A gift from Laurie.
G2A Trump and Armageddon
You haven't had a Trump post for a few days. This column is popular over at the Wapo:I'll read it tomorrow. Work has me buried and I leave for China again on Sunday...
This is how fascism comes to America
it got me thinking that if I believe Trump has a chance to win in the fall I might have to volunteer at a phone bank calling voters in Ohio or something.
G2A Trump and Armageddon
44 comments:
Pot, meet kettle. Most of the WaPo story is bigoted hype. I doubt even the media's strawman version of Trump could match what is said about him in that piece. I am encouraged by his recent pivot towards being more Presidential, and the polls are picking up on it, with his negatives declining, especially among women. If he gets to the point where he is helping the downballot races rather than hurting them, I'll be happy and his "fascism" will be tempered by a Republican Congress.
Laurie,
How do you see the Sanders / Democrats as different?
"This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him."
"How do you see the Sanders / Democrats as different?"
Bernie Sanders is pushing a completely different vision of American governance than Donald Trump. Sanders would change the rules of campaign finance and voting in a way designed to reduce the political power of the wealthy. Hillary Clinton's campaign offers a limited vision centered around making incremental improvements and preventing rollback of Obama policies.
Trump, meanwhile, decries the current system but has offered no package of reform. His mantra seems to be that we need a better class of billionaire running things. Trump has also said some rather distressing things about libel laws and his threats against Amazon.com based on his disagreements with how the Washington Post has covered his campaign lead one to question how he might use the federal government to settle personal arguments.
Maybe Sanders is more of a Totalitarian supporter... But he sure is preaching hate, rebellion, etc with as much vigor as Trump. And his followers seem even more violent and rude than Trumps...
CNN Democrats Concerned
"fascism
1 :a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government."
"totalitarianism
1:centralized control by an autocratic authority
2:the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority"
"Maybe Sanders is more of a Totalitarian supporter."
Bernie Sanders want to increase participation in the democratic process, which is the exact opposite of totalitarianism.
Oh come now... There must be a term for the group that wants to regulate away most personal freedoms, disperse all personal consequences and put the politicians / bureaucrats in a position where they decide who wins and loses.
Then again maybe it is just old socialism / communism...
Either way they are all in the bottom of the Nolan diagram
"There must be a term for the group that wants to regulate away most personal freedoms, disperse all personal consequences and put the politicians / bureaucrats in a position where they decide who wins and loses."
Oh, spare me the nonsense. How -- specifically -- would Bernie's platform do any of those things you claim? (I don't even support Bernie in the Democratic contest, but this is just absurd.)
Sanders on Issues
1. Force companies / people to keep jobs in USA. (ie raise costs)
2. Force successful people to pay a very progressive tax rate
3. Force company / people to pay $15/hr
4. Force us to pay more for goods by enacting trade barriers
5. Force people with no children and non-college folks to pay for others to go to college.
6. Force people to pay more for social security while not increasing their benefits
7. Force single payer healthcare on all citizens
8. Force companies / people to pay for family leave, vacation, sick days
9. Forcefully breaking up large companies
"There must be a term for the group that wants to regulate away most personal freedoms, disperse all personal consequences and put the politicians / bureaucrats in a position where they decide who wins and loses."
If history is any indication, the term you are looking for is "Conservative Republican".
Joel
Sean, there are countries for participation in the political process is near 100%. They tend to be those countries where voting is mandatory and only one party is on the ballot. Not sure that's what we want.
Somebody asked Sanders, or at least pretended to, which socialist country he would model the US after. Was it Venezuela, who can't even afford the paper to print their hyperinflated currency on?
"1. Force companies / people to keep jobs in USA. (ie raise costs)
2. Force successful people to pay a very progressive tax rate
3. Force company / people to pay $15/hr"
All of Sanders' policies here are tweaks of existing government policies. The top marginal tax rate under a Sanders Administration would be lower than it was from 1932-1982, and it would only apply to income over $10 million (or 0.01% of taxpayers).
"4. Force us to pay more for goods by enacting trade barriers"
Sanders opposes new free trade agreements like the TPP, but has only suggested renegotiating NAFTA and CAFTA. (It is Trump who has promised to violate the treaties we have signed by unilaterally imposing tariffs.)
