Has Trump pulled the GOP to the Left?

[glenn1]

lol. I asked you what you thought caused the increase in Gini coefficient under Democratic presidents and you mentioned two things, one of which was signed into law by a Republican president.

The fact that you couldn't even get that right says a lot, but then I simply asked you for any evidence to support your one causal mechanism that was actually enacted by a Democrat. You can't provide any, because your argument is bullshit.

It's very telling that actual results (like GINI) don't matter to you. It pretty much explains everything about all your posts here; it shows that you prefer a theory and stick to it no matter what. A theory from a man who not coincidentally said "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"

 

[fskimospy]

It's very telling that actual results (like GINI) don't matter to you. It pretty much explains everything about all your posts here; it shows that you prefer a theory and stick to it no matter what. A theory from a man who not coincidentally said "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"

The actual results matter to me very much, but that doesn't excuse your incompetent analysis.

You said that Democrats cause higher inequality because the Gini coefficient went up more under Democratic presidents.

I asked for the causal mechanism, which you refused to supply and said that the Gini coefficient going up was enough proof on its own and that's the 'actual result!'

Let's use this time-worn example to show you how dumb your argument is, the old ice cream - murder analogy:

Democrats are ice cream, and Gini coefficient is violent crime.

You say that ice cream sales cause violent crime because the violent crime index increases when there are more ice cream sales.

I ask for the causal mechanism, which you refuse to supply, saying that the violent crime index going up is enough proof on its own and that's the 'actual result!'.

Now do you see how stupid that is? Anyone who has done a shred of research in their life knows that you need both a statistically significant result, (which yours almost certainly isn't) and a plausible causal mechanism. I've asked you repeatedly for the second and you've refused to supply it, instead relying on ice cream/murder arguments. Why?

 

[lothar]

What's that got to do with it. It just means 60% of the party wants someone other than Trump, otherwise he'd be winning by a higher percentage.

80% of the party wants someone other than Marco Rubio.
80% of the party wants someone other than Ted Cruz.

Otherwise they'd both be winning by a higher percentage than Trump.

 

[soundforbjt]

80% of the party wants someone other than Marco Rubio.
80% of the party wants someone other than Ted Cruz.

Otherwise they'd both be winning by a higher percentage than Trump.

I agree. IF it was a two-man race Trump may or may not be winning, I'd be willing to bet that he wouldn't be (unless the other guy was Cruz).

The only reason Trump is winning is because of the number of candidates. how much difference is there between Rubio, Kasich, Cruz, etc. ?
Very little difference in terms of policy.

 

[zinfamous]

While Trump is obviously (to most people), a protest candidate that is utterly unqualified to be president, I do think he presents a unique opportunity for the Republican party to pivot away from the toxic social issues that are destroying the brand to a platform based more on economic populism that targets the working class. The whole unspoken arrangement of the rich Republican business class manipulating the gullible base into carrying their water with dog whistle social issues is coming to an end. Does anyone really think that the elites give a shit about gay marriage or abortion? Hell no they dont. It really is quite impressive how they managed to convince hordes of trailer dwelling poor white folks that send their kids to failing schools over poorly maintained roads and unsafe bridges that eliminating the estate tax that only impacts estates valued in the millions, and lowering capital gains taxes is what freedom is about.

:thumbsup:

this is truth.

 

[zinfamous]

I think it really comes down to how quickly Rubio can consolidate support before it's too late. Kasich needs to get out soon. Rubio with Nikki Haley as VP could be a formidable ticket, and IMO is the ONLY hope for the GOP to win in November, though I suspect the damage Rubio has done to himself among Hispanics during the primary season is too much for him to overcome.

There was a solid bio on Jorge Ramos, that Univision anchor that was thrown out of a Trump rally some months back, that spends a significant amount of time on the latino vote and how the republicans have lost all chance at this demographic.

...except if they nominate a Latino. A lot of Latino democrat supporters seem to have nothing good to say about republicans, but will absolutely vote for a republican Latino regardless of anything they say. And they hate Rubio. I think even Ramos said that, for Latinos in the US, no matter what is said in a campaign or who the individual represents, Latinos feel that a Latino in the White House is far more important to them than anything else.

It would certainly seem shocking to a lot of democrats and analysts if it goes down that way, but this seems to be a common opinion within the community.

It's still baffling that, after 2012, the most glaring number that hurt republicans was losing the Latino vote, yet they still seem to think that doubling-down on exclusion and anti-immigration is going to work for them. It is strange that Trump seems to have so much support, but I guess it is true that he really doesn't in the end.

I still think Rubio is the Republicans only chance, and maybe even Kasich.

 

[glenn1]

The actual results matter to me very much, but that doesn't excuse your incompetent analysis.

You said that Democrats cause higher inequality because the Gini coefficient went up more under Democratic presidents.

I asked for the causal mechanism, which you refused to supply and said that the Gini coefficient going up was enough proof on its own and that's the 'actual result!'

