President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Valord

Sand wrote: »

Not amongst the poor and disadvantaged blue collar states who voted for Trump and remain resolutely for him. Not because he is a great candidate - but because he at least claims to represent them. He doesn't shrug his shoulders when people lose their jobs and say "Tough. That's the way of the world", he claims he can do something about it. He will *certainly* fail, but its completely logical to vote for the candidate who claims to help you, over the candidate who doesn't and wont.

Not that I fully buy into the narrative of "the poor are on Trump's side" but putting that aside, I personally don't really feel comfortable with telling these kinds of lies to get votes. Hillary Clinton's plans for dealing with rust-belt unemployment generally seemed pretty sensible in that she wanted to invest in education to retrain people in areas that are seeing growth. I'm sure it would have been more politically correct to do what Trump and Sanders do and say "yeah, don't worry, we'll get those jobs back, they're only gone because of NAFTA" or messages to that effect, but it would have been condescending and fundamentally dishonest. In a normal year, there might have been room to actually discuss that kind of thing in depth, but Trump and his sound bytes stole the entire show so nobody got to hear both sides of that argument.

FatherTed wrote: »

If the Dems hierarchy had done the right thing and backed Sanders who is more in line with the original Dems ideals over Clinton, it would have made for a very interesting election with Trump. Who would have won? Because Sanders also spoke about the disenfranchised so called working class and had more of a plan than Trump's MAGA.

The "right thing" would have involved overturning the very clear will of their own constituents and using the super delegates in a way that Sanders and his supporters initially (and justifiably) complained was extremely undemocratic. People seem to act like the only members of the party who have opinions are the Sanders voters, but the Clinton supporters would have been outraged if they had their votes rendered null by the party establishment too. That kind of thing wouldn't just happen without casualties.

I don't think the "original ideals" of the Democratic party are a good yardstick either, considering the party founder was Andrew Jackson, a man who was responsible for the Trail of Tears and who was a staunch defender of slavery. I would say there have been few candidates nominated by the party who were as close to Sanders in terms of policy positions as Clinton was.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But I think the Dems have to take some of the blame. Sure there is a cohort of Trump voters who are racist, misogynists etc etc, but there is also, IMO, a majority that are simply fed up with the ways things are, and have been.

This is quite a vague statement that I've seen a lot regarding some of his base. What parts of the way things are now, or the way things are going, are they fed up with?

A lot of the time on further inspection, these things are issues like gay marriage, black people protesting against police, Latin American immigrants, Muslims, being told about climate change, and feminism. Saying they want change makes it seem like they have a lot more in common with the typical leftist disgruntled voter like Sanders, but for the most part they aren't really prioritising the same issues a lot of the time. Everyone wants jobs of course but every politician promises jobs too, most of them don't catch on like Trump does.

Leroy42

Its vague because they don't know either. They want change, they want it now, but they don't really know what that change should be only that they should be better off after it and none of the things they don't like should be included.

American, and this is based on the current sphere that I am going through at the moment, seems to be very heavily based on religion and the moral questions. Far more than even Ireland seems to be. Every issue seems to come back to whether you believe in God etc.

Is there any other country on earth that is still debating flat earth? That is still even talking about climate change in terms of mans effect rather than what can be done about it? US for years has been seen as a progressive country, but IMO it is turning backwards, away from that idea.

So what do Trump supporters want? Well they voted for an elite to sort out the swamp! They voted for a man who uses foreign labour both internationally and in the US as the person to sort out immigration. They voted for a man who clearly has issues with women at a time when women finally seem to be being taken seriously as equals.

Parts of the US seem to care more about their guns than education, jobs, prospects, peace, corruption or even the truth.

Fr Tod Umptious

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its vague because they don't know either. They want change, they want it now, but they don't really know what that change should be only that they should be better off after it and none of the things they don't like should be included.

American, and this is based on the current sphere that I am going through at the moment, seems to be very heavily based on religion and the moral questions. Far more than even Ireland seems to be. Every issue seems to come back to whether you believe in God etc.

Is there any other country on earth that is still debating flat earth? That is still even talking about climate change in terms of mans effect rather than what can be done about it? US for years has been seen as a progressive country, but IMO it is turning backwards, away from that idea.

