patrick.net

tr6 says

Marcus, you really don't get it.

What don't I get ?

Is it how it takes someone with zero experience in government to be effective in government ?

Or is it that I don't understand how Trump is going to do any (let alone all) of the things he claims he will ?

Examples:

1) Put China in their place.

2) Bring good high paying jobs to Americans.

3) Funniest one: Build a wall to prevent immigration which is currently a net out of the country back to Mexico.

4) He's going to make us win so much we're going to get tired of winning.

5) He's going to undo Obama care and replace it with something better.

6) He's going to make a lot of great deals, because he wrote "the art of the deal" and he knows how to walk away when the deal isn't good enough.

Are you really favoring one of these guys?

HydroCabron says

I also happen to believe that the Republican nominee is a fairly good approximation to Mussolini.

Is that why the neocon vote is going to hillary and the progressive vote is going to trump?

this thread is a microcosm of Trump supporters: delusional bunch of losers and dumbfucks.

marcus says

What don't I get ?

What you don't get is progressives are voting against Hillary, not for Trump.

bob2356 says

Is that why the neocon vote is going to hillary and the progressive vote is going to trump?

By non-neocon progressive, you mean Sheldon Adelson?

Why people believe the myth that neocons don't like Trump's policies?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sheldon-adelson-i-endorse-donald-trump-for-president/2016/05/12/ea89d7f0-17a0-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

Ironman says

marcus says

What don't I get ?

Is it how it takes someone with zero experience in government to be effective in government ?

How did all of Obama's "experience" work out these last 7 years?

well, given that he came in to an economy losing 500000 jobs a month, and now we are at 7.5 years of jobs growth, he came in to 10+ percent unemployment and as of today it is 4.7%, given the dow jones tripled, we killed osama bin laden which bush couldn't do and didn't care about, we saved general motors...
And the terrible slide of the US in world eyes has been reversed...

to everyone who isn't a racist loser asshole like you, it's worked out pretty well.

For me, I made 3 million dollars during these years... YOu? still a bottoms sucking bitter piece of shit.

errc says

I still have trouble figuring out who all the Hillary voters are

Welfare jigs, poor mexicans, uninformed women and the girly men whose nutsacks are carried by them.

komputodo says

uninformed women and the girly men whose nutsacks are carried by them.

nice.
my preferred nomenclature is "yoga mommy and soft male"
both of them CUNTS!

gsr says

By non-neocon progressive, you mean Sheldon Adelson?

I think he means Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, the Kagans, Max Boot, and many other big neocon pundits.

Some of the Nicest Boobed Progressives I know may vote for Trump over Hillary:
Susan Sarandon: Clinton ‘more dangerous’ than Trump

Actress Susan Sarandon says Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy makes her a greater national security risk than Donald Trump, adding that it's "inevitable" the White House hopeful will be indicted.

“I believe in a way she’s more dangerous, except they’re both talking to Henry Kissinger apparently lately,” Sarandon told The Young Turks on Thursday.

“Her record — I mean, she did not learn a thing from Iraq. She is an interventionist. She’s done horrible things, horrible things, and very callously," she added.

“I don’t know if she’s overcompensating or what her trip is. I think we’ll be in Iran in two seconds. That scares me. That frightens me.”

Sarandon, who supports Bernie Sanders for president, said Trump’s ideas are too implausible to be dangerous.

“This is what we’re fed — ‘he’s so dangerous, he’s so dangerous,’ ” she said. "Seriously, I’m not worried about a wall being built and Mexico paying for it.

“He’s not going to get rid of every Muslim living in this country. Has he made it the norm to be racist and vent these kinds of things? Yes. But seriously, I don’t know what his policies are."

On the other hand, Sarandon said, Clinton's record on foreign policy is cause for alarm.

“I do know what her policies are. I do know where she’s taking money from. And I do know that she’s not transparent and I know that nobody calls her on it.”

