• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton’s loss is one more nail in the coffin of center-left politics in the West

eohrnberger said:
True. We'll see what happens after January 20th.

But consider this.

Trump has a long history and experience in making deals in business, deals where each party had to give a little to get a little, and close the deal.

His, and many other business negotiator's, tactics are to come out with a strong starting position, and negotiate from this stance. Giving a little here, a little there, expecting the same from the other side of the negotiating table, and closing the deal by mutual agreement.

We've head the often repeated campaign rhetoric of 'repeal and replace ObamaCare', and once the election was won, it's there are features (assets he called them interestingly enough) of ObamaCare that would carry over. This softening of the original position is an invitation across the isle to talk about it and come up with a mutual agreement.

There are other examples, just think about it.

This would appear to be a foundation for a far better, and more productive, relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch than we have seen of late.
Click to expand...
Once again, I really believe that Trump is going to experience the same bull that Obama put up with during his first tenure--especially with all those unorthodox statements that Trump put out during his campaign (build a wall and make Mexico pay for it; deport people; trade deals--boy the devil is in the details on that one; sue the press; etc; ).

Did you see Trump as he was sitting with Obama in the WH after the election? Trump was white as a ghost! Only now is it sinking in what is in store for him--and even he still can't phantom the complexities in depth. Want to know why? Simple. Trump is a businessman, not a statesman, and this is what you are thinking too, eohrnberger.

In Congress it's a whole new ballgame. Those people are working probably more on their reelections than they are Bills. How in the world can you simply close the deal on that kind of pressure?

Tax cuts for the rich? Yeah. But someone like Jeb Bush or John Kasich would have done just as good of a job. But wait until Trump gets to all of that unorthodox rhetoric he fed the voters. The devil is in the details and it's real hard to kick him out. Be rest assured.

I hope that I'm wrong about him, but meanwhile lets all enjoy the honeymoon.
 
yankintx said:
Clinton still has the popular vote, and Obama has high approval ratings, sonething a GOP Pres can only dream of, your prognosis of the progressive movement death is incorrect.
Click to expand...

And soon neither will be president.
 
j-mac said:
Up til this point I'd have fully agreed with you, but we will both have to wait and see if Trump can be successful in promising to reel in regulation, and whittle down these over bloated government agencies....
Click to expand...

I predict not even close. His three biggest spending ideas: illegal immigration control ("wall" plus interior enforcement/deportation), much more military/VA spending and ($1 trillion?) more infrastructure "greatness" spending coupled with significant (50%?) tax cuts for "job creators" would require getting rid of over 1/3 of the rest of all current federal spending. Of course, Trump will insist that the resulting "economic growth" will be fantastic, "nearly" immediate and huge thus not to worry about any "temporary" deficits - just like Reagan's plan. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That sounds good in theory but what we actually have is the party for a bigger federal government and the party for a huge federal government. What that means is that "compromise" is simply playing "bipartisan" games with the rate of federal government growth.

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/rise-capita-federal-spending
Click to expand...

I agree. Our problem is that we run on a ticket and then compromise. We have made huge amounts of progress on a ticket but we never stick to it. Politicians get in office and fold. We never seem to hold the line when it comes to budget. I don't want us to have control and go nuts spending. The idea of using earmarks again has already been floated.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I agree. Our problem is that we run on a ticket and then compromise. We have made huge amounts of progress on a ticket but we never stick to it. Politicians get in office and fold. We never seem to hold the line when it comes to budget. I don't want us to have control and go nuts spending. The idea of using earmarks again has already been floated.
Click to expand...

Name anywhere close to $1 trillion in specific federal spending that Trump said he would cut. Trump did say (over and over) specifically that he would both cut taxes and spend $1 trillion on infrastructure to "make America great again".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Name anywhere close to $1 trillion in specific federal spending that Trump said he would cut. Trump did say (over and over) specifically that he would both cut taxes and spend $1 trillion on infrastructure to "make America great again".
Click to expand...