"5. Force people with no children and non-college folks to pay for others to go to college."
This already happens today. Sanders expands on it.
"6. Force people to pay more for social security while not increasing their benefits"
Well, it's an alternative to have people pay the same for their social security and receive less.
"7. Force single payer healthcare on all citizens"
Expansion of an existing program to serve more citizens.
"8. Force companies / people to pay for family leave, vacation, sick days"
In many ways, such a provision actually enhances freedom. Do you really want the guy with the flu as your waiter? Should people have to put their jobs at risk to help a sick child or an elderly parent? Don't women deserve the dignity of being able to recuperate after having a baby?
"9. Forcefully breaking up large companies"
Companies exist because the state allows them to. When companies behave in a way that harms society, consequences can and should ensue.
The fact that you picked the word "force' to describe the normal lawmaking process is instructive. Let's think about some elements of the Republican platform using that same terminology, shall we?
Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare would force millions of Americans off of their health insurance.
Republican proposals to cut taxes on wealthy earners would force an increased tax burden on middle and lower class taxpayers.
Republican voter ID proposals force people to spend money and waste time to exercize their Constitutional rights.
Republican adventuring in the Middle East forces thousands of American troops on to the front line of a civil war that we may be powerless to end ourselves.
"Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare would force millions of Americans off of their health insurance.
Republican proposals to cut taxes on wealthy earners would force an increased tax burden on middle and lower class taxpayers.
Republican voter ID proposals force people to spend money and waste time to exercize their Constitutional rights."
Sean, I don't know whether this is simple wordplay or if you actually believe these characterizations. If so, I find them unreasonable.
-- You don't know what Republicans might "replace" Obama care with, and you haven't made allowance for the millions of people who already LOST their health insurance because of Obama care.
– In the past, cutting taxes for the wealthy has resulted in the wealthy paying an INCREASED share of federal taxes.
– Or you could say that voter ID proposals PREVENT people from having their constitutional rights stolen.
I understand you're trying to make a moral equivalence here, but it is pretty slim gruel from where I stand.
"You don't know what Republicans might "replace" Obama care with, and you haven't made allowance for the millions of people who already LOST their health insurance because of Obama care."
Well, that's true. It's now been six years and they haven't managed to rustle up an actual plan, so I'm relying on some of the trial balloons they've tossed out there. For instance, if you equalize the tax treatment of individual-purchased health insurance and employer-provided health insurance (which has been an element of many GOP health reform ideas since 2008), you'll essentially kill the employer-provided health care market, forcing millions of folks on to the exchanges. That disruption will be many times the magnitude of the original Obamacare disruption.
You disagree with some of my assertions, fine. The larger point is that passing a law is "force" of some kind, so it's not illuminating to discuss it those terms unless you're going to characterize all laws as such.
Accepting your statement at face value, that passing a law is force, then isn't repealing a law increasing freedom? Is a tax cut law a "force" to which we should object?
"Accepting your statement at face value, that passing a law is force, then isn't repealing a law increasing freedom?"
Not necessarily. There are laws that increase freedom and laws that decrease freedom.
"Is a tax cut law a "force" to which we should object?"
You're free to have whatever opinion on it you like.
How do you see the Sanders / Democrats as different?
Sanders/democrats don't plan to deport 11 million people. They don't plan to ban Muslims form entering the country. They don't plan to kill family members of suspected terrorists. They don't plan to to interfere with freedom of the press. They don't call Mexican immigrants rapists and make plans to build a 3000 mile long wall. Their campaign is not built on nationalism, racism, sexism, and xenophobia.
With Trump we really have no idea what he would do on other issues as he has little detail or consistancy in his proposals. What do you think he would do as president? Why would you vote for him? If Sanders or Clinton were to win little would change as we would have 4 more years of gridlock. If Trump were to win millions of people will lose access to health care, he will blow up the deficit, and I find him extemely scary as commander-in-chief.
Now back to my usuallyt style of linking and quoting others. I found a paragraph near the end of my facism link quite frightening:
"But if he (Trump) wins the election, his legions will comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?"
