Jump to content
Baseops Forums
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Blue said:

Timely question for me, as this as recently become a hot topic of discussion on the homefront.

Seems like they’re a fundamental misunderstanding here. All the things you listed sound like fairly standard GOP policies boiled down to their most positive-sounding values statements. Which is fine...if you want better Republicans then vote for them in the primary!

It’s not the job of the Democratic Party to “win over trump voters.” It’s their job to win elections and enact the policies they ran on, based on the values they personally believe in and the party in general supports. That can be accomplished without wining a single solitary person who voted for Trump in 2016, although obviously it’s easier if you peel away some small percentage of the people who did in key states.

I have no expectations that most Republicans would be all that interested in higher taxes on the wealthy, addressing climate change in a robust way, etc. I’m not mad about that necessarily, I just don’t vote for them. So it’s silly to hate on the Dems for listening to the people who vote for them and supporting more liberal policies than you, a conservative, support.

I’m happy to have a detailed discussion about policies that actually poll really well with  a broad swath of the public...it’s a specific interest of mine to get the “low hanging fruit” things enacted rather than see the parties spend political capital on unpopular policies like reparations or building the wall or some of the other silliness that a minority of people agitate about.

A quick list of examples that all poll >60% among US adults is: universal background checks, legalizing marijuana, letting people buy into a Medicare and Medicaid, a $15 minimum wage, and creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the love of god, PLEASE keep touting the ‘polls’ that have Biden ‘ahead.’  Please make the same mistake you did in 2016 to include insulting Trump voters; gosh you Dems never learn! 
 

Also please pick Harris as your VP, the hag who slept with the mayor of SFO to get ahead, not women privilege at all.  Now, trump is no saint, but between Biden who can’t put a sentence together and Harris, you no longer get to bash Trump for being ‘unpresidential.’ 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

A quick list of examples that all poll >60% among US adults is: universal background checks, legalizing marijuana, letting people buy into a Medicare and Medicaid, a $15 minimum wage, and creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country.

I'm with you on all of the above except for the bolded...curious of your thoughts/rationale behind it. 

BTW thanks for posting and providing a generally minority (for here) viewpoint. :beer: 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, dream big said:

For the love of god, PLEASE keep touting the ‘polls’ that have Biden ‘ahead.’  Please make the same mistake you did in 2016 to include insulting Trump voters; gosh you Dems never learn! 
 

Also please pick Harris as your VP, the hag who slept with the mayor of SFO to get ahead, not women privilege at all.  Now, trump is no saint, but between Biden who can’t put a sentence together and Harris, you no longer get to bash Trump for being ‘unpresidential.’ 

I mean if the weatherman says there’s a 15-20% chance of rain and it rains, do you never trust the weather again? Some folks were too certain of a Dem victory in 2016, but relatively low probability events do happen sometimes! The national polls were very accurate in 2016 and while some state polls got the absolute outcome wrong, there weren’t egregious misses in terms of what % wrong they were.

I have no problems with Harris and am familiar with her background. GL trying to smear her, she is tough.

WRT to Biden, I’m pretty impressed that y’all are making the same mistake we did last time with Trump. We set the expectations very very low and he didn’t clear them by much but he managed to keep it relatively together on the trail and in the debates, minus the grabbin’ em by the pussy audio.

If y’all keep saying Biden has dementia and then he gets in TV and does fine, it’s gonna backfire. He just gave a speech I saw part of the other day and he did fine.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Day Man said:

I'm with you on all of the above except for the bolded...curious of your thoughts/rationale behind it. 

BTW thanks for posting and providing a generally minority (for here) viewpoint. :beer: 

I’m sorta ambivalent on $15 min wage. It would obviously help put money in the pockets of working people, which is very good for an economy driven by consumer demand. On the other hand large jumps all at once do cause problems. The Fed min wage, along with many many other government program payment numbers, should be pegged to chained-CPI or similar and then automatically raise or lower with inflation.

If you don’t do that, inaction ends up being an affirmative choice to devalue current programs which is not what congress usually intends. See the pilot bonus and flight pay issues where they were the same from like 1990 - 2017 even though a lot of the value had been lost to inflation. In principle the AF didn’t value pilots any less, but in practice they absolutely did; same goes with all these other programs.

If you had to hold my feet to the fire I’d say I support a higher fed min wage so long as we chain it to CPI from here in out so it doesn’t become an issue again in the future. Seems like the historical high water mark adjusted for inflation would be IVO $12 in today’s dollars so maybe that.