Sarandon predicted in a separate interview that Clinton will ultimately face indictment for her use of a private email server while secretary of State.

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282143-susan-sarandon-clinton-more-dangerous-than-trump

thunderlips11 says

gsr says

By non-neocon progressive, you mean Sheldon Adelson?

I think he means Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, the Kagans, Max Boot, and many other big neocon pundits

You do realize this is a game. Like Dick Cheney, Sheldon Adelson, they will all line up to support Trump at the end. Have you watched his groveling speech at AIPAC? Also, in what aspect Trump's policy differs from them? Perhaps, Trump wants to do more torture and kill more people?

Like every other Trump fan, you think Trump has a secret deal with you personally. He will protect your welfare and block immigration, and it does not matter what else he will do as long as those two are satisfied. The reality is that even Trump does not what he will do if he ever becomes the president. He has been walking on a fine rope of courting multiple groups of various agendas. In that respect, he is just like any other politician. Of course, he learned directly from them.

gsr says

bob2356 says

Is that why the neocon vote is going to hillary and the progressive vote is going to trump?

By non-neocon progressive, you mean Sheldon Adelson?

Huh? Sheldon Adelson as a neocon? WTF? As far as I know the only thing he wants to go to war against is pot.

thunderlips11 says

I think he means Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, the Kagans, Max Boot, and many other big neocon pundits.

Yep, those guys. The ones who never saw a war the didn't love. Along with the neocon admirers of hillary when she was sec of state like Richard Perle, George Schultz, Noemie Emery. Lindsey Graham, Jim Inhofe, Condoleezza Rice, and all the rest of the usual suspects. None of whom have endorsed Trump. Some may hold their noses and endorse him eventually, but they really, really won't like it. Hell, even Darth Cheney, the neocon’s neocon, said Hillary was the most competent person in the Obama administration.

gsr says

Have you watched his groveling speech at AIPAC?

Did you see Hillary's speech at AIPAC? She sounded like Cheney on steroids. The real irony is most of what she complains about in the middle east was caused by policies she supported or was involved in making.

bob2356 says

Huh? Sheldon Adelson as a neocon? WTF? As far as I know the only thing he wants to go to war against is pot.

Really???? Which world do you live in?
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Adelson-US-should-drop-atomic-bomb-on-Iran-329641

www.youtube.com/embed/6sCW4IasWXc

bob2356 says

Have you watched his groveling speech at AIPAC?

Did you see Hillary's speech at AIPAC? She sounded like Cheney on steroids. The real irony is most of what she complains about in the middle east was caused by policies she supported or was involved in making.

So it is ok for Trump to grovel to AIPAC since Hillary does it too? Talking about Cheney, you do know that Cheney has already endorsed Trump.

gsr says

Like every other Trump fan, you think Trump has a secret deal with you personally. He will protect your welfare and block immigration, and it does not matter what else he will do as long as those two are satisfied. The reality is that even Trump does not what he will do if he ever becomes the president. He has been walking on a fine rope of courting multiple groups of various agendas. In that respect, he is just like any other politician. Of course, he learned directly from them.

Whereas Hillary is openly for more immigration, more bad trade deals, etc.

She may drop in a line or two about 'reviewing' or 'changing it later', but she is in favor of all these things because her donors are.

Adelson's money is from gaming; what the price of tea/tariffs are in China is of little concern to him. It's a big deal to Waltons and Silly Con Valley.

Again, with Clinton I know what I'm going to get. With Trump, there's a chance I might get action of my most important issues. With Hillary, it's only a question of whether the number of H1-Bs doubles or triples, and whether a whole new set of low wage Asian subcontractors can export back to the US at minimal to no tariffs.

I won't even mention the US subsidy of the military expenses of the 4th Reich-by-other-means aka Greater Germany, aka the EU.

tr6 says

marcus says

What don't I get ?

What you don't get is progressives are voting against Hillary, not for Trump.