Let's use this time-worn example to show you how dumb your argument is, the old ice cream - murder analogy:

Democrats are ice cream, and Gini coefficient is violent crime.

You say that ice cream sales cause violent crime because the violent crime index increases when there are more ice cream sales.

I ask for the causal mechanism, which you refuse to supply, saying that the violent crime index going up is enough proof on its own and that's the 'actual result!'.

Now do you see how stupid that is? Anyone who has done a shred of research in their life knows that you need both a statistically significant result, (which yours almost certainly isn't) and a plausible causal mechanism. I've asked you repeatedly for the second and you've refused to supply it, instead relying on ice cream/murder arguments. Why?

LOL, keep up the good work Eskimospy. People like you are essentially working for people like me, despite the noise that people like Bernie Sanders make to the contrary to placate you. Gimme another stimulus, Glenn1 needs some shoes and another vacation home to keep them in.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, keep up the good work Eskimospy. People like you are essentially working for people like me, despite the noise that people like Bernie Sanders make to the contrary to placate you. Gimme another stimulus, Glenn1 needs some shoes and another vacation home to keep them in.

I'll take that as a 'no, I can't provide any evidence for what I said' then, haha.

Instead of continuing to flail and post random charts, feel free to provide a single shred of evidence that Keynesian stimulus increases income inequality. Take as much time as you need.

 

[lothar]

I think it really comes down to how quickly Rubio can consolidate support before it's too late. Kasich needs to get out soon. Rubio with Nikki Haley as VP could be a formidable ticket, and IMO is the ONLY hope for the GOP to win in November, though I suspect the damage Rubio has done to himself among Hispanics during the primary season is too much for him to overcome.

Hell no.
I hope Kasich goes all the way. It's both very sad and disappointing that the establishment is picking Rubio over Kasich.
I'll vote for him over any of the current candidates running for the office, Democrat or Republican.
Unlike other people, I vote for candidates based on their record and accomplishments; and not their empty promises.

The only person that can give Hillary a run for her money is John Kasich.
Trump can't even beat someone like Bernie, talkless of a person as weak as Hillary is.

I support an imaginary John Kasich/Brian Sandoval ticket. 🙂

 

[soundforbjt]

Hell no.
I hope Kasich goes all the way. It's both very sad and disappointing that the establishment is picking Rubio over Kasich.
I'll vote for him over any of the current candidates running for the office, Democrat or Republican.
Unlike other people, I vote for candidates based on their record and accomplishments; and not their empty promises.

The only person that can give Hillary a run for her money is John Kasich.
Trump can't even beat someone like Bernie, talkless of a person as weak as Hillary is.

I support an imaginary John Kasich/Brian Sandoval ticket. 🙂

Kasich said in a town hall last week that his plan to defeat Isis was "planes in the air and boots on the ground", he's just another neocon. Do you really support someone who wants massive troops back in the middle east?

 

[Sonikku]

My plan to defeat Isis is to... stop putting American guns and vehicles in their hands. :hmm: Might not be the best solution, but at least it's cheap. 🙂 and with the same results as the alternatives.

 

[glenn1]

I'll take that as a 'no, I can't provide any evidence for what I said' then, haha.

Instead of continuing to flail and post random charts, feel free to provide a single shred of evidence that Keynesian stimulus increases income inequality. Take as much time as you need.

Just keep on stimulating and making me money. By no means should you believe actual data points like the surge in financial asset prices, or rise in GINI, or the opinions of notable right-wing economists like George Soros or Joseph Stiglitz or Philly Fed. Just keep on stimulating my good man.

 

[fskimospy]

Just keep on stimulating and making me money. By no means should you believe actual data points like the surge in financial asset prices, or rise in GINI, or the opinions of notable right-wing economists like George Soros or Joseph Stiglitz or Philly Fed. Just keep on stimulating my good man.

From your link:

“Research focusing on the redistributive effects of unconventional monetary policy is virtually nonexistent, because policymakers started using forward guidance and quantitative easing only recently,”

lol.

Question, are you really this stupid or just this stubborn?

 

[nickqt]

Let's be real clear here about economic inequality:

The Democratic party is slightly less neo-liberal than the Republican party.

It is what makes it so hilarious reading the rantings of true delusional lunatics who try to equate Bill Clinton or Obama as socialists or - lol - communists.

Bernie Sanders isn't even a "socialist" the way the scaremongers use the term. Yes, he would raise taxes slightly higher on some of the richest people in the solar system, but he wouldn't appropriate private property or the means of production.

What we do need is an actual economic policy that doesn't outright favor the people who already have all the money and almost all of the power. The Republican party sure as shit isn't going to reduce the power of the richest, as their only real policy proposal over the past 60+ years has been Tax Cuts Today, Tax Cuts Tomorrow, Tax Cuts Forever. That said, no, the Democratic party isn't the end-all be-all of reducing economic inequality.

