Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantA huge problem when it comes to discussing policies, is that Trump is so vague about his. This, of course, isn’t unusual for Republicans in general. The Dems tend to be wonky technocrats, while the Republicans tend to use trigger words instead of policy talk to elicit fear, paranoia and so on. Trump has taken this a step further. He does all of that and then just says, “Trust me. You’re going to have so much winning, you’ll get bored with it.” It’s as if he watched too many reality TV shows starring Charlie Sheen.
So it’s generally pretty issue to list policies from the Dems, and next to impossible to do so with the Republicans, with one exception: Taxes. They tend to actually give us the numbers for their new tax cut rates, though they never talk about the fact that a ten percent tax cut for someone making 30K is nothing compared to someone making 3 million. Or 30 million. Or 3 billion, etc. And when they talk about getting rid of “the death tax,” they tend to make it sound like every estate pays it, even though less than 0.2% of the people with estates do. Right now, no couple with less than 10.6 million does.
Trump is also unique because the incredibly vague things he says about his policies often contradict each other. For instance, he wants this massive tax cut, including personal, corporate and estate taxes, which most economists believe would add ten trillion to the debt, but, at the same time, he calls for nearly twice the amount of infrastructure spending as HRC. It’s roughly 500 billion to 275 billion, give or take. Clinton pays for her new spending with slightly higher taxes on the rich — last time I heard, a new rate of 43% — while Trump slashes revenues so he has to borrow trillions for his plans. He’s also called for a massive increase in military spending, a la Reagan, along with his massive cut in revenues, so he’s likely to triple the debt just like Reagan did.
That’s just a bit of the policy differences between the two.
Billy_TParticipantThat right hasn’t been vague for 227 years. You have the right to keep and bear arms.
I know this is hopeless, but I’ll give it one last try.
Let’s say the BOR put in an amendment about boats. It said you have the right to keep and dock a boat. So, we decide to require licensing, registration and training, and limit the kinds of boats you can own and dock. Your “right” has not been infringed. Because the right to keep and dock a boat was never a right to keep and dock any boat you could ever possibly desire, like a nuclear sub, or a battleship. And your right was never written down as excluding things like licensing and registration, or any restraints, constraints or restrictions we might want to include, as long as they’re legal restraints in accord with our laws, etc.
So, when we say you can’t own and dock a Trident II SSBN, this doesn’t impact your right to keep and dock a boat. There are thousands of different boats you can keep and dock, so it doesn’t take away your rights when we agree as a people that some boats are off limits — or that we agree on background checks, licensing, registration, etc. etc.
And the above has always been the way our courts have understood the amendment, though, prior to Heller, they also said it was a collective right only, and only in connection to state-run militias. All Heller did was to radically reinterpret this to get rid of the militia part and change it from a collective to an individual right. It didn’t change the fact that we can regulate, restrict, constrain weaponry in America.
Billy_TParticipantNo sale. You’re using “Gun Safety” as a ruse to deny 2nd Amendment right. It won’t work.
No “ruse” necessary. The 2nd amendment never gave you the “right” you think it did. It’s never given you the right to unfettered, unregulated, unlimited consumer choice or firepower.
All it says is that if you’re in a state-run militia — which no longer exist — you can “keep or bear arms.”
That’s it. There is no “right” there to endless consumer choice of weaponry, free from restrictions, restraints or constraints. And we’ve always had restrictions, restraints and constraints, and the courts have always upheld them — even Heller.
No such absolute “right” has ever existed in the history of humankind. The radical right, led by the NRA, invented it out of wholecloth, and Trump is pandering to them. It sounds like you agree with their invention.
Billy_TParticipantI think you’re confusing the radical right’s absurd reinterpretation of the 2nd with its reality as an amendment. In short, they just don’t need to touch it in order to implement serious gun safety legislation. All of that would easily fit within its parameters, context and history.
As has been upheld by recent SC decisions.
..
Correct.
Scalia in Heller said the government can regulate weaponry and outlaw it on the basis of excessive firepower/capacity. It’s all a matter of where we chose as a nation to draw the line. So if we draw it before we get to an AR-15, that conforms with the SA even after Heller, which again went against two centuries of precedent. And Heller in no way says we can’t demand universal background checks, or licensing, or registration, or smart gun tech, etc. etc.