Is he even in office yet? Does he have a full cabinet? Has he presented any proposals to Congress yet? Has he been sworn in yet? I'm willing to wait a few months to see what he proposes and how Congress reacts to it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I predict not even close. His three biggest spending ideas: illegal immigration control ("wall" plus interior enforcement/deportation), much more military/VA spending and ($1 trillion?) more infrastructure "greatness" spending coupled with significant (50%?) tax cuts for "job creators" would require getting rid of over 1/3 of the rest of all current federal spending. Of course, Trump will insist that the resulting "economic growth" will be fantastic, "nearly" immediate and huge thus not to worry about any "temporary" deficits - just like Reagan's plan. ;)
Click to expand...

Ok, so you think his elimination of 2 existing regulations, for every new regulation won't get legs?
 
NonoBadDog said:
Is he even in office yet? Does he have a full cabinet? Has he presented any proposals to Congress yet? Has he been sworn in yet? I'm willing to wait a few months to see what he proposes and how Congress reacts to it.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? WTF was the POTUS campaign about if not Trump's vs. Hillary's proposals?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so you think his elimination of 2 existing regulations, for every new regulation won't get legs?
Click to expand...

Nope, and even if it did happen that would not cut federal spending; although it might well help to cut private spending or "compliance costs".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, and even if it did happen that would not cut federal spending; although it might well help to cut private spending or "compliance costs".
Click to expand...

So, what do you think would be a successful strategy?
 
j-mac said:
One more hand wringing article that proves that the liberal left is on its way out, and that Marxist influenced liberalism/progressivism doesn't work when the light is shinned in....thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes.....I am still recalling so many leftwing posters on this forum chanted "This things over!" "Get used to the term "madame president Hillary Clinton". Even in the last few days leading up to the election, the chants amounted to: "But but but, Trump can't win. Look at what Hillary starts out with. There is no path to a Trump victory!":2dance:


New democrat party logo after the 2016 election-------> :stars:
 
j-mac said:
So, what do you think would be a successful strategy?
Click to expand...

First get rid of the current federal deficit, stop all "nation building" outside of our own borders, start reducing the national debt and then actually abide by the "pay as you go" requirement for all future federal "spending" laws. Trump will soon realize or, more accurately, be forced to admit that there is no "small government" way to buy votes. The problem is that republicants constantly talk the talk of less federal government but will not walk the walk to get there.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
First get rid of the current federal deficit
Click to expand...

could you lay out how?

stop all "nation building" outside of our own borders
Click to expand...

I would love to see it, but we can not just pull out of the rest of the world.....

start reducing the national debt and then actually abide by the "pay as you go" requirement for all future federal "spending" laws.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the "penny plan" would work?

Trump will soon realize or, more accurately, be forced to admit that there is no "small government" way to buy votes. The problem is that republicants constantly talk the talk of less federal government but will not walk the walk to get there.
Click to expand...

Well, there's that smug Libertarian superiority that no one likes....First, Trump isn't a Republican, Second, Libertarians can't muster enough votes to hold a position high enough up to have a record on pronouncements like yours here...so, pretty easy to criticize when they will never have to prove that they could do it, don't you think?
 
ObamacareFail said:
Yes.....I am still recalling so many leftwing posters on this forum chanted "This things over!" "Get used to the term "madame president Hillary Clinton". Even in the last few days leading up to the election, the chants amounted to: "But but but, Trump can't win. Look at what Hillary starts out with. There is no path to a Trump victory!":2dance:


New democrat party logo after the 2016 election-------> :stars:
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, if Trump keeps the ppaca as it is, are you going to keep the username "obamacarefail?" Again, just curious.
 
j-mac said:
1) could you lay out how?



2) I would love to see it, but we can not just pull out of the rest of the world.....



3) Do you think that the "penny plan" would work?