So what do Trump supporters want? Well they voted for an elite to sort out the swamp! They voted for a man who uses foreign labour both internationally and in the US as the person to sort out immigration. They voted for a man who clearly has issues with women at a time when women finally seem to be being taken seriously as equals.

Parts of the US seem to care more about their guns than education, jobs, prospects, peace, corruption or even the truth.

Trump won the election because he won rust belt states that were in the balance.

I'm pretty sure he won them because the voters cared about jobs than anything else.

They certainly cared more about jobs than they did about transgender bathrooms and climate change.

The Dems have to stop looking at Clinton v Trump and why they lost that one and figure out why they have lost Capital Hill and so many more Capital Hills across the country.

Peregrinus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

Trump won the election because he won rust belt states that were in the balance.

I'm pretty sure he won them because the voters cared about jobs than anything else.

They certainly cared more about jobs than they did about transgender bathrooms and climate change . . .

And yet it's mostly Republican candidates who campaign on issues like transgender bathrooms, while Trump never shut up about climate change and how it was all a Chinese conspiracy. Republicans obviously felt those issues do find traction, and the fact that they won the presidency, the House and the Senate may suggest that they're not entirely wrong.

jobbridge4life

Indications that sweeping Executive Order on 'religious freedom' is imminent...

'This order, if it were to be signed, would allow employers to fire workers on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, permit doctors to deny life-saving services to trans people, and enable landlords to refuse housing to same-sex couples.'

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/02/the-next-100-days-will-be-even-worse-right-wing-bigots-urge-trump-to-sign-anti-lgbt-order-allowing-broad-discrimination/

A lot of Trump voters voted because they wanted him to actively harm others. That is my conclusion.

Leroy42

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

Trump won the election because he won rust belt states that were in the balance.

I'm pretty sure he won them because the voters cared about jobs than anything else.

They certainly cared more about jobs than they did about transgender bathrooms and climate change.

The Dems have to stop looking at Clinton v Trump and why they lost that one and figure out why they have lost Capital Hill and so many more Capital Hills across the country.

Yes, that why I didn't say that all parts or even the swing state parts.

But on the caring more about jobs, of course they are no different than anyone else, but instead of actually looking at the problem and possible fixes they seem to have gone with the person that gave better sound bites

Now its perfectly logical to go with the person saying what you want to hear, but even a cursory glance at Trump would tell you that he has simply no background in being able to deliver any of that. Bring back coal seemed to be the best he could come up with.

Of course on the other hand, HC wasn't really giving them much hope either, certainly in the short term, with things like re-education and green energy taking time to develop.

I read one piece (can't recall the link) which was previously a large coal mining county and voted overwhelmingly for Trump. But coal jobs have been gone for years and now most people in the state are employed within the health sector (either direct provision of manufacturing etc). Dismantling Obamacare would likely have a negative effect on jobs in this county yet they went with the old style message.

Christy42

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

Trump won the election because he won rust belt states that were in the balance.

I'm pretty sure he won them because the voters cared about jobs than anything else. These facts have been brought out several times in the last few pages and yet they are required time and again.

They certainly cared more about jobs than they did about transgender bathrooms and climate change.

The Dems have to stop looking at Clinton v Trump and why they lost that one and figure out why they have lost Capital Hill and so many more Capital Hills across the country.

Republicans brought up the issue of transgender bathrooms. Democrats wanted to leave the law as is.

Hillary also won amongst the less well off.

The facts do not fit your narrative no matter how you try and force them to.

demfad

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Indications that sweeping Executive Order on 'religious freedom' is imminent...

'This order, if it were to be signed, would allow employers to fire workers on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, permit doctors to deny life-saving services to trans people, and enable landlords to refuse housing to same-sex couples.'

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/02/the-next-100-days-will-be-even-worse-right-wing-bigots-urge-trump-to-sign-anti-lgbt-order-allowing-broad-discrimination/

A lot of Trump voters voted because they wanted him to actively harm others. That is my conclusion.

Trump Bannon did a deal with this lot:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/05/17/council-national-policy-behind-curtain

They hold many positions in his cabinet and in the admin.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

Trump won the election because he won rust belt states that were in the balance.