But a vote against Hillary will be a vote for Trump.

thunderlips11 says

Whereas Hillary is openly for more immigration, more bad trade deals, etc.

Exactly. Like I said, you are pro tump for those two reasons only. Trump has used the right dog whistle to attract your attention. He has used another one to attract Sheldon Adelson. He has played it well so far as a politician.

In short, Trump is a complete antithesis to the cause of civil liberties. But for you everything is good as long as immigration he stops immigration and bring national socialism.

I hope the CA dems take a good hard look at riots-where expression of thought and speech is met with violence and bloodshed. Once these Mexican la raza thugs and the stupid fringe left is done with the few conservative voters left in CA-you think they will stop?? No they are like wolves that have tasted blood and will come after the 1% -which will suddenly be the 20% or the 30%.

They wave Mexican flags and burn American flags-basically declaring CA is Mexico and the traitor Obama along with the San Jose Mayor and the dems support La raza. Have fun in your future hellhole-when these emboldened La Raza freaks come for you next. You know the police won't do anything. Try taking a trip down to mexico in drug cartel territory and go for a hike and see a taste of your future.

gsr says

Really???? Which world do you live in?

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Adelson-US-should-drop-atomic-bomb-on-Iran-329641

and the next day his people were out doing massive spinning that the comment was hyperbole to show the double standard people have with Isreal. Show me anything else other than that one comment where he has said the US should take military action. He's big on supporting and defending Israel, but I've never heard of him advocating any kind of war. He was a democrat for years and switched to republican for tax issues. I heard him give a keynote speech at Comdex (which he started) in the early 80's. Very good speaker.

Isreali supporter yes. Neocon, not even close.

bob2356 says

Show me anything else other than that one comment where he has said the US should take military action

So dropping nuclear weapon is no big deal to you? Even McCain never mentioned that. He was a big time Marco Rubio supporter during the early days of the primary. In addition, he is a huge crony capitalist who wants to ban online gambling.

In another news, Trump holds a private meeting with Karl Rove.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/03/us/politics/karl-rove-donald-trump.html?_r=0

gsr says

So dropping nuclear weapon is no big deal to you?

Reading comprehension problems? I said Adelson couldn't be considered a neocon by a long stretch, not that he didn't say something stupid he has been trying to spin ever since. Neocons, like good old fashioned conservative war hawks, believe the first and only option for foreign policy is military intervention. Adelson has never advocated that. How exactly is throwing money at Marco Rubio and banning online gambling advocating war? I don't see the connection at all.

What does Karl Rove meeting with Trump have to do with anything? Just because they hate each other doesn't mean Trump won't use Rove's money expertise and Rove would sell his mother into white slavery to be relevant again. What does this have to do with advocating war? Relevance is what?

bob2356 says

? I said Adelson couldn't be considered a neocon by a long stretch, not that he didn't say something stupid he has been trying to spin ever since. Neocons, like good old fashioned conservative war hawks, believe the first and only option for foreign policy is military intervention.

"
A group of Palestinians and Palestinian Americans are seeking $34.5 billion dollars in damages from wealthy individuals and companies they accuse of financing and profiting from Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank and other abuses of their rights."
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/palestinians-sue-billionaire-sheldon-adelson-israeli-war-crimes

bob2356 says

I said Adelson couldn't be considered a neocon by a long stretch, not that he didn't say something stupid he has been trying to spin ever since. Neocons, like good old fashioned conservative war hawks, believe the first and only option for foreign policy is military interventio

You can defend Trump all you want. But please don't say Neoconservatives are worse. Trump is one of them, like Adelson, Rudy Guliani, Newt Gingrich.

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/06/03/donald-trumps-wingman-sen-tom-cotton

But Trump had a wingman in U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton. He took quickly and multiple times to social media in what seemed obvious responses to news about Clinton's speech with denunciations of Hillary Clinton on foreign policy. Angling still for a spot on the Trump ticket? He'd certainly be ready to mix it up on this ticket where Trump is not, though the talking points are familiar to any Fox viewer. Benghazi, Iran nuclear deal, e-mail.

