This thread is going well.

dajo9;842839337 said:

---

Ok, but are you or are you not in favor of an independent prosecutor?

---

More like an independent Lee Harvey Oswald

GB54;842839339 said:

---

Although Trump's victory is- rightfully- attributed to working class whites, he also did better than Clinton with college educated whites- that'd be us, right?

---

I'm sure plenty of white people who "graduated" from Alabama and Idaho State voted for trump. Do those people count as educated?

dajo9;842839337 said:

---

Ok, but are you or are you not in favor of an independent prosecutor?

---

For Hillary? Just another broken Trump campaign promise. Not that he understood how those things work.

Cal88;842839281 said:

---

304 to 227 is not exactly "threading the needle" now, is it... If you're such a huge fan of the popular vote, you can apply for refugee status in France, Macron will take you. :p

---

Trump narrowly won in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

That's 46 electoral votes that could've flipped the election.

Obama, in 2012, had more votes in those 3 states than Trump.

Heck, Romney had more votes in Wisconsin than Trump.

If 21% of Jill Stein voters in Michigan flipped to Hillary, if 89% of Stein voters in Pennsylvania flipped to Hillary, if 73% of Stein voters in Wisconsin voted for Hillary, she would be president. (Of course, Stein voters wouldn't vote for Hillary. But they hate Trump, too.)

And this is not counting any Gary Johnson voters or the many voters in those 3 states who opted not to vote.

In 2020, Trump won't have a Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and a Hillary Clinton to help him win in those 3 states. All Dems need, really, is a great get out the vote effort and a candidate that voters will be enthusiastic for.

So, yes, Trump, did thread a needle to win.

graguna;842839343 said:

---

I'm sure plenty of white people who "graduated" from Alabama and Idaho State voted for trump. Do those people count as educated?

---

No, just people like you count

GB54;842839327 said:

---

The fact that you, CB93, and Odonto all think Bill Clinton was a good President fully explains the current state of American politics

---

Whoa, GB! Good for business, morally bankrupt, but yeh, probably good overall.

Bobodeluxe;842839340 said:

---

This thread is going well.

---

I am enjoying it.

okaydo;842839345 said:

---

All Dems need, really, is a great get out the vote effort and a candidate that voters will be enthusiastic for.

---

Yep, they're fucked.

Strykur;842839350 said:

---

Yep, they're fucked.

---

Happened twice with that Obama dude. Not impossible.

dajo9;842839324 said:

---

How is Odessa this time of year? I hear the Black Sea is beautiful.

---

Not sure about the Black Sea, but the chicken fried steaks at Luby's are always pretty good.

GB54;842839327 said:

---

The fact that you, CB93, and Odonto all think Bill Clinton was a good President fully explains the current state of American politics

---

I ask this purely out of curiosity, not to be combative: what is your argument for Clinton having been a bad President?

BearChemist;842839204 said:

---

Cal Football have gone to Rose Bowl every year, with a few exceptions.

---

Will you please stop trying to hijack this Off Topic thread and to bring it back On Topic by this reference to Cal Football. The nerve of some people.

sycasey;842839357 said:

---

I ask this purely out of curiosity, not to be combative: what is your argument for Clinton having been a bad President?

---

He was a Corporate Republican. The Democrat party used to align itself with the return on people's labor, under him it switched to favoring the return on capital and the interests of corporations over workers-globalization, trade deals, de-regulation, accelerated downward mobility of the working class, wage stagnation and a new party of professionals hunkered down on the coasts. This is in large part why his wife had little interest in connecting with his/her past-she rejected NAFTA, rejected the War on Crime, rejected the repeal of Glass-Steagall-and couldn't connect with a constituency that Obama won. I could go on but If you have the time, this is better than I could do:

http://http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt

GB54;842839372 said:

---

He was a Corporate Republican. The Democrat party used to align itself with the return on people's labor, under him it switched to favoring the return on capital and the interests of corporations over workers-globalization, trade deals, de-regulation, accelerated downward mobility of the working class, wage stagnation and a new party of professionals hunkered down on the coasts. This is in large part why his wife had little interest in connecting with his/her past-she rejected NAFTA, rejected the War on Crime, rejected the repeal of Glass-Steagall-and couldn't connect with a constituency that Obama won. I could go on but If you have the time, this is better than I could do:

http://http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt

---

GB54 I agree with you that Clinton and the Democratic Party shifted to the center and became more corporate friendly during the 1990s. But isn't that what the voting populace of the now rust belt voted for at the time? Whether they realize it or not, when the upper Midwest Reagan Democrats switched to Reagan they were voting for a corporatist, anti-worker agenda. They were also voting for tax cuts and higher deficits. To fund the deficits the US Treasury issued more Treasury bonds. To acquire all those Treasury bonds Americans had to keep dollars and foreigners had to buy dollars. That caused the dollar to go up in value making American made products more expensive and less competitive. The upper Midwest turned into the rust belt as its uncompetitive products caused the factories to shut down and workers to lose jobs and value. Technology also gave this a boost. Of course, Wall Street made a fortune.