I'm pretty sure he won them because the voters cared about jobs than anything else.

They certainly cared more about jobs than they did about transgender bathrooms and climate change.

The Dems have to stop looking at Clinton v Trump and why they lost that one and figure out why they have lost Capital Hill and so many more Capital Hills across the country.

That's kind of completely ignoring the huge reductions in unemployment numbers over the previous 6-7 years though, and that (as pointed out) Trump lost the vote among households with $50,000 or less incomes, I believe the figure was.

Now don't get me wrong I do agree rust belters did so from a sense of desperation over the industries they work in, but the fact is those jobs are dying out and are not coming back, just as nobody gets paid to go around turning the street lamps on and off at night or tapping on peoples windows to wake them up in the mornings anymore. CEOs in these industries have also been saying exactly that - the jobs are not returning.

These people voted how they did out of desperation, but they were conned by a career con man, can't claim to have not known who he is and has been for decades, and can't claim that they weren't warned over and over again. The next few years is not going to be kind to them unfortunately, we even saw that Trumpcare targeted these exact people (and traditional Republican states) as the ones who would suffer the most, and by a considerable distance.

Fr Tod Umptious

Billy86 wrote: »

That's kind of completely ignoring the huge reductions in unemployment numbers over the previous 6-7 years though, and that (as pointed out) Trump lost the vote among households with $50,000 or less incomes, I believe the figure was.

Now don't get me wrong I do agree rust belters did so from a sense of desperation over the industries they work in, but the fact is those jobs are dying out and are not coming back, just as nobody gets paid to go around turning the street lamps on and off at night or tapping on peoples windows to wake them up in the mornings anymore. CEOs in these industries have also been saying exactly that - the jobs are not returning.

These people voted how they did out of desperation, but they were conned by a career con man, can't claim to have not known who he is and has been for decades, and can't claim that they weren't warned over and over again. The next few years is not going to be kind to them unfortunately, we even saw that Trumpcare targeted these exact people (and traditional Republican states) as the ones who would suffer the most, and by a considerable distance.

But get away from Trump v Hillary for a minute.

Why the the Dems lost ground all over the country since Obama came to office ?

Christy42

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But get away from Trump v Hillary for a minute.

Why the the Dems lost ground all over the country since Obama came to office ?

Why does the party that controls the white house nearly always lose ground

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-wont-defy-midterm-gravity/amp/

InTheTrees

If you're not in the USA right now you may be missing the absolute train wreck of the Trump/Ryan attempt to get ObamaCare repealed for the third time since January.

Ryan's first attempt was a hasty rehash of George Bush's plan, the second attempt was to appeal to the moderates in the GOP but it turned off the far right and the third attempt gives the far right what they want but the moderates wont accept it. Trump hasn't helped the process by contradicting the current plan every time he's asked.

The first time it failed everyone thought it was done for. They plainly hadnt prepared. So it was curious when they tried to pass it the second time. This third try is just desperate. Sad even. The whole debacle has meant Trumps tax bill has had to be postponed (It relied on using money from the Obamacare repeal to give tax breaks). It also fouled up budget negotiations leading to the possibility of a government shutdown on the 100th day of trumps presidency. The GOP hastily agreed an extension for a week and have now agreed a budget until September.

The extension until September gives Democrats almost everything they've asked for, Obamacare subsides are paid for, no funding for the wall, no cuts to the epa, even planned parenthood keeps its current funding. Even with the presidency, and a majority in the house and senate the Republicans caved in on everything.

Its seems strange that Paul Ryan keeps his job as Speaker of the house.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But get away from Trump v Hillary for a minute.

Why the the Dems lost ground all over the country since Obama came to office ?

Christy has covered the obvious already, and added to that he came in on the back of a wipeout with the Republican brand being somewhat similar to our own Fianna Fail around the same time.

but Republican gerrymandering has also had a profound effect on the House of Representatives.

2006: Dems win by 6.5mn votes, get 31 more seats.
2008: Dems win by 13mn votes, get 77 more seats.
2010: Reps win by 4.9mn votes, get 49 more seats
2012: Dems win by 1.4mn votes, get 33 less seats.
2014: Reps win by 4.4mn votes, get 59 more seats.
2016: Reps win by 1.7mn votes, get 47 more seats.

