Political Roundtable - Part VII

[bsilver]

Here's an interesting article on how much money could be raised by increasing taxes on the wealthy. I'm a conservative and I'm in favor of reasonable increases on the top 1% as well as elimination of home interest deductions on homes worth more than say $1.5 million as well as regular rates on hedge fund managers, etc................ but only if we cut spending in other areas of the govt. and only if we tax everyone to some minimal level.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.html?_r=0

We do tax everyone to some level. Maybe not in federal income tax, but the poor do pay social security and medicare taxes. They also pay other taxes at a higher rate. Sales taxes, state income taxes etc. These are regressive taxes. ie, we all pay the same rate, but for the poor its a significantly higher portion of their earnings.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/15/the-poor-pay-a-higher-percentage-of-income-in-taxes
Some poor actually pay no income taxes at all, but still get a refund. (Earned Income Tax Credit). Before blaming this on liberals, remember that it was a favorite of Ronald Reagan. The idea is to encourage working, and as far as I know, it is considered worthwhile by economists.

[popper]

Here's an interesting article on how much money could be raised by increasing taxes on the wealthy. I'm a conservative and I'm in favor of reasonable increases on the top 1% as well as elimination of home interest deductions on homes worth more than say $1.5 million as well as regular rates on hedge fund managers, etc................ but only if we cut spending in other areas of the govt. and only if we tax everyone to some minimal level.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.html?_r=0

We do tax everyone to some level. Maybe not in federal income tax, but the poor do pay social security and medicare taxes. They also pay other taxes at a higher rate. Sales taxes, state income taxes etc. These are regressive taxes. ie, we all pay the same rate, but for the poor its a significantly higher portion of their earnings.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/15/the-poor-pay-a-higher-percentage-of-income-in-taxes
Some poor actually pay no income taxes at all, but still get a refund. (Earned Income Tax Credit). Before blaming this on liberals, remember that it was a favorite of Ronald Reagan. The idea is to encourage working, and as far as I know, it is considered worthwhile by economists.

I was referring specifically to federal income tax. There should be some token percentage of income that the bottom rung has to contribute even if it comes out of a welfare check or EITC. Otherwise the incentive for carefully managing federal spending gets skewed to the irresponsible side of the equation.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I don't see how nuclear weapons can be defined as anything other than a terrorist device. They have
no military use.

As far as how they have evolved since 1945...the main thing is we now have our choice
of fission or fusion devices, the latter having several orders of magnitude greater destructive
power. A modern full size H bomb makes the bombs dropped on Japan seem like firecrackers
in comparison. Too horrible to even contemplate really. Unless you're a complete psycho.

To all the interventionistas, please explain why your current favorite military intervention
has any chance of working out differently than the last umpteen interventions our country
has attempted. We all know the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over
and expecting different results.

The purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter an attack by an enemy that has nuclear weapons. aka, mutually assured destruction (MAD).
1) US and allies vs Russia
2) US and allies vs China
3) India vs Pakistan
Israel's enemies don't have them, so I assume they are for use when they feel that are in danger of losing a conventional war.
North Korea, for several possible reasons:
1) They are nuts
2) Feeling of national pride since they have nothing else of use
3) Deterrence for possible attack by US or South Korea
US and Russia have over 7000. Next highest is France with 300. Why 7000? Seems like a few hundred is enough to destroy the world.

I'm not buying they are nuts.

I was stationed in Korea in the 90s. I have no classified information, just an opinion.

Their leader was educated in the West. He's managed not to get killed by coup so far. He must be persuasive enough and savvy enough to keep his power at home and wise to appear to court worldwide public appeal abroad by entertaining Rodman among others, that he's managing well enough to keep peace.

[dckingsfan]

Weird political question for this group of political weirdos:

Would the United States have been better served nuking Afghanistan post 9/11?

Potential reasons in favor:

1) We would have killed Bin Laden and decimated al qaeda immediately
2) While the collateral damage of innocents would have been massive (I assume), it probably would have been less than that of the combined damage of the Afghan and Iraq wars; there's an imbedded assumption that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we had nuked Afghanistan
3) Post 9/11, we could have gotten away with it politically in the world community
4) It would have been a huge display of American might and primacy that may have deterred future attacks. We nuked Japan 70 years ago and are now close allies, somehow.

Really just spitballing curiously. I don't know anything about nuclear weapons and how they have evolved since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1) You would have had to nuke many Afghan cities - not one.
2) The innocent casualties would have been in the many 100s of thousands.
3) You most likely would not have changed the politics and would still have had to had boots on the ground

I believe the political outcome would have been impeachment.