So, the rust belt and white working class voters got exactly what they voted for in Reagan and Clinton. But at least Clinton protected and grew Medicaid, raised taxes some, and brought the deficits down, which is far better for the rust belt than the Republican alternative. With Trump, they will continue to get what they vote for. As for me, I go back to what I said the day after the election. Trump loses and I win with my preferred candidate. Trump wins and I win with tax cuts. What is the white working class getting from Trump? They may not have gotten everything you want from Hillary, but they would get more than what they'll get from Trump. If middle America keeps voting as it has they will surely lose out more than I will financially. Call me elitist, call me what you will. That's just reality.

dajo9;842839376 said:

---

GB54 I agree with you that Clinton and the Democratic Party shifted to the center and became more corporate friendly during the 1990s. But isn't that what the voting populace of the now rust belt voted for at the time? Whether they realize it or not, when the upper Midwest Reagan Democrats switched to Reagan they were voting for a corporatist, anti-worker agenda. They were also voting for tax cuts and higher deficits. To fund the deficits the US Treasury issued more Treasury bonds. To acquire all those Treasury bonds Americans had to keep dollars and foreigners had to buy dollars. That caused the dollar to go up in value making American made products more expensive and less competitive. The upper Midwest turned into the rust belt as its uncompetitive products caused the factories to shut down and workers to lose jobs and value. Technology also gave this a boost. Of course, Wall Street made a fortune.

So, the rust belt and white working class voters got exactly what they voted for in Reagan and Clinton. But at least Clinton protected and grew Medicaid, raised taxes some, and brought the deficits down, which is far better for the rust belt than the Republican alternative. With Trump, they will continue to get what they vote for. As for me, I go back to what I said the day after the election. Trump loses and I win with my preferred candidate. Trump wins and I win with tax cuts. What is the white working class getting from Trump? They may not have gotten everything you want from Hillary, but they would get more than what they'll get from Trump. If middle America keeps voting as it has they will surely lose out more than I will financially. Call me elitist, call me what you will. That's just reality.

---

Well stated. I made a killing with the Reagan tax cuts / investment rule changes. Clinton came along and lowered the capital gains taxes. I cashed out, grew my hair out, and retired at 50, and embraced my inner hippie. I got mine, would like to lend a hand, but I was outvoted. Whatever. I walk to Peet's every day for a cup, clean the pool once a week and smile at strangers just to scare the sh1t out of the bigots.

dajo9;842839376 said:

---

GB54 I agree with you that Clinton and the Democratic Party shifted to the center and became more corporate friendly during the 1990s. But isn't that what the voting populace of the now rust belt voted for at the time? Whether they realize it or not, when the upper Midwest Reagan Democrats switched to Reagan they were voting for a corporatist, anti-worker agenda. They were also voting for tax cuts and higher deficits. To fund the deficits the US Treasury issued more Treasury bonds. To acquire all those Treasury bonds Americans had to keep dollars and foreigners had to buy dollars. That caused the dollar to go up in value making American made products more expensive and less competitive. The upper Midwest turned into the rust belt as its uncompetitive products caused the factories to shut down and workers to lose jobs and value. Technology also gave this a boost. Of course, Wall Street made a fortune.

So, the rust belt and white working class voters got exactly what they voted for in Reagan and Clinton. But at least Clinton protected and grew Medicaid, raised taxes some, and brought the deficits down, which is far better for the rust belt than the Republican alternative. With Trump, they will continue to get what they vote for. As for me, I go back to what I said the day after the election. Trump loses and I win with my preferred candidate. Trump wins and I win with tax cuts. What is the white working class getting from Trump? They may not have gotten everything you want from Hillary, but they would get more than what they'll get from Trump. If middle America keeps voting as it has they will surely lose out more than I will financially. Call me elitist, call me what you will. That's just reality.

