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

[Rod1]

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.

Obama never bombed Assad, Trump did.

Also Obama negotiated peace with Iran, Trump is looking for a fight with Iran.

 

[waiguoren]

Waiguoren's attempt to portray him as Eugene V. Debs.2 is comical.

Let's not veer into strawman territory here.

You have the intellectual capacity to recognize I implied no such thing. You are well aware I am not a Trump supporter and I do not think that Trump's working-class appeal is entirely or wholly based on quality evidence.

 

[waiguoren]

Because going to the right with didn't result


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?

Tax cuts were not part of Trump's core platform. He did run on reducing taxes, but any analysis of his rallies would show that taxes were a mid-tier issue at best.

To reiterate:

1) less foreign invasions
2) more trade restrictions to protect domestic workers
3) more immigration restrictions to protect domestic workers and reduce violence from illegal immigrats

are the pillars of Trumpism.

 

[waiguoren]

Obama never bombed Assad, Trump did.

You're referring to the bombing which cost 0 American lives and did not result in regime change, right?

Now compare to Obama's bombing of Libya and Bush's invasion of Iraq.

The latter two (especially the Bush example) ended up being big political losers. That's the point.

Also Obama negotiated peace with Iran, Trump is looking for a fight with Iran.

Even though you're wrong, none of this matters politically. Let's keep our focus.

 

[waiguoren]

A plurality of Republican voters don't really agree with their own party on economic policy.

Correct.

They vote based on identity politics.

All politics is identity politics.

If policy sways you, and you support pro-labor policies, you're probably already a Democrat

Millions of working-class Democrats and Obama voters in WI/PA/OH/MI pulled the lever for Trump in 2016. I am not sure you are willing to accept this fact.

 

[Rod1]

You're referring to the bombing which cost 0 American lives and did not result in regime change, right?

Now compare to Obama's bombing of Libya and Bush's invasion of Iraq.

The latter two (especially the Bush example) ended up being big political losers. That's the point.

Libya was a blunder i agree, but you cant blame the US when it was France and the UK picking the fight (Sarkozy having special interests in seeing Gaddafi go) and it was UN sanctioned (so Russia and China were on-board).

Even though you're wrong, none of this matters politically. Let's keep our focus.

Actually it does matters, when people are presenting Trump as the alternative to the neocons, when he is not.

Trump is reneging on the deals made with Iran and empowering Israel and Saudi Arabia at the cost of regional stability.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Let's not veer into strawman territory here.

You have the intellectual capacity to recognize I implied no such thing. You are well aware I am not a Trump supporter and I do not think that Trump's working-class appeal is entirely or wholly based on quality evidence.

It's not a strawman; it's exaggeration for comical effect. Trump is very much not a pro-labor politician.

I think Trump's "working-class appeal" (note that we're limiting it to the white working class) is based on appeals to racial resentment. The average Trump voter doesn't know shit about tariffs or the economic impact of reducing immigration; he knows that he has to Press 1 for English when he calls in and feels that other groups are being taken care of but no one in politics cares about him. Trump, a lifelong con artist, sold him a bill of goods. Seems to me that a genuine policy improvement is at least as likely to work as trying to ape the con.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Correct.

All politics is identity politics.

For the right, yes.

Millions of working-class Democrats and Obama voters in WI/PA/OH/MI pulled the lever for Trump in 2016. I am not sure you are willing to accept this fact.

I'm aware of the fact. It's probably implications and reasons that we disagree about. For example, the anti-immigration movement has nothing to do with economics.

 

[waiguoren]

Libya was a blunder i agree, but you cant blame the US when it was France and the UK picking the fight (Sarkozy having special interests in seeing Gaddafi go) and it was UN sanctioned (so Russia and China were on-board).

Again, this is a conversation about domestic politics. The point is that Clinton/Obama made the decision to contribute to the overthrow the government of Libya and that US voters (particularly of the Sanders wing) do hold this against them.

Actually it does matters, when people are presenting Trump as the alternative to the neocons, when he is not.