#triggerhappy

gsr says

You can defend Trump all you want. But please don't say Neoconservatives are worse. Trump is one of them, like Adelson, Rudy Guliani, Newt Gingrich.

I haven't defended trump at all, are you reading someone elses posts? Anyway, I get it now. You don't have the vaguest clue what the terms neocon or war hawk means, never mind who they are.

gsr says

A group of Palestinians and Palestinian Americans are seeking $34.5 billion dollars in damages from wealthy individuals and companies they accuse of financing and profiting from Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank and other abuses of their rights."

Would an Israeli-American judge be biased in this case? Where's Trump on the issue?

gsr says

Exactly. Like I said, you are pro tump for those two reasons only. Trump has used the right dog whistle to attract your attention. He has used another one to attract Sheldon Adelson. He has played it well so far as a politician.

Of course, those are my main issues - these have been big issues for me long before 2015.

Hillary doesn't even dogwhistle me on those issues - she has a repeat track record of indistinguishable-from-Graham-and-McCain bellicosity, is for massive unskilled immigration in the face of un and under-employed millions, and unfair trade.

I'm willing to take a risk that Trump will at least make some weaksauce moves in the direction I want. Hillary is for doubling down on these proven horrible policies.

Hillary to foreign policy, trade, and immigration is like Austrians to deregulation and eliminating the minimum wage. Why would I ever vote for an Austrian over an Unknown if I wanted more regulation and a higher minimum wage ? Especially if that Austrian has a track record of vociferously using their pulpit as First Lady, voting as Senator, and actions as Sec of State to push deregulation and lowering the minimum wage?

gsr says

You can defend Trump all you want. But please don't say Neoconservatives are worse. Trump is one of them, like Adelson, Rudy Guliani, Newt Gingrich.

No neoconservative would ever suggest Europe pay more for NATO, hint the US would leave, work with Russia, or declare "Neutrality" on Palestine-Israel over the West Bank. Ever.

#NeverTrump is mostly Neocons: Bill Kristol, the Kagans, Max Boot, the entire NRO writing staff, etc.

It's like saying Stefan Molyneaux is a New Dealer.

marcus says

What don't I get ?

Workers in the US are in a race to the bottom competition with semi slave labor, through trade externally and immigration internally.
Clinton is in favor of that.

The standard monetary response to this situation is to print money, lower rates to 0, inflate assets, encourage debt growth... let inequalities grow.
Clinton is in favor of that.

The corresponding counterweight is "everything else must be expensive" in the US: education, healthcare, housing.
Clinton is in favor of that, if only as a consequence of the 2 first.

The status quo is based on axioms that never questioned by the establishment:
- trade is good.
- being against immigration implies you are a racist.
- encouraging debt is good.
etc, etc...

I don't think anyone can complain if some people start to puke all over this system.

The status quo is a risk.

Heraclitusstudent says

The status quo is a risk.

If only the status quo were those and only those. Trump might alter those elements of the status quo. Maybe he wouldn’t. As we know, it’s not up to him. What is given little regard are other elements of the status quo to which he is on record as a threat, namely every good thing that already has and has yet and again to run the SCOTUS gauntlet. These are legion, but above all one underpins status quo as such: Citizens United. Until this is undone nothing Trump does will be any more spurious than the probable deeds of the Scarlet Whore of Wall Street. It’s laughable and appalling, really, how blithely everyone insists on not talking about three SCOTUS noms. It’s much more fun to talk about short fingers or a fat arse. Revolution is messy, much messier than Democracy. There was an open mic and someone farted. That’s what America pays attention to.

neplusultra57 says

above all one underpins status quo as such: Citizens United. Until this is undone nothing Trump does will be any more spurious than the probable deeds of the Scarlet Whore of Wall Street. It’s laughable and appalling, really, how blithely everyone insists on not talking about three SCOTUS noms. It’s much more fun to talk about short fingers or a fat arse. Revolution is messy, much messier than Democracy. There was an open mic and someone farted. That’s what America pays attention to.

