[kenberg]

 y66, on 2016-December-02, 20:23, said:

Matt Yglesias argues that the best way for Democrats to defeat Trump is to focus on how his policies will hurt working-class people, rather than hitting the president-elect for his outlandish temperament and clownish behavior.


Time to turn attention away from the Trump Show and focus on his basic policy agenda and the ways in which it touches millions of people? Good idea.

For convenience I copy the link here rather than the quoted passage. The linked article has further links. It's very useful but it gets deep fast.

For example, his first bulleted point:
Repeal of the Affordable Care Act, stripping health insurance away from millions while reducing taxes on the wealthy
has a link ( already highlighted I now see) to
http://www.vox.com/2...price-obamacare
which has a link to
http://tomprice.hous...0Act%202015.pdf

As I say, it is useful but it gets deep.

The ACA is complicated. And repealing the ACA is only the first clause in the above sentence.

Now what has Trump said? He is going to repeal the ACA and replace it by something "really terrific". Who can object to really terrific? And so we get back to Trump the person. I don't believe a word he says.

I do agree that we are being jerked around. Trump sees an advantage to doing this, Jon, as far as I can tell, does it for the sheer pleasure of it.

What to do? Well, that depends on who, on when, and on goals. And it depends, more than just a little, on what we think of members of Congress. The Republicans obviously have a lot of control. Not complete perhaps, but a lot. They can ram a lot of things through and if it all comes down to party line votes I expect they will do just that. The voters expect them to do so. Senate rules about filibusters can be changed, and anyway I do not favor Democrats taking their cue from Republican intransigence of the past eight years. So where does this leave us? Not anywhere good.

I generally put some faith in clarity and honesty. To as large an extent as possible, I hope that the likely consequences of various proposed changes can be laid out. And that's where honesty and clarity will be of extreme importance. If the planned changes still have the support of the people, then I expect that we will be making those changes. On the other hand, if some of the consequences don't look so good, and if Congress and the President say they are going to do them anyway because they have the power and that's that, then there will be another election in 2018.

I realize this is not exactly an optimistic view. Realism often conflicts with optimism.
I think that the Hamilton brouhaha is a fine example of the approach the cited article is trying to discourage. Lots of publicity, absolutely no effect. Or at least no positive effect. We will see what actually can be done.

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-03, 00:26, said:

For credibility issues, it's not as important what I think as what many in fly over country think. I can imagine the following dialogue in millions of households in Middle America:

Maw: You can't convince me that that woman doesn't belong in jail.
Paw: I know, it's disgraceful. And that professor of Emily's - trying to corn-vince her that the obvious ain't so. I knew we shoulda insisted on Kansas State instead of sending her out to Californey with all those loony tunes.
Maw: Listen to this crazy woman on The View. Cain't see what that b*tch is hiding.
Paw: They's must be in Colorado smokin' the wacky t'bakky if they expect anyone to buy the hogwash they is selling.
Maw: They's almost had me corn-vinced that maybe these gay people should have some rights but now that I hear this utter nonsense about Hillary wiping servers clean and not hidin' nutin', I just cain't trust anything they is saying. Maybe Preacher Billy-Bob is right about them gays and these crazy b*tches is wrong.
Paw: I knows they is wrong. And they's so smug! They act like we gots no brains when really they's the ones who knows Nuttin! You just cain't believe these dang liberals about anything. I think the drugs got to em and they's just not right anymore.
Maw: Lawd a mighty I just ain't belivin' anything they say anymore.

This either reflects your reasoning or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it is pointless. I know who won the election. I am trying to find out - and in so doing force you to address - your own reasoning in believing Hillary guilty of some crime.

I do not do this to support Hillary; nor do I do this to embarrass you; my reason is to encourage within all of us critical thinking skills. Without critical thinking skills, we are totally dependent for our beliefs on whomever is most deft at blowing smoke up our arses - and then we pass it on by blowing our own second-hand smoke that when inhaled causes an equal amount of damage to independent thought.

So, in conclusion, I am only encouraging you to think independently rather than repeatedly blowing second-hand smoke.

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2016-December-02, 20:23, said:

Matt Yglesias argues that the best way for Democrats to defeat Trump is to focus on how his policies will hurt working-class people, rather than hitting the president-elect for his outlandish temperament and clownish behavior.


Time to turn attention away from the Trump Show and focus on his basic policy agenda and the ways in which it touches millions of people? Good idea.

