The Moral Cowardice of the NeverTrumpumpkins

JasperL · Aug 22, 2016

cpwill said:
:shrug: the man himself knows little about policy, agreed. However, he has consistently argued for the efficacy of higher tax rates and/or that he wants to raise him. His head-fake pretend proposal that he put on a website (and doesn't even seem to have read) aside.

I read his proposal and listened to his speech. I cannot conclude that as a republican president he will push for tax increase or oppose tax cuts since he's running on the OPPOSITE!

I'm not discussing this further - at best he has no policy on taxes and we have no f'ing idea what he believes and so is a big question mark.

Yes he has.

I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare. Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice.

He also said that single payer works incredibly well in the middle of that GOP primary.

See above.

The individual income tax was found to be Unconstitutional, requiring an Amendment to pass, as taxes internal to the states were the province of the states.

So..... other than land sales :shrug: yeah, that was kind of where they were at.

The founders had a blank slate, and so could have written any tax into the constitution. And we're again off to the same point - tariffs =/= "progressive"

Who says over half? most folks are a mish-mash, and as your own data (below) points out, trust in trade follows trust in the President.

First, you said this, "Polled Opinions of Trade seem to blend in with Opinions of Economic Growth and Foreign Security - heavily dependent on whether or not one identifies with the party of the President in power" and for GOPers, support for trade plummeted under Bush and skyrocketed under Obama! So trust in trade on the GOP side followed their increasing TRUST in Obama????!!! What are you smoking, cause I want some!

Wait - so what? YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT REAGAN UP, AND CLAIMED HE BELIEVED IN PROTECTIONISM. :lol:

You misread me or I was unclear. Clearly Reagan believed in "free trade" which is heavily managed trade but fewer tariffs on imports to the U.S.

Actually the Gallup data demonstrate my claim. You will note, for example, that GOP support for trade slides concurrent with it's support for the Bush Administration, and that Democrat Support for Trade leaps when the Bush administration is replaced with the Obama administration.

And GOP support for free trade "leaps" in 2012 with Obama in power. You're fitting your conclusions to the data and it's pretty hilariously unhinged from any defensible theory.

Yup.

Yeah, this is what his defenders claim, as well. But no, there are too many examples of him out there claiming that (for example) Hillary Clinton would make a great president.

I would say that's a heavy guiding light, certainly.

Yup. As stated, the man supported the assault weapons ban, longer wait times, and getting rid of due process for gun owners.

So did Reagan, obvious progressive. LOL.

There is no point to this. You're trying like heck to paint this asshole as a progressive so you can blame everyone but the republican party and conservative media, but it's not going to work because actual progressives will reject him nearly unanimously, he's got the support of the GOP, and if he's elected he will be the GOP nominee not the democratic nominee. He's all yours, and you have your own party and the right wing media to thank for it.

But, democrats are begging the GOP to please, please, please pretend he's a fluke and that this is all the fault of democrats! It will hasten the end of the GOP as we know it, but ensure governing majorities in the House, Senate and WH for a decade or so while the new GOP is reborn.

JasperL · Aug 22, 2016

cpwill said:
Sure - but seeking to constantly grow the size and scope of government in and over our lives because you believe that is the most efficacious means of social organization (with a special carve-out for sexual libertinism)? That's solid progressivism.

By this measure, Reagan, Bush I and especially Bush II were progressives, which means the label has lost any useful value in distinguishing anything in politics since it considers Reagan and Bernie Sanders part of the same ideology. That isn't what Reagan or Bush I or II said, but what they DID in office, along with the GOP Congress during much of the Bush II era. So, congratulations, if we use define the term as you wish we will have destroyed the term as useful for any purpose other than right wingers like you signaling their disagreement with something by calling it "progressive."

Ted Kennedy was a vocal individual on the fringe?

That's not a response. You're not going to be able to define anyone's position as childishly as you're doing by using their actual quotes over time and their actual votes on a number of issues having to do with foreign policy. Frankly, as you know, it's one area where there is wide agreement with some liberals and some factions on the right wing, especially the libertarian wing, where Rand (and more especially Ron) Paul and Bernie have a lot in common with regard to war and peace and the proper role of the U.S. in the world. But this takes recognizing that the world isn't conservative OR progressive, something you have a problem with.

