2016 Democratic Thread

[caulfield12]

This came out within 24 hours of him becoming prez elect. He talked smack about Hillary and her Goldman Sachs connections and getting paid to speak at events, then he turns around and makes a GD GS exec a part of the swamp! I'm sure he'll add an ExxonMobil crony eventually too, with their mad-crazy billion dollar profits snd massive tax exemptions.

Show replies (5)

Reply 107

 

 

On Secretary Treasury nominee...lol

[StrangeSox]

The Day After: Obama on His Legacy, Trump's Win and the Path Forward

 

Rolling Stone interviewed Obama the day after the election. Some interesting thoughts from him there on the path forward for progressives, Democrats' challenges in winning state and Senate elections, and the "information bubbles" people increasingly are closing themselves off in.

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawyers-trump-se...-124914780.html

Trump might "have to" sell hotel in DC according to contract language but probably won't since it's Ivanka's pet project and he feels he can do whatever he wants as president

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/breitbart-urges-...-152042623.html

breitbart vs. tony the tiger/kellogg's

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/6615cc99-1ba9-...sher-trump.html

More Goldman guys on the way...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-transition...-170401049.html

For claiming to be so isolationist, seems Trump instead is going for a video game All-Star collection of "gung ho" wartime generals

Edited December 1, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

The Day After: Obama on His Legacy, Trump's Win and the Path Forward

 

Rolling Stone interviewed Obama the day after the election. Some interesting thoughts from him there on the path forward for progressives, Democrats' challenges in winning state and Senate elections, and the "information bubbles" people increasingly are closing themselves off in.

 

Of course, the main sound bite this week is Obama supposedly blaming the ubiquitousness of FOX News being on everywhere for the loss.

 

Nobody's picking up the lines about contesting/appearing in 99 counties in Iowa in 2008, and the value of retail politics vs. carpet bombing with advertising.

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/8-big-change...-124500270.html

More details on Price's plans for ObamaCare. One only needs to read Change #1 to get a sense of dread about what's coming, followed by #2...that pre-existing condition situation will have lots of caveats, surely

Edited December 1, 2016 by caulfield12

[BigSqwert]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/breitbart-urges-...-152042623.html

breitbart vs. tony the tiger/kellogg's

 

I wonder why they're picking on Kellogg's when a slew of other brands decided to pull ads (i.e., Allstate, Vanguard, Nest, Warby Parker, etc). It's obvious your site has major issues when so many brands decide to stay away.

[caulfield12]

I wonder why they're picking on Kellogg's when a slew of other brands decided to pull ads (i.e., Allstate, Vanguard, Nest, Warby Parker, etc). It's obvious your site has major issues when so many brands decide to stay away.

 

Not to mention Michigan is TrumpLand now...and the DeVoses there as well.

[bmags]

With all of the votes nearly counted, it's clear that:

- This wasn't a low-turnout election

- Clinton did what she was expected to with hispanic vote, contrary to early exits

 

So to me, my initial thought that the next candidate just needs to get the apathetic voters that missed 2012 was false.

 

Trump's ability to manipulate positive media coverage and deflect negative coverage is quite frankly amazing. And this Carrier-style populism will probably resonate in a larger way than if any other politician did it.

 

At this point, I think 8 years is increasingly possible. That said, the likelihood of impeachment is low so long as republicans are in house/senate, and that likelihood is high unless medicare privatization is pushed thru. The other key will be foreign policy, where I'm terrified, as balta said, that some group will attack a Trump hotel and it drags us into a huge war.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

She's going to end up with close to Obama 2012 numbers or maybe even slightly higher.

 

Trump won narrow victories where he needed to win them, but this was a very close election in the states that mattered. If she got Obama 2012's numbers in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, we're discussing a Clinton win by a pretty crushing margin. Talking about a second term being increasingly possible when we're not even four weeks into what's been a dumpster fire of a transition seems to be a bit premature.

 

The Carrier thing and the way it's being reported are ridiculous and a positive for Trump politically, though, I'll concede that.

