The Left better brace itself for war

[FieldTheorist]

What is more amazing is that you say would not vote for Hillary even when the man you quote in your sig says he would. You are one of the few hopefully. Chomsky also says that Sanders does not have "much of a chance". You don't listen to him either. Perhaps you are too caught up in the excitement of a "socialist" candidate to think clearly. You need to chill out and get back to reality. Voters are not ready for any candidate that calls himself socialist. I know you disagree but who else needs to tell you that for you to believe it?

Noam Chomsky on Hillary Clinton 2016: I'd 'absolutely' vote for her - POLITICO

Wow, you can't even make one intellectually honest argument, can you?

1.) Noam Chomsky has made identical arguments against Hillary. Chomsky has referred to Bill (for the al-Shifa bombings) and Hillary (for the various Arab Spring bombings) as American terrorists and monsters. You can trivially drag up quotes from him and myself that are in virtually 100% agreement on neoliberalism. With that said, my respect for Noam Chomsky doesn't mean that I'll take marching orders from him --another thing Chomsky would be the first to reject. The context that he said he'd vote for Hillary had nothing to do with the primaries, where he's openly supported Sanders, and instead has to do with the general elections and only in comparison to how crazy Republicans have gotten.

2.) I never said that I wouldn't vote for Hillary. I said that I will lay the bricks to ending the neoliberal control that Hillary her fellow neoliberal DNC politicians have, and the control that the corporate oligarchs whom they all take their marching orders from have. I will be fighting that as long as I have to.

 

[DiAnna]

This is quickly descending into an emotional tirade, so we're through here. I like you, DiAnna. I have no intention whatsoever of getting into a flame war with you. I hope our interactions in the future upstairs will go better.

You're right. I was upset and out of line. My apologies.

 

[Jack Hays]

Is Hillary just a Republican-lite? No and yes. The term "Republican" is vague; Hillary is definitely to the far right of, for instance, the Republican president Eisenhower. So was Carter, so was Bill, so was Obama.

I believe that is significantly overstated, to say the least.

 

[Jack Hays]

What Michigan Means for Bernie vs. Hillary
Ed Kilgore, New York Magazine

 

[Jack Hays]

Turnout Surging in Republican Primaries--Sinking for Democrats

 

[FieldTheorist]

I believe that is significantly overstated, to say the least.

Then you don't have a very firm grasp of the policies represented by all of these presidents. On an individual policy basis, of course, it depends, but pretty largely any Republican prior to 1970 is going to be more liberal on economics (though not necessarily social issues) than any Democrat after 1990. The big change there is, of course, a combination of Carter and Reagan rejecting the New Deal (i.e. Keynesian Social Democracy) and replacing it with the Neoliberal Capitalism. It was an awful trade and it was a step backwards. Everyone has suffered.

 

[Jack Hays]

Then you don't have a very firm grasp of the policies represented by all of these presidents. On an individual policy basis, of course, it depends, but pretty largely any Republican prior to 1970 is going to be more liberal on economics (though not necessarily social issues) than any Democrat after 1990. The big change there is, of course, a combination of Carter and Reagan rejecting the New Deal (i.e. Keynesian Social Democracy) and replacing it with the Neoliberal Capitalism. It was an awful trade and it was a step backwards. Everyone has suffered.

Keynesian policies have continued regardless of the language used, and there's no real Keynesian link to Social Democracy. Your argument works better for Nixon than Eisenhower.

[h=3]Dwight D. Eisenhower - Conservapedia[/h]www.conservapedia.com/Dwight_D._Eisenhower


Conservapedia


Jul 23, 2015 - General of the Army Dwight David ("Ike") Eisenhower (1890-1969) was an ... As president he followed conservative economic policies ...‎Early career - ‎Interwar years - ‎World War II - ‎Postwar

 

[gavinfielder]

Stop creating divides when there are none. Sanders agrees that Hillary is NOT a Republican lite. If you support him you should listen to him.