---

I think they were voting for "prosperity"; nobody, least of all our leaders-knew the consequences of these things when they happen, but I am unconvinced it is always either- or. Other countries- Germany notably- have been able to protect their industries rather than solely let global corporations dictate economic policy.

Trump and Clinton don't interest me,-they are both transitional figures-what happens next does.

GB54;842839383 said:

---

...Trump and Clinton don't interest me,-they are both transitional figures-what happens next does.

---

+1 Well stated and I agree.

No more Clinton and no more Trump...outta here, don't even think about running again, vamoose, be gone, retire into obscurity, and if be it rot in federal prison...and take Larry Kennedy, Henry Paulson and Tim Geithner with you...and 1/2 the population of the Hamptons.

dajo9;842839376 said:

---

GB54 I agree with you that Clinton and the Democratic Party shifted to the center and became more corporate friendly during the 1990s. But isn't that what the voting populace of the now rust belt voted for at the time? Whether they realize it or not, when the upper Midwest Reagan Democrats switched to Reagan they were voting for a corporatist, anti-worker agenda. [SIZE=3]They were also voting for tax cuts and higher deficits. To fund the deficits the US Treasury issued more Treasury bonds. To acquire all those Treasury bonds Americans had to keep dollars and foreigners had to buy dollars. That caused the dollar to go up in value making American made products more expensive and less competitive.[/SIZE] The upper Midwest turned into the rust belt as its uncompetitive products caused the factories to shut down and workers to lose jobs and value. Technology also gave this a boost. Of course, Wall Street made a fortune.

So, the rust belt and white working class voters got exactly what they voted for in Reagan and Clinton. But at least Clinton protected and grew Medicaid, raised taxes some, and brought the deficits down, which is far better for the rust belt than the Republican alternative. With Trump, they will continue to get what they vote for. As for me, I go back to what I said the day after the election. Trump loses and I win with my preferred candidate. Trump wins and I win with tax cuts. What is the white working class getting from Trump? They may not have gotten everything you want from Hillary, but they would get more than what they'll get from Trump. If middle America keeps voting as it has they will surely lose out more than I will financially. Call me elitist, call me what you will. That's just reality.

---

Actually, budget deficits have a devaluatory effect on currency, not an appreciatory effect. Reagan's budget deficits did not precipitate the industrial decline, industrial and trade policy (NAFTA) did. And the recent repeal of the TPP will at least stop the hemorrhage, if not reverse it.

Cal88;842839387 said:

---

Actually, budget deficits have a devaluatory effect on currency, not an appreciatory effect. Reagan's budget deficits did not precipitate the industrial decline, industrial and trade policy (NAFTA) did. And the recent repeal of the TPP will at least stop the hemorrhage, if not reverse it.

---

Thank you Comrade for your commentary. I am glad to see that Father Putin is not keeping you too busy on this weekend.

Always be wary of people speaking of economics in certitudes, such as Cal88's quote from above. Budget deficits can have a devaluatory effect on a currency, particularly when investors lose faith in the country's ability to repay debt and flee the country and its currency. However, if investors remain comfortable with a country's ability to repay and demand is sufficient to buy the increased supply of debt, then the currency can appreciate in value due to investors seeking dollars to acquire the debt, negatively impacting the balance of trade. This is exactly what happened with Reagan under his policies.

Cal88;842839387 said:

---

Actually, budget deficits have a devaluatory effect on currency, not an appreciatory effect. Reagan's budget deficits did not precipitate the industrial decline, industrial and trade policy (NAFTA) did. And the recent repeal of the TPP will at least stop the hemorrhage, if not reverse it.

---

Are you privy to the details of TPP? I'm not, I can only go by what is reported via the media, which I guess you could accuse me of being a dupe of the fake media which are owned by deep/dark governmental elements trying to control me and you. My understanding of TPP though is an agreement of Asian nations to serve as a bulwark against Chinese economic rise/power. Without TPP, strategy this evaporates. Educate me if I'm wrong.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

Quote:

---

For years, Beijing has listened to the Obama administration say the 12-nation regional trade deal was a way of bolstering American leadership in Asia.

China was not included in the deal, and President Barack Obama went out of his way to remind the region that this was no accident. TPP allows America - and not countries like China - to write the rules of the road in the 21st Century, which is especially important in a region as dynamic as the Asia-Pacific.

---

Quote:

---

And before we leave the subject of Beijing's run of good news from Trump Tower, it comes as much from what Mr Trump didn't say as what he did. While laying out his plans for his first days in office, the US president-elect made no mention of campaign threats to brand China a currency manipulator and slap punitive tariffs on Chinese goods.