Happy to post in good faith from the Dem POV...echo chambers don’t help any of us and I enjoy most of the perspectives here and in my squadron, which are more conservative and/or libertarian than my civ friends and family.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

I mean if the weatherman says there’s a 15-20% chance of rain and it rains, do you never trust the weather again? Some folks were too certain of a Dem victory in 2016, but relatively low probability events do happen sometimes! The national polls were very accurate in 2016 and while some state polls got the absolute outcome wrong, there weren’t egregious misses in terms of what % wrong they were.

I have no problems with Harris and am familiar with her background. GL trying to smear her, she is tough.

WRT to Biden, I’m pretty impressed that y’all are making the same mistake we did last time with Trump. We set the expectations very very low and he didn’t clear them by much but he managed to keep it relatively together on the trail and in the debates, minus the grabbin’ em by the pussy audio.

If y’all keep saying Biden has dementia and then he gets in TV and does fine, it’s gonna backfire. He just gave a speech I saw part of the other day and he’s did fine.

I'll take that bet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lr_lhMh9-Q

Trump has "rhetorical flourishes" also granted but Biden does not have stamina, for short periods and not repeatedly, he is coherent but like many older folks I have known he can't keep it up for extended periods of time.  Not a personal slight on him, it happens to all at some point in later years but that is the way I see it.

On the election, Trump and the Republican party, TC summed it up pretty well if you are not a Dem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS-bsetu01w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

What economic indicator would you use, and how does the DJIA relate to the free market being a more sound judge of economics than the government since the DJIA is only 30 companies and not the entirety of the concept of the free economic market of capitalism?

The S&P 500 is also nearly at all time highs, so i don’t get your point about the DJIA. Almost every index you look at domestically is doing well.

With enough quantitative easing (expected to be up to $5T dollars this year, already at 2-3), you can prop up anything. Our balance sheet at the end of the year could be over $10T. YGBSM. Obama did it. Trump is doing it. But, the truth is, right now, we are in no place to do that. Our interest rates are almost 0. And most of that is due to not taking the chance to tighten when the economy was actually “doing well. There has been no meaningful QT at any point where it would have worked.

Its analogous to the airlines doing massive stock buybacks to inflate their prices. You can’t take on debt forever to make it look like the economy is doing well. And, worse, QE disproportionately benefits stockholders over the rest of society.

More meaningful improvement would be increasing median family wages adjusted for purchasing power. Something that no one has done in 40 years.

Edited by brawnie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

I'll take that bet.

It’s not a bet. My assessment is that the GOP is lowering the floor dangerously low on their opponent and that in general that’s not a great strategy. The Dems fell prey to this in 2016.

Look, Biden and Trump are both slowed by age, just listen to each of them speaking in the 80s or 90s compared to today. I would greatly prefer younger candidates and office holders. IMHO there should be a maximum age for federal officer holders just like there is a minimum age. If I were king for a day I’d set the minimum age at 18 and the max age at probably 70.

My point was Biden participated in 11 debates and numerous other public events and speeches during the primary and was judged to be adequate. He even won convincingly! So to say that this guy literally can’t put together two sentences is more than a stretch, it’s a gift to Biden when he gets in TV and does an acceptable job. No one expects soaring oratory from Joe Biden anyways, and now IMHO the right is setting the expectations so low that they become easy to exceed.

Call it the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to quote an famous phrase from a man who also benefited from his competitors saying that he was an complete idiot.

Edited by nsplayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Blue said:

Timely question for me, as this as recently become a hot topic of discussion on the homefront.

Stumbled upon this in Quora of all places, which I think captures what a lot of folks think.  Not all encompassing by any means, but you get the idea. 