All the amendment says is that if citizens are members of state-run militias, they can “keep and bear arms.” There isn’t even anything in there about using them. Heller basically just took away the militia part and reinterpreted the amendment as an individual right, rather than a collective one. That doesn’t impact gun safety regulations as proposed by the Dems one iota. It’s never been a right to unlimited, unfettered consumer choice. So placing limits on consumer choice in no way, shape or form goes against it.
Billy_TParticipantAlso, on NAFTA, trade and Trump.
He’s been lying to his followers from the beginning about what is actually going on. Instead, he’s used jingoistic and xenophobic triggers to get them to believe these trade deals help other countries while uniquely screwing over Americans. In reality, they make things radically better for capitalists, capital and especially American capitalists and capital. But he’ll never be honest about that with you. He wants you to hate Mexicans and the Chinese and poor people around the world and to believe they’re screwing you over, when it’s actually American business owners and interests who are.
They wrote the treaties. They lobbied to get them passed. They benefit. They ship millions of jobs overseas, chasing after cheaper and cheaper labor and more and more profits. Trump does this too, to this day. So he can’t be honest about the real set up, because then you’d be angry at him and people like him, so he scapegoats impoverished Mexicans and Chinese and Malaysians instead, even though they’re getting the shaft too. Labor is getting the shaft. Capital, capitalism and global corporatism win, and that includes Trump.
He’s conning his followers. And it’s too obvious to miss.
Trump is campaigning on protecting and increasing US employment particularly in manufacturing. So capitalists can make money by not shafting the US worker. No doubt domestic and foreign labor are getting the shaft in those trade deals but Trump will be working for the US worker which is as it should be.
We’ve talked about this before. Trump has never, ever, not once, talked about how he would increase US employment or help American workers. He has no plan, other than slashing taxes for the rich and deregulating business further. Deregulation means fewer protections for workers and the environment, not more. Deregulation means Capital and Corporations have even more power over workers than they do now.
Again, Trump has never spelled out one single detail of one single plan to help American workers. All he’s done is tell you to trust him. He hasn’t demonstrated why you should. Ever. Not once.
Billy_TParticipantYou go on to say:
Trump is not the establishment as all the establishment is all in on trying to defeat Trump. One has to be blind not to see it. Trump wants to shit can the TPP and renegotiate NAFTA and if necessary to shit can NAFTA too. Trump wants to have a dialogue with Russia against ISIS. Trump wants to audit the Federal Reserve. Trump wants to end illegal immigration. Trump ants to support the police and our 2nd Amendment right. All of these are contrary to the wishes of the establishment. Their time is done. The people are speaking through Trump. The election won’t be close to allow the establishment to steal it.
Your first sentence uses your premise as your conclusion. Sorry, logic doesn’t work that way.
Second, Trump, as president, won’t have the power to get rid of NAFTA, even if he wants to. That’s up to Congress. And when it was originally passed, more Republicans voted for it than Dems.
Third, Obama has had a dialogue with Russia about ISIS already.
Fourth, we definitely should audit the Fed. Bernie Sanders has worked hard to pass just such a bill for many years, and hasn’t been successful. I’d love to see the duopoly actually do it and let the sunshine in.
Fifth, Clinton also supports the police and the 2nd amendment. No difference there. Obama does too. “Gun rights,” in fact, expanded on his watch to include open carry in national parks. There were zero losses even under the right’s mistaken reinterpretation of the 2nd.
The establishment is perfectly fine with the 2nd amendment and gun proliferation. It’s never tried to stop it. It also obviously is strongly supportive of the police. The police protect the establishment from the actual will of the people all too often.
3. Wow. If by a “dialogue” you mean threatening Russia by overthrowing the Russian friendly duly elected government of the Ukraine to expand and base NATO’s anti-missile shield in the Ukraine as well as allow Monsanto to further expand its GMO market into the Ukraine then I have to wonder about the efficacy of the dialogue you tout. Putin has made it crystal clear he views the expansion and basing of NATO’s anti-missile shield as a direct military threat and Russia has banned all GMO food yet the winds from the Ukraine will spread GMO pollens into Russia. We can then discuss Syria in which Russia is at war with ISIS while the US supports ISIS attacking Syrian government forces. Since Syria has been a Russian ally for over 40 years and the Russians were invited into the conflict by the Syrian government the US has meddled in Syria in violation of international law. Some dialogue Obama has there with Russia!
5. Total BULLSHIT. Hildabeast and Obama would love to take away the 2nd Amendment and EVERYONE knows that. As for supporting the police Obama has been a disaster. Hildabeast would love to get BLM’s support if she could.