With the continued attempts at it by Republicans who have become increasingly aggressive at it in more recent years, it's estimated that to get more seats in the house after the amount of gerrymandering we have seen, the Dems have to win by 8mn votes. The 2012 vs 2016 results really say all they need to. The Reps don't really try to hide it anymore, and their supporters even on boards have even said they think it's "a great thing". Not exactly a 'party of the people'

You'll actually see that the Republicans lost ground both in the House and in the Senate (where they won by 11mn votes though only closed 2 extra seats) in 2016 compared to 2014. Don't cod yourself into thinking the Republicans are more popular than they are, though they are more determined to undermine democracy.

Billy86

I take it those who only support Trump because something something terrorism will be off the bandwagon now, and not try to pull off mental contortionism to avoid facing up to the fact they were conned by a career con man?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-counter-violent-domestic-extremism-white-supremacism-cve-funding-freeze-10-million-a7715101.html

Donald Trump has reportedly frozen $10 million (£7.7m) of grants destined to counter violent extremism in the US.

More than 30 organisations were pegged by former President Barack Obama’s office to receive funding, although the White House has since put the grants on hold pending review.

Among those approved were local governments, city police departments, universities and non-profit organisations fighting all forms of violent extremism in the US.

InTheTrees

Live Stream of FBI Director Comey testifying to the Senate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ImYOb0X-Ik

eire4

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Indications that sweeping Executive Order on 'religious freedom' is imminent...

'This order, if it were to be signed, would allow employers to fire workers on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, permit doctors to deny life-saving services to trans people, and enable landlords to refuse housing to same-sex couples.'

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/02/the-next-100-days-will-be-even-worse-right-wing-bigots-urge-trump-to-sign-anti-lgbt-order-allowing-broad-discrimination/

A lot of Trump voters voted because they wanted him to actively harm others. That is my conclusion.

There definitely seems to be a core to use a word hate constituency within the Republican party which has a very powerful influence on the parties policies. Be it hating gays, hating women controlling their own bodies, hating immigrants etc.

aloyisious

InTheTrees wrote: »

Live Stream of FBI Director Comey testifying to the Senate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ImYOb0X-Ik

Lol at the 702 comparison.

I'm not sure now where Fox News stands in regard to Don. Last night it was reporting on Don allegedly saying he wants the Govt shut down in Sept, something to do with his upset on losing votes in the senate. Reports were coming out yesterday that Don is thinking of changing the constitution as he reckons it's hindering the voting processes of the senate. I'm not wondering where he got that notion.

I'm hoping that the senators take full attention of this, in so far as it might mean Don will try to put himself on top of them and, brick by brick, remove the constitutional balances built into the system to prevent any US President seizing power over the elected and electorate.

Kitsunegari

aloyisious wrote: »

Lol at the 702 comparison.

I'm not sure now where Fox News stands in regard to Don. Last night it was reporting on Don allegedly saying he wants the Govt shut down in Sept, something to do with his upset on losing votes in the senate. Reports were coming out yesterday that Don is thinking of changing the constitution as he reckons it's hindering the voting processes of the senate. I'm not wondering where he got that notion.

I'm hoping that the senators take full attention of this, in so far as it might mean Don will try to put himself on top of them and, brick by brick, remove the constitutional balances built into the system to prevent any US President seizing power over the elected and electorate.

At least a shutdown forces both sides to come together. Instead of blaming Trump and his supporters for all of America's problems perhaps a government shutdown will force the moderate Democrats to work with moderate Republicans and get a deal and a working position to move forward on.

Right now, neither side seems capable of doing anything and nothing is going to change in the short term.

Trump won't have the support to give himself more power. He can't even get some of his polices through nevermind giving himself more power.

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Right now, neither side seems capable of doing anything and nothing is going to change in the short term.

The Checks and Balances in the constitution are actually working fairly well.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

At least a shutdown forces both sides to come together. Instead of blaming Trump and his supporters for all of America's problems perhaps a government shutdown will force the moderate Democrats to work with moderate Republicans and get a deal and a working position to move forward on.

Right now, neither side seems capable of doing anything and nothing is going to change in the short term.

