monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Olivier5,

They do.....

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I do think that a less naïve embrace of globalization could have helped. It's never an obligation to lower tarrifs with everyone and everybody. Rather, it's an ideology. The dems should IMO clearly state that the state can try and protect jobs and aim to strengthen the job market; that the rich needs to be taxed more, not less, that corporate influence on Washington should be sevetely curtailed. Clarity of purpose is impirtant, and these are not lies.

The second and third points you list are long-standing planks on the Dem platform. They have been consistent about these positions and even vociferous about them.

The real problem is the first point. It's not at all clear that the state SHOULD try to protect jobs locally, because the process of doing so creates a lot of inefficiency and ends up hurting the very people you're looking to help. It would essentially be a lie to go to these people and say, 'economists and scientists tell us that this is the best thing to do.' They don't. Economists and scientists who study these things recommend the exact opposite.

Now, I personally am not a Globalist and have no problem with tariffs. I don't believe 'free trade' actually exists and I am firmly convinced that we have given corporations far too long a leash in this country and that they need to be tamped down - hard. But I'm not naive enough to think that these things will come without a price, and that price is frankly unpalatable to a lot of voters and isn't a winning message. So it's lie and pretend the price doesn't exist, or run on a losing message, neither of which is a very good way to get anything actually done.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@thack45,

I agree that the US should dump both parties, or radically reform them. A first-past-the-post voting rule will always favour a two-party system, but it doesn't need to be always the same two parties.

Power corrupts, and parties that remain in power for too long inevitably become corrupted.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

This is pretty damn clear, and unless I'm missing something I think your items are all on this list.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

FPTP is no worse than any of the other competing systems. You certainly can't look at Europe or Britain and say that they are any better off than we are in terms of political corruption.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

How much of that was the result of Bernie's campaign though?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

How much of that was the result of Bernie's campaign though?

Not much...here is the 2012 party platform. I could google the 2008 one for you too.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/04/us/politics/20120904-DNC-platform.html

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not saying that FPTP is worse than other systems, just that it leads to two-party systems, more often than not.

I do think that some European voters (it varies per country of course) retain a far greater influence on their governments' policies than American ones. The US lobby and campaign finance system are pure corruption, yet they are legal.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

You mean, Obama's platforms. He won, remember?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You mean, Obama's platforms. He won, remember?

Obama was the leader of the Democratic Party.

You said that the Democratic Party should "IMO clearly state that the state can try and protect jobs and aim to strengthen the job market; that the rich needs to be taxed more, not less; that corporate influence on Washington should be severely curtailed".

I pointed out that they, in fact, do state that clearly.

You asked if that was due to Bernie.

I show you the 2012 platform that says essentially the same thing. I could show you the same thing from 2008 and probably 2004 maybe earlier.

I don't know where the disconnect is here.

3 Replies

@maporsche,

The disconnect is that his argument doesn't hold much water in the face of the reality of the Dem party and their platform, so there's not much to respond with.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Economists and scientists who study these things recommend the exact opposite.

They don't all agree though. It's an ideological position, in the end.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Well, maybe you're right in general, but in the specific case of Clinton, she wasn't sufficiently clear and opinionated about all that. At least that's what the present democratic reformers seem to think.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Economists and scientists who study these things recommend the exact opposite.

They don't all agree though. It's an ideological position, in the end.

Having studied the issue rather extensively, I think you'll find that the vast majority of economists and political scientists do not agree with what you've written here. To say that it's merely a matter of ideology is entirely akin to claiming that the Climate Change argument is also simply a matter of ideology. There's actual, yaknow, science supporting these ideas, not just opinions.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

2004 Democratic Party Platform
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29613

Trade

Quote:

Instead of meeting the challenge of globalization by strengthening our workers' ability to compete and win, this Administration uses globalization as an excuse not to fight for American jobs.

Taxes

Quote:

Cutting taxes for middle class Americans. First, we must restore our values to our tax code. We want a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people, not a tax code that hoards wealth for those who already have it. With the middle class under assault like never before, we simply cannot afford the massive Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest. We should set taxes for families making more than $200,000 a year at the same level as in the late 1990s, a period of great prosperity when the wealthiest Americans thrived without special treatment. We will cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and help families meet the economic challenges of their everyday lives. And we will oppose tax increases on middle class families, including those living abroad.

Corporate Influence - tons of comments regarding corporate influence, but since Citizens United hadn't be decided by the SCOTUS yet, it's not a specific bullet point.

Fact is that the Democratic Party has been pretty clear with it's goals for a long time and have been taking steps to achieve them.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Well, maybe you're right in general, but in the specific case of Clinton, she wasn't sufficiently clear and opinionated about all that. At least that's what the present democratic reformers seem to think.

I've fallen into your trap again. I'm not discussing 2016 here.

1 Reply

Donald Trump wrote:

The saddest thing is, because I am the President of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I’m not supposed to be involved with the FBI. I’m not supposed to be doing the kind of things I would love to be doing. And I am very frustrated by that.

WaPo

Full interview: LISTEN: PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP To LARRY O’CONNOR: I’m Very Unhappy the Justice Department Isn’t Going After Hillary Clinton

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Economy is a social science, and as such it is far more imbued with ideology than climatology.

You think China and South Korea developed their rather formidable industries by a laissez-faire approach? No they didn't. They adopted clear industrial policies and protected their national markets. Likewise Airbus and Arianne Aero-Space were built through state industrial policies. These approaches have limits but they do work in certain circumstances.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Sure thing. No hard feelings.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Haha, China developed their industries by having access to nigh-upon infinite amounts of cheap, uneducated labor and a total willingness to **** up their environment to the maximum degree possible in the name of profits. They are a poor example for you to choose.

South Korea is a somewhat better example, but you're also talking about a relatively tiny nation as compared to America. And one who hasn't had to worry about defending themselves since the day they came into existence. I can't agree that these are 1-1 comparisons that are relevant to this conversation.

None of this really speaks to the underlying point, which is that the Dems would have to lie to their citizens in order to mirror the GOP's success in... lying to their citizens.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know