4) Well, there's that smug Libertarian superiority that no one likes....First, Trump isn't a Republican, Second, Libertarians can't muster enough votes to hold a position high enough up to have a record on pronouncements like yours here...so, pretty easy to criticize when they will never have to prove that they could do it, don't you think?
Click to expand...

1) That requires cutting spending and/or raising taxes rather than borrowing from future generations.
2) Yes you can or insist on compensation for expenses incurred on their behalf.
3) It would be a start, but budgets should be based on priorities - not by treating everything equally.
4) Exactly my point - you can't buy votes with cuts. Rest assured that each and every federal dollar spent has someone that wants (needs?) it to continue. Nobody can run against the two Santa Claus parties.
 
Bob N said:
Once again, I really believe that Trump is going to experience the same bull that Obama put up with during his first tenure--especially with all those unorthodox statements that Trump put out during his campaign (build a wall and make Mexico pay for it; deport people; trade deals--boy the devil is in the details on that one; sue the press; etc; ).
Once again, I call out that Obama really didn't know, and doesn't know, how to negotiate with anyone, especially not congress. Where as Trump has an entire career in negotiating and thinking outside the box to get things done in a timely manner. Also previously pointed out, were Trump's, and many other's, effective negotiating tactics (but I guess you missed that part of my post) :roll:

Bob N said:
Did you see Trump as he was sitting with Obama in the WH after the election? Trump was white as a ghost! Only now is it sinking in what is in store for him--and even he still can't phantom the complexities in depth. Want to know why? Simple. Trump is a businessman, not a statesman, and this is what you are thinking too, eohrnberger.
Click to expand...

I think you are imaging things, driven by your partisan ideology. White as a ghost? :lamo
Bright camera lights and fair skinned.
But I understand your need to have everyone bow and cower before your Messiah. :roll:

Bob N said:
In Congress it's a whole new ballgame. Those people are working probably more on their reelections than they are Bills. How in the world can you simply close the deal on that kind of pressure?

Tax cuts for the rich? Yeah. But someone like Jeb Bush or John Kasich would have done just as good of a job. But wait until Trump gets to all of that unorthodox rhetoric he fed the voters. The devil is in the details and it's real hard to kick him out. Be rest assured.

I hope that I'm wrong about him, but meanwhile lets all enjoy the honeymoon.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm reading that a 100% disingenuous from you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Risky Thicket said:
Are you suggesting that racist white cops don't profile and arrest and harm black people?
Click to expand...

No.

Risky Thicket said:
Are you suggesting that members of the Religious Right don't discriminate against gays?
Click to expand...

No.

Risky Thicket said:
Are you saying that nativists do not discriminate against immigrants, especially non-Christian and non-white ones?
Click to expand...

No.

Risky Thicket said:
Are you suggesting that men treat women equally in the socially, in the home, at work, even in places of worship?
Click to expand...

No.

Risky Thicket said:
Are you saying that poor people in America have every bit of opportunity as rich people and in instances where wealthy have an advantage the wealthy work quickly and diligently to see that the advantage and opportunity gap between the poor and the wealthy is closed?
Click to expand...

No.

Risky Thicket said:
You telling us that you support raw capitalism, banks too big to fail, corporate monopoly of commercial air travel, information and entertainment, healthcare, energy, pharmaceuticals and the military industrial complex, to name a few?
Click to expand...

No.

Risky Thicket said:
These traits unify us as a nation? Nothing like "the land of the free" imprisoning more people than any other nation on earth and having a prison population that is for the most part non-white. There's unity in bondage I suppose.
Click to expand...

I don't count the estimated 2 million criminal aliens in this country. Deporting them would be a start in putting this country back together.

Risky Thicket said:
You're talking about the American invasion of Iraq? Or the entire Middle East in general where Americans were/are the victims and the US government is needed along with trillions of dollars to remedy the situation of the moment.
Click to expand...

No.