:shrug: I stated that he is the one who put his daughter on the stage at the RNC convention to repeat worn out (false) bromides about a gender pay gap, and I was correct. You are trying to goal-shift.

What I'm pointing out is the guy is 70 years old and has thousands of media appearances and as far as I know has not uttered a word on gender issues, and he sure as hell hasn't been a champion of any agenda, with his ONLY engagement on the issue a few bromides in the middle of a campaign. It's bizarre how your evidence works. What his daughter says about gender issues is proof of Trump's position even though AFAIK, the record is blank with "Trump" and "Women's issue" as the query. But when Trump says with his own mouth and put programs on the internet that contradict by 180 degrees your "progressive" label on guns, taxes, health care, whatever, you just dismiss what he actually says. Your entire discussion here could be the classroom example of "cherry picking" in the real world.

Hey, I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question. Which side of the political aisle is the one claiming that we can just make cosmetic changes (at most) and denying reality about the need to reform the entitlements, while claiming that we need to increase infrastructure spending?

(and Bernie's plan was just as hilarious as Trump's)

And I noticed you ignored that the entire republican side did the same but with tax cuts versus infrastructure spending. Frankly spending on infrastructure shouldn't be "liberal" or "conservative" since it's one area that we used to have broad based agreement that it was a necessary and beneficial role of government.

recommended reading. No, the left is no more Reality Based than the right is.

You're doing all you can to refute the notion with this series of posts. :lol:

WCH · Aug 22, 2016

My message to those who don't wish to vote for Trump but, can't fathom Hillary as POTUS, "what do you have to lose voting by for Trump?"

Casper · Aug 22, 2016

WCH said:
My message to those who don't wish to vote for Trump but, can't fathom Hillary as POTUS, "what do you have to lose voting by for Trump?"

A Narcissistic Con Man that is a complete idiot when it comes to how the Nation or the government works.

cpwill · Aug 22, 2016

JasperL said:
I read his proposal and listened to his speech. I cannot conclude that as a republican president he will push for tax increase or oppose tax cuts since he's running on the OPPOSITE!

Well, as I have pointed out - he's the one who said he was going to raise taxes, while running for President. Additionally, as demonstrated, the efficacy of higher tax rates is a position that he has held for decades.

I'm not discussing this further

Yup. Folks tend to do that when the demonstrable evidence is against them.

See above.

Yup.

The founders had a blank slate, and so could have written any tax into the constitution.

The founders didn't have a blank slate - they were working with what was available to them from previous generations, and the political restrictions of the time. One of which was a fairly strong antipathy to the notion of a tax-invasive federal government (we'd fought a rather long war over that notion fairly recently beforehand).\

And we're again off to the same point - tariffs =/= "progressive"

Increased economic protectionism goes hand in hand with increased government interference in the economy, picking winners and losers, which is absolutely a progressive instinct and tendency.

First, you said this, "Polled Opinions of Trade seem to blend in with Opinions of Economic Growth and Foreign Security - heavily dependent on whether or not one identifies with the party of the President in power" and for GOPers, support for trade plummeted under Bush and skyrocketed under Obama! So trust in trade on the GOP side followed their increasing TRUST in Obama????!!! What are you smoking, cause I want some!.... And GOP support for free trade "leaps" in 2012 with Obama in power. You're fitting your conclusions to the data and it's pretty hilariously unhinged from any defensible theory.

:doh: GOP opinion of trade in 2013 shot all the way up to where it had been.. in 2011, making 2012 simply a downward outlier (possibly partly driven by the heightened intensity of the election that year). Meanwhile, the Democrat experience clearly demonstrates my point, as does the GOP experience when one accounts for the exceedingly low popularity of Bush in his second term. Learn to read graphs.

You misread me or I was unclear. Clearly Reagan believed in "free trade" which is heavily managed trade but fewer tariffs on imports to the U.S.