 

Here's Sanders on Carrier, fwiw

 

Bernie Sanders: Carrier just showed corporations how to beat Donald Trump

 

Today, about 1,000 Carrier workers and their families should be rejoicing. But the rest of our nation’s workers should be very nervous.

 

President-elect Donald Trump will reportedly announce a deal with United Technologies, the corporation that owns Carrier, that keeps less than 1,000 of the 2,100 jobs in America that were previously scheduled to be transferred to Mexico. Let’s be clear: It is not good enough to save some of these jobs. Trump made a promise that he would save all of these jobs, and we cannot rest until an ironclad contract is signed to ensure that all of these workers are able to continue working in Indiana without having their pay or benefits slashed.

 

In exchange for allowing United Technologies to continue to offshore more than 1,000 jobs, Trump will reportedly give the company tax and regulatory favors that the corporation has sought. Just a short few months ago, Trump was pledging to force United Technologies to “pay a damn tax.” He was insisting on very steep tariffs for companies like Carrier that left the United States and wanted to sell their foreign-made products back in the United States. Instead of a damn tax, the company will be rewarded with a damn tax cut. Wow! How’s that for standing up to corporate greed? How’s that for punishing corporations that shut down in the United States and move abroad?

 

In essence, United Technologies took Trump hostage and won. And that should send a shock wave of fear through all workers across the country.

 

Trump has endangered the jobs of workers who were previously safe in the United States. Why? Because he has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives. Even corporations that weren’t thinking of offshoring jobs will most probably be reevaluating their stance this morning. And who would pay for the high cost for tax cuts that go to the richest businessmen in America? The working class of America.

 

Let’s be clear. United Technologies is not going broke. Last year, it made a profit of $7.6 billion and received more than $6 billion in defense contracts. It has also received more than $50 million from the Export-Import Bank and very generous tax breaks. In 2014, United Technologies gave its former chief executive Louis Chenevert a golden parachute worth more than $172 million. Last year, the company’s five highest-paid executives made more than $50 million. The firm also spent $12 billion to inflate its stock price instead of using that money to invest in new plants and workers.

 

Does that sound like a company that deserves more corporate welfare from our government? Trump’s Band-Aid solution is only making the problem of wealth inequality in America even worse.

 

I said I would work with Trump if he was serious about the promises he made to members of the working class. But after running a campaign pledging to be tough on corporate America, Trump has hypocritically decided to do the exact opposite. He wants to treat corporate irresponsibility with kid gloves. The problem with our rigged economy is not that our policies have been too tough on corporations; it’s that we haven’t been tough enough.

 

We need to re-instill an ethic of corporate patriotism. We need to send a very loud and clear message to corporate America: The era of outsourcing is over. Instead of offshoring jobs, the time has come for you to start bringing good-paying jobs back to America.

 

If United Technologies or any other company wants to keep outsourcing decent-paying American jobs, those companies must pay an outsourcing tax equal to the amount of money they expect to save by moving factories to Mexico or other low-wage countries. They should not receive federal contracts or other forms of corporate welfare. They must pay back all of the tax breaks and other corporate welfare they have received from the federal government. And they must not be allowed to reward their executives with stock options, bonuses or golden parachutes for outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries. I will soon be introducing the Outsourcing Prevention Act, which will address exactly that.

 

If Donald Trump won’t stand up for America’s working class, we must.

Edited December 2, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

She's going to end up with close to Obama 2012 numbers or maybe even slightly higher.

 

Trump won narrow victories where he needed to win them, but this was a very close election in the states that mattered. If she got Obama 2012's numbers in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, we're discussing a Clinton win by a pretty crushing margin. Talking about a second term being increasingly possible when we're not even four weeks into what's been a dumpster fire of a transition seems to be a bit premature.

 

The Carrier thing and the way it's being reported are ridiculous and a positive for Trump politically, though, I'll concede that.