If Citizen United was supposed to be an establishment lock on power, Trump made a joke out of it precisely by tweeting about his fingers and fat arses. In fact Citizen United helped Trump:
"One of the things that forestalled a viable Stop Trump movement until the last few weeks is that there was simply too much money sloshing around, permitting candidates like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and even John Kasich to stay in the race long after it was clear they couldn’t get the nomination." Salon

However I see Trump as collaborating with moneyed interests on oil/gas & wall street in particular, and maybe others. He would certainly not be working against big money the way Bernie would. But being against trade/immigration makes him opposed to the entire economic flows of the current system.

And the president doesn't control things directly, but holds huge powers within government agencies, and with veto right over legislative decisions. The question is whether Trump could extend his reach and have congress people aligned with his agenda elected.

The real lock of moneyed interests would not be on the presidency but on congress.

Heraclitusstudent says

Workers in the US are in a race to the bottom competition with semi slave labor, through trade externally and immigration internally.

Clinton is in favor of that.

The standard monetary response to this situation is to print money, lower rates to 0, inflate assets, encourage debt growth... let inequalities grow.

Clinton is in favor of that.

The corresponding counterweight is "everything else must be expensive" in the US: education, healthcare, housing.

Clinton is in favor of that, if only as a consequence of the 2 first.

To the extent that any of these things were consequences of political choices, they were choices that were made more by the right than the left and they are the unintended consequences of a complex basket of choices. Nobody says, hey, I know what we should do, "let's shrink the middle class." Hillary is not for that any more than Trump is. Probably less, although Trump talks a good game.

Do you have any idea how easy it is for a pathological liar to say, "I'm going to change everything, and bring better jobs back?"

Yes, the monetary response has been to lower interest rates, because they feel they have to, and because that's where the market for debt is too.

Yes, Hillary is somewhat status quo, where as Trump is a lot of crazy talk, and protectionism and nationalism. Hell, if Trump became President we might have to wait until years after his Presidency is over for him to get over the fact that he became President !

Trump thinks he has all the answers and he doesn't even know what the questions are.

Hillary at least knows what the questions are, and understands that there aren't easy fixes. Trump might understand that too, but he's happy to lie about how he'll change things, and his supporters buy his nonsense. Markets can be smart though. What will markets do if Trump is elected ? I can see it now, a big crash and TPB blaming Soros or whomever, rather than the so called composite man. The truth is our federal government is broken and it isn't going to be fixed easily or quickly. I would have actually likes to see a maverick republican in there that would tell fox news to buzz off and would would get things done, and would be allowed to, since he or she is a republican.

marcus says

ey were choices that were made more by the right than the left and they are the unintended consequences of a complex basket of choices. Nobody says, hey, I know what we should do, "let's shrink the middle class." Hillary is not for that

You're dreaming. There are moneyed interests profiting hugely from paying less for wages and to them it is absolutely fair game to have an army of lobbyists defending (read writing) laws that put American workers in competition with semi-slave labor. Globalization was never an exogenous trend that no one controlled. It was always based on decisions made by people in halls of power.

And, yes, politicians like Clinton and Obama are absolutely duplicitous in this raw deal.

They only cared about protecting small groups of voters necessary to them (like unions) in exchange for petty privileges (like pensions and tenures) while the rest of the country got looted.

