In short: It’s like if people revolted over the destruction of their local water system, disgusted by their elected officials who let this happen. All kinds of great analyses come out, breaking down exactly what went wrong and who’s to blame.

And in response to all of this great analysis, and that anger, the people decide to go with this huge international corporation, with a history of ripping off municipalities, stealing their water, bottling it up and selling it off across the world. They choose an even greater threat to their water system, instead of someone or some group with a history of actually fighting for clean, sustainable, safe water systems wherever and whenever they’ve been tasked with this.

— X — wrote:

wv wrote:

Neither threaten the power structures and both will/would increase inequality
and enrich the banks and corporations.

I know you disagree. We shall see in the next four years.

I don’t know that I do disagree with that. I never called him a unifier.
I’m leaving that open, because I can’t presume to know how this will turn out.
He’s already getting a little wishy-washy early on. But yeah. We’ll see.

But we already know how the GOP does things. We already know their desires to slash taxes for the rich and deregulate the financial sector even more. Trump agrees. We already know that his tax plan would add tens of millions to his own bottom line each year, and potentially hundreds of millions for his kids, when he gets rid of the estate tax.

We know all of that already.

If Trump really were the answer for the working class, why on earth would he promise to end an estate tax — a favorite plan of the GOP too — that doesn’t apply to anyone in the bottom 99.8% of the country? Why would he call for slashing taxes on millionaires and billionaires like himself? That’s not going to help one single solitary working class bloke, and the lost revenue will force the rest of us to pick up the slack.

When the plutocrats skate on their taxes, that means the rest of us pay more — and/or have our benefits slashed.

Reich’s analysis of the Dems is spot on. He’s probably even guilty of being too soft on them in a lot of ways. But the crazy thing about this election is that Trump and the GOP are the last folks on earth we should count on to help the working and middle class — much less the poor. They’ve never shown the slightest interest in anyone but plutocrats and oligarchs. Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s just the Dems who are in their thrall.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.

NewMexicoRam wrote:

wv wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

OK, I’m cutting back in to make one last comment.

I know the GOP increased the use of fillibusters. I knew that when I posted my link. I believe that to be the result of a president who tried to force things through rather than negotiate. He is the one who said “elections have consequences.” That should be a red flag for any party to hear. I want to see a President who will take the time to discuss with the other side and find ways to compromise.

————-

Well you are coming at that from a point of view on the ‘right’. You know how us leftists see it? — Obama didnt fight hard enough for ANYTHING. He was MR COMPROMISE. Or actually MR THROW IN THE TOWEL WITHOUT FIGHTING FOR ANYTHING. Honestly thats how leftists view him.

So, different ‘truths’ based on where we stand politically.

Different views.

w
v

___________________________________________________

So, you’re saying it’s ok for the “right” to compromise, but not the “left?”

See, I don’t see compromise as “throwing in the towel.” I see it as negotiation. Both sides get something out of it they can both feel good about (again, remember I know there are more than 2 sides to politics, but bear with me please). Just pushing and ramming through things all the time is tiring and creates friction before the next fight even begins. IMO, this is where Obama failed as a President.

I know extreme rightists will be disappointed in Trump and probably say the same thing about him, that he will “give in” too quickly and not fight. Just watch.

To me, the part in bold is key. There just isn’t any evidence that Obama and the Dems did this. IMO, that false perception was created by right-wing media and it just doesn’t reflect reality. The reality is, again, Obama and the Dems tried waaaay too hard to negotiate and compromise. In fact, they seemed to pre-negotiate with themselves before they ever entered the breach. This was especially true with the ACA, when they took Single Payer off the table beforehand, and then the Public Option.

They started the process with the GOP after they had already caved on everything the left wanted. They built upon Romneycare and the Heritage Foundation ideas and added 150 GOP amendments after that. And the Republicans still said no.

I despise both parties and I have never been and could never be a Democratic Party member. But I think it’s more than clear who plays hardball and who would rather hold hands across the water. Perhaps that’s all Kabuki, and I suspect a lot of it is. But that’s basically how the duopoly works right now.

Obama also held a summit on the deficit in the middle of a recession. A major concession to the Republicans, and incredibly stupid to boot. In the capitalist system, it’s economic suicide to cut spending and try to reduce deficits in the middle of a recession.

He also reupped Bush’s tax cuts twice
Kept his defense secretary
Rehired his Fed chairman
Kept his wars going and expanded them
Kept his GWOT going and expanded it
Radically increase his drone program
Continued his Wall Street bailouts, TARP and TALF, etc.
Never once suggested we should roll back Bush’s surveillance state measures
Added to them
Offered Boehner the “Grand Bargain,” which included slashing Medicare and Social Security, something that would have been unthinkable for a Democratic president a few years before that

The above is just for starters.