Why? Because in objective, observable reality, the Democratic party is just Republican-lite on economics and foreign policy. Because, no, the Democratic party isn't some socialist-communist-radical political party. It is, essentially, a socially liberal 70s-era Republican party. Full stop.

If you want to increase the size of the middle class, the first thing you have to do is provide incentives to the r̶i̶c̶h̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶l̶a̶r̶ ̶s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶ JobCreators™ to reinvest their money back into their business equipment and laborers IN THIS COUNTRY (wages, benefits, training), you know, the source of their wealth. To do this, you increase the highest marginal tax rates and the capital gains tax rates, and bring back tax breaks for investment. Otherwise, they'll continue giving their capital to criminals on Wall St. (financial sector deregulation), or they'll continue JobCreatin' over in Asia (FreeTrade™ agreements).

And, yes, I'd much rather help fellow Americans with jobs and their finances than helping someone in China, or Malaysia, etc. I'd much rather we fix our damn country first, and then we can worry about exporting freedom and democracy and wealth. Kinda like how when the O2 bags drop while in an airplane, first you put yours on, then you put the O2 bag on someone who needs help.

Keynes was right, of course, and until the Laffer Curve, "rising tides lift all yachts" joke was played and continues until today, we had a strong middle class.

What is hilarious, of course, is how Keynesian the US military is. Factories and jobs are purposefully put in every congressional district so that no Congressman really wants to end that socialist, Keynesian spending, because then everyone screams about jobs. The US military via the Pentagon spends almost every dollar of the $1T on and off the books, each and every year, and that is somehow never enough, but Social Security is predicted to go bankrupt in 25 years, every single year, for the past 30 years...so we have to cut SS now, otherwise we'll have to cut it in the distant future!!1

If we stopped burning close to $500B a year on bullshit Keynesian military spending and invested it into this fucking country, building and maintaining infrastructure, and performing R&D on a massive scale so that we can have the cheapest, cleanest energy possible, it would pay off over and over and over.

Energy = Wealth

With cheap, renewable and clean energy, any country can have access to as much clean drinking water that it wants. It can enrich the soil to grow all the food it needs and more. It can utilize and refine its resources, and recycle them, so that building materials are cheap and plentiful.

Getting caught up trying to assign slightly more blame to either the Republican party or Democratic party for the predicament the country is in benefits exactly one group - the people who profit the most with the status quo remaining the same.

 

[glenn1]

From your link:


lol.

Question, are you really this stupid or just this stubborn?

Most people prefer actual observations from the world of reality. You keep up the stimulus while waiting for that research, if you can keep it up for another couple years I'm sure we can get the GINI up to 0.55 or more. Thanks for the free money!

 

[lothar]

Kasich said in a town hall last week that his plan to defeat Isis was "planes in the air and boots on the ground", he's just another neocon. Do you really support someone who wants massive troops back in the middle east?

We technically already have boots on the ground. I find the whole thing to be window dressing and just a formality.
It's no difference from Kennedy sending "Military Advisors" to Vietnam.

I have yet to see any credible plans on defeating ISIS and the topic of Syria in general from Obama, or any of the other candidates running for public office. There is none yet.
Setting up No-Fly zones is not a solution(Hillary Clinton), and neither is bombing them until the sand glows green(Ted Cruz).
The most credible plan so far might be to just pull everything out and "Let Allah sort it out". A civil war is a civil war.

The moderates and Kurds are trying to overthrow Assad in Syria. Russia claims to be bombing ISIS, but they are actually bombing moderates. The US gave weapons to the moderates and the Kurds. Because the moderates are being bombed into submission by Russia, the Kurds are taking over and gaining new territory. Turkey hates the Kurds(an ally that we provided weapons to in order to overthrow Assad) as much as they hate Assad so they start shelling them for weeks on end because they don't want them to take over any territory despite the fact that those same Kurds are opposed to Assad's regime, just like Turkey is as well. Assad has come out as the winner in all of this over the past few weeks.

The whole thing is a mess and just seems like an endless war with no exit strategy.

What in your opinion is the correct plan for defeating ISIS?

 

[fskimospy]

Most people prefer actual observations from the world of reality. You keep up the stimulus while waiting for that research, if you can keep it up for another couple years I'm sure we can get the GINI up to 0.55 or more. Thanks for the free money!

Hahah, yes they do. That's been my entire point.

Some people prefer that when someone says X causes Y that they should provide even a single shred of empirical evidence for that. Then again, not everyone is okay with thinking that ice cream causes murders like you are.

 

[soundforbjt]

What in your opinion is the correct plan for defeating ISIS?

You cannot "defeat" Isis, you can kill a bunch of them but they have no country, no government, so normal methods can't work. I'd get out and let the middle east figure it out. Let them spend their money and lives on it.

We've been messing around in the middle east for far too many decades for the whims of the energy companies.

Get off oil !!! Put people to work building the renewable energy of the future using the money we waste over there to fund it. Hemp could be an easy replacement for a lot of things oil is used for in products and it grows like weeds !