You stated that Reagan was a believer in Protectionism. :shrug: You were incorrect. For you to then say "so what" when I demonstrated such was simply funny, because it meant you had forgotten that you were the one who had brought him up

It's worth additionally noting, however, that Presidents do impose tariffs for political reasons, even when they would otherwise argue it isn't good for the economy. Bush imposing steel tariffs in order to swing West Virginia would be an instance of such. Trump, however, has been a lifelong advocate of economic protectionism, and more generally of the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

So did Reagan, obvious progressive

No. Again, there is a difference between individual outlier policies (such as Obama's support for the TPP), and lifelong positions and consistencies.

There is no point to this. You're trying like heck to paint this asshole as a progressive so you can blame everyone but the republican party and conservative media,

On the contrary, as I have made clear in this thread and before, I very much blame the Republican Party and "Conservative" media outlets, such as FOX news, for the atrocity that is the Trump candidacy. I'm simply not going to pretend that "Republican candidate" means "Conservative", when it is clear that Trump is anything but.

But, democrats are begging the GOP to please, please, please pretend he's a fluke and that this is all the fault of democrats! It will hasten the end of the GOP as we know it, but ensure governing majorities in the House, Senate and WH for a decade or so while the new GOP is reborn.

No, Trumpism will hasten the shrinking of the GOP.

Or, he loses (as he might put it) Bigly, and the future of the GOP looks like:

We'll see.

JasperL · Aug 22, 2016

cpwill said:
Let's see it has been..... Hm. About 6 and a half years now since I listened to Rush with any kind of semi-regularity at all....

As do I and it's clear you have no idea what "progressives" in America in 2016 believe.

Says who? You are confusing "Progressives" with "people who tell a pollster they are very liberal, or a Democrat. Progressivism includes Nationalism (and has since the get-go), and a host of policies that the modern Democrat Left would have issues with.

Right, so Hitler and Mussolini were also progressives..... :roll:

Which real living human being in the world of politics is a progressive? I'm at a loss as to who this person can be. You don't ever quote anyone, just assert that "progressives" as you define them believe stuff that Trump believes.

Though, if you really want to pursue that argument it doesn't necessarily end well for you..

LOL, the NYT says it's democrats who reliably vote republican, which is AKA as the people who ushered in new GOP majorities in many parts of the South and who you claim as your own when they're voting like you want them to, but reject when they support Trump.

And the second link was obvious wingnut drivel, totally devoid of evidence or even a coherent argument other than "damn DEMOCRATS!!!"

Then let’s not pretend that it is (as you say) “nonsense”. It’s a reality, that one has to measure out (and, which it should be noted, is going to be a different curve for different kinds of taxation, some of which are significantly more elastic than others).

Right, the curve isn't nonsense, but how it's used by right wingers like Laffer himself and those who cite him for the awesome growth coming from tax cuts is nonsense.

Here's McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy." Well no evidence except the pattern of tax receipts which showed huge drops in nominal receipts and real receipts and as a share of GDP that took surpluses to deficits and barely recovered in real terms even at the top of the biggest bubble in generations.

Well, to be fair, he also claims he can save the entitlements by getting rid of waste fraud and abuse. Which is a position so ridiculous and disconnected from Reality that it is a common Progressive refrain

OK, quote progressives making this common refrain.... I'll wait.

Hm. No. Being on the Right Side of the Laffer Curve means that reduced rates will bring in increased revenues.

Of course, which is what right wingers believe. I've argued the point dozens of times on DP.

GOP proposals tend to argue that we are on the Left side of the curve when it comes to an increase in revenues, but that one should also account for dynamic effects, which will increase revenues off of the line of a static cut. More typical are items like the Rubio tax plan, which trades reduced revenues in the short term for greater growth and greater revenues in the long-run.

LOL, that's a Laffer Curve conclusion:

The plan would increase federal revenue on a dynamic basis by an annual $94 billion in the long run, following an estimated $1.7 trillion revenue loss over the initial ten year period. On a static basis, the plan would cost $414 billion annually.

