US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Might as well then look into Canadian citizenship.

For me, the status quo isn't great at all - but it's not irrecoverable. Step one is to face facts; step two is to design a strategy to persuade those on the Right.

At the same time, a crashing economy will spell doom for MAGA no matter what - IMO - such is the force of that factor. On the flip side, if the economy - meaning the price of gas and that of a loaf of bread and not the stock market, or job index or whatever - if the economy in these terms is great - there's likely very little we can do to change vote outcomes.

I think that the sweet spot is if the economy is so-so in two/four/six years. In that case, it's vital to persuade the persuadable. The "I give up there's nothing we can do" mentality ceeds this possibility to the Right.
Click to expand...
If Project 2025 is allowed a free run, the election just gone might very well be the last.

Sow discord,
Ramp up the rhetoric,
Crash the economy,
Blame it on 'them' (Dem's/migrants/bloody foreigners; whoever),
Turn up the heat, and when the people 'push back'
Invoke Marshal Law and install a dictator, and at that point, it's over.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
If Project 2025 is allowed a free run, the election just gone might very well be the last.

Sow discord,
Ramp up the rhetoric,
Crash the economy,
Blame it on 'them' (Dem's/migrants/bloody foreigners; whoever),
Turn up the heat, and when the people 'push back'
Invoke Marshal Law and install a dictator, and at that point, it's over.
Click to expand...
Can't argue with that. But it's not a foregone conclusion that 2025 will go into full effect.

If the Project 2025 blueprint doesn't come to full fruition and elections still matter in 2/4/6 years - and yet Democrats and Left-leaning/Centrist voters give up entirely - or fail to appeal to the persuadable - then we've given up on the real possibility to change things for the better.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Can't argue with that. But it's not a foregone conclusion that 2025 will go into full effect.

If the Project 2025 blueprint doesn't come to full fruition and elections still matter in 2/4/6 years - and yet Democrats and Left-leaning/Centrist voters give up entirely - or fail to appeal to the persuadable - then we've given up on the real possibility to change things for the better.
Click to expand...
It's going to require a Herculean effort given that R's are going to pack the courts at every level
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Haven't even talked about how the "election was rigged" story will play out next time around.
Click to expand...
Not only that. There is absolutely nothing to stop Right wing billionaires buying up left-leaning media outlets and making them sing and dance to a different tune.


Also, the same RW billionaires control online platforms like Twitter, where they can control what we see, or who sees what we post.

Left leaning voices will become marginalised and eventually strangled.
 
KS55 said:
The amazing ignorance is widespread. Blame the dems for a poor campaign. They didn’t actually warn anybody.
Click to expand...
Let's unpack this for a moment.

The simplistic viewpoint which most Trump voters believe is that China pays for tariffs.

Whereas, in fact, American importers of Chinese goods pay for tariffs.

Which, IMO, is a distinction without a difference. There's zero difference between China itself paying the import tax versus importers paying the tax.
===
As a simplistic political ploy - of course you'll proclaim that China is paying the import tax.

As a matter-of-fact consequence on America's economy - it doesn't matter at all who pays the tariffs.
===
What ultimately matters - is free market economics. Is the American consumer going to benefit from tariffs or not. And, is the American economy - due to new job creation - going to benefit from tariffs?

It's not clear to me how this pans out - chiefly b/c China is cheating - subsidizing its companies in an effort to drive out competition.

What is absolutely clear though - imposing tariffs against Chinese imports - regardless of who pays the tariffs will both simultaneously increase the cost of goods to the American consumer - and - if tariffs are high enough - encourage domestic production of goods - possibly, even to the extent, that said production starts up to the detriment of consumers but to the possible benefit of American workers who take the newly created jobs.
===
TL/DR
Tariffs are a complex issue.

IMO, no tariffs whatsoever leads to the most "efficient" economy assuming fair play. Yet, as Adam Smith observed - markets need regulation.
 
Last edited:
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Let's unpack this for a moment.

The simplistic viewpoint which most Trump voters believe is that China pays the tariffs.

Whereas, in fact, American importers of Chinese goods pay the tariffs.

Which, IMO, is a distinction without a difference. There's zero difference between China itself paying the import tax versus importers paying the tax.
===
As a simplistic political ploy - of course you'll proclaim that China is paying the import tax.

As a matter-of-fact consequence on America's economy - it doesn't matter at all who pays the tariffs.
===
What ultimately matters - is free market economics. Is the American consumer going to benefit from tariffs or not. And, is the American economy - due to new job creation - going to benefit from tariffs?

It's not clear to me how this pans out - chiefly b/c China is cheating - subsidizing its companies in an effort to drive out competition.

What is absolutely clear though - imposing tariffs against Chinese imports - regardless of who pays the tariffs will both simultaneously increase the cost of goods to the American consumer - and - if tariffs are high enough - encourage domestic production of goods - possibly, even to the extent, that said production is inefficient.
===
TL/DR
Tariffs are a complex issue.

IMO, no tariffs whatsoever leads to the most "efficient" economy assuming fair play. Yet, as Adam Smith observed - markets need regulation.
Click to expand...

They are indeed, but there should be some basic literacy about their purpose and impact. Maybe done by illustrative examples e.g. Bush's steel tariffs of the early 2000's are a relatively easy way to understand knock impacts of tariffs beyond the direct market they effect. But who am I kidding, 'relatively easy' doesn't compete with three word slogans from mendacious billionaires who own the worlds biggliest megaphones.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Sure they did in plenty and it would make zero difference- half of Americans want to ‘own the libs’ and make America Great Again. There was no getting through.
Click to expand...
Also pretty much all of the media allowed Trump to spout his lies and didn't correct him. Even regarding something as easily verifiable as Tariffs.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Not only that. There is absolutely nothing to stop Right wing billionaires buying up left-leaning media outlets and making them sing and dance to a different tune.


Also, the same RW billionaires control online platforms like Twitter, where they can control what we see, or who sees what we post.

Left leaning voices will become marginalised and eventually strangled.
Click to expand...
And are there not numerous Left-leaning billionaires who might oppose this?

All I'm hearing is we're screwed three ways from Sunday and I might as well renounce US citizenship and move to Canada.

Whereas the Left lost the last election due to inflation. Plenty of scope to win in 2026/28/30.
 
BayernMan said:
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that traditional political fundraising favours the old timers. Bernie was one of a number of 70+ year old candidates back when Biden won the primaries.

The dems would be better served with a rule that you can't run for your first term beyond the age of 65. And with a mandatory health test.

I don't care too much about where the money comes from as the GOP will have corporate dollars up to their eye balls. Your not going to beat them trying to play fair.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
The problem with this is that traditional political fundraising favours the old timers. Bernie was one of a number of 70+ year old candidates back when Biden won the primaries.

The dems would be better served with a rule that you can't run for your first term beyond the age of 65. And with a mandatory health test.

I don't care too much about where the money comes from as the GOP will have corporate dollars up to their eye balls. Your not going to beat them trying to play fair.
Click to expand...

It’s one thing to take corporate money but it’s another thing to craft your messaging and even policy based on who your corporate donors are. This has been Bernie Sanders main criticism and why he wants corporate money out of DNC politics.

Given the choice between Republican and Republican-lite, the former will win the majority of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top