Obama’s record is “conservative” in every way except for a few culture war issues and the DREAMers act. Maybe a coupla “green” items. But on balance, Republicans should have seen Obama and the Dems’ governance and danced in the street, day after day. Because far from getting some “far left radical,” bent on “transforming America,” they actually got a old-style, moderate Republican with the D on his sleeve. And Obama worked hard to maintain the status quo ante he received from his predecessor.

I’m sorry Billy. Those comments are in the extreme. So the GOP “always” does the wrong and the left/Dems/whatever term you want “always” is correct and fair. Now you’re trying to change how to use the votes that were cast. Disagreement is fine, but villifying the other side with extremes just doesn’t sit with me.

Here’s the facts on fillibusters. Looks like the Dems have had more than their share of them:
Fillibusters

There it is. Obstructionism goes both ways.

So, I’m done with this. I’ll comment on your future posts if it appears you are using terms that are inclusive in arguement, but as it is, this feels like the “old board” to me. And I had enough of that to last me for a very long time.

Nothing extreme in anything I said, NMR. I just stated objective fact. And no way did I say or suggest that the Dems were always correct or fair. Far, far from it. I despise both parties, remember? And you must have skipped over the part where I criticized the Dems and Obama, which was each time I said they were far too willing to compromise and negotiate.

As for filibusters. Yes, the GOP broke all records since Obama took office. The two parties haven’t been close to equal in their usage of that tool. Not at all close.

(your own link shows that, btw. But I’ll provide another.)

3 Charts Explain Why Democrats Went Nuclear on the Filibuster

NewMexicoRam wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

Personally, I don’t see what the angst is all about. Don’t people realize that the GOP doesn’t have 60 votes in the Senate, like Obama had for 2 years? That means there will need to be major compromise and negotiation like we haven’t seen in many a year.
I doubt Trump uses executive orders to push his way through. Not like Obama did, anyways. He’s a populist not an idealist conservative.
I believe negotiation will now find its way back into our federal system.

Obama went the executive order route less often than Dubya, Clinton, Reagan and every president going back to Benjamin Harrison. And Trump has promised to overturn all of them — at least until he met with Obama and changed his mind about some of them. But we’ll see. Overturning them is also using the power of executive orders.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

As far as the lack of negotiation and compromise? That’s virtually entirely on the GOP, whose leaders said on Obama’s inauguration day that they would block everything he tried to do, and they were able to for the most part.

The Dems, in stark contrast to the GOP, are all too willing to compromise and negotiate. That’s one of their biggest faults as a party. Rolling over and playing dead for the other side of the aisle, caving in, basically always starting the negotiation process within the frame the other side creates. Drives me up a wall.

___________________________________________________

That’s not the history I’m looking at. Many times Obama blasted the GOP to get on his side before Congress even debated an issue. And Harry Reid did the same in the Senate. Did the GOP try to block things? Of course. Will the Dems try to block things now? Of course. But look at the tone the last 24 hours where there are reports that Trump is changing his tune some on major issues. It may make many in his camp angry, but it does show me that there is a willingness to negotiate. That’s important going forward.

I thought you agreed in another thread to look at the other’s POV?

NMR,

I read your point of view, considered it carefully, and I disagree. That’s all. And I said why. There is no evidence that Obama or the Dems were unwilling to compromise or negotiate. Again, IMO, they’re guilty of being all too willing to do that. And no American president in my lifetime has tried as hard as Obama to reach across the aisle. Again, he did this to a fault. It’s one of the worst things about the way he governed, IMO.

And the GOP didn’t just try to block things. They took unprecedented steps to do so, and broke every record for filibusters and holds in American history. The Dems don’t come within light years of the recent GOP for that. Think about it, NMR. The GOP refused to even allow hearings to replace Scalia! That’s never been done.

And to make it worse, they said “Let the people decide,” as if they hadn’t already. Obama was elected twice and his term runs four years, not three. And when Republicans thought Hillary was going to win, they changed their mind again about “let the people decide” and said they would block ALL of her nominees for SCOTUS.

Now we get, “The people have spoken,” cuz Trump won the Electoral College. Apparently, that only counts when a Republican is elected. If it’s a Democrat, it’s “We’re going to block everything they do,” despite the people’s vote.

PA Ram wrote:

I find myself reading this with a smile as I think back to Bernie.

Like him or hate him, does anyone believe that he would have had someone like Jamie Dimon on his short list for Treasury Secretary?