He is the alternative in the eyes of his voters. He has credibility as an outsider and vocal critic of Bush/Obama. That is what matters in this conversation.

Trump is reneging on the deals made with Iran and empowering Israel and Saudi Arabia at the cost of regional stability.

Again, doesn't matter for domestic politics. Voters do not care.

 

[waiguoren]

This is a very amusing comment.

I think Trump's "working-class appeal" (note that we're limiting it to the white working class) is based on appeals to racial resentment. The average Trump voter doesn't know shit about tariffs or the economic impact of reducing immigration; he knows that he has to Press 1 for English when he calls in and feels that other groups are being taken care of but no one in politics cares about him. Trump, a lifelong con artist, sold him a bill of goods.

Here you tell a logically consistent story. I would argue that it's very incomplete and mostly inaccurate, but it's logically consistent.

Seems to me that a genuine policy improvement is at least as likely to work as trying to ape the con.

And here you destroy your argument in one line. You write that the workers are totally ignorant about policy and very susceptible to a race-based con job, but then your solution for winning these voters is to sell them a bunch of technocratic policies. That approach will fail you in 2020.

 

[waiguoren]

All politics is identity politics.

For the right, yes.

I suppose you're implying that this is not the case among the Democratic coalition. I think you are overestimating dramatically the percentage of policy wonks in that group. The lens of tribalism makes political outcomes clearer than policy frameworks do.

I'm aware of the fact. It's probably implications and reasons that we disagree about. For example, the anti-immigration movement has nothing to do with economics.

You really don't think many of those voters believe that illegal immigration hurts their wages and job prospects?

 

[Jack V Savage]

And here you destroy your argument in one line. You write that the workers are totally ignorant about policy and very susceptible to a race-based con job, but then your solution for winning these voters is to sell them a bunch of technocratic policies. That approach will fail you in 2020.

My position is that good policy can be sold just as well as bad policy, if not better.

 

[waiguoren]

My position is that good policy can be sold just as well as bad policy, if not better.

What's an example of this being done on the immigration issue?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I suppose you're implying that this is not the case among the Democratic coalition. I think you are overestimating dramatically the percentage of policy wonks in that group.

It's not about wonkishness. It's that coalition is less focused on identity issues and more on getting specific goals met. If you have a random voter who disagrees with his party on identity issues but supports them because he agrees with them on policy, there's probably an 85% chance that he's a Democrat.

You really don't think many of those voters believe that illegal immigration hurts their wages and job prospects?

The bad economics follows the cultural stuff. So they're mad that they press 1 for English and then open to economic scapegoating.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What's an example of this being done on the immigration issue?

You mean messaging good policy better than bad policy? I can think of many ways, but frankly, politics (as politics--separate from policy or philosophy) isn't something I'm that interested in.

 

[MicroBrew]

So you are saying Kkk members vote Democrat?

Pretty surprising, source?

There's a popular rightwing meme, that states the KKK were Democrats. The intention of this meme is to mislead people or just troll. It is misleading because the insinuation is that the Democrats today are the same racist Democrats who supported the KKK pre Civil Rights.

Another rightwing meme / troll job is to say the Nazis were socialists.

 

[Cocrehamster]

My position is that good policy can be sold just as well as bad policy, if not better.

Personally, I think that the quality of the policy is largely irrelevant, and it all depends on how good the salesmen is at selling their policy. Trump didn't sell policy though, he sold fantasies. And he's a good salesmen.

 

[Gervinho]

Personally, I think that the quality of the policy is largely irrelevant, and it all depends on how good the salesmen is at selling their policy. Trump didn't sell policy though, he sold fantasies. And he's a good salesmen.

A great leader is one that brings positivity and inspire people. It doesnt matter what policies trump delivers. He brings negativity and perception of chaos. I mean within 1 year so many people he hired are fired and there has been perception of chaos in the white house.

 

[Cocrehamster]

A great leader is one that brings positivity and inspire people. It doesnt matter what policies trump delivers. He brings negativity and perception of chaos. I mean within 1 year so many people he hired are fired and there has been perception of chaos in the white house.

Policies absolutely matter. A lot.