Risky Thicket said:
Do you mean the problem of the US sugar industry, the energy issue, the school voucher solution to private school issue, big bank failure issue or the War on Drugs?
Click to expand...

Not in particular. What I AM saying is that in their emphasis on all of these social issues and "oppressed peoples," the Democratic Party has moved to the left and forsaken its Rooseveltian historical base--the high school-educated, blue-collar working stiff. In the process, it's left the door wide open for a Trumpian Revolution. He is now in the process of recasting the Republican Party from Reagan conservatism to Trumpian populism. Traditional conservatives should either get on the bus, get the **** out of the way, or risk being run over. The "Liberal Left" needs to just move to California, Massachusetts, or New York, where they and their friends can release all of their criminals to create a bicoastal "Tritopia." Maybe they can toss in Oregon and Washington, which former Californians have screwed up, and call it "Pentopia." Too bad Trump can't build a wall around it, too.
 
Cardinal said:
Out of curiosity, if Trump keeps the ppaca as it is, are you going to keep the username "obamacarefail?" Again, just curious.
Click to expand...

Lol.....Yes because judging by his appointments and his VP, Trumps going to turn hard left on us any day now.

I suspect he'll turn into a male version of Elizabeth Warren within the next week or so
 
Cardinal said:
Out of curiosity, if Trump keeps the ppaca as it is, are you going to keep the username "obamacarefail?" Again, just curious.
Click to expand...

I seriously do not think Trump will leave Obamacare as it is. It would be like shouting: "I only want one term!" However in the unlikelyhood that he did keep it as it is, yes, I would keep my username. Obamacare is still a big fat failure. it is in fact collapsing under it's own weight.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I seriously do not think Trump will leave Obamacare as it is. It would be like shouting: "I only want one term!" However in the unlikelyhood that he did keep it as it is, yes, I would keep my username. Obamacare is still a big fat failure. it is in fact collapsing under it's own weight.
Click to expand...

And if he gets rid of it in its current form will you still keep your username?
 
Cardinal said:
And if he gets rid of it in its current form will you still keep your username?
Click to expand...

Perhaps then I will change it to: "ObamaCareFailed". ...or in honor of Hillary "DingDongTheWitchisDead"

 
ObamacareFail said:
Perhaps then I will change it to: "ObamaCareFailed". ...or in honor of Hillary "DingDongTheWitchisDead"
Click to expand...

Interesting. Since you define yourself by the failure of other people or policies, might I suggest that your next username be "The Great Tulip Speculation was a huge investment disaster and an educational tool for how we approach present day stock bubbles"?
 
Cardinal said:
Interesting. Since you define yourself by the failure of other people or policies, might I suggest that your next username be "The Great Tulip Speculation was a huge investment disaster and an educational tool for how we approach present day stock bubbles"?
Click to expand...


You can suggest, however I tend to make my user name an expression of politics.
 
j-mac said:
Irrelevant, popular vote doesn't elect Presidents in this country, EC does....demo's didn't win the EC period.



See, this is another misleading stat put up by the libs....Obama does enjoy good approval ratings, however, if you look at the 'right direction/wrong direction' numbers, clearly a majority of American's feel that the country is headed in the WRONG direction....That shows me that while people like Obama, and think that maybe he would be a fun guy to have a beer with, they clearly think his leadership was lacking....That is why, IMHO, a majority of the country outside the big city population centers on the East, and West coast went for Trump....



Not true as well...Reagan also left office with good approval numbers...Enough so that H.W. was elected to succeed him...Something the demo's can't pull off in the day and age.



I assure you I am not the writer of the WaPo story....
Click to expand...

Thankfully, its only your opinion, and cut direct from right wing blogs, the Progressive movement is going no were.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? WTF was the POTUS campaign about if not Trump's vs. Hillary's proposals?
Click to expand...

Wait. Let me guess, you want instant gratification and everything to happen immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom