Explain Trump and the Big Crazy

[kidfury]

"Trump kind of threw a wrench in the neoliberal machine in that he brought so much instability, alienating china/Europe, kissing tyrants asses, and obvious personal grifting."

So neoliberals are pro-stability, anti-kissing tyrants asses, anti-personal grifting, and pro productive relations with china and Europe.

OK

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

I disagree. Trumpism is a reaction to neoliberalism, which both parties have supported.

Remember when the common consensus was there is no difference in R and D?

Trump kind of threw a wrench in the neoliberal machine in that he brought so much instability, alienating china/Europe, kissing tyrants asses, and obvious personal grifting.

I think the true test will be 'when' Biden brings back the Obama agenda and a smarter, meaner trumpist arises to inspire the disenfranchised dying middle American. As COVID economic realities magnify their numbers and anger.

That common consensus was wrong. There are demonstrable policy differences between R and D.

After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services.

Let's start with massive tax cuts for the rich.

Does HRC support that, or does she not?

 

[Woke AF]

That common consensus was wrong. There are demonstrable policy differences between R and D.

not in foreign affairs or even domestic policies.

'
Let's start with massive tax cuts for the rich.

Does HRC support that, or does she not?

According to my reading of Wikipedia she is a neolib-lite. To me, her words and actions are far different.

 

[kidfury]

this conversation is weird. "Hey, I can see better in the dark, with the lights off!"

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

not in foreign affairs or even domestic policies.

'
Let's start with massive tax cuts for the rich.

Does HRC support that, or does she not?

According to my reading of Wikipedia she is a neolib-lite. To me, her words and actions are far different.

You must have missed this sentence from her Wikipedia page:

Clinton voted against President Bush's two major tax cut packages, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.[269]

The guy she was married to signed NAFTA and that makes her neoliberal, but the guy she was married to signed the 1993 tax increases predominantly on the rich into law, and crickets.

She has a demonstrable and tangible record of voting against tax cuts for the rich, full stop, end of story. So that's item #1 where there's a hard and fast distinction, along with a concrete track record as a Senator, and as a candidate for President.

There's more where this came from. Do you want to proceed in order with the list of things from the Guardian article Reagan/Thatcher were for, that spoiler alert: HRC was against, and see where HRC stands?

 

[Surfdog]

when a specific R wins, yeah (trump), but I think you know that, don’t you?
Hopefully the Rs put up someone less retarded in 4 years.

It's been the go to call, since Reagan.

Name an R since then that hasn't had Dem's label their win as retard power.

 

[kidfury]

Bush Sr. (though his VP was low IQ).

 

[Ranga]

The QAnon/Great Reset/Cannibal Democrats sticking straws in babies like Capri Suns is awesomely Loony Tunes. Ima start assembling my MadMax dune buggy and Thunderdome.

 

[potato-nator]

E. Warren might be being overlooked so as not to put her Senate seat in play.

The Dems would be mortified to lose in Massachusetts.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

E. Warren might be being overlooked so as not to put her Senate seat in play.

The Dems would be mortified to lose in Massachusetts.

She'll be overlooked because the Senate GOP hates her guts and she couldn't get confirmed.

 

[Woke AF]

You must have missed this sentence from her Wikipedia page:



The guy she was married to signed NAFTA and that makes her neoliberal, but the guy she was married to signed the 1993 tax increases predominantly on the rich into law, and crickets.

She has a demonstrable and tangible record of voting against tax cuts for the rich, full stop, end of story. So that's item #1 where there's a hard and fast distinction, along with a concrete track record as a Senator, and as a candidate for President.

There's more where this came from. Do you want to proceed in order with the list of things from the Guardian article Reagan/Thatcher were for, that spoiler alert: HRC was against, and see where HRC stands?

As I said it is a vast and complicated territory. These terms neoliberal and neoconservative overlap and support each other in many areas.
Her tax record does not define her or is the full story for neoliberals. She was top of the line democrat and the dnc establishment has been pushing neoliberal policies for many years. Label her whatever you like, I don't believe she would challenge that agenda.

If you want to keep pushing her and thus think you win something, she is all yours, but I suggest bringing a large bag cuz' her history as a politician is butt ugly.