 

Kind of sounds to me like you’d like the Republican Party to offer up a better candidate. Democrats are never going to float your boat and that’s fine. BUT the Republicans offered up several candidates who would’ve been much better than Trump four years ago. But they let him hijack and forever change the face of the GOP. While this certainly allowed them to make gains with some traditionally blue voters, my guess is the last three and a half years have pushed away far more middle of the road voters as well as erase many of the gains in minority segments that more moderate and traditional Republicans rightly hoped to gain. I’m honestly saddened by this shift in the party because even a left leaning person like me could see that there was much to admire and even items I outright agreed with in the platform. The new platform is basically “fuck you lib”. Ok then. Guess who’s voting party line for the first time ever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Kind of sounds to me like you’d like the Republican Party to offer up a better candidate. Democrats are never going to float your boat and that’s fine. BUT the Republicans offered up several candidates who would’ve been much better than Trump four years ago. But they let him hijack and forever change the face of the GOP. While this certainly allowed them to make gains with some traditionally blue voters, my guess is the last three and a half years have pushed away far more middle of the road voters as well as erase many of the gains in minority segments that more moderate and traditional Republicans rightly hoped to gain. I’m honestly saddened by this shift in the party because even a left leaning person like me could see that there was much to admire and even items I outright agreed with in the platform. The new platform is basically “fuck you lib”. Ok then. Guess who’s voting party line for the first time ever?

Not neccessarily true. First off, I do not like Trump. I think he is an adhorent human being, and I can't bring myself to cast a vote for him. But as a conservative, I totally understand why people people voted for him. He didn't hijack anything, he was chosen by the people because they liked his platform/policy. While other Republicans were definitely more moral candidates, Trump was the one that stayed on course. 

The Republican party did shift but not the way you think it did. It suffered a succession of concessions to the left for several generations and Trump offered a return to a center of the party's doctrine that many people just saw as common sense. In a way, only an inexperienced politician could have pulled this off because the other candidates were so concerned with what their speech may sound like if it offended someone they continually adjusted their platform away from conservative values. Trump didn't give a crap, and in return he won a primary that everyone thought was impossible. 

But we (Democrats and Republicans alike) have to stop pretending that we care about a candidates morality for President. That was probably important in a Victorian America where religious protestentism was still extraordinarily widespread but the modern view has shifted from one of cooperation to one where people believe the very survival of their values depends on the candidate elected and flawed candidates are a neccessary evil to ensure that survival. 

Edited by FLEA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

It’s not a bet. My assessment is that the GOP is lowering the floor dangerously low on their opponent and that in general that’s not a great strategy. The Dems fell prey to this in 2016.

Look, Biden and Trump are both slowed by age, just listen to each of them speaking in the 80s or 90s compared to today. I would greatly prefer younger candidates and office holders. IMHO there should be a maximum age for federal officer holders just like there is a minimum age. If I were king for a day I’d set the minimum age at 18 and the max age at probably 70.

My point was Biden participated in 11 debates and numerous other public events and speeches during the primary and was judged to be adequate. He even won convincingly! So to say that this guy literally can’t put together two sentences is more than a stretch, it’s a gift to Biden when he gets in TV and does an acceptable job. No one expects soaring oratory from Joe Biden anyways, and now IMHO the right is setting the expectations so low that they become easy to exceed.

Call it the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to quote an famous phrase from a man who also benefited from his competitors saying that he was an complete idiot.

Dude Biden ‘won’ because he was the last man standing in a field of some of the worst candidates in history. Even many democrats I know were shocked and disappointed.  Got it, Trump is abrasive, but there is zero comparison to Biden who I think there is something seriously wrong with.  Whether it is dementia, sniffing women, or making actual racist remarks.  The guy has been around politics for 30+ years.  We don’t need more of the same. 


Most of my democrat friends (albeit I don’t have a lot of them) are actually terrified and see the writing on the wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

It’s not a bet. My assessment is that the GOP is lowering the floor dangerously low on their opponent and that in general that’s not a great strategy. The Dems fell prey to this in 2016.

Look, Biden and Trump are both slowed by age, just listen to each of them speaking in the 80s or 90s compared to today. I would greatly prefer younger candidates and office holders. IMHO there should be a maximum age for federal officer holders just like there is a minimum age. If I were king for a day I’d set the minimum age at 18 and the max age at probably 70.

My point was Biden participated in 11 debates and numerous other public events and speeches during the primary and was judged to be adequate. He even won convincingly! So to say that this guy literally can’t put together two sentences is more than a stretch, it’s a gift to Biden when he gets in TV and does an acceptable job. No one expects soaring oratory from Joe Biden anyways, and now IMHO the right is setting the expectations so low that they become easy to exceed.

Call it the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to quote an famous phrase from a man who also benefited from his competitors saying that he was an complete idiot.

Concur on the age for elective federal office or any position requiring confirmation restriction, my limit would be 75 or less when you take an oath of office or are confirmed.

