I am not a trump fan, but given the choice of trump or GOP, I choose Trump

[Jack V Savage]

Sanders agrees with or has agreed with all three major pillars of Trumpism.

1) reduced foreign interventions

2) new trade restrictions to benefit domestic workers

3) limiting immigration into the US to benefit domestic workers

Note that the Hillary Clinton/ @Jack V Savage part of the Democratic Party is on the opposite side of all three issues. The ongoing civil war within the Democratic Party will determine the electoral outcome in 2020.

The first one is baldly false. Trump has greatly escalated foreign interventions and to a much greater extent than any Democrats would have. Further, I personally am not part of any wing that supports Trump's move there. The second one is also false, as the trade restrictions are not designed to benefit domestic workers and will not do so in fact. Further, Trump's overall program has been very labor unfriendly. Limiting immigration is accurate, though again, it is plainly false that such actions have positive impacts for domestic workers.

If you want further responses, try to reduce the blatant misrepresentations.

 

[waiguoren]

Joining Trump on policy would mean supporting regressive tax cuts,

Not a core Trump policy. This is something both Trump and his base are very "meh" about.

weakening of opportunity

Way too vague.

financial deregulation

Not a core Trump area, yet definitely an area where a Warren/Sanders-like candidate would get an electoral edge over Trump.

and environmental deregulation

Most of this is related to the ever-more-amorphous "climate change". Not a political winner.

anti-labor policies

To which policies do you refer?

more bombing overseas

More than Bush/Obama? Also, not a political loser in the absence of a troop commitment.

Aside from that, I don't know whether protectionism or reducing immigration are political winners or not, but I do know that they're really bad policy.

And therein lies the unbridgeable gap between your ideology and that of the Sanders wing. Ultimately realignment will occur, forcing you into a "globalist" party and the Sanders people into a "nationalist populist" party.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not a core Trump policy. This is something both Trump and his base are very "meh" about.

Way too vague.

Not a core Trump area, yet definitely an area where a Warren/Sanders-like candidate would get an electoral edge over Trump.

Most of this is related to the ever-more-amorphous "climate change". Not a political winner.

To which policies do you refer?

More than Bush/Obama? Also, not a political loser in the absence of a troop commitment.

And therein lies the unbridgeable gap between your ideology and that of the Sanders wing. Ultimately realignment will occur, forcing you into a "globalist" party and the Sanders people into a "nationalist populist" party.

OK, so "joining Trump" is essentially meaningless, no? If you're just going to dismiss his most significant actions as "not a core area," what's the point?

And, no, I'm obviously far more in line with Sanders than he is with Trump. In fact, one can hardly imagine a president who was further apart from Sanders than Trump is.

 

[waiguoren]

The first one is baldly false. Trump has greatly escalated foreign interventions and to a much greater extent than any Democrats would have.

We should be precise with our language; "foreign interventions" could be measured via multiple proxies.

For example, I am not aware of the Trump administration bombing the government of a sovereign state into submission as in Libya (Clinton/Obama) or Iraq (Bush).

Further, I personally am not part of any wing that supports Trump's move there.

You were a fervent supporter of the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who---according to detailed reporting by the New York Times---was the primary force behind Obama's decision to overthrow the government of Libya. Last I heard, Libya had become a failed state as a result of this intervention.

 

[waiguoren]

OK, so "joining Trump" is essentially meaningless, no? If you're just going to dismiss his most significant actions as "not a core area," what's the point?

To Trump's base, the trifecta to which I referred represents Trump's "most significant actions". Certainly these were the core issues that Trump ran on.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We should be precise with our language; "foreign interventions" could be measured via multiple proxies.

For example, I am not aware of the Trump administration bombing the government of a sovereign state into submission as in Libya (Clinton/Obama) or Iraq (Bush).

Bombing frequency up over half, no?

You were a fervent supporter of the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who---according to detailed reporting by the New York Times---was the primary force behind Obama's decision to overthrow the government of Libya. Last I heard, Libya had become a failed state as a result of this intervention.