 

[afoaf]

The QAnon/Great Reset/Cannibal Democrats sticking straws in babies like Capri Suns is awesomely Loony Tunes. Ima start assembling my MadMax dune buggy and Thunderdome.

if you have cocaine and yeast to contribute, I will let you join my kingdom of Neo Rhodesia

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

As I said it is a vast and complicated territory. These terms neoliberal and neoconservative overlap and support each other in many areas.
Her tax record does not define her or is the full story for neoliberals. She was top of the line democrat and the dnc establishment has been pushing neoliberal policies for many years. Label her whatever you like, I don't believe she would challenge that agenda.

If you want to keep pushing her and thus think you win something, she is all yours, but I suggest bringing a large bag cuz' her history as a politician is butt ugly.

You posted a Guardian article in support of your claim she's a neoliberal. We can go through it, point by point, and I can dunk on you.

Or you can say something vague and evasive; saying you don't think she'd do something that, in the first example, she straight up did in the Senate.

 

[Woke AF]

You posted a Guardian article in support of your claim she's a neoliberal. We can go through it, point by point, and I can dunk on you.

Or you can say something vague and evasive; saying you don't think she'd do something that, in the first example, she straight up did in the Senate.

I posted the article for those who said they do not know what neoliberalism is. Period.
As I said I have no interest in her, she is moot.

So you say she does not support neoliberal policies?
How would you label her?

And you are keeping your narrow frame of focusing on her, not neoliberalism, why? But you keep dunking away because any slander I have done to her should be corrected.

Or is this all about you and making inaccurate political predictions

 

[kidfury]

Doesn't seem like neoliberalism and neoconservativism would have a lot of overlap, but I admittedly know nothing about them. I do have some knowledge of the English language, though.

 

[StuAzole]

Doesn't seem like neoliberalism and neoconservativism would have a lot of overlap, but I admittedly know nothing about them. I do have some knowledge of the English language, though.

Neoliberalism and neoconservatism can overlap when it comes to involving ourselves in other nations' business. Neocons want to keep our position as world police and neolibs will support it if it means implementation of more free-market trade policy.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

1. I posted the article for those who said they do not know what neoliberalism is. Period.
2. As I said I have no interest in her, she is moot.

3. So you say she does not support neoliberal policies?
4. How would you label her?

5. And you are keeping your narrow frame of focusing on her, not neoliberalism, why? But you keep dunking away because any slander I have done to her should be corrected.

6. Or is this all about you and making inaccurate political predictions

1. Yeah, and that article, paragraph by paragraph, goes through facets of neoliberalism that almost the entirety of the (D) party is against.
2. I'd be happy to have this argument about Obama or any prominent politician in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Klobuchar, Biden, Obama, Kerry, the party platform in 2016 as 2020 if that is a suitable facsimile of "the DNC", or the party's floor votes on relevant legislation.
3. Not as laid out by the Guardian, no, and between senate votes and campaign platforms, it's an easy case to make. Like, the USA is not in South America, easy.
4. Center-left? A bit hawkish for the Democratic Party?
5. As stated in #2, I'm happy to move onto basically any other Democrat, or reasonably representative collection thereof, on planet Earth.
6. No, I was wrong; that's easy to admit. I thought Trump stood a great chance of pulling it out. This was incorrect. I Sharkbiscuit, was in point of fact inaccurate, and I am now holding that L.

This is about the Guardian's definition of neoliberalism, and how it is the sole province of the GOP.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

Neoliberalism and neoconservatism can overlap when it comes to involving ourselves in other nations' business. Neocons want to keep our position as world police and neolibs will support it if it means implementation of more free-market trade policy.

According to the Guardian, they also overlap on tax policy (pro tax cuts), trade unions (anti trade union), deregulation (pro-deregulation), privatisation (pro-privatisation), outsourcing (pro-outsourcing)...

Put me down for don't understand the distinctions. Particularly as defined by the Guardian.

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

 

[Ifallalot]

This isn't trolling -- I'm vehemently apolitical, but this Trump-crazy sh!t has me fascinated. It's not just racists and 1%ers - respectable people are embracing the QAnon, conspiracy theory, Deep State nuttiness and Trump is our messiah, here to deliver us from political purgatory to social rapture. He, by all accounts, seems a despicable human being, but is lauded as our savior. He's the one good guy billionaire, and he's here to make things right.

What's the attraction?

He lost man.

It's ok, you can move on now

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

He lost man.

It's ok, you can move on now

That poster has posted in political basically never in over 12 years on the erBB.