Political Roundtable Part XXI

[verbal8]

Recently I had a thought "What if Trump had run and won as a Democrat?". What would the presidency with "Democrat Trump" look like.

What is the closest analog to Trump on the left? ...Michael Avenatti?

Avenatti seems to have a similar love of attention and is a little reckless with the truth. He probably also has some shadiness in his past, but Trump is just a whole other level in those areas. There also is huge difference in one is a lawyer representing a client(and promoting himself) the other is supposed to be representing the country as the President.

I genuinely don't know, and I don't think there really is one.

Trump could never win running as a Democrat or liberal unless he deleted every tweet dating back to like 2011 and had basically been an entirely different person from at least 2008 onward. It's not even about politics - a serial liar and obvious moron isn't ever going to pick up a lot of steam on the left.

"Democratic Trump" would have had to decide that he was going to pretend to be a decent human in 2010 or so.

We may find out about the appeal of a "Democrat Trump". The 2020 field could be crowded like the Republican field in 2016.

I do agree in the current environment(anti-Trump) the liberal wing has little tolerance for corruption. However you take Clinton out of 2016 and things might look different. If Clinton had been convinced that an entrenched candidate wouldn't win in 2016, she might have been willing to throw her support behind a maverick candidate. Biden may had personal reasons, but he may have also made a political calculation.

Notice how Alex Jones panders to the right with all of his wild conspiracies and general idiocy. There's a strategic reason for this.

Trump's right wing credentials weren't very strong.

[Zonkerbl]

I don't think it is business - it is high net worth individuals, right? Are you thinking a luxury tax on businesses as well? And if we have loopholes in out tax policy, we wouldn't have loopholes in our luxury tax?

I think the implication is if we put a luxury tax on investment income that that will indirectly encourage businesses to go offshore. I don't know how that works - I thought if you are a US citizen and you make income on an investment you have to pay tax on it. Doesn't matter where the company is. Right? Then it doesn't matter and you can go ahead and put a luxury tax on investment income.

No - if you don't reside in the US you don't have to pay US income taxes. You would have to renounce your citizenship. But the unintended consequences are broad. And the liquidity implications for a tax like that are numerous.

Again, why not just fix the tax code?

"why not just fix the tax code" makes no sense to me

[gtn130]

Trump's right wing credentials weren't very strong.

My point about Alex Jones in this hypothetical is that abject lying and laughable conspiracy theories really only fly with one segment of the electorate.

A liberal Trump would basically have zero qualities that Trump has.

[Zonkerbl]

I thought Bernie was the liberal Trump

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

The pundit class of idiots is really something

[verbal8]

I thought Bernie was the liberal Trump

They both are isolationists, but that is about it.

I guess I could see a point of Worst Case President Bernie Sanders(he is in over his head and struggles) might look like best case President Trump(in over his head and delegates to a competent cabinet). However what we are seeing is the worst case Trump.

[I_Like_Dirt]

My point about Alex Jones in this hypothetical is that abject lying and laughable conspiracy theories really only fly with one segment of the electorate.

It's far more prevalent on the right side of the political spectrum than it is on the left at this point, but let's not pretend like there aren't quite a few Bernie supporters who basically believe that math is a government conspiracy against them in some way. There are some pretty severe blind spots in both parties and neither party is outright immune to them. Republicans believe less in evolution, but there are still many Democrats who don't, either. Democrats are more likely to believe in global warming, but how many Democrats do you know that believe in global warming but are dead set against nuclear power as an alternative, even a temporary one, while Republicans are more likely to be willing to consider nuclear energy? Anti-vaxxers can be found roughly equally on both sides of the aisle, as far as I can tell. Republicans do seem a bit more prone to conspiracy theories at this point, overall, but even there, I think the evidence suggests that they've been more actively pushed in that direction rather than actually being more prone or somehow different.

