All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[aja_christopher]

You cut out the part of my comment where I talked about why I refer to him as routinely dishonest.

Just because you say something (repeatedly) doesn't make it true -- doing something on occasion does not make it a routine.

Just because you constantly deflect from the dishonesty, immorality, and corruption of the Republican party doesn't make them the better choice.

"Logic" like that is exactly why Trump -- who slandered Obama as a "Kenyan Muslim" before winning the nomination -- is the head of your party.

Even now, you're spending almost ten times as much effort trying to slander Obama as you are discussing the faults of your party -- like a true Republican.

The lies of the Republicans lead to climate change, deficits, the War in Iraq, recessions, voter suppression and using family separations as "deterrents".

At least we know where you stand on these issues -- including lying itself -- given how adamantly you defend the party responsible.

[aja_christopher]

"In 2013, economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson — no wild-eyed liberals, they — asked a very important question: Why has the U.S. economy performed better under Democratic than Republican presidents, “almost regardless of how one measures performance”?

Start with their “performed better” assertion: it’s uncontestable. While you can easily cherry-pick brief periods and economic measures that show superior economic performance under Republicans, over any lengthy comparison period (say, 25 years more), by pretty much any economic measure, Democrats have outperformed Republicans for a century. Even Tyler Cowen, director of the Koch-brothers-funded libertarian/conservative Mercatus Center, stipulates to that fact without demur.

The difference is big. At those rates, over thirty years your $50,000 income compounds up to $105,000 under Republicans, $182,000 under Democrats — 73% higher. (And this is all before considering distribution — whether the growing prosperity is widely enjoyed, or narrowly concentrated.)

Hundreds of similar pictures are easily assembled — different time periods, different measures, aggregate and per-capita, inflation-adjusted or not — all telling the same general story. No amount of hand-waving, smoke-blowing, and definition-quibbling will alter that reality. (If you feel you must try to debunk Blinder, Watson, and Cowen: be aware that you almost certainly don’t have an original argument. Read the paper, and follow the footnotes.)

On its face, the bare fact of Democrats’ consistent outperformance suggests a straightforward explanation: Democrat policies and priorities, in their myriad interacting forms, expressions, and implementations, directly cause faster growth, more progress, greater and more widespread prosperity."

https://evonomics.com/economists-agr...eight-reasons/

[jetengine]

Its almost like you have to spend money....to make money and hoarding it does fuck all for the economy especially when you couple it with hurting your workforce consistently.

[Tami]

Pompeo hits out at Iran after deadly US strikes in Iraq and Syria

Iran calls U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria acts of 'terrorism'

Iraqi PM Condemns 'Dangerous Escalation' as US Kills 25 With Airstrikes and Threatens Iran

[Mister Mets]

"In 2013, economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson — no wild-eyed liberals, they — asked a very important question: Why has the U.S. economy performed better under Democratic than Republican presidents, “almost regardless of how one measures performance”?

Start with their “performed better” assertion: it’s uncontestable. While you can easily cherry-pick brief periods and economic measures that show superior economic performance under Republicans, over any lengthy comparison period (say, 25 years more), by pretty much any economic measure, Democrats have outperformed Republicans for a century. Even Tyler Cowen, director of the Koch-brothers-funded libertarian/conservative Mercatus Center, stipulates to that fact without demur.

The difference is big. At those rates, over thirty years your $50,000 income compounds up to $105,000 under Republicans, $182,000 under Democrats — 73% higher. (And this is all before considering distribution — whether the growing prosperity is widely enjoyed, or narrowly concentrated.)

Hundreds of similar pictures are easily assembled — different time periods, different measures, aggregate and per-capita, inflation-adjusted or not — all telling the same general story. No amount of hand-waving, smoke-blowing, and definition-quibbling will alter that reality. (If you feel you must try to debunk Blinder, Watson, and Cowen: be aware that you almost certainly don’t have an original argument. Read the paper, and follow the footnotes.)

On its face, the bare fact of Democrats’ consistent outperformance suggests a straightforward explanation: Democrat policies and priorities, in their myriad interacting forms, expressions, and implementations, directly cause faster growth, more progress, greater and more widespread prosperity."

https://evonomics.com/economists-agr...eight-reasons/

So, Presidents bear significant responsibility for economic success, and if things are going well we should back Trump for reelection?

[Gray Lensman]

So, Presidents bear significant responsibility for economic success, and if things are going well we should back Trump for reelection?

Trump's erratic behavior and love of tariffs has slowed down the rate of economic growth from where it would otherwise have been, so no.