First of all, the premise is crap. I can wholeheartedly support Sanders without agreeing with everything he says or especially voting how he says I should vote.

That said, it's also understandable that he says Hillary is not republican lite because his strategy is to build bridges, not expose divides, no matter that they're already there.

I don't believe Clinton would ever offer Sanders a position in her administration, certainly not a position of any significance. Even in the unlikely event that she did offer him some symbolic role, I doubt he would take it.

Well actually, there was an article just today or yesterday that claimed they were talking about it (though I agree it's a long shot that Bernie would take it) and if you think about it, it's the perfect pacification of the war this thread is about.

Bernie doesn't want this war, as important as he thinks it is to fight it. He's repeatedly told his followers they should vote Clinton should he lose the nomination. Obviously many of them aren't going to no matter what he says. If he wanted to encourage it, being vice president would be a good way to do so.

It would still be a horrible capitulation and a loss, as the vice presidency isn't that powerful of a position, but that democrats win this election is a larger goal to him than his campaign winning this election.

General of the Army Dwight David ("Ike") Eisenhower (1890-1969) was an ... As president he followed conservative economic policies

Either way, we need him back. Our roads need so much work!

 

[FieldTheorist]

Keynesian policies have continued regardless of the language used, and there's no real Keynesian link to Social Democracy. Your argument works better for Nixon than Eisenhower.

[h=3]Dwight D. Eisenhower - Conservapedia[/h]www.conservapedia.com/Dwight_D._Eisenhower


Conservapedia


Jul 23, 2015 - General of the Army Dwight David ("Ike") Eisenhower (1890-1969) was an ... As president he followed conservative economic policies ...‎Early career - ‎Interwar years - ‎World War II - ‎Postwar

*Sigh* Okay, you're quoting from Conservapedia so you've officially lost your case, but to clarify in my last post to you:

1.) Eisenhower, like Nixon, JFK, Johnson, etc, all protected (or else expanded) the New Deal, never lowered (or else increased) taxes on the wealthy, did not propose deregulation, and so on. The sense in which Eisenhower was "conservative" is the same sense in which Hillary is a "liberal." Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are not independent from the time when the term is used. Keep in mind, 200 years ago being conservative/Rightist meant being a Monarchist.

2.) We have not continued Keynesian economics, despite your completely, demonstrably erroneous argument to the contrary. Again, if you were even slightly serious about any of this, you'd understand that the current economic model, post Volcker as Chairman of the Fed, is based on supply-side economics.


But like I said, we're done here. People can research this up themselves. Seriously, please do, you'll be a better person for it.

 

[Kobie]

Keynesian policies have continued regardless of the language used, and there's no real Keynesian link to Social Democracy. Your argument works better for Nixon than Eisenhower.

[h=3]Dwight D. Eisenhower - Conservapedia[/h]www.conservapedia.com/Dwight_D._Eisenhower


Conservapedia


Jul 23, 2015 - General of the Army Dwight David ("Ike") Eisenhower (1890-1969) was an ... As president he followed conservative economic policies ...‎Early career - ‎Interwar years - ‎World War II - ‎Postwar

Conservapedia lol

 

[iguanaman]

Wow, you can't even make one intellectually honest argument, can you?

1.) Noam Chomsky has made identical arguments against Hillary. Chomsky has referred to Bill (for the al-Shifa bombings) and Hillary (for the various Arab Spring bombings) as American terrorists and monsters. You can trivially drag up quotes from him and myself that are in virtually 100% agreement on neoliberalism. With that said, my respect for Noam Chomsky doesn't mean that I'll take marching orders from him --another thing Chomsky would be the first to reject. The context that he said he'd vote for Hillary had nothing to do with the primaries, where he's openly supported Sanders, and instead has to do with the general elections and only in comparison to how crazy Republicans have gotten.

2.) I never said that I wouldn't vote for Hillary. I said that I will lay the bricks to ending the neoliberal control that Hillary her fellow neoliberal DNC politicians have, and the control that the corporate oligarchs whom they all take their marching orders from have. I will be fighting that as long as I have to.