Trump won't have the support to give himself more power. He can't even get some of his polices through nevermind giving himself more power.

The Republicans are in power and the pretty much stated goal of the current president is to take apart anything they did for 8 years. There is really only so much Democrats can do here aside from capitulate.

Seriously. Look at his health care bill which has just gotten more and more conservative. It makes it tough for moderates to do.much when there president is largely incapable of working with his own party never mind the opposition.

Sand

Christy42 wrote: »

Great so they will, follow any piper who tells them they are the way even while simultaneously announcing policies that will hurt them. Now who is calling them idiots.

Who are you talking about here? Trump or the Democrats?

I'm not calling the voters idiots. They're attempting to reward the politician who addresses their concerns. What else should they do? Just die quietly under the Democrats?

What they need to do is focus on the left leaning dems and reward them. Those like Warren and Sanders. More will follow if they start getting votes. Drag the Democrats back to being a properly left leaning party.

That is what *needs* to happen, but for that to happen the Democratic analysis has to go further than assuming the people voting for Trump are idiots. I don't think the Democrats have demonstrated any significant change (and in fairness are still in post-electoral shock), so going back to the original point that sparked my response I don't think the if the election was held today, the Democrats would do much better than they did 7 months ago. They certainly wont do better if a better candidate than Trump emerges from the Republicans and follows his lead.

I say it again, what message does voting for Trump and Republican houses send to the Democrats. It could easily be read as saying the Democrats should go closer to the Republicans and further from helping the poor.

Again, people did not vote for a Republican president. They voted for Trump who ran as a political insurgent, hostile to both the Democratic and Republican leadership.

Trump was a registered Democrat all the way from 2001 to 2009. A good friend to the Clintons only a few years ago. Making out that hes some Republican ideologue misses the point of why people voted for him. And why they will vote for a similar anti-establishment candidate in the future.

So the message is not for the Democrats to tack right to the Republicans. Its to tack to an anti-establishment position where politicians actually represent their voters and dont just shrug and pretend there is nothing that can be done about wealth and power being sucked out of the rest of society by a super-wealthy minority.

However the spirit of this conversation has moved to blaming the Dems for Trump. I feel like that is the Republicans best way out of this mess they are in. Blame Dems for disenfranchised voters for losing to such a terrible candidate.

I despise Trump. The sound of his voice and his stupid repetitive phrasing is like nails on a blackboard to me. Trump was the worst candidate I have *ever* seen. Yet despite that handicap, he won. That ought to scare the hell out of the Democrat and the Republican establishment leadership because a better candidate + that anti-establishment voting base will be very hard to stop.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The problem is that analysis doesn't tally with voting patterns:

Yes, national voting patterns. Under national voting patterns Clinton would be President. But its the electoral college that elects the President. Trump won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan - states which had been Democrat since the 1980s. Those states are not wealthy in comparison to other US states: 21, 23 and 34 in median household income. Those states, if Clinton could have retained them would have won her the Presidency. Against a candidate as bad as Trump they should have been solidly Democrat.

The Democrats have been identified more with the rich and wealthy, than Republicans are by voters. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. That's the view brought by by the polls linked earlier in this thread.

demfad wrote: »

Just to point out the poorest demographic did NOT vote for Trump. 94% of black females voted for Clinton. Therefore when you say Blue collar workers what you really mean is blue collar white males outside the big cities.

They have votes too. Democrats may have forgotten that. But when I talk about blue collar workers I mean people who were previously relatively prosperous, even middle class, but who no longer are after decades of growing inequality in the US. That inequality has not been reversed by the Democrats despite them holding the Presidency for the majority of the past 3 decades and which I believe Democrats have no little in reversing and ultimately no belief they can reverse.

Nationally, Trump secured 2 million more votes than Romney did in 2012. Clinton, though she still won the popular vote, secured ever so slightly less votes than Obama did in 2012. Again, Trump is a terrible candidate. The Democrat's message of learned helplessness that they are the party of the poor but there is nothing they can do doesn't seem to be energising the base.

demfad wrote: »

You are judging him on tea-party propaganda.