We won’t agree about 1 and 2, and we do agree about 3 — though I don’t give Paul as much credit as you do, and his reasons for going after the Fed are, well, fringe nonsense. But that’s another story. So I’ll just respond to 3 and 5.
On 3.) I’m not happy with our interference in Ukraine, either, and I think we egged on Putin by bringing NATO too close to the Russian borders. Recently finished reading a bio of the Romanovs, and it reminded me about the centuries and centuries of invasion and threats to Russia, and their often merciless responses. IMO, there are no good guys in that mix, between us and Putin. Two empires with endless imperialist desires. But you’re wrong about US support for ISIS. That doesn’t exist. And in Syria, enemies are friends for a time, and friends are enemies for a time, and allies fight together on the same side as enemies, and vice versa. It’s a clusterfuck of epic proportions, and Trump doesn’t have a clue how to handle it either.
On 5.) There is absolutely zero evidence that Obama and Clinton want to touch the 2nd amendment, nor do they need to to implement the gun safety regulations they’ve proposed, timid and tepid as they are. All of that falls easily within the parameters of that amendment, and they could go much, much further, and should. Nothing they’ve ever talked about goes against it — even under the radical reinterpretation of Heller. I think what Trump and the NRA have done is to wildly, radically, insanely inflate the supposed “right” stipulated in the Second beyond anything resembling the reality of the words on the page, their historical context, and two centuries of juridical precedent. Even after Heller trashed those two centuries, nothing Clinton or Obama has ever proposed goes against the SA, so there is no need to get rid of it.
I think you’re confusing the radical right’s absurd reinterpretation of the 2nd with its reality as an amendment. In short, they just don’t need to touch it in order to implement serious gun safety legislation. All of that would easily fit within its parameters, context and history.
Billy_TParticipantAlso, on NAFTA, trade and Trump.
He’s been lying to his followers from the beginning about what is actually going on. Instead, he’s used jingoistic and xenophobic triggers to get them to believe these trade deals help other countries while uniquely screwing over Americans. In reality, they make things radically better for capitalists, capital and especially American capitalists and capital. But he’ll never be honest about that with you. He wants you to hate Mexicans and the Chinese and poor people around the world and to believe they’re screwing you over, when it’s actually American business owners and interests who are.
They wrote the treaties. They lobbied to get them passed. They benefit. They ship millions of jobs overseas, chasing after cheaper and cheaper labor and more and more profits. Trump does this too, to this day. So he can’t be honest about the real set up, because then you’d be angry at him and people like him, so he scapegoats impoverished Mexicans and Chinese and Malaysians instead, even though they’re getting the shaft too. Labor is getting the shaft. Capital, capitalism and global corporatism win, and that includes Trump.
He’s conning his followers. And it’s too obvious to miss.
Billy_TParticipantYou go on to say:
Trump is not the establishment as all the establishment is all in on trying to defeat Trump. One has to be blind not to see it. Trump wants to shit can the TPP and renegotiate NAFTA and if necessary to shit can NAFTA too. Trump wants to have a dialogue with Russia against ISIS. Trump wants to audit the Federal Reserve. Trump wants to end illegal immigration. Trump ants to support the police and our 2nd Amendment right. All of these are contrary to the wishes of the establishment. Their time is done. The people are speaking through Trump. The election won’t be close to allow the establishment to steal it.
Your first sentence uses your premise as your conclusion. Sorry, logic doesn’t work that way.
Second, Trump, as president, won’t have the power to get rid of NAFTA, even if he wants to. That’s up to Congress. And when it was originally passed, more Republicans voted for it than Dems.
Third, Obama has had a dialogue with Russia about ISIS already.
Fourth, we definitely should audit the Fed. Bernie Sanders has worked hard to pass just such a bill for many years, and hasn’t been successful. I’d love to see the duopoly actually do it and let the sunshine in.
Fifth, Clinton also supports the police and the 2nd amendment. No difference there. Obama does too. “Gun rights,” in fact, expanded on his watch to include open carry in national parks. There were zero losses even under the right’s mistaken reinterpretation of the 2nd.
The establishment is perfectly fine with the 2nd amendment and gun proliferation. It’s never tried to stop it. It also obviously is strongly supportive of the police. The police protect the establishment from the actual will of the people all too often.