My point is Sanders is clearly not in favor of being the "spoiler" that allows a Trump to win and you agree. The other stuff I have no problem with though I will add that undoing the free trade agreements and creating a trade war is something Trump has talked about a lot. Curiously, both Sanders and Trump seem to have won Michigan with that SAME rhetoric. Do you honesty think that is something that Sanders would or could do?

 

[FieldTheorist]

My point is Sanders is clearly not in favor of being the "spoiler" that allows a Trump to win and you agree.

If you mean that Sanders stands the best chance to win against Trump, then I agree. If you also mean that Hillary will probably win against Trump, then yes, I agree. If we're talking about anything else, the odds immediately are against Hillary, and given the fact that the Republican party is headed for a contested convention, that should scare everyone. It won't, because people largely have bought into Hillary's mythos about being more electable.

The other stuff I have no problem with though I will add that undoing the free trade agreements and creating a trade war is something Trump has talked about a lot. Curiously, both Sanders and Trump seem to have won Michigan with that SAME rhetoric. Do you honesty think that is something that Sanders would or could do?

Would do? Yes, every indication in his voting record --and we can go back and check-- is that he voted against, fought against, and was vocally dismissive of NAFTA and the other trade agreements for his entire career.

Could do? I'm not sure, it's not impossible that he could renegotiate parts of our free trade deals. Another pretty awesome thing is that he can prevent further trade deals. He's against the TPP, no one (who understands Hillary's record and involvement with it) believes that Hillary is against the TPP. So the fact that he is against the TPP is pretty much enough for most voters.

Also, in the contest between "Won't even acknowledge your problems" and "Will acknowledge your problems, but may not be able to do anything about it," there's one you go with and one you don't. Michigan made that pretty clear last night.


EDIT 1: Part of the Sanders' campaign is forcing mainstream politicians to admit that they may not rig the system in the favor of their donors, and if they want to pass the modern American litmus test, they're going to need to acknowledge what American's problems are and that something will need to be done about it.

EDIT 2: I also like how this question is never asked in regards to Hillary. Can Hillary actually deliver on any of her campaign promises for black Southerners, for which we know full well all attempts to help them --by Obama or otherwise-- will by stymied by the State governors and legislatures.

 

[iguanaman]

If you mean that Sanders stands the best chance to win against Trump, then I agree. If you also mean that Hillary will probably win against Trump, then yes, I agree. If we're talking about anything else, the odds immediately are against Hillary, and given the fact that the Republican party is headed for a contested convention, that should scare everyone. It won't, because people largely have bought into Hillary's mythos about being more electable.



Would do? Yes, every indication in his voting record --and we can go back and check-- is that he voted against, fought against, and was vocally dismissive of NAFTA and the other trade agreements for his entire career.

Could do? I'm not sure, it's not impossible that he could renegotiate parts of our free trade deals. Another pretty awesome thing is that he can prevent further trade deals. He's against the TPP, no one (who understands Hillary's record and involvement with it) believes that Hillary is against the TPP. So the fact that he is against the TPP is pretty much enough for most voters.

Also, in the contest between "Won't even acknowledge your problems" and "Will acknowledge your problems, but may not be able to do anything about it," there's one you go with and one you don't. Michigan made that pretty clear last night.


EDIT 1: Part of the Sanders' campaign is forcing mainstream politicians to admit that they may not rig the system in the favor of their donors, and if they want to pass the modern American litmus test, they're going to need to acknowledge what American's problems are and that something will need to be done about it.

EDIT 2: I also like how this question is never asked in regards to Hillary. Can Hillary actually deliver on any of her campaign promises for black Southerners, for which we know full well all attempts to help them --by Obama or otherwise-- will by stymied by the State governors and legislatures.

