US Politics Thread

[Asmodeus]

Since when did securing boarders become racist and a symbol of Nazism? I'm still trying to figure that one out. Also, if you think H's economic policies are good/better that T (his policies are vague but so are hers) I think you'll really need to take a step back and review the last 8 years of economic performance under O and decide whether voting for H, which is an extension of O, is good.

Some stats:
Median household income in the US has fallen by 4K since before the recession;
Black males have the highest unemployment rate since the 1960s;
Many of the jobs created over the last few years are part time;
Many Americans work multiple part time jobs to survive;
There are currently a record number of Americans no longer in the workforce (those include retirees, of course);
Income inequality is higher;
The poverty rate today equals the rate when LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

Now, don't give me that it's Bush's fault (I should say I never liked him either). You can't keep blaming the failure to correct problem over the last eight years on Bush. It simply doesn't work.

Why is this important? All H is going to do is double down on these same policies that have failed over the past eight. It's not working. Allowing millions and millions of unskilled workers across the boarders, for example, is economic suicide for not only the American middle class, but particularly the lowest classes in society (which happen to be black).

If the country makes the 'safe' H vote because somehow the mainstream media has classified discussion of strong boarders and nationalism as racist, etc., then the country will likely be in for a shock when nothing improves and likely gets worse. Where T is loose with the lips and had a nack of pissing people off, at least he recognizes that working class Americans can no longer survive under these status quo economic policies. H, on the hand, is campaigning on economic policies that already failed. It quite shocking that people can't get past T's twittering to see this.

 

[Federberg]

^If you're referring to my comments I don't recall specifically tagging securing borders as racist. There are a host of things that Trump has said that are patently racist. But perhaps that comment wasn't directed at me.

I think that generally people give Presidents way too much credit for economic performance. For my part, I can't see how anyone can pin the lacklustre growth of the US economy on Obama's administration. That paradigm is entirely due to the global financial crisis. Throughout history recoveries following financial crises have always been feeble. You can see this all over the world right now, and Japan is the poster child for the confluence of a financial crisis exarcebated by terrible demographics. I would actually argue that the US has been able to recover relatively better than anywhere else in the world. With regards to employment data unfortunately again I think that your conclusions about the available data are a misrepresentation. In point of fact this is the longest sustained period of employment growth in almost a century. Yes wage growth is poor, but that's a big part of the globalisation paradigm. In point of act the situation in the US is different in another way, as more and more baby boomers retire labour market participation rates are not going to look good in comparison to similar points in the economic cycle. This is nothing to do with Obama, I'm sorry, but that is simply a fact.

For what it's worth I would go further back than blaming Dubya for the current malaise. I really believe the ultimate cause of this is Bill Clinton's elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act. And the libertarian in me will reveal itself a bit here, but the Fed post-Volcker has massively inflated the global economy and we are all paying for that catastrophe and we'll continue to suffer from this for a good many years yet. It might play well to blame Obama, but that's all partisan politics as far as I can see. It's all very well supporting Trump as being an agent of change, but to date the man has not voiced any specific economic plans that will actually benefit the base that he has fired up, nothing at all

 

[Federberg]

can't get the insert image thing to work properly sadly...

 

[Ricardo]

^First of all... indelible or inalienable?

I think you both (@Asmodeus and @Moxie) make great points. But a number of things...

1) I don't believe Clinton has ever said that she wants to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. All she has said, and the polls show that the majority of gun owners agree with her, is that it's not unreasonable for gun purchasers to be properly vetted before they are permitted to buy. As some have observed, it's ridiculous that a person can be on the 'no fly' list but they're still able to buy guns. This is one of the problems I have with Trump, he has lied blatantly. It's very simple to listen to Clinton's speeches about this issue to get the facts, but that doesn't suit his purposes. In any case, - and I'm no constitutional expert - Clinton would not be able to eliminate the 2nd Amendment even if she wanted to. You would need a two thirds majority of the legislature, and at least 40 States agreeing with the change. That is clearly an impossible task. Trump would know this if he studied up on the constitution, and notice I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming ignorance, but the reality is that he probably is aware, and what it comes down to again is rallying the base by... lying.