As for Iraq - would could have quickly gone in and split the country into three countries, Kurds, Shia and Sunni. Leave a ground force for a pretty long period of time and we might have actually had a buffer to Iran/Russia. But we had back to back foreign policy knuckleheads with Bush/Obama.

[dckingsfan]

Here's an interesting article on how much money could be raised by increasing taxes on the wealthy. I'm a conservative and I'm in favor of reasonable increases on the top 1% as well as elimination of home interest deductions on homes worth more than say $1.5 million as well as regular rates on hedge fund managers, etc................ but only if we cut spending in other areas of the govt. and only if we tax everyone to some minimal level.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.html?_r=0

We do tax everyone to some level. Maybe not in federal income tax, but the poor do pay social security and medicare taxes. They also pay other taxes at a higher rate. Sales taxes, state income taxes etc. These are regressive taxes. ie, we all pay the same rate, but for the poor its a significantly higher portion of their earnings.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/15/the-poor-pay-a-higher-percentage-of-income-in-taxes
Some poor actually pay no income taxes at all, but still get a refund. (Earned Income Tax Credit). Before blaming this on liberals, remember that it was a favorite of Ronald Reagan. The idea is to encourage working, and as far as I know, it is considered worthwhile by economists.

You have it right. Currently our overall tax code (not just income) is regressive. When you get down to East St. Louis - it is even more so with the judiciary directly collaborating with the police to raise revenue from the very poorest.

Having said all that, we have both a spending problem and a taxing problem. On the tax front, it is regressive for individuals and restricts growth for corporations. A double whammy.

On the spending front, we have allocated too much toward entitlement programs - they now squeeze out all other programs that could help with growth. Add to that that we are at the highest rate of debt to GDP since WWII and we are in a world of hurt.

Sadly, we haven't seen leadership from either party on either issue. If you have watched the debates, it is clearly going to be more of the same regardless of who is elected.

I don't like the Rs in the house in general. But their sequester has actually exposed the problem quite nicely. Everything is getting squeezed by entitlement spending in a big way (social programs and defense). For all their dysfunction, I hope the fiscal hawks can keep it together on this issue and not be run over by the defense hawks.

[bsilver]

I don't see how nuclear weapons can be defined as anything other than a terrorist device. They have
no military use.

As far as how they have evolved since 1945...the main thing is we now have our choice
of fission or fusion devices, the latter having several orders of magnitude greater destructive
power. A modern full size H bomb makes the bombs dropped on Japan seem like firecrackers
in comparison. Too horrible to even contemplate really. Unless you're a complete psycho.

To all the interventionistas, please explain why your current favorite military intervention
has any chance of working out differently than the last umpteen interventions our country
has attempted. We all know the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over
and expecting different results.

The purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter an attack by an enemy that has nuclear weapons. aka, mutually assured destruction (MAD).
1) US and allies vs Russia
2) US and allies vs China
3) India vs Pakistan
Israel's enemies don't have them, so I assume they are for use when they feel that are in danger of losing a conventional war.
North Korea, for several possible reasons:
1) They are nuts
2) Feeling of national pride since they have nothing else of use
3) Deterrence for possible attack by US or South Korea
US and Russia have over 7000. Next highest is France with 300. Why 7000? Seems like a few hundred is enough to destroy the world.

I'm not buying they are nuts.

I was stationed in Korea in the 90s. I have no classified information, just an opinion.

Their leader was educated in the West. He's managed not to get killed by coup so far. He must be persuasive enough and savvy enough to keep his power at home and wise to appear to court worldwide public appeal abroad by entertaining Rodman among others, that he's managing well enough to keep peace.

You're right. "Nuts" is not the right word. A better way of saying it would be that many of us do not understand their thought process. In a western democracy there is at least some accountability to the people so that the government performs in a way that will get them re-elected. They can get thrown out of office, while in a N. Korea style dictatorship their motivations are entirely different. So much depends on Kim Jong-un and what he wants. The obvious wants of most dictators are:
1) stay in power and maintain as power as possible
2) accumulate riches to live a lavish life style
Since, as you say CCJ, he's been savvy enough to stay in power, his actions should be seen as keeping him in power. He's propped up by the military. They're his only possible threat. Besides rewarding them with money he's probably also feeding their egos by having N. Korea flex it's muscles with general belligerence and nuclear weapons, missiles, etc.
The Rodman thing was funny and sad. Any public relations attempts are bound to fail until he treats his people better.

[dobrojim]

Gov of 'bama didn't get Nate's memo.
The $hitstorm ain't quite over.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/backlash-pushes-governor-on-voting-rights-544022083663

[doclinkin]

Weird political question for this group of political weirdos:

Would the United States have been better served nuking Afghanistan post 9/11?

Potential reasons in favor:

1) We would have killed Bin Laden and decimated al qaeda immediately
2) While the collateral damage of innocents would have been massive (I assume), it probably would have been less than that of the combined damage of the Afghan and Iraq wars; there's an imbedded assumption that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we had nuked Afghanistan
3) Post 9/11, we could have gotten away with it politically in the world community
4) It would have been a huge display of American might and primacy that may have deterred future attacks. We nuked Japan 70 years ago and are now close allies, somehow.

Really just spitballing curiously. I don't know anything about nuclear weapons and how they have evolved since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1) No. Bin Laden is a symptom and symbol, sure he would have been dead instead of hiding in caves, hauling his dialysis machine around. But if not al Quaeda, other organizations would have blossomed. At least Al Qaeda we had intel on and effectively neutered them fairly well after that.

But flexing of American might and military supremacy simply recruits more volunteers for asymmetrical warfare. That's exactly how you lose a war against terrorism, whose mission is less to 'win' and more to earn honor points from the masses and more importantly Heaven.

Honor points. Using the ultimate weapon and heedlessly killing civilians proves the point of the fundamentalist extremists: that we are amoral and dangerously arrogant with no regard for human life or mercy. Makes martyrs. Its counter-intuitive but the way to 'kill' terrorists is to export our civic values as well as or better than our commercial ones or political aims. 'We hold these truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal'. If we can promote that image of ourselves overseas that's what gives us the white hat and allows us to counter-recruit.

2) Hell no See 1) above. And 3) below.

Plus: putting an armed force in the Middle East was the goal of Cheney Romney and the Project for the New American Century cohort: to have a base of operations from which to overwatch areas of strategic interest in the MIddle East, without having to beg for permission from Turkey or bribe them with favors, ordnance etc in order to fly sorties in the area. It had nothing to do with 9/11 except as a convenient excuse. Saddam was a universally disliked tyrant with out significant military power who had no allies in the region nor strong religious support. We could feel free to attack, occupy, 'liberate' and build a foothold there. The concept was that then we could 'roll up' Lybia, Syria etc and initiate american control over the regions oil resources etc. and have a Pax Americana that would last one hundred years, as the Romans were able to flex their military might and conquer their world in the past. Seriously. This was the position paper written by that neocon thinktank (PNAC) before W was in office. Cheney, Romney et al cosigned it. This is not a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, this was their published position paper.

What Iraq did do was give a hard target of an armed force for terrorists to take a poke at if they wanted to try it, nearby to their home instead of here on our soil. A volunteer military force (or highly paid mercenary operatives in the case of Blackwater et al) held as a proxy target, and a training ground for the how to's of urban occupation in the age of guerilla warfare. Doesn't work so well, is what we found out. The lessons of Vietnam still stand. Or Stalingrad. Superior military might does not long overcome resistance of people who have nowhere to retreat and nothing to lose. Occupying force suffers all the difficulty of siege warfare: resources, supply lines, political resolve of your faraway leaders. The occupied simply have to make it expensive to continue and the occupiers will eventually tire and question the point. What is the strategic gain?

3) World War Three level No.
Use of nuclear weapons without censure causes WW3. Consider nearby nuclear capable neighbors Pakistan. India. China. North Korea. Russia. This last is key. Russia has been emboldened by the lack of action in the world community to our various unilateral actions of aggression. We get away with it in Iraq for no reason-- so they may as well get away with it in the Ukraine for actual economic gain. Or in Syria to playtest their armaments. If Nukes were an option on the table that did not merit a nuclear response in turn, best believe there are areas where they would happily use a tach nuke instead of having to commit costly ordnance. And seriously, how would Russia react when we have nukes in the air a few lines of latitude away from their oil pipelines to the Middle East.

Consider also the drift pattern of radioactive fallout. Weather tends to flow west to east since that is how the world turns. Then back up again to that nuclear capable list: Pakistan, India, China, North Korea. You are poisoning their citizens. Making mini Chernobyls.

4) What future attacks? We haven't been attacked on our soil except by home grown nutjobs and mass shootings, unless the Boston bombers count. And when it comes to fanatic martyrs they are not deterred by death since death simply sends them to heaven quicker. You can't use conventional weapons to fight asymmetrical war, unless you are planning to roll in and stomp the entire country flat like Russia in Chechnya. Or the Israelis in the West Bank bulldozing entire communities. Though they are basically dug in for a perpetual civil war as an occupying force in their own country since they are constantly manufacturing martyrs and have to basically imprison a significant portion of the population of their country and keep them at a stone age level of military technology and poverty level in order to remain 'safe' for long. Meeting a single RPG attack with cruise missiles and bulldozers; one kidnap killing is met with tanks and razed city blocks.

Use of nukes is a seriously bad idea. The greatest failure post 9/11 was not in picking an inappropriate military reponse, but a political one. We missed the opportunity to use the sympathy of the world for political gain, and within the intelligence community, to actually root out and address the bad actors and the causes of terrorism and make deep and lasting allies politically. And instead we squandered a budget surplus and robust economy in an attempt to use our temporary position as the world's only superpower to make that a permanent status. And made more lasting enemies. Made more more terrorists. Rejuvenated Russia. Ceded our position as economic superpower to China. Failed to shore up our infrastructure in energy, bridges, roads, transportation, etc. And lost ground in biotech research and renewable energy etc etc to religious fanatics (stemcell technology opposition) and oil economy profiteers.

[nate33]

Good post, doc. I agree with most of it. The only part where I differ is that I don't believe the was much of a great opportunity to use 9/11 to "root out and address the bad actors and the causes of terrorism". Those problems would have continued either way. But there is no doubt that our efforts in the Middle East have been a colossal waste of time, money and men; and have only served to make things worse, not better.

The best way to handle the Middle East is to stay the hell away from there and not let any of them immigrate here; and to focus on domestic oil production and alternative energy.

[dobrojim]

GREAT post Doc.

Nate - true that the problems would have continued at some level but ignores the possibility
that we could eventually, if slowly, make things better. But we have no patience for that and
always go for the quick simple 'answer' without really examining long term implications.

[fishercob]

Weird political question for this group of political weirdos:

Would the United States have been better served nuking Afghanistan post 9/11?

Potential reasons in favor:

1) We would have killed Bin Laden and decimated al qaeda immediately
2) While the collateral damage of innocents would have been massive (I assume), it probably would have been less than that of the combined damage of the Afghan and Iraq wars; there's an imbedded assumption that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we had nuked Afghanistan
3) Post 9/11, we could have gotten away with it politically in the world community
4) It would have been a huge display of American might and primacy that may have deterred future attacks. We nuked Japan 70 years ago and are now close allies, somehow.

Really just spitballing curiously. I don't know anything about nuclear weapons and how they have evolved since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1) No. Bin Laden is a symptom and symbol, sure he would have been dead instead of hiding in caves, hauling his dialysis machine around. But if not al Quaeda, other organizations would have blossomed. At least Al Qaeda we had intel on and effectively neutered them fairly well after that.

But flexing of American might and military supremacy simply recruits more volunteers for asymmetrical warfare. That's exactly how you lose a war against terrorism, whose mission is less to 'win' and more to earn honor points from the masses and more importantly Heaven.

Honor points. Using the ultimate weapon and heedlessly killing civilians proves the point of the fundamentalist extremists: that we are amoral and dangerously arrogant with no regard for human life or mercy. Makes martyrs. Its counter-intuitive but the way to 'kill' terrorists is to export our civic values as well as or better than our commercial ones or political aims. 'We hold these truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal'. If we can promote that image of ourselves overseas that's what gives us the white hat and allows us to counter-recruit.

2) Hell no See 1) above. And 3) below.

Plus: putting an armed force in the Middle East was the goal of Cheney Romney and the Project for the New American Century cohort: to have a base of operations from which to overwatch areas of strategic interest in the MIddle East, without having to beg for permission from Turkey or bribe them with favors, ordnance etc in order to fly sorties in the area. It had nothing to do with 9/11 except as a convenient excuse. Saddam was a universally disliked tyrant with out significant military power who had no allies in the region nor strong religious support. We could feel free to attack, occupy, 'liberate' and build a foothold there. The concept was that then we could 'roll up' Lybia, Syria etc and initiate american control over the regions oil resources etc. and have a Pax Americana that would last one hundred years, as the Romans were able to flex their military might and conquer their world in the past. Seriously. This was the position paper written by that neocon thinktank (PNAC) before W was in office. Cheney, Romney et al cosigned it. This is not a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, this was their published position paper.