I think you give Trump far to much credit, and the Conservatives far too little. After November Trump will have little to offer the far right and they will fight him just as they do Obama.
Now that is unless you think he is going to pull a lot of angry Moderates and Democrats into his "Reality Show". Just imagine all "Jerry Springer" viewers from all parties who eat this stuff up.
I agree that Sander's campaign is not built on racism, sexism, and xenophobia, it is built on nationalism, jealousy, greed and hate. "Those people have it, they took it from you and YOU should vote took take it back !!!"
"There are laws that increase freedom and laws that decrease freedom."
Now I agree that there are some laws that increase freedom, however I think most of them trade off freedoms. I mean it is nice that tens of millions of people get low cost health insurance through ACA and Medicaid. However it is not so nice that the hundreds of millions of us are forced to pay more to give them that gift.
I also agree that is nice that we have social security, disability insurance and medicaid so people who are unable/ unwilling to save for retirement or buy their own insurance. I mean this removes that burden from their shoulders, however it is unfortunate that all of of responsible savers/investors are forced to give 15.5% of our income to the government, instead of having the freedom to control our own finances.
Laurie,
Why are you against a strong Southern border and removing people from the country who are not here legally?
How would either of these be considered xenophobic? (ie having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries)
I love meeting, talking and working with people from all over the world and I support these ideas. ~400,000 people enter over that border each year. No background checks. A fortune in contraband crosses that border each year, and pollutes our streets.
I would be happy putting up a big wall and doubling the number of legal immigrants allowed in each year. To me it is not about xenophobia, it is about law/order, US security, good wages for low end workers, stopping drug flow, being fair to legal immigrants, etc.
Why are you against these logical actions? Do you want undocumented people entering the country, smuggling things in, jumping in line in front of rule following immigrants, etc...
Just what do you think Trump and the GOP congress will do working together?
The tax plans of all the GOP candidates and that of Paul Ryan all explode the deficit.
Experts Weigh Donald Trump’s Tax Plan, and Find It Wanting
So you think that Trump and the GOP weren't serious about repeal Obamacare and take away the insurance from millions of people.
Do you trust Trump as commander in chief and leader of the free world? Trump is unfit to command the military
that is all I have to say about Trump for now as anything else will just be insulting and questioning of your intelligence again.
Laurie,
Trump certainly wouldn't be my first choice for President (or even my 100th)... I liked Romney/Ryan but somehow we got Obama/Biden again... But the silliness of your linked article reminds me of Chicken Little. (or the Conservatives when Obama got elected in 2008) One would swear the book of Revelations was upon us.
"But if he (Trump) wins the election, his legions will comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then."
I mean who even uses the word "legions" now days... Maybe you should ask him to shave his head so you can look for the numbers 666...
Regarding his tax plan, he still needs to get it past the House and Senate... Good Luck.
As for ACA. As I always say, I see it as a wash. It did some good and did some bad.
Of course I don't trust Trump much at all. However I do trust our political system and it's checks/balances. I am betting he will likely be impeached if he does not settle in and start acting Presidential.
Am I going to vote for Trump. I honestly don't know. I may vote for Clinton, but I certainly wouldn't vote for Sanders. He is as crazy the other way...
The upside with Trump is that he may be my perfect candidate... A social Liberal and fiscal Conservative. Of course how would one know with all the flip flopping he does.
Laurie,
You never answered my question.
Why are you against these logical actions? Do you want undocumented people entering the country, smuggling things in, jumping in line in front of rule following immigrants, etc...
" I mean it is nice that tens of millions of people get low cost health insurance through ACA and Medicaid. However it is not so nice that the hundreds of millions of us are forced to pay more to give them that gift."
Here's the problem: pre-ACA, we were *already* paying their health care in one way or another. If hospitals were giving free care, people with insurance were picking up the freight through higher prices. Government programs were picking up the rest that feel through the cracks. What has changed under the ACA is that the people who were able to free-ride before are now making a contribution. Now maybe you think the chaos of pre-ACA was better or maybe you'd prefer to let the unvirtuous bleed out on the sidewalk, but I don't see how that's better. The numbers alone show the impact the ACA is having (lowest uninsured rate in history, sharply lower rates of medical inflation, etc.).