Billy_TParticipantbnw,
I gave you the proof that he’s losing in all the polls. Do you have proof to the contrary? And, again, Trump IS the establishment. I have no idea why you think he’s this anti-establishment crusader who will go against the status quo. He’s supposed to be a billionaire, which makes him a plutocrat. He’s even more “establishment” than the Clintons. He’s not a threat to anyone in the ruling class. He’s a part of it.
And all of his policies would help his fellow plutocrats get much, much richer. He’d personally pocket tens of millions, as would his heirs and all of their ruling class buddies, just from his proposed tax cuts. And all the multinational corporations sending jobs overseas would also benefit from his massive tax cuts and deregulation.
I honestly don’t understand how you can see him as a champion for anyone but the 1%.
WRONG! You did not give such proof. You were suckered by both HuffPo and RealClearPolitics which is what they love to do. They set you up by not including the polls in which Trump LEADS Hildabeast on that page. Click the “Show More” to see what both of those rags chose to ignore.
bnw,
They showed the polls by date, with the latest first. When you click on “show more,” you get them going back further in time. They both list a huge assortment of polls, but neither shows Trump ahead after July 23rd.
Again, there was no attempt to “sucker” anyone. They just showed the most recent polls first.
Billy_TParticipantHe’s behind in every poll.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
The above link shows all the major polling outfits.
Another aggregator:
Same thing. Trump is losing in every poll.
Huge crowds don’t show anything but diehard support. You can’t win general elections with just diehards. And you’re talking thousands of people in a nation of 321 million. Sanders had bigger crowds than Trump, and he lost to HRC.
Bankruptcies. Anyone with six to his name has no business being in business, and especially no business bragging about how awesome he is at business.
No he isn’t. Rueters poll was BS since it polled 15% more registered democrats and thus showed Hildabeast up by double digits. The establishment is pulling out all the stops and only the naive will continue to believe the lie.
bnw,
I gave you the proof that he’s losing in all the polls. Do you have proof to the contrary? And, again, Trump IS the establishment. I have no idea why you think he’s this anti-establishment crusader who will go against the status quo. He’s supposed to be a billionaire, which makes him a plutocrat. He’s even more “establishment” than the Clintons. He’s not a threat to anyone in the ruling class. He’s a part of it.
And all of his policies would help his fellow plutocrats get much, much richer. He’d personally pocket tens of millions, as would his heirs and all of their ruling class buddies, just from his proposed tax cuts. And all the multinational corporations sending jobs overseas would also benefit from his massive tax cuts and deregulation.
I honestly don’t understand how you can see him as a champion for anyone but the 1%.
Billy_TParticipantClean and dry boots here. I know a BS argument when I read it. IDs are so onerous! That is the argument. Not having to show my passport or driver’s license, or utility bills or being forced to use a credit card or otherwise some businesses crap their pants over suspected terrorism. Be gone with IDs! They are bulky and can be lost so just take my word for it. I am who I say I am.
bnw, if we set aside the ID issue for a moment, which you’re not getting, that’s far from being the extent of the GOP strategy to suppress the vote. In states they control, they’ve also made it much more difficult for likely Dem voters by reducing early voting; same-day registration; making it next to impossible to conduct voter-registration drives and wiping out Sunday voting . . . . the latter being THE traditional day for blacks to gather after church and get their neighbors to the polls. They’ve also shortened voting hours and cut back on the number of polling offices, too, thus creating endless lines in areas most likely to go for the Dems.
The GOP knows that if Dems and Republicans vote in the same percentages, the Dems win. They’re are more Dems. So the GOP has done its best to suppress the vote, especially among blacks and college students . . . and the latter is where the ID issue kicks back in. College kids with ID are turned away, after GOP controlled states change the type of ID accepted. A gun license, yeah. That works. A college ID, no. etc. etc.
Even Republicans admit they do this. They bragged about it in Pennsylvania last time, saying it would guarantee a Romney victory. Luckily, the courts overturned it.
Billy_TParticipantAnother key here (IMO). Trump is only within striking distance to begin with because of Clinton. Had the Dems nominated any of a dozen other candidates, Trump would now be so far behind, he would have given up months ago. I think a Warren or a Biden would be crushing him right now, for instance. Not that they necessarily represent my own views, though they’re closer to them than Clinton’s. They just don’t have her baggage. And it’s that baggage that enables Trump to “only” be down by roughly 7 points nationally, with no real chance in the electoral college as things stand. As things go right now, it looks like HRC doesn’t even need to win the swing states in order to get to 270.