2) Are the global elite becoming unhinged? I would say not. This is just the scripted response from Trump supporters when he gets called on some of the ridiculous things he says. But I do acknowledge, given the Brexit experience, that truth is not an effective weapon in the current climate. This was never so clearly demonstrated as when Gove commented that "I think we're all a bit tired of the so called experts!"

3) I do agree that some of Clinton's flaws are magnified by what has been a remarkable 2 decades of persistent and very consistent accusations thrown in her direction. Speaking to Republicans I'm friends with (oddly enough, I'm not sure I have any personal relationships with anyone who supports the Dems), they have all privately conceded that the whole Clinton-hate thing is a bit overdone. By the way some of these people have held office, albeit mainly at the state level. What I will say though is that some of the email revelations are frankly disturbing. There's a hint of patronage there that shouldn't really exist in a functioning democracy, but perhaps we're all a bit naive!

4) I think we all need to respect why Brexit, and Bernie and Trump have been such effective campaigns. This is something my colleagues and I studied for years in banking, and to be honest we thought the Occupy movements and the riots in London a few years ago was the start of the unravelling of the status quo. At that point the establishment was able to head it off, but as I remarked to a friend then... I didn't think it was over. Capitalism or what we like to call capitalism effectively ended when the Berlin wall came down. In it's place we have seen the rise of a corrupt version. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, because the Western model could pat itself on the back following the collapse of communism and we (the people) became quite contented and amused ourselves by reading books like Fukuyama's "The end of history". What we have now is actually more correctly described as a plutocratic system. For two decades the returns to capital have grown exponentially even as the returns to labour have stagnated. For the first time in generations young adults are earning on average less than their parents in real terms. Back when we started looking at the charts in our macro discussion groups we all acknowledged that this state of affairs was unsustainable. The last time we had this type of situation a corrupted version of Marxism was created and history tells the story about what happened there. I don't know what the endgame is, but this has to change. Bernie and Trump are the American rebellion against the status quo, Brexit was in large part the British version. I say this because the parliamentary system in the UK is in many ways anti-democratic. You simply, as a voter, cannot easily get your political desires fulfilled via the ballot box in the UK. That's what made the referendum such an effective protest against the establishment. For once you could vote, and your decision could not be frustrated by the first past the post system in the UK. I guess in Presidential elections a similar thing occurs (albeit less extreme) with the electoral college system. Anyway, a big part of the reason why the returns to labour have been stagnant is that multi-national corporations have been able to arbitrage away labour costs by exporting jobs to low cost centres. This is why specifically the lower middle class have been badly hurt by globalisation, so it's not a surprise that immigration is such a hot topic. Ironically this protest movement couldn't be happening at a worse time. I believe we are just about to see the globalisation dividend for developed economies as poorer nations which have grown rapidly in the last few decades start to import the sorts of products that western economies specialise in. Now would be the worst time to pull away from globalisation so it's going to be interesting to see what happens when the dust settles.

5) I do think the choice between Trump and Clinton is a tough one. I'm highly sceptical about a lot of her economic policies, but then I'm not a huge fan of a lot of traditional Republican economic policy as well. For the comments Trump has made (and I really don't care if he means it or not), the divisiveness, racism, misogyny and the dangerous ignorance, I think that Americans will do themselves a huge disservice if they vote this guy. He simply doesn't have the temperament for this type of work. I shudder at the thought of a foreign dignitary upsetting him and him making comments that could precipitate an international incident. The guy isn't even a real Republican for goodness sakes, he's hijacked a major political party and is going to ruin the careers of a lot of politicians. Worst of all he purports to represent the aspirations of the forgotten middle when he is part of the problem in the first place! It's like a bad dream