I think this misses the point entirely. The people who voted for support* Trump appear to be uninterested in facts - they want to hear reinforcement of beliefs they are bombarded with daily, from radio talk shows and right wing websites and neighborhood bars and church gatherings. I think the only way to defeat them is to overwhelm them with greater numbers. In other words, reasoning with them is a useless exercise. From what I observed, Republicans who did not support Trump for the most part did not vote for him, though in the privacy of a voting booth they may have supported the Party candidate.

*Edited to clarify

[hrothgar]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-03, 10:13, said:

I think this misses the point entirely. The people who voted for Trump appear to be uninterested in facts - they want to hear reinforcement of beliefs they are bombarded with daily, from radio talk shows and right wing websites and neighborhood bars and church gatherings. I think the only way to defeat them is to overwhelm them with greater numbers.

Or just wait for enough of them to die

[Winstonm]

 Elianna, on 2016-December-03, 01:04, said:

I actually looked this up, and according the New Haven Independent, it DOES seem that in 2011 the mayor advocated letting undocumented people vote IN LOCAL ELECTIONS. This is a very far cry from voting in National Elections. And yes, in many places they happen on the same ballot, but it should be fairly easy to separate the local races from the national ones, and therefore have people vote in local elections like for mayor and dogcatcher and such. Now this was five years ago, so I'm not sure it's germane to the claim that 3 million undocumented workers voted in California. (And "I'm not sure" is an underbid of my feelings if that's not clear.)

There is little doubt that some local elections can be compromised - although I would say it is much more difficult now that it was say in 1950, prior to the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. Some areas of the country (Chicago and Lousianna, to name 2) have a sordid history when it comes to local politics.

That said, interfering with a national election is a different ballgame.

Also, simply because someone advocated a position does not mean he encouraged illegal activity - any more than Trump advocating for a return to waterboard torture is a war crime. People, even mayors, can express an opinion and even advocate for that opinion. But did any illegals actually vote in that mayoral election? Is there any evidence that the mayor in question tried to aid any illegal immigrants to vote illegally? These are the questions that need to be asked.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-03, 10:13, said:

I think this misses the point entirely. The people who voted for Trump appear to be uninterested in facts - they want to hear reinforcement of beliefs they are bombarded with daily, from radio talk shows and right wing websites and neighborhood bars and church gatherings. I think the only way to defeat them is to overwhelm them with greater numbers.

My response here is predictable. I believe it is a mistake to lump large numbers of people, and this applies to practically any large number of people, together. A mistake factually, and a mistake tactically. Overwhelm them by greater numbers? Of course, in a democracy how else? But how do you get the greater numbers?

I no doubt need to, as Cherdano said a few pages back, give it a rest. And perhaps I will try. But I really think that writing off everyone who voted for Trump as being beyond the reach of reason is a serious error.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-December-03, 10:46, said:

But I really think that writing off everyone who voted for Trump as being beyond the reach of reason is a serious error.

I agree. We can point out that some things Trump said are racist. We can also point out that taking away health insurance from 20 million is a bad idea. I hope Ken allows us to do both of these!

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-December-03, 10:46, said:

My response here is predictable. I believe it is a mistake to lump large numbers of people, and this applies to practically any large number of people, together. A mistake factually, and a mistake tactically. Overwhelm them by greater numbers? Of course, in a democracy how else? But how do you get the greater numbers?

I no doubt need to, as Cherdano said a few pages back, give it a rest. And perhaps I will try. But I really think that writing off everyone who voted for Trump as being beyond the reach of reason is a serious error.

Ten years ago I would have agreed.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2016-December-03, 10:46, said:

But I really think that writing off everyone who voted for Trump as being beyond the reach of reason is a serious error.

No doubt. How strange that Winstonm, who claims his goal is "not to sell a narrative but to encourage all of us to adopt critical thinking as our foundation for forming beliefs", has decided that everyone who voted for Trump is beyond the reach of data, facts, reasonable arguments and policies that address their problems in credible ways. This is about issues, not clowns and beauty pageants. Yglesias is not missing the point. Winstonm is. So is almost the entire media.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-December-03, 10:58, said:

I agree. We can point out that some things Trump said are racist. We can also point out that taking away health insurance from 20 million is a bad idea. I hope Ken allows us to do both of these!

Permission granted.

It's the holiday season.