In short, the Dems picked the wrong year to nominate a Clinton. With a shattered, reeling GOP, a better candidate would have given the Dems Congress too. With HRC, they likely get the White House and the Senate, but then probably lose the Senate again in 2018. A different Dem would likely get them the White House, Congress and keep the latter throughout their first term at least.
Trump isn’t behind in the honest polls. His huge crowds attest to that. BTW business bankruptcies are not personal bankruptcy. While I do not agree with stiffing anyone for product or services rendered that is the law with which both parties in a transaction operate.
He’s behind in every poll.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
The above link shows all the major polling outfits.
Another aggregator:
Same thing. Trump is losing in every poll.
Huge crowds don’t show anything but diehard support. You can’t win general elections with just diehards. And you’re talking thousands of people in a nation of 321 million. Sanders had bigger crowds than Trump, and he lost to HRC.
Bankruptcies. Anyone with six to his name has no business being in business, and especially no business bragging about how awesome he is at business.
Billy_TParticipantAnyway, the above said . . . I’d be interested in reading your take on her policies — past, present and likely future.
Billy_TParticipantZN,
On policy: Clinton used the State department to ram American capitalism down the throats of several Central and South American nations
You mean she acted no differently than any other american regime has for decades (and wasn’t even the chief policy-maker unless we think Obama had nothing to do with it.)
Remember I was hotly and bitterly decrying that stuff, specific to south and central america, in the first round of huddle political debates back in early/mid 2000. So, yeah.
To me a policy discussion is balanced, well-rounded, complete, and addresses all policies including economic and so on. It’s dialectical. Even with Trump.
I mean no disrespect, BT, but I could repeat Hillary slams in my sleep by now.
That’s not what I mean by policy discussion.
ZN,
Did you miss where I said this?
Of course, she’s not the first to do this. It’s been SOP for our government for generations. But if she wanted to go against the neoliberal tide, she could have ended the practice.
And when you say this:
“I mean no disrespect, BT, but I could repeat Hillary slams in my sleep by now.
That’s not what I mean by policy discussion.”
What slams? Did I say anything that wasn’t true? And did I not differentiate between her actual policies and right-wing slams, plus “personality” issues? Um, yes, I actually did.
Billy_TParticipantZN,
On policy: Clinton used the State department to ram American capitalism down the throats of several Central and South American nations, forcing open their commons. Ongoing “primitive accumulation,” etc. etc. (which Marx erroneously thought would end in the 19th century). Of course, she’s not the first to do this. It’s been SOP for our government for generations. But if she wanted to go against the neoliberal tide, she could have ended the practice.
She also has a very hawkish record on war and empire. Again, this is policy, not personality. This is her record, not the fever-swamp creation of the far right.
Her coziness with Wall Street is also her record, not a matter of personality or just right-wing smears — though they definitely have their own version of that coziness.
In short, I think there IS a way to separate “personality” issues, right-wing smears and fever-swamp attacks from her own reality as a public figure. I’m no expert on the subject, and don’t pretend to be. But I have read (and seen) enough — and broadly enough — to make me not like her policy record. Though I think her husband’s is worse, and he obviously had far greater power to implement his vision, etc. etc. Though he was also subject to insane attacks from the right.
IMO, the Clintons really are unique when it comes to baggage they bring to the table — and that’s after we remove the Scaife-led attack machine and all its competitors for abject lunacy. That’s after we remove the irrelevant aspects of “personality.”
Billy_TParticipantAnother key here (IMO). Trump is only within striking distance to begin with because of Clinton. Had the Dems nominated any of a dozen other candidates, Trump would now be so far behind, he would have given up months ago. I think a Warren or a Biden would be crushing him right now, for instance. Not that they necessarily represent my own views, though they’re closer to them than Clinton’s. They just don’t have her baggage. And it’s that baggage that enables Trump to “only” be down by roughly 7 points nationally, with no real chance in the electoral college as things stand. As things go right now, it looks like HRC doesn’t even need to win the swing states in order to get to 270.
In short, the Dems picked the wrong year to nominate a Clinton. With a shattered, reeling GOP, a better candidate would have given the Dems Congress too. With HRC, they likely get the White House and the Senate, but then probably lose the Senate again in 2018. A different Dem would likely get them the White House, Congress and keep the latter throughout their first term at least.
Billy_TParticipantTrump, who is on to something, will still probably fail to win simply because he’s an asshole.