Anyway, that's my two pennies worth. As for you Ricardo... kiddo... you're as thin skinned as Donald Trump with absolutely nothing to back it up. This is an adult conversation. Remember, don't participate unless you have your helper with you

you are like Moxie, fancy words at length but hollow in substance. Absolutely nothing to back it up? funny you mentioned all of Trump's wrong doings but ignore Clinton's actual crimes...... and you are thick skinned enough to accuse others of being ignorant. Now don't get all upset when i tell it as is and put your back into your place.

going through your rubbish clearly shows what you are made of......put simply exactly what Clint Eastwood called the 'pussy generation'. I've for a long time told you that you need to grow a pair of balls before speaking, obvious that's beyond you now. Misogyny? that proves why you have a pussy brain like the feminists, who are the type of people who achieve nothing thus try to save face with rubbish labels. Trump's relationship with women can't be seen as abnormal, and is in line with many other ordinary male......why don't you back yourself up with facts? oh sure, none whatsoever, i expected that from you Shemaleberg.

You should shudder at a thought, or not a thought but a fact, that the average testosterone level of males has been decreasing for years. Many pussy men have for some years subscribed themselves to feminism, and became quite loyal at it....i see these days the likes of you walking around, disgusting these 'shemales'....appropriately called. Real men don't ever do this, period.

 

[Moxie]

It'd be interesting if Ricardo could actually back himself up with facts, and not just criticize others for making real points with actual back-up links. So simplistic to insult. So much more complicated to make a coherent argument.

 

[Ricardo]

It'd be interesting if Ricardo could actually back himself up with facts, and not just criticize others for making real points with actual back-up links. So simplistic to insult. So much more complicated to make a coherent argument.

there has been enough facts posted, you can ignore all you like but don't whinge that they aren't there. typical of Clinton supporters you are.

 

[Moxie]

Enough for you, I suppose. But you seem to have a very flabby notion of "fact." And you never debate the points put up. Lazy, or unable?

 

[Ricardo]

Enough for you, I suppose. But you seem to have a very flabby notion of "fact." And you never debate the points put up. Lazy, or unable?

so far it's all opinions from you, backed up by nothing but opinions yet you still whinge?

there are pages and pages posted about Clinton's crimes committed and what have you got? be blind when you choose to. Clinton has been around for a good 20+ years in politics, and stats/numbers (see posts previously) have shown her incompetence..... how does that back up your claim that she is 'more than qualified' to run for office?

not only she is unqualified, she should be trialled for her involvement in war crimes, her deliberate false use of email system containing classified info etc etc, its shameless of her supporters to ignore all that and still try to gloss up such serious crimes...... worst of all, the authorities have given her a pass on EVERYTHING. Clearly your justice system is rubbish, it's good for trialling people of much pettier offences but when it comes to applying to the big fish, it's non-existent.

Trump has no relevant resume to speak of when it comes to presidency, however regarding Clinton's resume? sure, plenty of 'positions' in government with demonstrably huge amount of incompetencies and crimes committed.

No resume vs despicable resume?

it should be clear which one is worse.

 

[Moxie]

You have posted no back up and make no argument beyond shrieking and brow-beating others. I won't discuss this with you anymore. You have no coherent or unique POV. Good luck to you, going forward.

 

[Ricardo]

You have posted no back up and make no argument beyond shrieking and brow-beating others. I won't discuss this with you anymore. You have no coherent or unique POV. Good luck to you, going forward.

blindness as usual.

continue with your bs and it will be pointed out. I never 'really' discussed with you, wasn't that obvious?

you never had a comeback with Clinton's crimes and have nothing but one-sided opinions....unique POV? all her supporters talk the same thing, unique....

 

[teddytennisfan]

you are going lower than i thought, playing dumb now......he's given you more than plenty of facts from news worthy sources, you are the one who says you don't bother to read then now, you whinge 'nothing substantive'!

Just crawl back Federberg.

thanks...it's like that old saying>


"you can LEAD A horse to the water -- but you can not make it drink".

or as PUTIN would say about all the unrelenting

USA-led EVIDENCE-FREE accusations

about russia "invaded ukraine...ANNEXED (AS IN forcibly taking) crimea (even if crimea had been russian LONGER than the USA existed! or before there EVER was a ''ukraine nation")

"are there ANY people who think in washington?"...
what ELSE can one do? sometimes you just give them the only kind of language they know...

