Political Roundtable Part XVII

Wizardspride · Post #321 » by **Wizardspride** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 3:44 pm

closg00 · Post #322 » by **closg00** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 3:58 pm

Many great quotes from the coming Wolf book, what is your favorite? Here's a good one.

"This was a real-life version of Mel Brooks's The Producers, where the
mistaken outcome trusted by everyone in Trump's inner circle -- that
they would lose the election -- wound up exposing them for who they
really were."

I_Like_Dirt · Post #323 » by **I_Like_Dirt** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 4:18 pm

Pointgod wrote:Well from a simplistic perspective, of course the US is going to run a trade deficit with Canada considering that it's more than 10 times the size of the country. The US is also almost 3 times the size of Mexico. The Mexican middle class hasn't grown like expected but overall NAFTA has benefited all three countries. If you want to know why it hasn't benefited the USA just look to the recent tax bill. The US is setup so corporations and the top 1% reap disproportionate economic benefits while not reinvesting into it's citizens.

This is pretty much it. I think it's pretty hard to argue that NAFTA has been/is actually bad for the US. The problem is that the benefits aren't being felt across the board. The automakers tank their business, move their jobs outside of the US and then nearly go belly-up? They get a bailout and now their executives get tax breaks, the jobs don't come back and now Mexico (and Canada) needs to pay! Meanwhile, it's their international competitors that are actually creating jobs in the US, though not as good as the ones that American auto-makers moved out of country which are never coming back in the same shape as they were when they left.

closg00 wrote:Many great quotes from the coming Wolf book, what is your favorite? Here's a good one.

"This was a real-life version of Mel Brooks's The Producers, where the
mistaken outcome trusted by everyone in Trump's inner circle -- that
they would lose the election -- wound up exposing them for who they
really were."

Yeah, I don't like Trump any more than the next guy, but that book is basically a quagmire that really doesn't seem like something that's worth wading through to try to parse the truths and half-truths from. I know it's long been a standing narrative that Trump didn't want to win the election, but I'm not sure how on one hand a person can believe that Trump went to the point of collusion with Russia, for example, and on the other hand think he wanted to lose. I think based on his actions it's pretty clear he wanted to win. Maybe they expected to lose and weren't prepared, but I'm not really sure that being prepared or not really changes how Trump and his team act under any given circumstances.

Wizardspride · Post #324 » by **Wizardspride** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 4:39 pm

Read on Twitter

Wizardspride · Post #325 » by **Wizardspride** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 4:57 pm

Read on Twitter

closg00 · Post #326 » by **closg00** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 5:26 pm

Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter

A Sessions agenda issue, they have no idea how-many Independents they are going to drive to vote DEM in the next election.
I don't toke, but I know just as-many Repubs who toke as Dems.

Pointgod · Post #327 » by **Pointgod** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 5:29 pm

I_Like_Dirt wrote:
closg00 wrote:Many great quotes from the coming Wolf book, what is your favorite? Here's a good one.

"This was a real-life version of Mel Brooks's The Producers, where the
mistaken outcome trusted by everyone in Trump's inner circle -- that
they would lose the election -- wound up exposing them for who they
really were."

Yeah, I don't like Trump any more than the next guy, but that book is basically a quagmire that really doesn't seem like something that's worth wading through to try to parse the truths and half-truths from. I know it's long been a standing narrative that Trump didn't want to win the election, but I'm not sure how on one hand a person can believe that Trump went to the point of collusion with Russia, for example, and on the other hand think he wanted to lose. I think based on his actions it's pretty clear he wanted to win. Maybe they expected to lose and weren't prepared, but I'm not really sure that being prepared or not really changes how Trump and his team act under any given circumstances.

Well both things could be true especially if you think about it in terms of timelines. The Russian collusion happened earlier in the year and it's more likely they were doing this to embarrass Hillary Clinton than actually expecting it to be effective. Or they could have been so entangle in a quid pro quo with Russia they did everything they could to win despite not wanting to actually win. Then if you look at it from the different perspectives of various campaign members it makes sense.

Pointgod · Post #328 » by **Pointgod** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 5:30 pm

closg00 wrote:
Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter

A Sessions agenda issue, they have no idea how-many Independents they are going to drive to vote DEM in the next election.
I don't toke, but I know just as-many Repubs who toke as Dems.

These people are stupid zealots. They think they can continue to cater to their ever shrinking base and expect to get reelected. You've hit the nail on the head regarding independents. Also what ever happened to States rights?

I_Like_Dirt · Post #329 » by **I_Like_Dirt** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 5:53 pm

Pointgod wrote:Well both things could be true especially if you think about it in terms of timelines. The Russian collusion happened earlier in the year and it's more likely they were doing this to embarrass Hillary Clinton than actually expecting it to be effective. Or they could have been so entangle in a quid pro quo with Russia they did everything they could to win despite not wanting to actually win. Then if you look at it from the different perspectives of various campaign members it makes sense.

Sure, they could be true, but I don't see it as being outrageously likely. What's the incentive for Trump to do such things to try and embarrass Hillary and not win? I'm not really sure why it's worth doing such mental gymnastics over a Michael Wolff book. I don't doubt there are truths in there, but I'm fairly confident they come out in other ways. The Washington Post ran a piece on how this book should give Mueller some clues as to where to look and all I was thinking was that, if you put 2 and 2 together, Mueller had likely already long looked into anything relevant this book said. Sure, it's not public information, but this particular piece doesn't seem like a way to be reliably able to parse anything of value from. We're well into the internet tabloid era, though, and Trump is very much a symptom of/exploiting that, so, yeah...