[Billy Batson]

So, Presidents bear significant responsibility for economic success, and if things are going well we should back Trump for reelection?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fe...red-2019-12-27

[The Overlord]

I have not made any claims that Obama is on the same level as Trump, just that he has lied in the past with enough frequency that he doesn't merit a reputation as an exceptionally honest politician.

To go with an earlier metaphor if he slashed car tires with the same level of frequency, it would be fair to say that he routinely slashes car tires, even if others do it more often.

Parties are not represented solely by their worst people. Why should I abandon the party of the ten most popular Governors in America because of a lunatic state legislator or some nutjob who ran for the nomination for a congressional seat where a loss was guaranteed?

https://morningconsult.com/governor-rankings-q2-19/

By the same token, Democrats are obligated their party if any elected officials are truly toxic, like the lieutenant governor accused of rape and sexual assault by multiple women, or the DC councilman who believes jews control the weather.

The perfectionists would be obligated to keep going to third parties. Until the new party nominates someone disgusting.

Because the GOP and the conservative movement, has an illness that you are not willing to address, the legacy of the Southern Strategy:

https://newrepublic.com/article/1300...trump-possible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dBJ..._HMFtQ&index=7

Trump is the logical conclusion of what the GOP has been doing since the 1960s, he is not some demon who came out of nowhere and ruined everything, he enjoys widespread support in the GOP base, this is not an accident, someone like Trump is what the GOP base wants.

I was actually willing to be more forgiving to conservatives in the past and thought maybe conservatives wanted to do good things, but just lost their way, but now I think conservativism is bankrupt, both morally and intellectually and conservatives almost never want to look in the mirror and see their own flaws.

[GindyPosts]

Trump's erratic behavior and love of tariffs has slowed down the rate of economic growth from where it would otherwise have been, so no.

Tariffs hurt the domestic economy more than the international economy they intend to combat, particularly if the nation they're used against can just go elsewhere for resources. As a result, farmers and producers are stuck with depreciated goods and must either sell at a loss or lose everything they invested into during the previous cycle. Coupled with a terrible spring this past year for many people (I've discussed the corn fallout in Indiana), and it ends up with a lousy economy.

As much as the Chinese regime is atrocious and shouldn't be kowtowed to, Trump's idea of fighting them only inadvertently made China stronger.

[KOSLOX]

More generalized allegations based solely on political bias -- everyone here knows it's ridiculous for you to claim Obama is a routine liar.

Especially in contrast to the Republican party, and especially under Trump.

I don't think even you believe what you're trying to sell others.

Your party's reverence of Trump tells the real story.

Wait we're supposed to be taking anything James Bovard writes or says seriously?

Cool share, Mets. Pulling from a real mental powerhouse of our times.

[aja_christopher]

So, Presidents bear significant responsibility for economic success, and if things are going well we should back Trump for reelection?

If Democratic policies consistently create better economies "for the most people" over the long term, shouldn't you back them for election?

If Republican policies consistently create record deficits and recessions (and openly promote white nationalism), should you back them for re-election?

You're engaging in false equivalence yet again (three years vs twenty five years) instead of accepting data that you disagree with solely due to political bias.

Trump is riding a wave that Obama created -- it remains to be seen how long it lasts.

-----
"U.S. stock-market investors should know better than to base their investments on superstitions or trivia, but there’s a curious trend that has persisted for decades that could serve as yet another reason to be cautious about markets.

Since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who left office in 1909, every single Republican president has seen a recession take hold in their first term."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sh...erm-2018-05-02

-------
"The U.S. economy has officially entered the longest expansion in its history.

The nation’s gross domestic product has been growing for the last 121 consecutive months, the metric used to measure periods of sustained economic growth. That surpasses the 120-month expansion from 1991 to 2001. The most recent expansion started in 2009, after the global financial crisis in 2008. The Great Recession was the worst U.S. economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1920s and ’30s.

President Donald Trump regularly takes credit for the strong economy on his watch, although the expansion began under President Barack Obama and has continued on a relatively steady pace since 2009.

The Republican tax cuts and increased government spending last year did boost the nation’s gross domestic product. But those gains are now wearing off as spending slows, prices rise and Americans prepare for the personal income taxes to expire in 2025."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...s-history-last

[jetengine]

I'm not great with economics history but wasnt the last time Tarrifs were heavily used the Great Depression was the result ?

[Malvolio]

Mets' analogy about tire slashing doesn't wash. It's comparing apples and oranges. I mean, let's say a baseball player gets a hit every fourth at-bat, so he's hitting .250. That's considered a good, but not great batting average. However, if a basketball player makes a free throw every fourth time at the line, he has a free throw percentage of 25%. That's considered an absolutely terrible free throw percentage.