[dckingsfan]

I think the implication is if we put a luxury tax on investment income that that will indirectly encourage businesses to go offshore. I don't know how that works - I thought if you are a US citizen and you make income on an investment you have to pay tax on it. Doesn't matter where the company is. Right? Then it doesn't matter and you can go ahead and put a luxury tax on investment income.

No - if you don't reside in the US you don't have to pay US income taxes. You would have to renounce your citizenship. But the unintended consequences are broad. And the liquidity implications for a tax like that are numerous.

Again, why not just fix the tax code?

"why not just fix the tax code" makes no sense to me

Got - better explanation.

If you remove all deductions from the tax code and tax investment income at the same level. And fix the death tax then you don't you accomplish the same thing. And then we have an actual sustainable model moving forward.

Of course there is no sustainable model if you don't fix the spending side at the same time - two sides to the same coin.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Of course there is no sustainable model if you don't fix the spending side at the same time - two sides to the same coin.

I'd suggest this is more of a multi-sided die than a coin, depending on how you look at it. I also actually think that entitlements need to be expanded/altered, though not through simply more spending, but rather due to ironing out the inefficiencies therewithin - and my vision of entitlements is probably a little different and more open-ended than you're used to, with an eye towards greater equality. And I'd also include tackling white collar crime and economic management to avoid variations on de facto monopolies as another side to the coin. So really, I agree with your two points, but tend to think it's more complicated than you're suggesting, though I don't think we need to fix every side at the same time, I'm generally not in support of fixing one area at the expense of another unless there is a clear, quick plan in place that can be implemented before the next election cycle allows public opinion to blow in another direction.

[dckingsfan]

Of course there is no sustainable model if you don't fix the spending side at the same time - two sides to the same coin.

I'd suggest this is more of a multi-sided die than a coin, depending on how you look at it. I also actually think that entitlements need to be expanded/altered, though not through simply more spending, but rather due to ironing out the inefficiencies therewithin - and my vision of entitlements is probably a little different and more open-ended than you're used to, with an eye towards greater equality. And I'd also include tackling white collar crime and economic management to avoid variations on de facto monopolies as another side to the coin. So really, I agree with your two points, but tend to think it's more complicated than you're suggesting, though I don't think we need to fix every side at the same time, I'm generally not in support of fixing one area at the expense of another unless there is a clear, quick plan in place that can be implemented before the next election cycle allows public opinion to blow in another direction.

Well, let me put it this way then. Unless you fix the "inefficiencies" there are no other sides to the coin. And unless you fix the tax code - there is no funding the other sides to the coin either. I think we have to crawl before we can walk

[Zonkerbl]

No - if you don't reside in the US you don't have to pay US income taxes. You would have to renounce your citizenship. But the unintended consequences are broad. And the liquidity implications for a tax like that are numerous.

Again, why not just fix the tax code?

"why not just fix the tax code" makes no sense to me

Got - better explanation.

If you remove all deductions from the tax code and tax investment income at the same level. And fix the death tax then you don't you accomplish the same thing. And then we have an actual sustainable model moving forward.

Of course there is no sustainable model if you don't fix the spending side at the same time - two sides to the same coin.

Ok. You can definitely raise some revenue this way and fix some allocative efficiency problems at the same time, so killing two birds with one stone.

If that's enough to fund a meaningful basic income program then you're done. If you need more money a 1% hike in the investment tax could raise some cash also.

[dckingsfan]

"why not just fix the tax code" makes no sense to me

Got - better explanation.

If you remove all deductions from the tax code and tax investment income at the same level. And fix the death tax then you don't you accomplish the same thing. And then we have an actual sustainable model moving forward.

Of course there is no sustainable model if you don't fix the spending side at the same time - two sides to the same coin.

Ok. You can definitely raise some revenue this way and fix some allocative efficiency problems at the same time, so killing two birds with one stone.

If that's enough to fund a meaningful basic income program then you're done. If you need more money a 1% hike in the investment tax could raise some cash also.