First, it's a lie that I was a fervent supporter of the candidacy of Clinton. Second, Trump is far more "interventionist" than Clinton was. I think the term is basically meaningless political bullshit, but Trump is bombing way more than she would have and saber-rattling more than anyone else would.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To Trump's base, the trifecta to which I referred represents Trump's "most significant actions". Certainly these were the core issues that Trump ran on.

You're close to making my ignore list with this obvious trolling as a follow-up to misrepresenting my positions.

 

[waiguoren]

The second one is also false, as the trade restrictions are not designed to benefit domestic workers

The new tariffs on steel and aluminum are being sold as a means of reviving those industries domestically. Steel mills require labor.

Perhaps the cynic in you sees crony capitalism in the new policy. But you can't deny that Trump has been calling for these kinds of policies for at least 30 years in the name of helping workers.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The new tariffs on steel and aluminum are being sold as a means of reviving those industries domestically. Steel mills require labor.

The massively regressive tax cut and healthcare cuts were also sold as helping workers, but let's be serious. This is just the standard trickle-down and cronyism approach in new wrapping.

 

[ScottE]

Yes, those tax cuts that Trump is so "meh" about that he; signed immediately, has endorsed multiple times, and praises at every opportunity.

Yes he's very "meh" on the thing he promotes as his major policy achievement so far.

Next you are going to say he was against the Republican attempted healthcare gutting.

 

[waiguoren]

First, it's a lie that I was a fervent supporter of the candidacy of Clinton.

Why is the rhetoric escalating so quickly these days?

Why do you assume I am "lying" about you? Is it possible I honestly believed you to be a fervent Clinton supporter?

Are you objecting to my use of the term "fervent"?

Second, Trump is far more "interventionist" than Clinton was. I think the term is basically meaningless political bullshit

Fair objection. That is why I specified a proxy (US-led overthrowing of foreign governments). So far, Clinton's record on that is worse than Trump's.

As for increasing bombings, I would like to see the available data. I would not be surprised to find that it is true. However, you are diverging from the original subject. Such bombings are not political losers.

but Trump is bombing way more than she would have

Too speculative. Clinton's record on violent foreign intervention is quite aggressive.

and saber-rattling more than anyone else would.

Saber-rattling has certainly increased dramatically under Trump. It's not clear how that's relevant to this conversation.

 

[waiguoren]

The massively regressive tax cut and healthcare cuts were also sold as helping workers, but let's be serious. This is just the standard trickle-down and cronyism approach in new wrapping.

This started as a conversation about political prospects and has degenerated quickly into a seemingly emotional attack on the president and his policies.

 

[Gandhi]

My point is that the three pillars of Trumpism are well-suited to this era. It is hard for me to think of a better policy trifecta for winning elections at the national level.

The Democrats are struggling to find a message, and in my opinion the major reason is that they cannot decide whether to fight Trump or to "join" Trump on policy. In terms of electoral advantage in 2020, I believe "joining" Trump by running a Sanders-like candidate is the superior option by far. I believe you agree with me on this.

I believe @Jack V Savage disagrees with both of us on this.

Well I wont speak for JVS but I think running the Sanders like candidate has the potential (I say potential because his actual policy as opposed to his signals was not actually that bad) to be really bad for policy and risks sending moderates back over to Trump. I fear the more we go the left, the more we will get policy based on emotion (appeal to populism rather than empirical performance) and fall into the classic Marxist scenario where the establishment goes full fascist to stop the commies (I am being hyperbolic here of course).

So I don't want this option. That being said I give you that I am not at all 100% convinced that a moderate is better than a far left candidate in beating Trump. The cope out is a candidate that can appeal to both, i.e. not alienate moderates while still ra ra ra ing the troops.

As an oversimplified example that is why I decided that @HomerThompson should be our next POTWR

The solution real is that we need more

 

[Jack V Savage]

This started as a conversation about political prospects and has degenerated quickly into a seemingly emotional attack on the president and his policies.

It started as the TS saying that he prefers a particular Republican to a Republican. I pointed out that there is no difference. You pointed out an issue where Trump splits with the mainstream of the party, and I acknowledged that while noting that his position on that issue is dumb. Then you start going into your standard Trump Defense League mode and bizarrely trying to equate Trump, who has governed as an extreme top-down class warrior, with Bernie, who ran as an extreme (for America) class warrior on the opposite side of the war.

