Trump v Clinton: who do you support?

[Redmaus]

Respectfully, I disagree with what you said. Companies for the most part don't care about giving jobs to Americans, they want to max out their profits. [...]

[...] In short, the economy has changed a lot since 1968, and making the minimum wage higher will not solve the problem. You cannot solve the problem with just increasing wages. The current economic and political climate must be suited for it as well.

If you are attempting to assert that the above entry rises to the level of "content" then I truly feel sorry for you.

Although the words are generally true, it looks like nothing but vague and vapid drivel to me.

I included sources, pictures, and personal insight. How is this not content? Did you actually look back to read the post? If the words are true, how is it not a good contribution to me and jacobolus's debate?

If this isn't content, then are ravings about how Republicans are evil grade A debate?

[chuckdee]

And that photo doesn't show signs that it was photoshopped at all. Not to say anything about the quote- other than the fact that people change in close to 20 years- but I had to point out this obvious point.

Got proof that it is photoshopped ? I really don't care, I'm just curious. Sorry to snub any hardcore Trump fans here.

Look at Hillary's face. It's obvious to anyone that knows anything about it from the shadows and such.

EDIT: I will admit that I could be wrong- though the shadows still look suspect. Sarah Merian has taken credit for the photo on her site. That head looks really off, though. But sometimes that happens.

[seebart]

Well it's a strange photo that's for sure, I really don't know and cannot tell regardless of shadows or whatever. I wonder why it's in black and white though? I mean it's from the 1990's right? Pretty strange.

[Blaise170]

Looks like a scanned newspaper article.

[fohat]

Did you actually look back to read the post?

If the words are true, how is it not a good contribution

then are ravings about how Republicans are evil grade A debate?

No, I did not go back, at the time, but now I did and it was pretty much as I remembered it.

Describing the "words" as being "generally true" but not particularly significant was actually being rather generous.

http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

Ravings and criticisms of the disingenuous and hateful behavior of modern-day US Republicans is not "debate" in any way, I will freely admit.

[jacobolus]

Look at the signatories on that letter. Pretty much a who's who of serious “saltwater” economists: http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

[berserkfan]

Jacobolus,

I used word search.
10 entries from Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Zero from University of Chicago (NOT the U of Illinois at Chicago)

The U of C has a big number of the serious economists, called the Chicago school of economics. They are ideologically opposed to the MIT economists.
I am FOR minimum wages. But this letter is clearly partisan.

[fohat]

But this letter is clearly partisan.

Precious little opinion about human society in this world is not "partisan"

[jacobolus]

Jacobolus,
Zero from University of Chicago (NOT the U of Illinois at Chicago) The U of C has a big number of the serious economists, called the Chicago school of economics. They are ideologically opposed to the MIT economists.

I think you missed the part where I directly said it was a “who’s who of saltwater economists”. The UChicago guys are part of the “freshwater” school. (And frankly, their whole macroeconomics worldview has been empirically shattered in the past 10 years, but they’re mostly in denial about the evidence.)

For more, here’s Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/0 ... kish/?_r=0

[berserkfan]

Jacobolus,
Zero from University of Chicago (NOT the U of Illinois at Chicago) The U of C has a big number of the serious economists, called the Chicago school of economics. They are ideologically opposed to the MIT economists.

I think you missed the part where I directly said it was a “who’s who of saltwater economists”. The UChicago guys are part of the “freshwater” school. (And frankly, their whole macroeconomics worldview has been empirically shattered in the past 10 years, but they’re mostly in denial about the evidence.)

For more, here’s Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/0 ... kish/?_r=0

OK you got me here, but I am not sure what saltwater and freshwater means. Is it some social science jargon that I mysteriously don't know?

[fohat]

Supply-side economics is a toxic zombie that refuses to go away.

Until the people of the US wrest control of their government back from the plutocracy that has gamed the system for all it is worth, for decades, the anger and frustration of the population itself will continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, since the media has fallen into the thrall of the oligarchs, the dissemination of misleading "information" (propaganda is the more correct term) has become the norm, and the millions who have not questioned it have simply accepted it.

[chuckdee]

Supply-side economics is a toxic zombie that refuses to go away.

Until the people of the US wrest control of their government back from the plutocracy that has gamed the system for all it is worth, for decades, the anger and frustration of the population itself will continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately, since the media has fallen into the thrall of the oligarchs, the dissemination of misleading "information" (propaganda is the more correct term) has become the norm, and the millions who have not questioned it have simply accepted it.

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your support of Clinton? Just a curious question, and not meant antagonistically.

[chuckdee]

Jacobolus,
Zero from University of Chicago (NOT the U of Illinois at Chicago) The U of C has a big number of the serious economists, called the Chicago school of economics. They are ideologically opposed to the MIT economists.