Never been a fan of term limits but they may be required to fight stagnation by tenure, that policy change could mitigate the problem (I think it is a problem) of our government often but not always led by people in the sunset of life, setting policies they themselves will not live with or see carried to fulfillment and having a mindset likely set by the world as it was 30-40 years ago.  

Concur on underestimation of Biden or more specifically the elements of the Left supporting him, not a pejorative statement against them but they are nimble and cunning, plan accordingly.

Musing on the election of President and the shit show that it is now, methinks we had it right prior to the 17th Amendment without the direct election of senators, applying that idea to the Presidency in an updated way (all state elective office holders being the voting population for POTUS, the people deciding the candidates to be considered as an example new process) would give the people a say but have a secondary process with less emotion and pandering to select a President that will serve the people and country best.  Not a perfect process but likely better than what we have now. 

Our current system of Popular Vote then the Electoral College is kinda like what I would want but this would be explicit, the people choose the canidates, the state government officials decide which one of the several (not just two) wins the Presidency, President elect then selects VP.

Edited by Clark Griswold
last point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump beat 24 GOP largely lookalikes in 2016 precisely because he wasn't like them and didn't seem to care if he's called names by the opposition (or the GOP for that matter).

Biden won because he's the centrist-ish of the Democrat field and the party knew that some of the really wacko left-field ones would absolutely doom them again.

The current push to get Biden across the line seems to "well, he's not all that, but he's our guy."  There are dozens of articles/essays in this theme on-going.

Doesn't seem to be enthusiasm for the selection, just a "not Trump" mantra.  Not wanting to vote for someone has historically reduced turn-out since the ass pain of voting usually outweighs the resigned casting of a luke-warm vote.  Not sure the "get rid of Trump" wave is strong enough to push Joe across the line.  If he actually does debate and, as is expected, shows that his time mentally is well passed, then I simply don't see how he wins.  If, on the other hand, he does manage to be energetic, focused, and coherent for 3 X 90 minutes, then mabye so.

Will it be enough?  I'm skeptical.  But then I really thought Hillary was going to win in 2016.  I was very pleasantly surprised to wake up the morning after and find out I was wrong.

And I do take comfort knowing she is not president.

Daily.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, brawnie said:

Was with you til this. The DJIA only reflects a small minority of the economy and doesn’t relate to how the majority of people are actually doing.

The free market does not mean the stock market.

One of the ugliest manifestations of crony capitalism, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, is to favor any policy or legislation that directly supports the prices in the stock market.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

A quick list of examples that all poll >60% among US adults is: universal background checks, legalizing marijuana, letting people buy into a Medicare and Medicaid, a $15 minimum wage, and creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country.

Add to that stopping illegal immigration and late term abortions. 

 

You are citing selective polls. The Medicare/Medicare poll results flip once the cost is added to the question.

 

It's like asking "who wants to be an astronaut" vs "who is willing to do what it takes to become an astronaut."

 

Minimum wage is a combination of not understanding economics, employment, or the reality of who makes minimum wage. But that's another topic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’m sorta ambivalent on $15 min wage. It would obviously help put money in the pockets of working people, which is very good for an economy driven by consumer demand. On the other hand large jumps all at once do cause problems. The Fed min wage, along with many many other government program payment numbers, should be pegged to chained-CPI or similar and then automatically raise or lower with inflation.

If you don’t do that, inaction ends up being an affirmative choice to devalue current programs which is not what congress usually intends. See the pilot bonus and flight pay issues where they were the same from like 1990 - 2017 even though a lot of the value had been lost to inflation. In principle the AF didn’t value pilots any less, but in practice they absolutely

Understand at the micro level (allow those making min wage to better afford products). At the macro level, do you see a way to avoid this becoming a positive feedback loop and raising inflation (restaurants raise costs since their labor is more expensive, demand for good goes up since min wage earners have more disposable income)? Anecdotally, friends with small businesses in areas with higher than average minimum wage end up offering fewer min wage jobs the higher the wage goes. Since many min wage jobs have been entry level (teens or others who don't need the min wage job for years) in the past, is finding a way to ensure upward mobility better than continuing to raise the bottom wage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The free market does not mean the stock market.

One of the ugliest manifestations of crony capitalism, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, is to favor any policy or legislation that directly supports the prices in the stock market.

Agree wholeheartedly, but how do you quantify that? Most economic reports, when it comes to journalism, over the last few years have been that stock market going up = free market working well, when that's not necessarily true.