 

[Ricardo]

to top it off, Moxie says she won't 'discuss' it as she can't handle the facts.

so she means that there are no facts about Clinton's crimes at all, thus legitimises her support for the criminal.

 

[britbox]

Thus US are really scraping the bottle of the barrel with Trump and Clinton as the candidates... but Clinton will win, like it or not, hands down.

On a sidenote, who was your favourite/best US president in your lifetime?

 

[Federberg]

I agree, very weak candidates. It's ironic that the GOP would have stood a chance with almost any other candidate!

 

[Asmodeus]

As some of you have already suggest, H gets a free pass from the media so there is a disconnect between her problems as a candidate and what people hear.

Here's a link to a conservative website I was not familiar with them till this point) that actually has a CNN reporter saying that they are specifically helping her. While it was during the primary period, it does convey the criticism that no conservative candidate is going to have fair and balanced new coverage.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/08/12/cnns-cuomo-comes-right-admits-couldnt-help-hillary-377744

 

[Federberg]

^I've been watching this election obsessively. I have to say, I don't think Clinton is getting a free pass from the press. I do agree that her flaws aren't really being focussed on as much as one would expect, but there's a simple reason for that. Trump. You would think the man would have the sense to tone it down just for a few days, so the press can report more on all this email controversy, but he seems pathologically incapable of letting her be the news for once. I don't know whether it's insecurity or a need to be the centre of attention. It's really such a basic strategy, that would surely be effective for him, it almost makes me wonder if he actually wants to win.

Funnily a friend of mine who's no Clinton fan at all, came up with a conspiracy that made me laugh, but things are so crazy later on I thought maybe there was something in it. He reckons Trump is actually a Clinton fan and is hogging the media spotlight to hijack any attempt for the media to get to the bottom of the email scandal.

As things stand it's hard to see how Trump can come back, but I just have this nagging feeling that something really nasty could derail the Clinton momentum and then everything will really be up in the air..

 

[Moxie]

I would love to know, honestly, why you guys think the email business is such a big deal. The State Dept. has found there are really only a small number that are in the questionable area. And why, if it was so important to national security, was it not addressed during her tenure as Secretary of State? Instead, it came up when she was seen as the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. Why doesn't this look more politically motivated to any of you, than a matter of dire national security?

 

[Moxie]

As some of you have already suggest, H gets a free pass from the media so there is a disconnect between her problems as a candidate and what people hear.

Here's a link to a conservative website I was not familiar with them till this point) that actually has a CNN reporter saying that they are specifically helping her. While it was during the primary period, it does convey the criticism that no conservative candidate is going to have fair and balanced new coverage.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/08/12/cnns-cuomo-comes-right-admits-couldnt-help-hillary-377744

I don't think Chris Cuomo speaks for all media in that rather tossed-off comment. However, the media has also helped Trump by giving his circus act non-stop free coverage which his primary opponents would have loved to have had. Only they had to pay for it.

 

[Federberg]

It doesn't have to be illegal to be a disaster for her. It just has to be enough to justify distrust of her. Aides in public office interacting with the Clinton foundation seems awfully close to corruption to me. She would be wise to get in front of it once and for all. When you think of it, she should be even further in the polls than she is right now. That's why I think there's enough of a bad scent to not make this a certainty yet

 

[Moxie]

But, and I know you to be a fair-minded person, the campaign to malign Hillary Clinton started in her first year as First Lady. Yes, Hillary has become mistrustful and secretive, but I think there's a reason for it. But much to the contrary of the hair-on-fire types who would call her a criminal, a war criminal, blood-thirsty, (I think I've read all of these adjectives here,) I DO think she's a person who feels a genuine vocation to public service. Again I will say, I don't think she's such a flawed candidate, and I don't think we're scraping the bottom of the barrel (whoever said that) to get a person as qualified as she is to lead.