I think you missed the part where I directly said it was a “who’s who of saltwater economists”. The UChicago guys are part of the “freshwater” school. (And frankly, their whole macroeconomics worldview has been empirically shattered in the past 10 years, but they’re mostly in denial about the evidence.)

For more, here’s Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/0 ... kish/?_r=0

I read that article, but still didn't get a good feel for the difference between freshwater and saltwater economics, so I did some research and found the differences, and it's quite interesting. The one part I still don't get is the naming history behind them, and I couldn't find a good reference- and I'm sure it's quite relevant. Do you have any links to the etymology of the terms?

[Blaise170]

The economics viewpoints of the universities with saltwater perspectives are near the coasts (oceans) while freshwater are closer to the Great Lakes (freshwater lakes).

[fohat]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your support of Clinton? Just a curious question, and not meant antagonistically.

"support of Clinton?" WTF?

I am a yellow dog Democrat, Newt Gingrich changed the landscape so dramatically in the mid-1990s that I will not be able to vote for any Republican for the foreseeable future, which is the unfortunate but necessary result of the dogmatism that he ensconced into the party structure.

Bill Clinton was a very good but not great president, although the US enjoyed a period of amazing peace and prosperity during his term, and he deserves some of the credit for that, along with some of the blame for allowing the financial shenanigans to continue and accelerate.

Hillary Clinton was and is an extremely unattractive candidate, truly nothing like her husband except in the broadest general terms. And I would absolutely select almost any Democrat in preference to her, however, she will have my vote if she is the candidate in November, because the stakes are simply too high otherwise.

Although she has a good record on the "small stuff" like women, children, gays, health care, etc, her stand on the 2 huge issues is almost as bad, but not quite, as the average Republican. For me, the 2 overwhelming issues facing this country today, which dwarf everything else, are (1) getting the US financial system and Wall Street under control (including staunching the drain of US money and jobs overseas) and (2) getting Israel out of the Palestinian Territories so that the Islamic world will begin to calm down and cool off. There is no denying that she has been deeply in bed with the financial lobby and the pro-Israel lobby for decades, and that she is far more deeply beholden to them than her husband ever was. She is thoroughly tainted and I desperately wish that Bernie (or ANYBODY else) was available instead.

All that said, however, those 2 problems are equally true, to at least the same degree if not far more so, with all the Republican candidates (except perhaps Trump), and they of course are also supporting a wildly insane platform and are hateful and mean-spirited to boot.

[chuckdee]

How do you reconcile that viewpoint with your support of Clinton? Just a curious question, and not meant antagonistically.

"support of Clinton?" WTF?

Thanks for the reply, but I don't get this statement? I'd guess it was to go along with the declaration "I am a yellow dog Democrat", but I really can't even understand that mentality, so maybe that's the reason that I missed that.

As I said, the question wasn't meant antagonistically- I just view the Clintons as one of the primary proponents of the oligarchy, and would have viewed Clinton vs. Bush as one of the saddest things in the world. This is as someone who supported Bill for all of his weaknesses (politically only) during his Presidency, and bid for President. The Bill Clinton today, IMO, doesn't resemble the Bill Clinton during that time. But the same thing can be said of Obama- the Obama of his candidacy doesn't completely line up with Obama now. But he was definitely the best of what was available in both of his runs.

I leave you with an article that I loved when it first was published, but really missed the boat on the candidacy of Trump.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/bush-vs-cl ... or/206645/

He was a spoiler that became a contender, to the detriment of the oligarchys and the American people. Maybe a dirge should be playing at this point for our National Anthem.

I really wish it had ended up Trump vs Sanders. It would have been a real message to the oligarchies, while at the same time, leaving me with someone who I could support on principle, if not necessarily completely in policy.

[chuckdee]

The economics viewpoints of the universities with saltwater perspectives are near the coasts (oceans) while freshwater are closer to the Great Lakes (freshwater lakes).

Ah... thanks for that! I figured it was indeed relevant, but not in line with necessarily the perspectives. And it seems that's correct.

Thanks again!

[fohat]

I just view the Clintons as one of the primary proponents of the oligarchy

The Koch brothers are the primary proponents of the oligarchy today (plutocracy is probably a more accurate term for the overall thing) and the Republican Party is their stooges with the Tea Party at the forefront.

Whatever any Clinton or any other Democrat does on their behalf is strictly small potatoes compared to the true sellouts like Bush Jr (and !, but not Bush Sr), Walker, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and the rest of the clowns.

[jacobolus]

Hillary Clinton was and is an extremely unattractive candidate, truly nothing like her husband except in the broadest general terms. And I would absolutely select almost any Democrat in preference to her, however, she will have my vote if she is the candidate in November, because the stakes are simply too high otherwise.