I really am not. Matt Taibbi isnt the tea-party. Nor is Chrystia Freeland. Nor is Thomas Frank.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Parts of the US seem to care more about their guns than education, jobs, prospects, peace, corruption or even the truth.

I think a large minority of Americans have been so demoralised by negative and degrading government actions against them that they just want the government to leave them alone. Its a very cruel trick the Republicans have managed to play. Republicans run the government, but the government is bad, so vote Republican to make the government weaker and less able.

Billy86 wrote: »

Now don't get me wrong I do agree rust belters did so from a sense of desperation over the industries they work in, but the fact is those jobs are dying out and are not coming back, just as nobody gets paid to go around turning the street lamps on and off at night or tapping on peoples windows to wake them up in the mornings anymore. CEOs in these industries have also been saying exactly that - the jobs are not returning.

My point - as simple as I can make it - is Democrats need to have a better answer for these people than 'Tough. That's the way of the world'. That's learned helplessness. Its not a convincing political vision.

The current situation those people find themselves in is the result of political choices and priorities. Different political choices and priorities can be made, though it might involve the Democrats disagreeing with their friends in Goldman Sachs.

If the Democrats cannot help them, if Democrat politicians are so powerless, then what is the point of voting for them?

Kitsunegari

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Checks and Balances in the constitution are actually working fairly well.

Who are they working for? The checks and balances system works fine if it wasn't riddled with partisan politics. Politics should work for the people not for corporate or party interests. The system should remain but both parties need major reform.

Meanwhile the Democrats continue to demonise Trump voters who are more anti-establishment than 'alt-right' and instead of trying to fix the cause they're blaming the symptoms. It's hard to see a way forward at this point.

Billy86

Sand wrote: »

My point - as simple as I can make it - is Democrats need to have a better answer for these people than 'Tough. That's the way of the world'. That's learned helplessness. Its not a convincing political vision.

The current situation those people find themselves in is the result of political choices and priorities. Different political choices and priorities can be made, though it might involve the Democrats disagreeing with their friends in Goldman Sachs.

If the Democrats cannot help them, if Democrat politicians are so powerless, then what is the point of voting for them?

The point in voting for them is that you won't get those same problems you are talking about cranked up to the same extent they are under Republicans. The unfortunate truth is while "you need to upskill and/or retrain" is not the easy solution, it's the only one - learned helplessness is point blank refusal to accept that cold, hard truth while sitting around hoping for things to go back to the way they used to be and never will be again, complaining about how unfair your lot in life is while time and opportunity pass you by.

"We'll go get your jobs back" is nothing but a flat out lie to these people, one that Republicans haven't even shown much of any interest in since the elections, and it's exactly what we are seeing so far in the Trump admin also. On the other hand, the American public did prove itself to be dumb enough to by into it, so mission accomplished so far, at least until people start expecting results.

Professor Moriarty

Doesn't matter who is in power, blue collar jobs are going and they are not coming back ever. AI and globalisation are here to stay. No matter how many walls you build.

Sand

Billy86 wrote: »

The point in voting for them is that you won't get those same problems you are talking about cranked up to the same extent they are under Republicans. The unfortunate truth is while "you need to upskill and/or retrain" is not the easy solution, it's the only one - learned helplessness is point blank refusal to accept that cold, hard truth while sitting around hoping for things to go back to the way they used to be and never will be again, complaining about how unfair your lot in life is while time and opportunity pass you by.

"We'll go get your jobs back" is nothing but a flat out lie to these people, one that Republicans haven't even shown much of any interest in since the elections, and it's exactly what we are seeing so far in the Trump admin also. On the other hand, the American public did prove itself to be dumb enough to by into it, so mission accomplished so far, at least until people start expecting results.

Billy, that is the message the Democrats have been sending out since at least Clinton. There was a political decision to expose the American working class to third world competition of the fittest to the death. Equally there was a political decision to insulate the wealthiest Americans and their investments from third world competition so that US healthcare must purchase vastly overpriced drugs from US pharma, and is prevented from negotiating or buying cheap alternatives from the third world. Additionally there was a political decision to privatise the gains made in the financial bubble, but to socialise the huge losses.