He was the most genuine candidate in my lifetime. I appreciate him more every day.

Agreed. And I still think he didn’t want to go far enough. But relative to everyone else in the duopoly? Yeah. Head and shoulders better. Definitely genuine and I think he would have crushed Trump.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

He needs people that can navigate the DC swamp. Lets see his policy initiatives in play before condemning him.

I think, in politics, you ARE the company you keep. If you think he is going to surround himself with Washington Insiders, seek their advice, and then pursue policies counter to what they advise, you are out of your mind. And you only have to look at these people’s history to know what advice they are giving him.

Same thing with Obama. Remember? He said, “Change. Change. Change,” and then appointed cabinet members from entrenched interests, and we got “Same. Same. Same.”

Agreed, Zooey. When Obama named his economic team, especially. All from the Rubin tree. Brought in all kinds of Clintonistas — neoliberals up the ying yang. And basically that was that. Went about as far away from his campaign rhetoric as one could go. Which is all the more reason why the right’s endless screaming about him being a Maoist, Stalinist, “far left radical” was all the more absurd.

He governed as an actual conservative, if we’re talking about that word historically. A few culture war issues being the exception, and maybe an environmental rule or two. But even there, he never, ever, not once, did anything “far left.” No American president ever has.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

He needs people that can navigate the DC swamp. Lets see his policy initiatives in play before condemning him.

That’s excusing and rationalizing everything he and his supporters condemned during the election. Now that he’s in, it’s apparently okay to be everything they condemned in their opponents. That’s excusing “crony capitalism” and “pay to play” now because it’s Trump and Republicans doing it.

And that’s the very definition of hypocrisy. It’s rank, slam dunk, obvious hypocrisy of the worst kind.

No it isn’t and you are jumping the gun.

bnw, this one is soooo obvious, I thought surely you’d see it too. It’s not debatable. There is no way to spin this. Just look at the people Trump has around him. They’re all long-time, crony-capitalist, DC insiders. And he’s already tapping Wall Streeters for key economic posts, and K-Street is psyched. Jamie Dimon for Treasury is a real possibility, for example.

He conned his voters, bnw. He conned them, and we saw that long ago, but his voters didn’t. They refused to see the snake right under their noses and he’s biting them now.

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Is that a balsamic reduction on those pancakes?
Because that just sounds awful.

Mrs. X and I are foodies. But not the shitty, ‘post immediately to Yelp as if I review Michelin Star restaurants for a living’ type foodies. We just like to try different stuff from all of the up and coming chefs and new restaurants/diners/dives in the area. We had Tapas the other day at Zambra, and it was really good. Expensive, but really good. http://zambratapas.com/cuisine/

That’s cool. I do love good food. And my long-time dream was to have a thousand acres of my own, grow all of my own food, have a coupla lakes and streams for fish and fowl, maybe breed rabbits too as a meat substitute. I’d have giant greenhouses as well, fill them up with every exotic fruit, plant and herb. Would do my best to make sure I never had to go to a grocery store for anything. Everything home grown and fresher than fresh.

Also dreamed of having work shops for wood and metal. Make my own tools and musical instruments. The whole 19th century deal.

Simplify, get back to the earth, get back to basics. End my dependence on corporations, etc. etc.

— X — wrote:

Take away Trump’s twitter. If he’s truly interested in bringing people together, then just stop tweeting. Doesn’t matter what he’s talking about at any given moment, because his feed is just a breeding ground for contemptuous arguments. And not even good arguments, really, because how much can you say in 144 characters? “FU LEFT DEAL W/IT HE’S POTUS U SUCK #BLOWME #GOCRY #SAFESPACE” I mean, truly idiotic shit can be found in the comments after his tweets, and that’s attached to him now. I heard early on that they were going to get rid of it, but he’s still at it. Not doing anything wrong. Just tweeting. But if you take the time to read the literally hundreds of comments that have nothing to do with anything he said, right after he tweets, you have to come to the conclusion that it’s counterproductive to even be on social media anymore. You used it to get elected, it was a good tool, now get the fuck off of it and go to work.

I agree with you about twitter.

Interesting thing in recent days: Trump is now saying really nice things about Obama and Clinton — Bill and Hillary. Very complimentary about both of them. It’s as if he really didn’t mean all the nasty things he said, whipping his fans into a frenzy of hatred toward them, all to get elected.

The subtext seems clearly to be:

“I didn’t mean any of that. It was all for show. It’s just politics.”

The pancakes, of course, are inside everyone’s home who lives beneath the rainbows beside the flowers.

Or, as Carlos Williams Carlos once wrote:

so much depends
upon

a red pan
cake

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
flowers.