Meh. From a left/progressive perspective, Bill Clinton was terrible on labor, education, foreign policy, trade policy, consumer protection, the social safety net, tax policy, securities regulation, banking regulation, etc.

It’s just that Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. were all complete trainwrecks, so Clinton seems relatively enlightened by comparison.

Hillary Clinton is IMO better than Bill. She’s not as charismatic, but she seems slightly less opportunistic, and while both Clintons seem to be drama magnets, Hillary seems a bit better at fighting back against bullshit than Bill was. She has a good grasp (in a technical policy-wonk sense) of a wide range of issues facing the country, and has been in the game long enough to have a reasonable idea of how to get useful work done. Like Obama and Bill, she’ll appoint competent people to head government agencies, sit on federal courts, etc. She isn’t likely to take the country to war if someone says she has small hands.

Still not my favorite candidate. I wouldn’t ever vote for either Clinton in a Democratic party primary. They both have hawkish foreign policy and are far too cozy with banks. But they’re both worlds better than anyone the GOP has put up in any presidential campaign since I’ve been alive.

Also, fohat, you give George HW Bush far too much credit. His team was up to all the same war crimes, corruption, and destructive policymaking that characterized Reagan’s two terms. He was less charismatic but smarter than Reagan, with a more serious personality, but as far as policy is concerned, there wasn’t any fundamental difference. His presidential campaign of 1988 was shamefully gross.

[jacobolus]

New York also might get a $15 minimum wage. The NY senate is under Republican control though, so it’ll be tougher than in CA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/opini ... -wage.html

[berserkfan]

But they’re both worlds better than anyone the GOP has put up in any presidential campaign since I’ve been alive.

I read somewhere that you were in your twenties, but is my news outdated?


The Clintons stole the white house silverware IIRC, were caught, and had to give back everything. I didn't know whether to laugh at that, or sneer.

[kbdfr]

[…] The Clintons stole the white house silverware IIRC, were caught, and had to give back everything. […]

Yes, and the Obamas intended to sell their daughters as slaves:
http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetr ... nsibility/

Or in other words, no.
What you remember is how a story was interpreted with a lot of malice with an intent to slander.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -stealing/

[fohat]

But they’re both worlds better than anyone the GOP has put up in any presidential campaign since I’ve been alive.

I didn't know whether to laugh at that, or sneer.

You could count the Republican candidates, in the past century, since Roosevelt (a brutal and shameless imperialist, but otherwise good for the US people) who were both competent and honest on the fingers of one hand, with fingers left over.

Hoover was probably the only really good one, and he ended up in the wrong place at absolutely the wrong time. Otherwise, I still believe that Bush Sr was pretty decent until he got polluted by Reagan's policies and more or less obligated to carry them on.

[berserkfan]

[…] The Clintons stole the white house silverware IIRC, were caught, and had to give back everything. […]

Or in other words, no.
What you remember is how a story was interpreted with a lot of malice with an intent to slander.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -stealing/

I stand corrected.

living abroad, sometimes the news gets filtered out poorly. Sometimes you just can't call it malice. A lot of news is reprinted by foreign papers who don't have the editorial or fact checking capacities for everything under the sun.

I can assure you I don't visit right wing websites or read Fox News, so I probably got that impression about the Clintons from local sources, Time, Newsweek or YahooNews. None of these are biased against the Clintons.

[vivalarevolución]

Meanwhile, I was entertained by this interview with Justin Trudeau, Canada's new PM, about people leaving the country if Trump/Clinton are elected. The bulk of the interview starts at 3:20, after the interview with people on the street:

https://youtu.be/JWI5-vWqcGc

[fohat]

I had not planned to necro this thread, but this just needs to be seen:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/04/1 ... sing-trump

[seebart]

I had not planned to necro this thread, but this just needs to be seen:

I saw that, while I don't particularly like Cruz I'd figure he'd be too smart to get into something like that. Meanwhile Hillary Clintons NYC subway ride didn't go down too well either but at least without dildos.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ity-subway

[vivalarevolución]

So the presidential circus is making its way into Indiana this week with our primary two weeks away. Trump is speaking tomorrow. Because the race is so close Indiana actually matters this year. Should be interesting....

[fohat]

This is a very long read, but well worth it:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... rump.html#

[Muirium]

It's not close, viva. Trump has the nomination wrapped up in a bow. Just like Hillary. The media is doing its job as always: manufacturing crisis so it's got lots to cover. For a change, one of the parties is really playing into that. And, even rarer, it's not the Democratic Party. But let's not feign dimness here. There was no Republican candidate on this platter of turds capable of beating a celebrity and attention junkie like old man Trump. By the time his enemies pulled their pants up, he had already won. Deservedly so, the vile, wee handed manchild. What a stack of losers were running this year!

As for which one wins the real contest: it's just like Obama said. Whoever the next president may be, we know she'll be just great.