So the initial Laffer curve effect is roughly 60% of the tax annual 400B/year tax cut will be recovered through higher growth, and over time more than 100% will be recovered through higher growth. There is no evidence this is possible, or that taxes can drive a 50% increase in investment in this country in a mature economy or that could boost long term growth by what is approximately 50% higher than the recent history. And analyses like this explicitly ignore existing deficits, crowding out, what the impact of large deficits will do to interest rates over time, or the effect of the necessary spending cuts on the economy. It's fantasy masquerading as growth projections, with the magic only after a period of 10 years, two or three presidential elections, 5 Congressional elections, etc. which is WAY, WAY outside any reasonable boundary for considering economic effects. For all we know in 10 years, we'll be a province of China.

Bottom line is supporting tax cuts is fine, as long as we cut spending to account for the decreases in revenue. Analyses like the one you cite pretend there is no need to cut spending because over time the tax cuts more than pay for themselves.

JasperL · Aug 22, 2016

hope you didn’t throw out your back with all that goal-post shifting :mrgreen: From “no plan” to “no plan that has passed both houses of Congress”.

They've never presented anything like a bill to replace Obamacare. Sorry.

It is a lie. It is as much a lie as claiming that in 2008 Candidate Obama had no plan. In fact, given that Republican plans actually have (contra your claim) gone through the legislative process, it is a greater lie than claiming that 2008 Candidate Obama had no plan

See, above. There have been lots of plans, just none of them that could command a majority in the House or Senate, and everyone knew were not serious attempts to define what "replace" might look like.

The poor have Medicaid and the sick have the High Risk pools.

If you think it's that simple, you're nearly completely ignorant about health care and the problems people have accessing health insurance. In Tennessee, if you're poor and not a woman with kids, you essentially cannot get Medicaid, no matter how poor you are. Before ACA it was worse, since there is a large gap from Medicaid eligible to 'can afford private insurance on the open market' with anything but perfect health. I see these people all the time. Work with a charity that houses the homeless, and almost none are on Medicaid (they're men, not taking care of kids) and so are nearly all (99% or more) uninsured unless they're veterans covered by the VA or they are somehow still married and on wife's plan. Etc...................

WCH · Aug 22, 2016

Casper said:
A Narcissistic Con Man that is a complete idiot when it comes to how the Nation or the government works.

We're already there, Dude.

roughdraft274 · Aug 22, 2016

WCH said:
Remember that his opponent in this fall’s presidential election is former secretary of state Hillary Clinton – a woman so breathtakingly corrupt and at the same time so unaccountably privileged that FBI Director James Comey practically indicted her on national television, and then declined to prosecute over her unauthorized and leaky private email server. As a profile in cowardice, Comey is tough to beat.

So silly. If he is so cowardly then why did he tear Hillary down so much? Your logic makes no sense. He beat her up on national TV. Cowards wouldn't have done that. Someone that just wanted to not cause any trouble wouldn't do that. He advised not to prosecute her because there wasn't a case to be made in his opinion. If you can't accept the results that are handed down by a well known unbiased and fair yet republican official then I think you need to look in the mirror and figure out why you are in such denial about reality.

JasperL · Aug 22, 2016

cpwill said:
Well, as I have pointed out - he's the one who said he was going to raise taxes, while running for President. Additionally, as demonstrated, the efficacy of higher tax rates is a position that he has held for decades.

Yup. Folks tend to do that when the demonstrable evidence is against them.

LMMFAO. Right, this, an actual analysis of Trump's actual tax plan doesn't count for evidence. And what he said in his big economic speech on August 8, 2016, and said this,

"Under my plan, no American company will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. Small businesses will benefit the most from this plan.

My plan will also help reduce the cost of childcare by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes.

We are also going to bring back trillions of dollars from American businesses that is now parked overseas. 33 Our plan will bring that cash home, applying a 10 percent tax. This money will be re-invested in states like Michigan.

Finally, no family will have to pay the death tax. American workers have paid taxes their whole lives, and they should not be taxed again at death – it’s just plain wrong. We will repeal it."

that's not evidence either. It's what he said, what he proposed, but I must ignore it because...... something!

GOP opinion of trade in 2013 shot all the way up to where it had been.. in 2011, making 2012 simply a downward outlier (possibly partly driven by the heightened intensity of the election that year). Meanwhile, the Democrat experience clearly demonstrates my point, as does the GOP experience when one accounts for the exceedingly low popularity of Bush in his second term. Learn to read graphs.