So we can debate his opinions all we want, but the plain truth is that he expresses his opinions in such an irresponsible way that many people will refuse to vote for him.
More likely he expresses the true opinions of the majority of voters who are tied of being lied to by establishment candidates. His speech last night was all about fixing the nightmare caused by the so called ‘responsible’ candidates.
Yes, bnw, the vast majority of Americans are sick of being lied to by establishment candidates. Very true. But they’re also sick of being lied to by established business interests, which Trump represents. The vast majority of the country also knows how often Trump himself lies and has lied throughout his lifetime, and they don’t choose him to be their champion in the fight against establishment interests — public or private. He IS the establishment. And they definitely reject his appeals to white nationalism and white supremacist ideology, and his tight bonds with the Alt-Right and nutcases like Alex Jones and the Breitbart folks.
Trump has gone bankrupt six times, and in the process screwed over countless working people. He lives like a pasha, while failing to pay his contractors, workers, clients. There are thousands of lawsuits against him for his corrupt business practices. He outsources all of his manufacturing jobs. He continuously uses the language of fascism to whip up hatred in his followers, and as a result, attacks on Muslims and Mexicans and immigrants in general are up in America.
In short, yes, Clinton is a terrible candidate and tens of millions of Americans want change. But Trump isn’t the change they want. He’s the past. He’s America’s reactionary, white nationalist past and most Americans reject that.
Billy_TParticipantTrump is most closely following Pat Buchanan’s 2000 campaign and his earlier campaigns and the Reform Party campaigns of Perot.
—————
Well, not everyone agrees that Trump and Perot are similar:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/8/1512900/-Donald-Trump-Is-No-Ross-PerotAt any rate, why will Trump succeed when Perot
and Buchannon failed?w
vw
vTrump will fail because his unabashed white nationalist appeals will fail. Most of the country rejects them. Perot never went there, though I have no idea what his personal views on the matter are. But Trump has stoked up the racist fears, resentment and rage of white Americans in order to build his base, and with the new addition of Bannon from Breitbart, this is all on the table now. Trump’s merger with the Alt-Right tells us in no uncertain terms that he’s chosen white supremacy and white nationalism as his vehicle to the White House.
Billy_TParticipantJust in case it’s not clear from the above:
Old guard “conservatives” are now speaking out about threats from openly racist, white supremacist groups and individuals, who gain some cover via “Alt-Right” publications like Breitbart and WND. The Southern Poverty Law Center, however, sees the Alt-Right as just racists in suits, a more “presentable” version of white supremacist groups like the KKK.
Trump seems to have created a serious split in the conservative movement, though from my pov, the old guard just isn’t being honest about its own racism, xenophobia, homophobia and misogynistic tendencies. It wants the rest of us to believe that Trump and the Alt-Right are bringing something to the GOP that wasn’t there before. It was. It’s always been there. Of course, prior to the mid-1960s, it was also heavily in play with the Democratic Party, primarily in the South. After LBJ’s passage of civil rights legislation, however, the South rapidly switched to the GOP.
Yes, Trump and the Alt-Right are far more outspoken about it, and basically have no filters when it comes to hate. But old-style movement conservatism had/has the hate too, but with filters.
It’s all beyond ugly.
Billy_TParticipantTrump never blames capitalism for any of this, or American corporations, or American businesses. He’s pretty clever to get his adoring, unquestioning legions of fanboys to miss the fact that American corporations push for those trade deals, write most of the language in them, and end up shipping jobs overseas — as does Trump himself.
Instead, he sets it all up as an us against them battle — America against the world. So his fanboys blame Mexico, China and some amorphous, generalized “Other” instead of the powers that be who create those trade deals (and mass inequality) in the first place:
Primarily, American billionaires and corporations.
America is also THE world’s evangel for capitalism, taking over for Britain after WWI, and then dominating as hegemon after WWII. Any critique of economics that leaves that out is, at best, ignorant of reality, and likely just cynically manipulating the gullible.
I suggested this book in the other thread, and will add it here:
Billy_TParticipantI’ve mentioned it before, but Michael Perelman’s The Invention of Capitalism is really excellent on the subject — with copious direct quotes from the powers that be.
And the Church did its best to also shame the poor into giving up their free time to work in the factories, the mines, the slave ships and so on. And this work-shaming was especially overwhelming and stigmatizing in Ireland and other British colonies.