These are political decisions: tooth and claw struggle to survive for blue collar workers, safe monopolies and bailouts for the richest Americans. Pushing someone out of a boat and telling them they better learn when they scream they cant swim isnt helpful.

Different political decisions could be made. But first the Democrats would need to unlearn the absolute capitulation to financial and corporate interests over the past 30 years.

For the record, Americans have been struggling hugely to learn as much as they can. The US worker productivity has rocketed since the 1970s. US worker wages used to track their productivity very closely. But it has flatlined since the 1970s. Worker productivity (i.e. education, learning) bears no correlation whatsoever to worker wealth anymore.

That was a political decision, which the Democrats have embraced.

Billy86

Sand wrote: »

Billy, that is the message the Democrats have been sending out since at least Clinton. There was a political decision to expose the American working class to third world competition of the fittest to the death. Equally there was a political decision to insulate the wealthiest Americans and their investments from third world competition so that US healthcare must purchase vastly overpriced drugs from US pharma, and is prevented from negotiating or buying cheap alternatives from the third world. Additionally there was a political decision to privatise the gains made in the financial bubble, but to socialise the huge losses.

These are political decisions: tooth and claw struggle to survive for blue collar workers, safe monopolies and bailouts for the richest Americans. Pushing someone out of a boat and telling them they better learn when they scream they cant swim isnt helpful.

Different political decisions could be made. But first the Democrats would need to unlearn the absolute capitulation to financial and corporate interests over the past 30 years.

For the record, Americans have been struggling hugely to learn as much as they can. The US worker productivity has rocketed since the 1970s. US worker wages used to track their productivity very closely. But it has flatlined since the 1970s. Worker productivity (i.e. education, learning) bears no correlation whatsoever to worker wealth anymore.

That was a political decision, which the Democrats have embraced.

Actually it's been the action in practice since before Clinton, back to Reagan. That entire first post is actually more attributable to the Republicans than it is the Americans, and it doesn't say much for the American electorate that they continue to fall for one party practicing the reverse of what they preach, and unashamedly. The Democrats don't exactly always have the little guy in mind, but the fact of it is that the Republicans are the party of the megarich. Though as I said, both parties are deep into it and the lack of/inability to look towards alternatives beyond (D) or (R) has exacerbated the issue further.

Something to ask as well is why productivity has gone up so much, and how much of it is in relation to technological advances that have also resulted in issues like automation that are replacing jobs? As the article itself states "'Net productivity' is the growth of output of goods and services minus depreciation per hour worked." meaning a factory with 100 people and 100 machines is going to have far, far higher net productivity than a factory with 100 workers and 10 machines.

demfad

FBI Director Comey seems to have confirmed what had been rumoured for over a week: that there are two grand juries in place for Trump/Russia

When asked if he was working with the DOJ he replied that he was working with 2 prosecutors in the Eastern district. That's Northern Virginia, with judges Bucannon and Trenga. It's nicknamed the 'rocket docket' because of the speed of indictments.

Speaking of which (rumour but from same American source as got it right re Grand juries).... 2 warrants issued in last 2 hours in DC area connected with Trump Russia

Edit: warrants can be search, subpoena or arrest.

aloyisious

It appears that, as of two days ago, Don hasn't dropped his desire to fulfil his election promises.... The caption beneath the article's 2nd photo seems to suggest all should be OK between Steve and his boss's son-in-law.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/insider-photo-of-white-house-inadvertently-reveals-president-trumps-todo-list-35677376.html

keane2097

aloyisious wrote: »

It appears that, as of two days ago, Don hasn't dropped his desire to fulfil his election promises.... The caption beneath the article's 2nd photo seems to suggest all should be OK between Steve and his boss's son-in-law.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/insider-photo-of-white-house-inadvertently-reveals-president-trumps-todo-list-35677376.html

That could hardly be any more obviously deliberate tbf.

Professor Moriarty

aloyisious wrote: »

It appears that, as of two days ago, Don hasn't dropped his desire to fulfil his election promises.... The caption beneath the article's 2nd photo seems to suggest all should be OK between Steve and his boss's son-in-law.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/insider-photo-of-white-house-inadvertently-reveals-president-trumps-todo-list-35677376.html

Reassuring to see all of The President's policies for the next four years jotted down on a whiteboard.