I do know how to read graphs. If you prefer, GOP support for trade increased from 45% to 51% during the Obama years. It contradicts your theory, since GOP support for Obama has plummeted during that period of time to near 0% (well, almost....).

You stated that Reagan was a believer in Protectionism. :shrug: You were incorrect. For you to then say "so what" when I demonstrated such was simply funny, because it meant you had forgotten that you were the one who had brought him up

Here was my quote:"Goodness, our founders and every President through roughly Reagan believed in protectionism and tariffs." What I meant to indicate was it ended when Reagan came into office, that he was the breaking point. I'll concede it was unclear, which is what I said earlier.

It's worth additionally noting, however, that Presidents do impose tariffs for political reasons, even when they would otherwise argue it isn't good for the economy. Bush imposing steel tariffs in order to swing West Virginia would be an instance of such. Trump, however, has been a lifelong advocate of economic protectionism, and more generally of the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

LOL, I've said all I know to say on this.

No. Again, there is a difference between individual outlier policies (such as Obama's support for the TPP), and lifelong positions and consistencies.

On the contrary, as I have made clear in this thread and before, I very much blame the Republican Party and "Conservative" media outlets, such as FOX news, for the atrocity that is the Trump candidacy. I'm simply not going to pretend that "Republican candidate" means "Conservative", when it is clear that Trump is anything but.

And as I keep saying, not-conservative =/= "progressive."

The guy is a populist ignoramus who uses trumpet calls (as opposed to dog whistles) for the the alt-right, and has obvious fascist and authoritarian tendencies with some of his biggest supporters in the white nationalist community. It's just some of why Trump has always been despised by actual "progressives" and will get approximately 0% of the 'progressive' vote in November.

Furthermore, Breitbart (no progressive outlet) has been his biggest supporter as has been Sean Hannity and many other right wing figures that are despised by progressives and who on any day they're not praising and promoting Trump openly despise progressives.

jamesrage · Aug 22, 2016

blaxshep said:
By not voting for Trump we will get Hillary which will move us even farther to the left.

Trump supports many of the same things she does. The proof is in the fact he donated over a hundred thousand dollars to Clinton and her foundation. The proof is also in the fact he praised the job that woman did, said she would make a great president and had supported, praised and donated to other liberal democrats and RINO republicans. And there is the fact she and her husband were guests of honor at Trump's last wedding. Trump is basically a liberal parody of a of a conservative.

Casper · Aug 22, 2016

WCH said:
We're already there, Dude.

So let's not repeat the mistake, oh wait, darn, guess we are stuck with it.

WCH · Aug 23, 2016

roughdraft274 said:
So silly. If he is so cowardly then why did he tear Hillary down so much? Your logic makes no sense. He beat her up on national TV. Cowards wouldn't have done that. Someone that just wanted to not cause any trouble wouldn't do that. He advised not to prosecute her because there wasn't a case to be made in his opinion. If you can't accept the results that are handed down by a well known unbiased and fair yet republican official then I think you need to look in the mirror and figure out why you are in such denial about reality.

Not sure why you're addressing me but, apparently the FBI is still finding evidence [e-mails and phone logs] Perhaps there may still be a case to prosecute.

Dittohead not! · Aug 23, 2016

jamesrage said:
Trump supports many of the same things she does. The proof is in the fact he donated over a hundred thousand dollars to Clinton and her foundation. The proof is also in the fact he praised the job that woman did, said she would make a great president and had supported, praised and donated to other liberal democrats and RINO republicans. And there is the fact she and her husband were guests of honor at Trump's last wedding. Trump is basically a liberal parody of a of a conservative.

Exactly right. He is a fraud who will try to make people believe that he is whatever he thinks they want him to be. What he really wants is self aggrandizement.

The Moral Cowardice of the NeverTrumpumpkins

JasperL

JasperL

WCH

Believer

Casper

cpwill

JasperL

JasperL

WCH

Believer

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

JasperL

jamesrage

Casper

WCH

Believer

Dittohead not!

master political analyst