You did not mention it but I have to assume Trump gets the same kudos from you for his promise to make the Chinese give our jobs back? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Right? Perhaps Trump could put Sanders in charge of getting Americans jobs back from overseas if he wins....or vice versa. :lol:

 

[FieldTheorist]

You did not mention it but I have to assume Trump gets the same kudos from you for his promise to make the Chinese give our jobs back? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Right? Perhaps Trump could put Sanders in charge of getting Americans jobs back from overseas if he wins....or vice versa. :lol:

Does Trump get kudos for being anti-establishment? Yes, he does. But then he loses all of his kudos because he's an untrustworthy pathological liar who is saying whatever he thinks will get him elected, and so there's nothing whatsoever that would lead anyone to think that he's serious about any of it. In fact, there's only evidence to the contrary, given that he frequently has made use of these trade deals to help amass his fortunes.

It's amusing to watch you bob and weave, ignoring legitimate objections to your positions, and then have you try to give your very poor attempts to deliver a knock-out blow, only to waived aside with ease. The number of serious objections to your arguments is mounting, and you just keep on dropping those arguments every post because of how openly fallacious they are. It's a bit disappointing, really.

 

[iguanaman]

Does Trump get kudos for being anti-establishment? Yes, he does. But then he loses all of his kudos because he's an untrustworthy pathological liar who is saying whatever he thinks will get him elected, and so there's nothing whatsoever that would lead anyone to think that he's serious about any of it. In fact, there's only evidence to the contrary, given that he frequently has made use of these trade deals to help amass his fortunes.

It's amusing to watch you bob and weave, ignoring legitimate objections to your positions, and then have you try to give your very poor attempts to deliver a knock-out blow, only to waived aside with ease. The number of serious objections to your arguments is mounting, and you just keep on dropping those arguments every post because of how openly fallacious they are. It's a bit disappointing, really.

The only bobbing and weaving is in your posts. Saying things just to get elected is not limited to Trump but you seem to give Sanders a pass while demonizing Trump for saying the exact same things. There will be no ending NAFTA and trade wars will not solve our wage problem. Why doesn't Sanders admit that? He's no better than Trump on this issue.

CNN exit polls showed that Sanders outperformed Clinton among voters who are "very worried" about the U.S. economy, 56% to 40%. Among voters who believe international trade takes away American jobs, Sanders also led Clinton, 56% to 43% — a sign that Sanders' populist economic message resonated in Michigan.

What went wrong for Hillary Clinton? - CNNPolitics.com

 

[FieldTheorist]

The only bobbing and weaving is in your posts. Saying things just to get elected is not limited to Trump but you seem to give Sanders a pass while demonizing Trump for saying the exact same things. There will be no ending NAFTA and trade wars will not solve our wage problem. Why doesn't Sanders admit that? He's no better than Trump on this issue.

What went wrong for Hillary Clinton? - CNNPolitics.com

If you won't take your own posts seriously enough to form logical, evidence-based arguments, then I don't see any onus on me --nor do I have the desire-- to respond to your unsubstantiated feelings. We've gone back and forth now, and you have done nothing but been shown to be demonstrably wrong, evade legitimate questions because you have no answer, and have only been reporting how you feel about this topic, not what you can argue is true on this topic.

Move along, we're through here.

 

[iguanaman]

If you won't take your own posts seriously enough to form logical, evidence-based arguments, then I don't see any onus on me --nor do I have the desire-- to respond to your unsubstantiated feelings. We've gone back and forth now, and you have done nothing but been shown to be demonstrably wrong, evade legitimate questions because you have no answer, and have only been reporting how you feel about this topic, not what you can argue is true on this topic.

Move along, we're through here.

I gave you evidence that Sander's won Michigan using the same disingenuous "free trade is bad" argument that Trump did and you failed to respond. You need to take your blinders off. Here's some more evidence for you. It appears that Sander's trade war argument is working even better for him that Trump. Do you think we should put tariffs on foreign goods?