Heraclitusstudent says

If Citizen United was supposed to be an establishment lock on power, Trump made a joke out of it precisely by tweeting about his fingers and fat arses. In fact Citizen United helped Trump:

"One of the things that forestalled a viable Stop Trump movement until the last few weeks is that there was simply too much money sloshing around, permitting candidates like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and even John Kasich to stay in the race long after it was clear they couldn’t get the nomination." Salon

However I see Trump as collaborating with moneyed interests on oil/gas & wall street in particular, and maybe others. He would certainly not be working against big money the way Bernie would. But being against trade/immigration makes him opposed to the entire economic flows of the current system.

And the president doesn't control things directly, but holds huge powers within government agencies, and with veto right over legislative decisions. The question is whether Trump could extend his reach and have congress people aligned with his agenda elected.

The real lock of moneyed interests would not be on the presidency but on congress.

I agree. Of course Citizens United is an establishment lock on power, but just because the GOP establishment benefited by it in the NeverTrump effort it doesn’t make Trump non-establishment as such; it just makes him a target of the "GOP" establishment the way Clinton is. Trump is perfectly comfortable with the CU status quo role of money in government: he's preparing for/planning for GOP Super PAC spending as we speak. If truly he was against the status quo writ large he would render up liberal SCOTUS noms who would break the CU lock of moneyed interest that ossifies Congress because, I agree with you, a Republican Congress is the single greatest impediment to making sweeping changes to free trade and immigration policy (not all Democrat Congressmen are neoliberals). I want someone to hold China’s feet to the fire as much as you do but I think Trump cares enough only to talk about it in order to get elected. He will do nothing about money in politics, NOTHING. He talks about job loss to China, but not flow of funds and the current account, a change to which would require a decade of unimpeded Congressional compliance with changes to free trade dogma. My assessment of Trump is that his talking points on trade and immigration are spurious, and evidence of that is in his SCOTUS noms: they countervail the condition on which his anti-establishment campaign promises depend. He's tactical, not strategic. Everything is the short game with him. You're talking long game economic flow of funds and he doesn't have the attention span for anything past whack-a-mole Twitter.

Blurtman says

Would an Israeli-American judge be biased in this case? Where's Trump on the issue?

Maybe. It depends. If an Israeli-American Judge with dual citizenship heard the case, he'd have to recluse himself.

However, we have a Judge here that donates openly to scholarships to people who aren't supposed to be in the country. He should not only recluse himself from overseeing a case against a noted anti-illegal immigration politician, but whether he should even be a judge should be called into question.

This would be true if he was an Irishman who gave money directly to individual illegal Irish immigrants to go to a US college when they're not even supposed to be here in the first place. Or an Israeli one.

Heraclitusstudent says

Globalization was never an exogenous trend that no one controlled. It was always based on decisions made by people in halls of power.

Of course. But the goal was profits, not the intention of fucking over the middle class. In fact those behind it probably rationalized ways that it was good for the middle class.

Intentional looting of America ? Give me a break.

Corporations were going to do what they were going to do. Sure there are a lot of players in this, manipulating government to their benefit. But it isn't clear that U.S. corporations NOT maximizing profits in an expanding global economy would have been better for the American middle class.

Heraclitusstudent says

They only cared about protecting small groups of voters necessary to them (like unions) in exchange for petty privileges (like pensions and tenures) while the rest of the country got looted.

You sometimes sound more intelligent than this Thunderlips

Tenure and pensions have existed for teachers just like pensions have existed for Military and all government workers many many decades before Obama. You know, going all the way back to when a lot of other jobs had pensions and government work was looked down on as low paying.

Oh, and by the way, Obama is doing nothing to protect teachers. Privatization is happening. One day private entities will run schools. Sure there will still be taxes for education, but it will be doled out to privately run charters, that can get in on this veritable gold mine of funding. Fuck teachers. Technology baby. WE can find people that will teach for way less, and without benefits too.

Yes, globalization has been happening and the profit motive still exists. To say Obama or CLinton are "for" these things is idiotic. That would be even more moronic than saying republicans are "for" global warming.

What does Trump pay for a haircut?