Silence on this and funeral rites for the TPP which China hated: an excellent news day indeed.

---

burritos;842839390 said:

---

Are you privy to the details of TPP? I'm not, I can only go by what is reported via the media, which I guess you could accuse me of being a dupe of the fake media which are owned by deep/dark governmental elements trying to control me and you. My understanding of TPP though is an agreement of Asian nations to serve as a bulwark against Chinese economic rise/power. Without TPP, strategy this evaporates. Educate me if I'm wrong.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

---

You have to understand that Cal88 is nothing but a parrot for Russian propaganda. He is NOT American and despite his attendance at an American university, we have no reason to believe he has America's interests at heart.

I have argued with lots of people on this site but I have never made such a charge against any of them. I believe all the others I have argued with have America's best interest at heart. I do not believe that about Cal88.

burritos;842839390 said:

---

Are you privy to the details of TPP? I'm not, I can only go by what is reported via the media, which I guess you could accuse me of being a dupe of the fake media which are owned by deep/dark governmental elements trying to control me and you. My understanding of TPP though is an agreement of Asian nations to serve as a bulwark against Chinese economic rise/power. Without TPP, strategy this evaporates. Educate me if I'm wrong.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

---

[video=youtube;YmLHwZkonwY][/video]

burritos;842839390 said:

---

Are you privy to the details of TPP? I'm not, I can only go by what is reported via the media, which I guess you could accuse me of being a dupe of the fake media which are owned by deep/dark governmental elements trying to control me and you. My understanding of TPP though is an agreement of Asian nations to serve as a bulwark against Chinese economic rise/power. Without TPP, strategy this evaporates. Educate me if I'm wrong.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

---

I guess that's a great way to sell the TPP to the public, as a bullwark against China. In fact the TPP would further erode the last remaining barriers countries and local communities have against multinationals and foreign capital by setting up supranational legal structures appointed by their agents that would supercede local/national laws . China would just cut in once it's passed.

The most toxic element is its investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, mechanism. It would for example allow multinationals to sue local governments for policies like raising the minimum wage or shoring up environmental standards. It's basically a globalist wet dream disguised as a free trade agreement.

http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2015/05/Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement-Public-Interest-and-U.S.-Domestic-Law-FINAL-May-19-8.pdf


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/tpp-would-let-foreign-investors-bypass-the-canadian-public-interest/article27463985/

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/01/18/TPP-Foreign-Investors/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/isds-lawsuit-financing-tpp_us_57c48e40e4b09cd22d91f660

MinotStateBeav;842839393 said:

---

[video=youtube;YmLHwZkonwY][/video]

---

Interesting how Elizabeth Warren and Trump are on the same page. I don't know anything so my opinion about is worthless. Obama was for it. Does he and his administration know details that over all benefit America(including peace and stability at the cost of jobs that will be gone in 100 years anyways)? Or is he just a paid off puppet/schill who doesn't have to worry about re election? Both are plausible. I still trust Obama.

Cal88;842839394 said:

---

I guess that's a great way to sell the TPP to the public, as a bullwark against China. In fact the TPP would further erode the last remaining barriers countries and local communities have against multinationals and foreign capital by setting up supranational legal structures appointed by their agents that would supercede local/national laws . China would just cut in once it's passed.

The most toxic element is its investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, mechanism. It would for example allow multinationals to sue local governments for policies like raising the minimum wage or shoring up environmental standards. It's basically a globalist wet dream disguised as a free trade agreement.

http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2015/05/Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement-Public-Interest-and-U.S.-Domestic-Law-FINAL-May-19-8.pdf


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/tpp-would-let-foreign-investors-bypass-the-canadian-public-interest/article27463985/

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/01/18/TPP-Foreign-Investors/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/isds-lawsuit-financing-tpp_us_57c48e40e4b09cd22d91f660

---

Ok. good points 2 questions:
Are globalists inherently evil and just want to make money?

Were the Luddites right in their attempts to destroy the textile machines?

dajo9;842839391 said:

---

You have to understand that Cal88 is nothing but a parrot for Russian propaganda. He is NOT American and despite his attendance at an American university, we have no reason to believe he has America's interests at heart.

I have argued with lots of people on this site but I have never made such a charge against any of them. I believe all the others I have argued with have America's best interest at heart. I do not believe that about Cal88.