You have to look at the context. Most people don't slash their neighbor's tires, so even doing it once every seven days would be considered a bad thing. But lying? Well, there are all kinds of lies and all kinds of things to lie about. I mean, Trump lies about his golf game, but no one cares about that. But when he lies about the shenanigans he pulled to get himself elected, it's something we should all care about.

[aja_christopher]

I'm not great with economics history but wasnt the last time Tarrifs were heavily used the Great Depression was the result ?

Even most Republicans know they are counter-productive but they are too busy complaining about Democrats to bother holding their own in check.

-----
"The Smoot-Hawley Act is the Tariff Act of 1930. It increased 900 import tariffs by an average of 40% to 48%. Most economists blame it for worsening the Great Depression. It also contributed to the start of World War II.

In June 1930, Smoot-Hawley raised already high U.S. tariffs on foreign agricultural imports. The purpose was to support U.S. farmers who had been ravaged by the Depression. Instead, it raised food prices. It also compelled other countries to retaliate with their own tariffs. That forced global trade down by 65%.

Smoot-Hawley showed how dangerous trade protectionism is for the global economy. Since then, most world leaders advocate free trade agreements that promote increased trade for all participants."

https://www.thebalance.com/smoot-haw...-today-4136667

[Mister Mets]

If you are going without food here and now, it doesn't help when someone says that there are people starving in Africa (or wherever, or whenever).

It doesn't help to say that previous presidents have lied before, when Trump lies all the time here and now and every day.

The point being, stay focused on the present. Stay focused on what the current president is doing. It does no good to try an mitigate it by talking about the past when we need to deal with the present and the more immanent issues in front of us.

It does depend on the context of the argument. It's not about whether Trump lies but about the significance of that. The initial claim was that a Republican who isn't planning to vote for Trump shouldn't care about truth because Trump lies a lot.

The way I see it there are mainly two ways to think about lying in politics. Either it is bad or it is a legitimate strategy.

If it's bad, we should treat it as if it's bad every time it's done. We should encourage politicians to be better, to meet very high standards of honesty, and reward those that do.

If it's a legitimate strategy, it really doesn't matter how often it happens.

There's a middle ground in that one can argue that lying is usually bad but that there are some acceptable exceptions (IE- we could likely all agree that it's fine to mislead the mafia about the locations of people in witness protection.) We should still clearly state those exceptions.

There's a subtext to some of the discussion here that lying is okay sometimes, but I haven't seen a strong argument for that.

All that lists tells us is that voters in deep red states have a cult like mentality like many in the GOP and will give some real crooks high popularity ratings.

Greg Abbott is on your list of reasons to stay in the GOP. WBE profiled him here.


“I go into the office in the morning. I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home.” - Greg Abbott.

That's all it takes to be popular in a racist state.

Vermont, Maryland, New Hamspshire and Massachusetts are not red states.

Because the GOP and the conservative movement, has an illness that you are not willing to address, the legacy of the Southern Strategy:

https://newrepublic.com/article/1300...trump-possible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dBJ..._HMFtQ&index=7

Trump is the logical conclusion of what the GOP has been doing since the 1960s, he is not some demon who came out of nowhere and ruined everything, he enjoys widespread support in the GOP base, this is not an accident, someone like Trump is what the GOP base wants.

I was actually willing to be more forgiving to conservatives in the past and thought maybe conservatives wanted to do good things, but just lost their way, but now I think conservativism is bankrupt, both morally and intellectually and conservatives almost never want to look in the mirror and see their own flaws.

At least this is a clearly stated argument about why Republicans are beyond the pale.

I have expressed my own views on the southern strategy. I think coded and not-so-coded racism is exaggerated as a reason for Republican success in the South (it mainly comes down to the national media and technology making the parties less local and more national, technology allowing Northern Republicans to move to the South and boost the party there, and southern conservatives joining the conservative party.)

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3176370
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...gy#post3178044

It is also worth noting how long it took the transition from the South as going from solidly Republican to solidly Democratic to occur, and that when Democrats lost state legislatures in places like Arkansas (2012) and Alabama (2010) the majority of the people with really retrograde views on race in the old South (IE- they think intermarriage should be illegal and backed segregated schools) had been long dead.

Wait we're supposed to be taking anything James Bovard writes or says seriously?

Cool share, Mets. Pulling from a real mental powerhouse of our times.

Is he factually incorrect in quoting Obama, or identifying particular statements as lies when writing for The Hill?