"I agree that Sander's campaign is not built on racism, sexism, and xenophobia, it is built on nationalism, jealousy, greed and hate."
I don't think you know what nationalism means. (Trump is the guy running the nationalist campaign.)
Probably
nationalism
1 : a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries
2 :a desire by a large group of people (such as people who share the same culture, history, language, etc.) to form a separate and independent nation of their own
But I think Sanders has some of that America first vibe going on also.
You are correct that people were receiving healthcare pre-ACA, therefore Laurie's concern about who has or does not have health insurance is some what mute.
And you are correct that those costs were paid for by hospitals, banks, and us consumers.
However since ACA we tax payers have paid higher premiums / taxes to cover those old expenses and these new "redundant" expenses.
Forbes ACA Mktg
Billions for exchanges and Marketing
Group markets (traditional employer health insurance) have seen increases in premiums roughly cut in half (compared to the prior decade) since 2012. But, hey, keep on spouting!
off topic comment here. Just thought I'd throw in an example of K. Drum presenting facts as they are, rather than cherry picking to make a case about the success of Obama care.
Finally, Some Actual Bad News About Obamacare
Sean,
Please provide a source...
This rate of increase looks pretty consistent and I sure haven't seen any slowing at work.
Laurie,
Yes it was nice to see Drum and MJ reporting the news. KFF Survey Results
His beginning statement was pretty interesting though...
"As you know, the overall news about Obamacare is almost uniformly positive. Uninsurance rates are down, costs are under control, subsidies are working, etc. But that doesn't mean everything is perfect."
I think the survey showed some other interesting brown spots in that "green pasture". Especially the dissatisfaction with premiums.
From Slate from an interview with Andrew Sullivan:
Is America’s Democracy Ripe for a Dictatorship?
"Trump says, We should torture. Torture is great. And the point is torture is to terrify and intimidate our enemies. In other words, his view of torture is exactly that of ISIS. It is a demonstrative performative act of cruelty. And I think that’s the element in him that’s truly disturbing is that his hatred for the weak, his contempt for anybody who isn’t as strong as he is, or as he imagines himself to be. I find it inimical to my entire moral worldview.
It seems to me the one thing you can judge a person by is how he or she treats someone with less power than him or her. And it’s quite clear that he believes in punching down in a way that really reflects his massive insecurity.
He doesn’t believe there is any up to punch.
No, of course. No, he doesn’t. But nonetheless, the people he does punch tend to be vulnerable to him.
You argue that this is happening now not just because there’s this vile monster, Donald Trump. You actually call him a monster. I thought it was a well-chosen term. But because American democracy has become more susceptible to it. And the reason it has become more susceptible to someone like this is because it’s been getting more democratic. Can you explain what you’re talking about, about America getting too democratic?
I think there was always a concern among the founders that what they wanted to construct in America was not a pure, direct democracy, which they understood would be subject to the whims and passions and fads of the popular majority at any one particular moment. Now this may not be a very popular thing to say today, but it does seem to me important that there be some place for the will of the mob, for the will of the pure democratic majority to be restrained, to be channeled into more productive and less dangerous forms. And what’s happened through the democratization of media, through the collapse of elites in terms of the political parties, and through the further democratization of the Senate, and now actually having Supreme Court literally put up for election, in which the Republicans are currently saying even the Supreme Court should be subject to democratic rule really by the parties.
This is not what the founders intended. And so the safeguards that we used to have against an individual like this have been weakened or removed, so that if we could imagine him winning, and I think to be honest with you, I think he’s more likely to win at this point than Clinton.
Really?
Yes. I mean, I can’t prove that. That’s my instinct at this point, because he owns the narrative.