In exit polls, nearly six in 10 voters thought trade took away American jobs -- and nearly six in 10 of people who said that, backed Sanders. Those who thought trade created jobs were slightly more likely to back Clinton. This echoes the Republican side of the primary. More than half of voters thought that trade cost jobs; four in 10 of them backed Donald Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/the-two-big-warning-signs-for-hillary-clinton-in-michigan/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_most-draw4

 

[FieldTheorist]

I gave you evidence that Sander's won Michigan using the same disingenuous "free trade is bad" argument that Trump did and you failed to respond. You need to take your blinders off. Here's some more evidence for you. It appears that Sander's trade war argument is working even better for him that Trump. Do you think we should put tariffs on foreign goods?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/the-two-big-warning-signs-for-hillary-clinton-in-michigan/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_most-draw4

Iguana, that's not an argument. You declaring by fiat that "free trade is good" and that "saying free trade is bad is disingenuous" are not arguments. Those are called "unsubstantiated assertions." You pointing out to the fact that this is how Michigan feels is not evidence for either of those two statements. Your refusing to answer legitimate questions is also more disingenuous debating tactics.

I should not have to tell you this. These are very rudimentary analytical skills. Again, I have no interest in wasting more of my time on this with you. Go ahead and take the final word now.

 

[Jack Hays]

*Sigh* Okay, you're quoting from Conservapedia so you've officially lost your case, but to clarify in my last post to you:

1.) Eisenhower, like Nixon, JFK, Johnson, etc, all protected (or else expanded) the New Deal, never lowered (or else increased) taxes on the wealthy, did not propose deregulation, and so on. The sense in which Eisenhower was "conservative" is the same sense in which Hillary is a "liberal." Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are not independent from the time when the term is used. Keep in mind, 200 years ago being conservative/Rightist meant being a Monarchist.

2.) We have not continued Keynesian economics, despite your completely, demonstrably erroneous argument to the contrary. Again, if you were even slightly serious about any of this, you'd understand that the current economic model, post Volcker as Chairman of the Fed, is based on supply-side economics.


But like I said, we're done here. People can research this up themselves. Seriously, please do, you'll be a better person for it.

Perhaps you should undertake some research yourself.

[h=3]Obama Gives Keynes His First Real-World Test : NPR[/h]www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100018973


NPR


Jan 29, 2009 - British economist John Maynard Keynes believed government spending could pull an economy ... The Fed, The TARP And The Economy Jan.

 

[Jack Hays]

*Sigh* Okay, you're quoting from Conservapedia so you've officially lost your case, but to clarify in my last post to you:

1.) Eisenhower, like Nixon, JFK, Johnson, etc, all protected (or else expanded) the New Deal, never lowered (or else increased) taxes on the wealthy, did not propose deregulation, and so on. The sense in which Eisenhower was "conservative" is the same sense in which Hillary is a "liberal." Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are not independent from the time when the term is used. Keep in mind, 200 years ago being conservative/Rightist meant being a Monarchist.

2.) We have not continued Keynesian economics, despite your completely, demonstrably erroneous argument to the contrary. Again, if you were even slightly serious about any of this, you'd understand that the current economic model, post Volcker as Chairman of the Fed, is based on supply-side economics.


But like I said, we're done here. People can research this up themselves. Seriously, please do, you'll be a better person for it.

Eisenhower shied away from trying to scale back the New Deal because he understood that to be politically beyond possibility -- a classically conservative view.

 

[Jack Hays]

Conservapedia lol

When one seeks information on conservatives, it's useful, as a book on astronomy is useful for studying the stars.

 

[Kobie]

When one seeks information on conservatives, it's useful, as a book on astronomy is useful for studying the stars.

Do you realize how discredited Conservapedia is as a source for anything?

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you realize how discredited Conservapedia is as a source for anything?

I am uninterested in your view of who is credible.

 

[Kobie]

I am uninterested in your view of who is credible.

You redefine the term "garbage in, garbage out."

 

[Jack Hays]

You redefine the term "garbage in, garbage out."

I look forward to your substantive contribution.