There would be... well, as much as there would with our social service spending that is on-course to exceed our total revenues.

BTW, fascinating article in the WSJ about income equality for the lowest 3 quintiles. Basically, when adjusted for social safety nets - their isn't much difference. And they posit that this is what drove the 3rd and 4th tiers to vote for Trump.

If you have access to WSJ online.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-income-equality-helped-trump-1529862473

Fascinating really.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Well, let me put it this way then. Unless you fix the "inefficiencies" there are no other sides to the coin. And unless you fix the tax code - there is no funding the other sides to the coin either. I think we have to crawl before we can walk

I think the "inefficiencies" are the big key, moreso than tax reform, which is the easier one to achieve, but arguably the one that tilts the balance of power the most. That needs to be dealt with. Realistically, though, I still think it's dangerous to do one without a guarantee that the other comes quickly after the other, because if they don't, you tip the balance of power quite substantially, and given how electoral politics works, there suddenly winds up plenty of time to set it up so that the scales don't actually tip back, because they almost never do. In fact, that's a big part of the problem that I see: almost nobody is interested if full-scale reform, so they aren't actually interesting in the scales tipping back, no matter the direction they want to tip them.

[gtn130]

My point about Alex Jones in this hypothetical is that abject lying and laughable conspiracy theories really only fly with one segment of the electorate.

It's far more prevalent on the right side of the political spectrum than it is on the left at this point, but let's not pretend like there aren't quite a few Bernie supporters who basically believe that math is a government conspiracy against them in some way. There are some pretty severe blind spots in both parties and neither party is outright immune to them. Republicans believe less in evolution, but there are still many Democrats who don't, either. Democrats are more likely to believe in global warming, but how many Democrats do you know that believe in global warming but are dead set against nuclear power as an alternative, even a temporary one, while Republicans are more likely to be willing to consider nuclear energy? Anti-vaxxers can be found roughly equally on both sides of the aisle, as far as I can tell. Republicans do seem a bit more prone to conspiracy theories at this point, overall, but even there, I think the evidence suggests that they've been more actively pushed in that direction rather than actually being more prone or somehow different.

What flagrantly wrong and fake conspiracy theories have Democrat leaders perpetuated?

Donald Trump came to political relevance by pretending Obama wasn't a US citizen. An actual flagrantly wrong and made-up conspiracy theory is the lifeblood of the current leader of the GOP. I'm sure you can find a few bizarre conspiracy theories random fringe leftists believe, but it is in no way similar to the current state of the Trump GOP.

[dckingsfan]

Well, let me put it this way then. Unless you fix the "inefficiencies" there are no other sides to the coin. And unless you fix the tax code - there is no funding the other sides to the coin either. I think we have to crawl before we can walk

I think the "inefficiencies" are the big key, moreso than tax reform, which is the easier one to achieve, but arguably the one that tilts the balance of power the most. That needs to be dealt with. Realistically, though, I still think it's dangerous to do one without a guarantee that the other comes quickly after the other, because if they don't, you tip the balance of power quite substantially, and given how electoral politics works, there suddenly winds up plenty of time to set it up so that the scales don't actually tip back, because they almost never do. In fact, that's a big part of the problem that I see: almost nobody is interested if full-scale reform, so they aren't actually interesting in the scales tipping back, no matter the direction they want to tip them.

Yep, the inefficiencies/cost drivers are #1. Don't fix those and it doesn't matter.

[I_Like_Dirt]

What flagrantly wrong and fake conspiracy theories have Democrat leaders perpetuated?

At first you said that conspiracy theories only fly with one side. I pointed out that isn't true. Now you're going to try out the "leaders" angle? I did mention that the conditioning on the Republican side has been quite a bit stronger over the years. If you want to argue that Democratic presidents haven't peddled conspiracy theories while Republican ones have, I largely agree with you which is where I suggested quite some time ago that Democratic presidents have largely been better than Republican ones, though with the catch that the Democrats only have control of either the senate or the house but not both.

As for people believing conspiracy theories, if you don't believe that's a universal problem and only relegated to one party, you're believing in a kind of conspiracy theory yourself.

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/study-finds-if-republicans-or-democrats-are-more-likely-to-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html

http://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001

I mean, I could go on, but it's pointless.

[gtn130]

At first you said that conspiracy theories only fly with one side.

Yes, I am still arguing that. The evidence I'm providing is that Democrat leaders don't support any conspiracy theories because it doesn't win them many votes. Similarly, Alex Jones doesn't pander to any liberal conspiracy theories [that you haven't provided] because they don't earn him viewers the way the right wing narratives do.

I did mention that the conditioning on the Republican side has been quite a bit stronger over the years.

This doesn't actually prove anything. 'Conditioning' is your wording for conservative media outlets like Fox News, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, etc. simply airing the content that their viewers want to consume.

If you want to argue that Democratic presidents haven't peddled conspiracy theories while Republican ones have, I largely agree with you which is where I suggested quite some time ago that Democratic presidents have largely been better than Republican ones, though with the catch that the Democrats only have control of either the senate or the house but not both.

If there were conspiracy theories out there that would win Democrats elections if they latched onto them, they would have by now. Primary challengers on the Democrat side are running on things like free healthcare and abolishing ICE...

As for people believing conspiracy theories, if you don't believe that's a universal problem and only relegated to one party, you're believing in a kind of conspiracy theory yourself.

What elections have anti-vaxxers won for liberals? How many anti-vaxxers are demanding Democrat candidates support their issue? How many Democrat leaders are anti-vaxxers?

This is a laughable false equivalency.

[I_Like_Dirt]

False equivalence? You're the one moving the goalposts all over. Do conspiracy theories have a greater impact on Republican voter turnout than Democratic voter turnout? I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find that out. But you keep making those claims and then asserting that this somehow means that Republicans are more prone to conspiracy theories when the evidence is that there really isn't any difference. How many would Democrats decided to simply stay home and not vote in the last presidential election because they supported Bernie, and though they may never admit it publicly, they believed at least a portion of some of the stuff alleged against Hillary? Where politicians use conspiracy theories is one thing. To suggest that any individual person is more prone to it because of political affiliation is way tougher to show.

[Zonkerbl]

False equivalence? You're the one moving the goalposts all over. Do conspiracy theories have a greater impact on Republican voter turnout than Democratic voter turnout? I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find that out. But you keep making those claims and then asserting that this somehow means that Republicans are more prone to conspiracy theories when the evidence is that there really isn't any difference. How many would Democrats decided to simply stay home and not vote in the last presidential election because they supported Bernie, and though they may never admit it publicly, they believed at least a portion of some of the stuff alleged against Hillary? Where politicians use conspiracy theories is one thing. To suggest that any individual person is more prone to it because of political affiliation is way tougher to show.

Well, that's too extreme a view also. The Republican party through Breitbarth and Fox News and other purveyors of Republican propaganda have deliberately targeted weak minds and hammered home the conspiracy theories in a very effective way, meaning the end result is that Republicans are in fact more conspiracy minded and more likely to believe outright lies fabricated to reinforce the Republican party line now. I think that's indisputable. We've seen the result on this board.

I disagree that Republicans are more prone to this kind of manipulation, it's just the Dem side, for whatever reason, hasn't chosen to do it.

[gtn130]

I disagree that Republicans are more prone to this kind of manipulation, it's just the Dem side, for whatever reason, hasn't chosen to do it.

I guess I'll spell it out.





Beyond that, the uneducated low income GOP voters are actually extremely politically active. They're much older and often retired or semi-retired and have the time sit around and listen to Rush Limbaugh all day, whereas the vast majority of uneducated low income Democrat voters are blacks and latinos, aren't nearly as politically active and spend far more time working day jobs.