But were he to win, I think obviously he’d bring the House with him, probably the Senate, and then would have the Supreme Court. So there’d be nothing to stand between him and the people. And that’s a very dangerous position, especially when this individual is proposing a trade war with our biggest trade partners. He is proposing a reign of terror in the Middle East, at least demonstratively to smash, or destroy, or to cut the head off, whatever metaphors he uses, ISIS. But I don’t think he would sit back and pursue the current strategy. These are extraordinarily radical changes against which we would have almost no defense."
anybody else find the idea of President Trump scary? Maybe I should send Hillary more money or maybe I'll just email her a bit of campaign advice, which I occasionally do just to amuse myself.
Well it makes a lot more sense when I went to the link. The bolding and italics helped...
Laurie, You are going to scare yourself silly if you keep reading these articles that are written by a large number of "Chicken Littles".
I am sure these are the same people who would praise mob rule as "properly functioning Democracy" if Sanders was in the lead.
Of course then it would be Jerry sharing doomsday articles written by the Far Right. Just think of the number of times they have bashed Obama, and yet we are still here.
Why Trump Might Win
From Health Affairs: CBO Report on Insurance Premiums
" Group health insurance premiums have grown at roughly 4 percent per year since 2012. These rates of growth are much lower than 9 percent growth rates experienced in the early 2000s."
Strange source... Seems like some theoretical exercise.
"The report examines the effects of federal subsidies, fees, and taxes; federal regulations; and actions taken by insurers on health insurance premiums. In particular it considers how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has affected health insurance premiums. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did not conduct any original research on these topics. Rather the report describes what economic theory would predict regarding these effects and the limited empirical work that has been done as to what has happened so far under the ACA."
Laurie,
I have no doubt that Trump may win, The more socialistic anti-religion federalist platform promoted by the Democrats worries many hard working God fearing Americans.
My point is that the world will likely survive Trump as President. Hopefully :-)
I don't think Trump will win, but if he does it will be disasterous for the country, which is why I keep posting links about him.
Those hard working, God fearing Americans, true Americans need not worry, because if Hillary wins very little will change.
Maybe I will send in a suggestion to Hillary for a campaign slogan.
"Vote for Hillary, Go with the quo, (status quo that is)"
It fits nicely with one of her main campaign points - that Trump is too risky and too reckless.
There are quite a number of the "NeverTrump" people in the GOP. I have not been able to pin one down and ask, "what would Trump have to do to convince you, if not to vote for him, at least accept that he wouldn't be a disaster?" I know a lot of people were convinced by his release of potential SCOTUS nominees. Polls showing him leading Hillary are convincing others, especially those worried about the down-ballot races. I was convinced his motivations were acceptable in the first debate, and that his campaign style was vindicated just last week. Four women were elected to run as Trump delegates at the GOP convention this weekend. I would say he WILL be the President, and that doesn't worry me much.
"Strange source... Seems like some theoretical exercise."
Well, it's a lot less theoretical about what is happening today than your source from 2009.
Oops. Must have been the jet lag... I will look for a better source when I have time. Right now I am in Shenzhen at a Crowne Plaza and lucky enough to have Google from Hong Kong. Unfortunately it is in Chinese and I don't have time to figure it out.
"what would Trump have to do to convince you, if not to vote for him, at least accept that he wouldn't be a disaster?"
Not being a Republican, I suppose that question wasn't directed at me, but I would suggest the answer is pretty clear. Donald Trump is certainly the most unprepared candidate in the history of our country, and perhaps in the history of democracy altogether. The upside of that is that the room for improvement is enormous to the point of being in calculable. I mean this is a guy bidding to be a world leader who simply knows nothing about what's going on in the world. Reading a daily newspaper would help.
That said, the election of Donald Trump would be a disaster, but the fact that he is taken seriously as something other than a circus clown is a disaster too. He is the most powerful symbol possible of the very decline in America that he claims to deplore.
--Hiram
Your concerns are the one thing that worries me. Suppose he is, against all odds, as shallow and ignorant as he seems to be? I keep dismissing that possibility and assuming, because of statements made in his more serious moments and because of the people who will be around him, that he will be pretty good-- not "great," maybe, but good.
I think he is the perfect proof of my theory that the best candidate is rarely the best person to actually perform the job, and vice versa. Trump is a far better candidate by taking on Political Correctness and Media Bias, while those same statements and positions do not suggest a powerful intellect and administrative acumen.
Post a Comment