What Iraq did do was give a hard target of an armed force for terrorists to take a poke at if they wanted to try it, nearby to their home instead of here on our soil. A volunteer military force (or highly paid mercenary operatives in the case of Blackwater et al) held as a proxy target, and a training ground for the how to's of urban occupation in the age of guerilla warfare. Doesn't work so well, is what we found out. The lessons of Vietnam still stand. Or Stalingrad. Superior military might does not long overcome resistance of people who have nowhere to retreat and nothing to lose. Occupying force suffers all the difficulty of siege warfare: resources, supply lines, political resolve of your faraway leaders. The occupied simply have to make it expensive to continue and the occupiers will eventually tire and question the point. What is the strategic gain?

3) World War Three level No.
Use of nuclear weapons without censure causes WW3. Consider nearby nuclear capable neighbors Pakistan. India. China. North Korea. Russia. This last is key. Russia has been emboldened by the lack of action in the world community to our various unilateral actions of aggression. We get away with it in Iraq for no reason-- so they may as well get away with it in the Ukraine for actual economic gain. Or in Syria to playtest their armaments. If Nukes were an option on the table that did not merit a nuclear response in turn, best believe there are areas where they would happily use a tach nuke instead of having to commit costly ordnance. And seriously, how would Russia react when we have nukes in the air a few lines of latitude away from their oil pipelines to the Middle East.

Consider also the drift pattern of radioactive fallout. Weather tends to flow west to east since that is how the world turns. Then back up again to that nuclear capable list: Pakistan, India, China, North Korea. You are poisoning their citizens. Making mini Chernobyls.

4) What future attacks? We haven't been attacked on our soil except by home grown nutjobs and mass shootings, unless the Boston bombers count. And when it comes to fanatic martyrs they are not deterred by death since death simply sends them to heaven quicker. You can't use conventional weapons to fight asymmetrical war, unless you are planning to roll in and stomp the entire country flat like Russia in Chechnya. Or the Israelis in the West Bank bulldozing entire communities. Though they are basically dug in for a perpetual civil war as an occupying force in their own country since they are constantly manufacturing martyrs and have to basically imprison a significant portion of the population of their country and keep them at a stone age level of military technology and poverty level in order to remain 'safe' for long. Meeting a single RPG attack with cruise missiles and bulldozers; one kidnap killing is met with tanks and razed city blocks.

Use of nukes is a seriously bad idea. The greatest failure post 9/11 was not in picking an inappropriate military reponse, but a political one. We missed the opportunity to use the sympathy of the world for political gain, and within the intelligence community, to actually root out and address the bad actors and the causes of terrorism and make deep and lasting allies politically. And instead we squandered a budget surplus and robust economy in an attempt to use our temporary position as the world's only superpower to make that a permanent status. And made more lasting enemies. Made more more terrorists. Rejuvenated Russia. Ceded our position as economic superpower to China. Failed to shore up our infrastructure in energy, bridges, roads, transportation, etc. And lost ground in biotech research and renewable energy etc etc to religious fanatics (stemcell technology opposition) and oil economy profiteers.

Thank you for a most thoughtful response.

I certainly agree with your take on Israel. I think Netanyahu is the devil incarnate. The rah rah jingoism in the Jewish community churns my stomach. The divide in American Jewry on Israel is like nothing I've ever seen in my life.

RE: Russia, I was watching an old VICE NEws (by the way, does anyone here watch this show? ) recently and a Russian journalist basically said that after the fall of the Soviet Union, everything was great between US and Russia. That all changed when the US bombed Kosovo, ostensibly to stop the "ethnic cleansing" that was taking place in the former Yugoslavia. The Russians were furious that the US tried to exert influence in was more or less their back yard -- sort of the equivalent if Russia had bombed Venezuela or something.




Th

[dckingsfan]

http://scholar.harvard.edu/hendren/publications/effects-Exposure-Better-Neighborhoods-Children-New-Evidence-Moving-Opportunity

Indu's comment of just move them out of Baltimore seems to be right.

[Zonkerbl]

Personally I think any violent response to 9/11 just confirms all the pre-conceived notions that the terrorist-supporting folks in that part of the world think about us.

The only way to prevent or respond to 9/11 is not be such aholes that people hate us that much in the first place. The terrorists are the extreme manifestation of the general level of resentment felt by a lot of people outside the US that we just blow off.

We think we're the good guys and we're not. We're the ones who are guilty of the Crusades, arguably a crime just as bad as the Holocaust (not in numbers of people killed but in percentage of population). We can't undo the Crusades but we can stop reinforcing people's expectations that we are arrogant and intolerant.