Zonkerbl · Post #330 » by **Zonkerbl** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 5:55 pm

Trump's base is a solid 40% of the voting electorate. It's not a majority but it's too large to ignore and is showing no signs of dwindling.

closg00 · Post #331 » by **closg00** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 6:08 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:Trump's base is a solid 40% of the voting electorate. It's not a majority but it's too large to ignore and is showing no signs of dwindling.

Elections are decided by swing voters, Trumps "base" can't save him.

gtn130 · Post #332 » by **gtn130** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 6:15 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:Trump's base is a solid 40% of the voting electorate. It's not a majority but it's too large to ignore and is showing no signs of dwindling.

They can totally be ignored. Winning over Trump voters is not at all necessary for democrats to win elections.

queridiculo · Post #333 » by **queridiculo** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 6:58 pm

Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter

Constitutionalists, the lot of them (when it suits them).

Wizardspride · Post #334 » by **Wizardspride** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 7:32 pm

Read on Twitter

dckingsfan · Post #335 » by **dckingsfan** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 7:32 pm

Pointgod wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
I_Like_Dirt wrote:
Fairer NAFTA? That a tough one to be honest. Much of the concern seems to be over Mexico and automotive sector jobs, but that's the current equivalent of chasing manufacturing jobs that are generally disappearing anyway. But as for partners not seeming willing to negotiate, as I understand it, Wilbur Ross basically admitted they were simply insisting on Canada and Mexico to offer concessions and they weren't actually offering anything in return. That's not actually a negotiation, and it's tough to suggest the other side isn't willing to negotiate in such a circumstance when you come to the table with nothing.

Well, the U.S. is running $140-160B trade deficit per year - it is incumbent on Canada and Mexico to right that ship or the US should indeed pull out.

From what (anecdotal) information I have seen/heard - Mexico & Canada came back with suggested changes that would actually increase the trade deficits. But publically they are attacking a maligned Trump in order to block any changes - brilliant politically from the two camps. And it would be devastating to all to pull out - but in the end it might be the best thing that Trump could do for the Country. Pull out and then let the next Administration negotiate a fairer deal.

Well from a simplistic perspective, of course the US is going to run a trade deficit with Canada considering that it's more than 10 times the size of the country. The US is also almost 3 times the size of Mexico. The Mexican middle class hasn't grown like expected but overall NAFTA has benefited all three countries. If you want to know why it hasn't benefited the USA just look to the recent tax bill. The US is setup so corporations and the top 1% reap disproportionate economic benefits while not reinvesting into it's citizens.

It may be simplistic but - shouldn't the trade deficits sinusoidal around zero and not $150B? And relative size shouldn't matter - right?

And this doesn't account for wages (your comment that corporations and the 1% reap the largest reward) - which is unrelated to the trade deficit.

Are you saying that the deficit is good and we shouldn't do anything about it? It is sustainable and our trade partners are right?

I am puzzled as to why you wouldn't want to see an adjustment to this agreement and why the obfuscation by Mexico and Canada is okay?

TGW · Post #336 » by **TGW** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 7:38 pm

gtn130 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:Trump's base is a solid 40% of the voting electorate. It's not a majority but it's too large to ignore and is showing no signs of dwindling.

They can totally be ignored. Winning over Trump voters is not at all necessary for democrats to win elections.

That's a poor strategy. Democrats should undoubtedly attract [poor] Trump voters with a viable economic message.

Proof? Look at Bernie Sanders' townhall in West Virginia:

Watch on YouTube

A real economic message appeals to ALL citizens.

stilldropin20 · Post #337 » by **stilldropin20** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 7:38 pm

closg00 wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:Trump's base is a solid 40% of the voting electorate. It's not a majority but it's too large to ignore and is showing no signs of dwindling.

Elections are decided by swing voters, Trumps "base" can't save him.

those swing voters pay checks just got bigger. Their 401k just got much bigger.

i would target most swing voters in the range of 25-150k. Trump Knows that. His tax relief almost solely targets them. At the same time, NY, Ca, Il, will not be changed from blue to red. and therefore the tax reform wont help them.

just eye balling it...it looks to me like a family of 4 that makes 40-70K just earned themselves an additional 5-7K in tax relief.

I'm sorry for you libs, but thats enough to at least keep trump in office. So again we get back to your weak candidates. You dont have anyone that can beat him. So your path is still solely impeachment. And that path gets weaker and weaker as the months pass and more and more of the outgoing Obama admin weaponized DOJ gets exposed.

Wizardspride · Post #338 » by **Wizardspride** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 7:42 pm

Wizardspride · Post #339 » by **Wizardspride** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 7:44 pm

Have I ever mentioned how much I despise Jeff Sessions?

Even if I was inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt his choice of Sessions as AG told me all I needed to know.

stilldropin20 · Post #340 » by **stilldropin20** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 7:45 pm

and then there is the fact that most cities have been under democrat/liberal control for decades and those liberal controlled inner cities have done little to advance the path of prosperity for minorities.

What will be especially interesting to me is when these middle class inner city folk see their pay checks get bigger and if trump delievers on his campaign promises to bring jobs back to the inner cities like chicago. I'll take this time to remind everyone reading that Trump has made good on almost all of his pledges thus far and is now working on those pledges that have not been accomplished yet. On the issues???? This is the Most transparent and honest president ever.

Read on Twitter