That’s interesting, Billy. I’ll have to check that book out.
Nittany, it’s really an excellent book. Extremely well researched and supported.
I’d also highly recommend The Origin of Capitalism, by Ellen Meiksins Wood. Taken together, they provide perhaps THE best definition and history of origins for Capitalism anywhere. And the Woods book is fairly short, if you’re pressed for time. I also think she shows the uniqueness and unprecedented nature of capitalism better than any other book available. At least that I know of.
When it comes to stitching together how all of this played (and plays) out globally, the why and how, I highly recommend The Making of Global Capitalism, by Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch. But the first two, IMO, are the most important.
Billy_TParticipantI’ve mentioned it before, but Michael Perelman’s The Invention of Capitalism is really excellent on the subject — with copious direct quotes from the powers that be.
And the Church did its best to also shame the poor into giving up their free time to work in the factories, the mines, the slave ships and so on. And this work-shaming was especially overwhelming and stigmatizing in Ireland and other British colonies.
Billy_TParticipant——————-
Yes, which leads me to repost my favorite ‘law quote’ for the
gazillionth time. I never tire of reading
btw, what do you think is the core, fundamental, difference tween
right-thinkers and left-thinkers? What is the heart of the ‘difference’ ?I think of this right / left thing sometimes when i see debates
about Fisher, btw. Sometimes i think the core difference tween righties and lefties has ‘something’ to do with how they view…’context’. I mean is ‘injuries’ an ‘excuse’ or do we look at the context…. I dunno. Just rambling…w
vMy all too brief and simplistic response to that is the right views the world through a ‘moral absolutist’ lense. Everything falls into a category of either right or wrong, true or false. There’s no gradation between the categories. It’s black or white, period. No room for more than one truth. Whereas a leftist’s views are more nuanced. They recognize an entire spectrum exists between black and white…one shade grading into the other and what shade you see is a matter of perspective. Of course as I said that’s overly simplistic and there is a lot more to it and there are exceptions yada, yada but to me that’s the gist of it.
==================
I dunno. I think there is something to that, but i dunno.
Sure seems like, above all else, they Blame the Poor.
I just wonder where that comes from.
w
vI wonder if blaming the poor is an American thing. The poor are mistreated all over the world but it seems to me that only in America are they are blamed for being poor. It probably stems from that ridiculous idea that in America, if you work hard enough you WILL succeed so anyone that doesn’t succeed must be lazy. Anyone not succeeding simply isn’t trying hard enough. That’s probably rooted in American Exceptionalism or some other BS.
It’s not really unique to America, though we’re probably the biggest true believers. It really stems from the so-called “Protestant Work Ethic,” which was imported from Europe. If you read the political economists of the 18th and early 19th centuries, especially — and more than a few of the Enlightenment philosophers — they were often in the habit of shaming the poor into working. This, in fact, was a key aspect of primitive accumulation . . . getting “the peasants” to forsake their own means of self-provisioning, small farms, atisanship, home ec provisioning, to go into the factories to work for a pittance. Adam Smith and his very wealthy peers, all men of leisure, were always going on and on about how lazy and unproductive the peasants were . . . primarily because they prioritized family and friends above working to make others rich.
The state, of course, stepped in to put muscle behind the work-shaming, with enclosures, and changing the laws regarding hunting and fishing, etc. etc. But this actually all starts in Europe, with England being the prime locale.
Billy_TParticipantLike the lip service paid by leftists that won’t send their kids to the public schools they foist upon others.
First of all, “leftists” don’t control any levers of power in America. With all too rare exceptions, like the socialist (Dana) Lincoln had in his cabinet, they never have. Second, who are these people who supposedly refuse to send their kids to public schools, while simultaneously forcing others to?
And are you against public schools? Would you prefer it if only the very rich could afford K-12 for their kids? Or anything beyond that?
Billy_TParticipantThis is interesting.
There is something rough about the ideas in here. It doesn’t seem completely convincing as it stands, but the idea behind the article intrigues me somewhat. I can’t quite put a finger on what appeals to me here, and what just doesn’t seem to click into place. It’s like an unfinished conversation at the end of the evening in a bar, I guess.
That is a good article, Zooey. Thanks for linking to it. You probably already know this, especially with your background, but O’Hehir is a really good movie critic too. Very astute at picking up on hidden gems among foreign and indy films, or pointing us in the direction of films we should know about that are well-known in other countries.