Invading Afghanistan was a mistake but one that the world community understood and forgave us for. Invading Iraq just made things 100 times worse. It's going to take a long time to recover from that colossal blunder.

Nuking Afghanistan would have been 1000 times worse than invading Iraq and likely would have forced us to turn into a police state to protect ourselves from the massive amount of retaliatory terrorism and military actions that would have caused. It would likely eventually result in a totalitarian state in the U.S. and possibly an end to democracy worldwide. Have you read 1984? That's what the world would eventually look like after nuking Afghanistan. I can't imagine a worse mistake we could possibly make.

[Zonkerbl]

Good post, doc. I agree with most of it. The only part where I differ is that I don't believe the was much of a great opportunity to use 9/11 to "root out and address the bad actors and the causes of terrorism". Those problems would have continued either way. But there is no doubt that our efforts in the Middle East have been a colossal waste of time, money and men; and have only served to make things worse, not better.

The best way to handle the Middle East is to stay the hell away from there and not let any of them immigrate here; and to focus on domestic oil production and alternative energy.

Yeah if the muslim world did not have so much extra oil money lying around they could hate us all they want and it wouldn't matter. Developing domestic energy resources (through production of oil or alternative fuel, or conservation) is a national security issue.

[nate33]

From Morning Consult's Polling:



Trump is starting to develop an aura of inevitability. I'm almost certain he's going to win the Republican primary because he's the only one who has a strong 30-35% of core support that are locked in and are never going away. What nobody seems to get is that Trump's support is due to issues, not his personality. He's the only guy taking a Pat Buchanan-esque, populist platform that really appeals to the working class. If you want restrictions on immigration and a tougher stance on trade agreements, Trump is your only guy. I think Trump will probably pick up some more voters over time once it becomes understood that he's in this for real and can actually win it.

It looks like there will be no consensus "establishment candidate" who will beat him. As I suspected, Carson is going to fade and his voters are going to go to Trump, not Rubio or Jeb. Carson is a nice guy but he has no executive experience and no track record; and he has never had to deal with a hostile media or a hostile opposition. Once he moved up in the polls, the long knives came out. The difference between Trump and Carson is that Trump has taken everything they can throw at him and he's still standing.

The coalition that held their nose and voted for the GOP establishment for the past decade has fallen apart. Voters aren't buying the Chamber-of-Commerce GDP-growth-at-all-costs party line anymore. They recognize that GDP growth isn't so good if it goes only to the top 1% and it comes with even more debt attached to it, all while jobs get sent overseas or to low-wage third world immigrants who end up voting Democrat anyway.

I don't know if Trump can beat Clinton. It'll depend on whether the GOP Establishment decides to back him in the general election or not. If they do back him and deliver the conservative vote, I think Trump can appeal to enough middle class Democrats that he can win it all. But the GOP Establishment may prefer to quietly support Clinton just to make sure they maintain control of what's left of the GOP apparatus.

[Zonkerbl]

Trump is a moron with a ton of moronic tv fans who are voting for him because they're too dumb to recognize any of the other candidates. Idiocracy here we come.

[dckingsfan]

Remember that isolationism has a price too... And under the US as the world cop, poverty has shrunk substantially and until recently world migration rates have been quite stable.

[nate33]

Trump is a moron with a ton of moronic tv fans who are voting for him because they're too dumb to recognize any of the other candidates. Idiocracy here we come.

You can believe that if you want. You are wrong, but I prefer for your side to continue to misdiagnose the Trump phenomenon.

[Dat2U]

I don't question Trump's ability to shoot himself in the foot. How many days to the Republican convention? He's got that much time to avoid inserting foot in mouth. I think it will be hard for him.

[nate33]

Remember that isolationism has a price too... And under the US as the world cop, poverty has shrunk substantially and until recently world migration rates have been quite stable.

Poverty has shrunken substantially? By what metric? If you mean world poverty, I'm sure that's true, but we don't know if that's thanks to U.S. hegemony or merely the unrelenting advance of technology.

If you think U.S. poverty has shrunk, you must be looking at averages and not medians. The top 1% are doing great, but middle class wages have been stagnant for 20 years and we have an employment participation rate equal to the 70's. We have situation now where you're better off on welfare than honestly working a low-skill job. That's not a good thing for the long term moral character of the citizenry. And the money to fund those welfare rolls come from debt, debt that is growing rapidly and must inevitably collapse at some point.