 

[waiguoren]

Yes, those tax cuts that Trump is so "meh" about that he; signed immediately, has endorsed multiple times, and praises at every opportunity.

Trump did not run on those tax cuts. The original Kudlow-Moore plan which Trump ran on would have capped total deductions at $150,000 and would have been much less friendly to the upper-income brackets overall than the plan that passed.

The Trump base is very "meh" about these cuts. Remember that Trump won millions of working-class Obama voters in the rustbelt. You think those voters are particularly excited about that particular plan?

And citing the fact that Trump self-promoted the passage of the tax bill as evidence that the bill was one of his core issues...you don't see the non-sequitur there?

 

[waiguoren]

So bombin Assad counts as a de-escalation of power? i dont understand, where exactly is Trump reducing foreign intervention?

Please re-read the earlier posts. I was referring to "foreign interventions", and in particular those interventions in which a sovereign government is overthrown by the US military. The type that Obama/Clinton carried out in Libya.

You're jumping in a bit late here. The discussion is about political prospects. Increased bombing in Syria would not be a political loser for Trump.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well I wont speak for JVS but I think running the Sanders like candidate has the potential (I say potential because his actual policy as opposed to his signals was not actually that bad) to be really bad for policy and risks sending moderates back over to Trump. I fear the more we go the left, the more we will get policy based on emotion (appeal to populism rather than empirical performance) and fall into the classic Marxist scenario where the establishment goes full fascist to stop the commies (I am being hyperbolic here of course).

So I don't want this option. That being said I give you that I am not at all 100% convinced that a moderate is better than a far left candidate in beating Trump. The cope out is a candidate that can appeal to both, i.e. not alienate moderates while still ra ra ra ing the troops.

My usual position on political analysis is that no one really knows anything. My position here has just been that from a policy standpoint, Trump is an ordinary Republican except that he supports and additional really bad policy. Waiguoren's attempt to portray him as Eugene V. Debs.2 is comical.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The Trump base is very "meh" about these cuts. Remember that Trump won millions of working-class Obama voters in the rustbelt. You think those voters are particularly excited about that particular plan?

A plurality of Republican voters don't really agree with their own party on economic policy. They vote based on identity politics. If policy sways you, and you support pro-labor policies, you're probably already a Democrat.

 

[waiguoren]

Well I wont speak for JVS but I think running the Sanders like candidate has the potential (I say potential because his actual policy as opposed to his signals was not actually that bad) to be really bad for policy and risks sending moderates back over to Trump. I fear the more we go the left, the more we will get policy based on emotion (appeal to populism rather than empirical performance) and fall into the classic Marxist scenario where the establishment goes full fascist to stop the commies (I am being hyperbolic here of course).

Thank you for being clear. You and I have a genuine disagreement. In my estimation, the flavor of candidate that @Jack V Savage prefers (say, Martin O'Malley) is likely to lose decisively to Trump in 2020.

The correct political strategy is to undercut Trump where he is strongest. But with Warren saying she will not run and Sanders old as Moses, who will pick up the banner?

 

[ScottE]

Because going to the right with didn't result

Trump did not run on those tax cuts. The original Kudlow-Moore plan which Trump ran on would have capped total deductions at $150,000 and would have been much less friendly to the upper-income brackets overall than the plan that passed.

The Trump base is very "meh" about these cuts. Remember that Trump won millions of working-class Obama voters in the rustbelt. You think those voters are particularly excited about that particular plan?

And citing the fact that Trump self-promoted the passage of the tax bill as evidence that the bill was one of his core issues...you don't see the non-sequitur there?

And you don't see it as a non-sequitur to claim Trump is unenthusiastic on a subject that he constantly enthusiastically promotes and endorses.

So you're arguing the passed tax cuts, which he is currently enthusatically supporting, aren't part of his "core policy"? So his core policy is that empty that he just discarded it for a political win of getting any bill passed? He's so weak of a president that he can't get his own core policy passed and instead had to shill for a bill his supporters don't like?

You think that's better?