Anyway . . . his overall picture of America made me think of Rick Moody’s Purple America and pretty much everything by Don DeLillo. America really is in big trouble, and he’s right to say the Dems aren’t helping matters with that happy happy joy joy nonsense, though it’s preferable to the GOP’s End of Days rhetoric.
There is, of course, no “happy medium.” But we’re somewhere between our best and an actual Armageddon. Perhaps too close to the latter for comfort, but it’s not happening for the reasons given on Fox news, Breitbart, Alex Jones or Trump.
Neither party has the answers. None of our “leaders” do. In short, we’re rudderless. Maybe that’s something we can work with?
Billy_TParticipantIf the shoe fits
You’re admitting to your own ignorance? Well, maybe there’s a chance for you after all.
;>)
Billy_TParticipantAnd, I think this concentration on the self makes it a great deal easier to support policies that help the few at the expense of the many. Because the right’s focus has always been the ruling class, the rich, the Church and State hierarchies and their privileges. The right has always been the side of the political spectrum most concerned about keeping existing hierarchies in place and preventing inclusion of “the lower orders” from happening, much less any kind of universal access/franchise, etc.
Historically, they’ve fought against every movement to extend civil and social rights and access . . . from the landless, to women, to ethnic and sexual minorities, to the poor.
The left has always been the side of the aisle championing the “underclasses,” in opposition to the rulers. And the further left within the left you go, the broader that support goes, the less support for hierarchy, for inequality, for concentrations of power of any kind.
Both the left and the right have faults, of course. Both have blind spots and have made tons of errors, historically. But, IMO, the left — especially the far left — has the moral high ground to an overwhelming degree . . . . and I don’t mean that in a religious sense. Well, because I don’t see organized religions as good arbiters of morality in the first place, with the possible exception of Buddhism. Which many see as a philosophy, not a religion anyway.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
Science has being doing a lot of studies in recent times about the difference between lefties and righties. There seem to be actual hard-wired differences which impact how we think and feel. I’ve always been a nature/nurture guy, and see them both as vital, along with environment and “systems,” etc. etc. But the biological component can’t be ignored.
The amygdala is more prominent among righties — recent science tells us. This means righties tend to start from a position of fear and paranoia to a much greater degree. A lesser ability to be compassionate, or extend that compassion to a larger group, is also a big part of the right-wing mind. Obviously, the science isn’t saying all righties or lefties are this or that way. They’re talking aggregates, and there are always exceptions. But I think this is a very interesting difference between humans which seems to influence political and social philosophies.
IMO, the biggest difference between left and right is the acceptance or rejection of inequality, and all the variations in between. And that the presence of inequality is seen by the left as immoral and profoundly wrong, and that this tends to loom larger the further you move to the left. Lefties tend to have more advanced moral compasses, extending to a greater portion of the earth. The further you move to the right, the more inequality is embraced as “natural” and normal and not worth bothering with, and the moral compass shrinks. The self and immediate family and friends tend to be the boundaries for care and concern. They get downright (self)righteous about the self and the tiny circle around the self. The “Other, ” out there, beyond that circle, is seen as a threat — which is where the paranoia and fear kick in again, as that old amygdala works overtime.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantOh the drama! Why not post the same thing from the pinko standpoint? Or is the word ‘freedom’ so alien or undesired as to never making the radar?
. . .
More glib lib. How about the government controlling your income?
. . .
More drama.
It’s pretty clear, bnw, that you really don’t want to engage in any discussions here, beyond taking silly pot shots. I mean, you might as well just respond with “yawn” or “more yawns,” like you did before. “Drama” doesn’t really work. And “pinko”? Really? Sheeesh. That was a sign of serious ignorance back in the 1950s when it was used. It hasn’t aged well since then.
Oh, well.
Billy_TParticipantOh the drama! Why not post the same thing from the pinko standpoint? Or is the word ‘freedom’ so alien or undesired as to never making the radar?
BTW if you owned a building that was rent controlled you would sing a much different tune.
Actually, the word “freedom” isn’t important at all. What’s important is its reality. The existence of freedom in the real world, and for whom. Who has it. Who doesn’t. In real life. The right tends to fetishize the word and do everything it can to make sure it doesn’t exist in the real world, except for very rich people and the ruling class in general. Everyone else gets to see the word, but not the thing itself.
As for rent control: You epitomize the right’s vision to a T. Your only concern is how rent control impacts the owner. No mention from you — or Cato — how it impacts renters.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