[Al_U_Card]

 y66, on 2016-December-03, 11:35, said:

No doubt. How strange that Winstonm, who claims his goal is "not to sell a narrative but to encourage all of us to adopt critical thinking as our foundation for forming beliefs", has decided that everyone who voted for Trump is beyond the reach of data, facts, reasonable arguments and policies that address their problems in credible ways. This is about issues, not clowns and beauty pageants. Yglesias is not missing the point. Winstonm is. So is almost the entire media.

A common error if you allow yourself to get exasperated. When repetition fails to convince and then apoplectic name-calling gets nowhere, getting discouraged is easier than revising information and position. The MSM is just lazy (desperate?) and issues ARE critical, especially finding the pertinent ones and not just favorite memes. Accepting other viewpoints as potentially as valuable (if not more so) as our own is a start because it helps to find common ground between opposing camps.

[y66]

Speaking of interesting alternative points of view, here's Tyler Cowen's take on the Carrier deal from NPR's Is Trump's Deal With Carrier A Form Of Crony Capitalism?

Quote

On what kind of message the Carrier deal sends

Cowen: We're supposed to live under a republic of the rule of law, not the rule of men. This deal is completely nontransparent, and the notion that every major American company has to negotiate person-to-person with the president over Twitter is going to make all business decisions politicized.

We don't know exactly what the company is getting. There's plenty of talk that the reason Carrier went along with the deal was because they were afraid their parent company would lose a lot of defense contracts, so this now creates the specter of a president always being willing to punish or reward companies depending on whether or not they give him a good press release.

On United Technologies, Carrier's parent company

Cowen: They do a lot of defense contracting; it's at least 10 percent of their revenue. Carrier from the state of Indiana was already offered the tax break before the election. They turned it down. Now all of a sudden Trump is president, Bernie Sanders is telling Trump to threaten the defense contracts of the parent company. And now all of a sudden the company takes the deal, and Trump is known for being somewhat vindictive.

On crony capitalism

Cowen: Trump and Bernie Sanders, for all of their populist talk, their actual recipes in both case lead to crony capitalism ... a system where businesses who are in bed with the government and who give the president positive press releases are rewarded and where companies who oppose or speak out against the president are in some way punished.

More from Cowen at marginalrevolution.com. Sharp guy. Decent chess player. I enjoyed his take on the Carlsen-Karjakin match. Please don't anyone use this as an excuse for hijacking this thread.

[Kaitlyn S]

 diana_eva, on 2016-December-03, 03:48, said:

Mike, Winston, etc. are talking to you though, and unless you are the voice of Maw and Paw I don't understand why you keep repeating that it doesn't matter what you think. Do you think Maw and Paw are right? Then you are Maw and Paw. If you don't think they are right, just say what YOU think and why. Nobody else in this thread pretends to be a representative of entire groups.

I had to laugh at the irony of the whole credibility thing - I was told that I lost credibility when I posted about Hillary being involved with murders. I was convinced that this is unlikely, and am taking the stance that it is unlikely with my conservative friends. Now I'm losing credibility with them (their point being that it's so obvious that Hillary was involved with murders and I'm trying to convince them otherwise, so what other lies am I propagating?)

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2016-December-03, 11:35, said:

No doubt. How strange that Winstonm, who claims his goal is "not to sell a narrative but to encourage all of us to adopt critical thinking as our foundation for forming beliefs", has decided that everyone who voted for Trump is beyond the reach of data, facts, reasonable arguments and policies that address their problems in credible ways. This is about issues, not clowns and beauty pageants. Yglesias is not missing the point. Winstonm is. So is almost the entire media.

You are confused between Trump voters and Trump supporters. Look at the tweet page for Jon and you will find that Trump supporters think that Republicans who did not support Trump are "traitors". Do you really think you can reason with those kinds of people? I hope that Trump voters will someday wake up - but then I remember that Germany and Austria welcomed Hitler with open arms, and it leaves me deeply concerned about the efficacy of reasoning.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-03, 14:12, said:

You are confused between Trump voters and Trump supporters. Look at the tweet page for Jon and you will find that Trump supporters think that Republicans who did not support Trump are "traitors". Do you really think you can reason with those kinds of people? I hope that Trump voters will someday wake up - but then I remember that Germany and Austria welcomed Hitler with open arms, and it leaves me deeply concerned about the efficacy of reasoning.

I'd like to think that if I saw any Hitler-like antics, I would start a campaign of friends and acquaintances writing to congressmen to put a stop to it.

[Al_U_Card]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-03, 14:24, said:

I'd like to think that if I saw any Hitler-like antics, I would start a campaign of friends and acquaintances writing to congressmen to put a stop to it.

Depends if your perspective of the political spectrum is:
Anarchist-communist-socialist-liberal-hitler-hitler-hitler-conservative-republican-Trump

[kenberg]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-03, 13:58, said:

I had to laugh at the irony of the whole credibility thing - I was told that I lost credibility when I posted about Hillary being involved with murders. I was convinced that this is unlikely, and am taking the stance that it is unlikely with my conservative friends. Now I'm losing credibility with them (their point being that it's so obvious that Hillary was involved with murders and I'm trying to convince them otherwise, so what other lies am I propagating?)

"conservative friends". I am not so sure "conservative" is the right word here. George Will is a conservative. As far as I know, he doesn't think Hillary murdered anyone.

I am all for investigating credible claims of murder. I am also in favor of investigations coming to an end. I assume this murder goes back to Vince Foster? Or is she a serial killer with several bodies buried somewhere?

Do these friends of yours have families and jobs? I vaguely recall Vince Foster dying somehow. He was somehow connected to the Clintons. But that's it. I have absolutely no intention of going back over the evidence. Your friends seem to be obsessed. This is not indifference to murder, it is a realistic assessment of what, after all these years, is likely to be found that is new. Nothing.

[y66]

 Winstonm, on 2016-December-03, 14:12, said:

You are confused between Trump voters and Trump supporters. Look at the tweet page for Jon and you will find that Trump supporters think that Republicans who did not support Trump are "traitors". Do you really think you can reason with those kinds of people? I hope that Trump voters will someday wake up - but then I remember that Germany and Austria welcomed Hitler with open arms, and it leaves me deeply concerned about the efficacy of reasoning.

Good grief Winstonm! Two things: In your post, you said "The people who voted for Trump appear to be uninterested in facts"; and now you're suggesting that in order to understand the essential meaning of words like "supporter" which is not the same as "voter" and the default rules governing the implicit use of "all" vs "some" we have to visit the dark corners of the twitter universe. This strange use of language by you is worrisome. Berlusconi voters woke up. So will Trump voters, especially if we shift the discussion to issues. I think you're underestimating the power of the water cooler to lead the way.

[jonottawa]

 kenberg, on 2016-December-03, 07:45, said:

For example, his first bulleted point:
Repeal of the Affordable Care Act, stripping health insurance away from millions while reducing taxes on the wealthy
has a link ( already highlighted I now see) to
http://www.vox.com/2...price-obamacare
which has a link to
http://tomprice.hous...0Act%202015.pdf

As I say, it is useful but it gets deep.

The ACA is complicated. And repealing the ACA is only the first clause in the above sentence.

Now what has Trump said? He is going to repeal the ACA and replace it by something "really terrific". Who can object to really terrific? And so we get back to Trump the person. I don't believe a word he says.

I do agree that we are being jerked around. Trump sees an advantage to doing this, Jon, as far as I can tell, does it for the sheer pleasure of it.

You seem to be pretending that the ACA is working great. It's not!



As you seem to acknowledge, healthcare is complicated. There is an unlimited demand for healthcare, especially if you include mental health, dentistry, vision, cosmetic medicine & (as Hillary promised) give coverage to the 20M+ non-citizens living in the US illegally.

So instead of telling us that you don't believe a word Trump says, how about telling us what your solution is. And tell us how you'd pay for it. And tell us how you'd get it passed.

It starts with both sides agreeing not to demonize the other side. And with rejecting money from lobbyists who work for the AMA or for Big Pharma. Since none of that will ever happen, it seems inevitable that we are doomed to have a broken health care system NO MATTER WHO IS IN CHARGE.

Doctors are some of the smartest people around. Do any of them come up with and promote affordable sensible proposals on how THEIR PROFESSION should operate? No. Because they're happy with the status quo, no matter how unsustainable and inefficient that system might be.

[cherdano]

 jonottawa, on 2016-December-03, 15:15, said:

It starts with both sides agreeing not to demonize the other side.

Good idea. A good start would be not to claim, without any shred of evidence, that millions of undocumented immigrants are both stupid and malicious enough to commit voter fraud.