Edited by brawnie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Minimum wage is a combination of not understanding economics, employment, or the reality of who makes minimum wage. But that's another topic.

Usually when people say it's a misunderstanding of economics they are operating under the assumptions of econ 101. But arguing against a higher minimum wage with econ 101 knowledge is like saying black holes don't exist because Newton's Laws forbid them. It's a toy model of the actual dynamics which eventually break down in the real world, and there's substantial research (with empirical data) that shows that the low wage market resembles a monopsony. Under the monopsony model, increasing wages actually increases employment (obviously if you go past market equilibrium then you get detrimental effects). Under monopsonies there is inefficient dead weight loss with excess profits going to employers in a similar way to how monopolies have dead weight loss with excess profit going to supplier. 

If you think monopolies are a danger to a well functioning free market capitalist system then I encourage you to look into the research on monopsony and minimum wage. If you're free market to the point of allowing anticompetitive monopolies then you would be consistent in being against minimum wage increases, but usually when I discuss this with conservatives they are against monopoly power and have not considered monopsony theory of minimum wage.

IMO minimum wage should be increased until the monopsony threshold breaks down, which currently seems to be around the ~12-15 dollar range, beyond which you start to get lower employment (based on current research).  This isn't even taking into account the effects of higher wages on money velocity and demand, which would also have beneficial effects on economic output.

Now I don't expect the average American to have to delve into economic theory to justify this, so I'd put a provision in the law that would automatically lower the wage back if employment decreases by more than say 5% to increase public support. 

Sorry for the word vomit but hope that was clear enough. I think the "living wage" talking point on my side of the aisle is ineffective because it completely ignores the (important) conservative talking point on employment, but hopefully this can at least show you that there's some space for agreement here (pro market/economy).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, DosXX said:

Calm, convincing argument

I've never had a strong opinion on it but I somewhat leaned to the probable futility of min wage raises...

but I think you've convinced me. Worthy of noting for internet banter.

Edited by FlyingWolf
formating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A look at minimum wages at a national level is a bit clumsy.  It assumes that nation wide, all low wage job markets exist in a monopsony.  I'm not really sure why locality based minimum wage is bad and a federal floor needs to be set.

That said, part of me would be okay with a minimum wage hike of something reasonable ($15 would works out to $30k/yr, which is higher than Germany) and pegged to some sort of CPI.  Mainly so I don't have to listen to this shit anymore.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trial balloon being floated about is that Biden shouldn't "dignify" Trump with a debate since Trump will simply be lying the entire time.

Which to a sane person, seems like a great opportunity to club the baby orange seal and show the fast ball is still there (mixed metaphors acknowledged).

Let's see how high this one floats...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Trial balloon being floated about is that Biden shouldn't "dignify" Trump with a debate since Trump will simply be lying the entire time.

Which to a sane person, seems like a great opportunity to club the baby orange seal and show the fast ball is still there (mixed metaphors acknowledged).

Let's see how high this one floats...

Democrats are acknowledging that Biden will get destroyed in a one to one debate with Trump? 

Regardless, it would be a huge mistake for the democratic nominee to not engage in one of the most basic election traditions and customs.  As it is, most democrats aren’t excited about Biden.  Pussying away from a debate won’t be a good look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a couple of mid-level Democrats float "no debates needed" this weekend on various cable shows, right on cue the NYT publishes a "we don't need debates" op-ed today.

Almost like it's coordinated or something...

 

 

 

Oh, and as an aside, former President Bill Clinton's name was among those revealed as being on Epstein's island by one of the accusers in the lady pimp's civil trial records that were unsealed last week. Yet hardly a peep in the media.  

Also almost like that's coordinated or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, brickhistory said:

After a couple of mid-level Democrats float "no debates needed" this weekend on various cable shows, right on cue the NYT publishes a "we don't need debates" op-ed today.

Almost like it's coordinated or something...

 

 

 

Oh, and as an aside, former President Bill Clinton's name was among those revealed as being on Epstein's island by one of the accusers in the lady pimp's civil trial records that were unsealed last week. Yet hardly a peep in the media.  

Also almost like that's coordinated or something...

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? Your knack for strawmans, whataboutisms, and turning any topic into a something about the Clinton's is astounding. 

TrumpEpstein.jpg

Edited by Sua Sponte
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...