---

The Rooskies only became a thing with people like you in the last election cycle.

Who would have thunk that so-called liberals with good college degrees would turn into the most moronic xenophobes in this country...

burritos;842839395 said:

---

Interesting how Elizabeth Warren and Trump are on the same page. I don't know anything so my opinion about is worthless. Obama was for it. Does he and his administration know details that over all benefit America(including peace and stability at the cost of jobs that will be gone in 100 years anyways)? Or is he just a paid off puppet/schill who doesn't have to worry about re election? Both are plausible. I still trust Obama.

---

A lot of people had issues with how Obama handled the TPP. He quashed public discussion about it and said the negotiations we're private because they were sensitive. As Cal88 pointed out the ISDS was a real problem for many as well. By making TPP so secretive, people just painted it as the new NAFTA.

Cal88;842839387 said:

---

Actually, budget deficits have a devaluatory effect on currency, not an appreciatory effect. Reagan's budget deficits did not precipitate the industrial decline, industrial and trade policy (NAFTA) did. And the recent repeal of the TPP will at least stop the hemorrhage, if not reverse it.

---

A bigger reason for America ican industrial decline was the recovery of all the World War Two devistated economies. We wasted our advantage.

MinotStateBeav;842839398 said:

---

A lot of people had issues with how Obama handled the TPP. He quashed public discussion about it and said the negotiations we're private because they were sensitive. As Cal88 pointed out the ISDS was a real problem for many as well. By making TPP so secretive, people just painted it as the new NAFTA.

---

American oligarchs like secrecy. All oligarchs do. Back to work!

dajo9;842839391 said:

---

You have to understand that Cal88 is nothing but a parrot for Russian propaganda. He is NOT American and despite his attendance at an American university, we have no reason to believe he has America's interests at heart.
.

---

Trump tweet impression?

burritos;842839396 said:

---

Ok. good points 2 questions:
Are globalists inherently evil and just want to make money?

---

Globalists become evil when their interests are fundamentally at odds with those of the average people. It's often (but not always) the case. Greece, the Rust Belt, most of the developing world.

This would be a good start on the subject:



https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081

Bobodeluxe;842839399 said:

---

A bigger reason for American industrial decline was the recovery of all the World War Two devistated economies. We wasted our advantage.

---

Yes indeed. One of the main advantages being market size, we did not leverage it the way China or the EU does. China demands local production for access to its domestic markets, including R&D and technology transfer.

This is one example where the interests of the American working class (and those of pretty much everyone in the industrial heartland) did not align with those of Wall Street.

Japan's industrial policy has been driven by MITI, which values a culture of industrial development, whereas in the US it's been more about economic hit men like Mitt Romney. That culture has been seeping to the rest of the world, you have people like Macron who hails from an M&A/LBO background getting the upper hand in Europe.

Quote:

---

Were the Luddites right in their attempts to destroy the textile machines?

---

The problem in the US is that the business culture is unique, it's been defined over the last century by academia and think tanks that have been beholden to a certain economic agenda. There is an entrenched, fatalistic laissez-faire ("those jobs aren't coming back") prevailing ethos. It's not the general trust in free market mechanisms that is the problem here (to the contrary), it's taking that to a near-religious belief, to a point where the basic mechanics and impacts of economic policies are ignored.

In 1944 Bretton Woods was one of these globalist meetings and a global arrangement was concocted by the elites. Harry Dexter White, a senior U.S. Treasury Dept, official outwitted John Maynard Keynes and finagled the U.S. to be the reserve currency of the world. Because of that maneuver we've benefited quite handsomely since then. Ironically, Harry Dexter White infamously was accused for being a Russian spy and ignominiously died after 2 heart attacks soon after his testimony.

GB54;842839402 said:

---

Trump tweet impression?

---

If that's a trump tweet impression, its a very bad one. Reread what dajo9 wrote. He wrote two grammatically correct coherent sentences.
A trump tweet impression would be more like this; "believe me, Cal88 is bigly russian progandelistism. I know people lots of american people and they are all saying he is not american. lots of people are saying he is not american. dont believe what the fake news says. its all fake. your really can't believe anyone but me. he doesnt love america like i do. I love americans and really all americans love me. just look at my ratings. they're bigly."

Cal88;842839397 said:

---

The Rooskies only became a thing with people like you in the last election cycle.

---

Sure, but it didn't just come out of nowhere. Trump has a number of shady ties to Russia. If, I dunno, Jeb Bush had been nominated, there would have been no Russia talk.