted at the state and federal level under Clinton had little to do with violent crime and more to do with targeting certain communities. Like the terrorism legislation in the uk over the last decade the gereal population went ahead with it as the implication it would not be used against them.
                                                    Yes, I agree about this awful bill.

                                                    In terms of state politics, the Democrats got killed in the governor elections in the next round (including big states California, New York and Texas), so they've less responsibility for state level stuff. Which probably also tells you that this bill was a bad idea electorally too.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X