 

Yes, but history is always on the incumbent's side, and this playbook of individually meddling with handshake deals on small factories and promoting it like crazy is something that has been very successful in other countries. Why would someone that flipped from voting Obama to Trump switch again in 4 years if he "proved" what he said he'd do. Facts don't matter with him, the economy as a whole could be worse but if the voters that put him in feel like he is working for them then it won't matter.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, but history is always on the incumbent's side, and this playbook of individually meddling with handshake deals on small factories and promoting it like crazy is something that has been very successful in other countries. Why would someone that flipped from voting Obama to Trump switch again in 4 years if he "proved" what he said he'd do. Facts don't matter with him, the economy as a whole could be worse but if the voters that put him in feel like he is working for them then it won't matter.

 

Is there evidence that this actually happened in any meaningful numbers? I thought the story of Trump's victory in MI/WI/PA was driving higher turnout of rural conservative whites while Clinton's support levels from typical Democratic areas dipped a bit, not that people switched from Obama to Trump.

 

I'm not saying that there's no chance he could win a second term or even if it's 50/50, better or worse, just that giving Carrier a bunch of tax and regulatory breaks to save a handful of jobs isn't going to have an impact on 2020 and talking about discrete instances improving or lessening his chances seems a bit early because it's still 2016.

 

f*** me, the next President hasn't even taken office and we're already talking about the next election. By 2020, we'll be ending the year talking about candidates for 2028.

[GoSox05]

I have a feeling we are going to see a lot of this from Trump. It's a smart move by him. Makes him look like he is for the working man. Going to these companies and saying he worked out these great deals to keep jobs.

 

Then someone like Bernie Sanders has to explain why the thing is a sham, but by then people have already made up their minds "Trump saved jobs". They read headlines, not articles explaining why its actually bad for workers.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I have a feeling we are going to see a lot of this from Trump. It's a smart move by him. Makes him look like he is for the working man. Going to these companies and saying he worked out these great deals to keep jobs.

 

Then someone like Bernie Sanders has to explain why the thing is a sham, but by then people have already made up their minds "Trump saved jobs". They read headlines, not articles explaining why its actually bad for workers.

 

I think if you can distill the response down to "he paid companies to move jobs offshore," it could be effective, but ultimately I do agree that, right now, this looks like and is being presented as "Trump fulfilling his campaign promise!" even if it's sort of the exact opposite of what his promise was and is just a really predictable corporate handout.

Edited December 2, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Is there evidence that this actually happened in any meaningful numbers? I thought the story of Trump's victory in MI/WI/PA was driving higher turnout of rural conservative whites while Clinton's support levels from typical Democratic areas dipped a bit, not that people switched from Obama to Trump.

 

I'm not saying that there's no chance he could win a second term or even if it's 50/50, better or worse, just that giving Carrier a bunch of tax and regulatory breaks to save a handful of jobs isn't going to have an impact on 2020 and talking about discrete instances improving or lessening his chances seems a bit early because it's still 2016.

 

f*** me, the next President hasn't even taken office and we're already talking about the next election. By 2020, we'll be ending the year talking about candidates for 2028.

 

These exurbs in Michigan/Ohio/PA that were +10, +20 Obama swung equally hard for Trump.

 

Also - Iowa. Part of this may be population change, but these are the swings that lost her the election.

[bmags]

I think if you can distill the response down to "he paid companies to move jobs offshore," it could be effective, but ultimately I do agree that, right now, this looks like and is being presented as "Trump fulfilling his campaign promise!" even if it's sort of the exact opposite of what his promise was and is just a really predictable corporate handout.

 

"He bailed out the factory owners and they moved jobs to Mexico anyway"

 

Obama literally saved an entire industry and countless jobs, but they tied "bailout" to it, so it's bad. Bailouts are bad. Deals are good!

 

Happy for the workers that kept their jobs though. Perhaps we should just subsidize the s*** out of that stuff as we do with farms.

[bmags]

This was very good:

https://medium.com/@rortybomb/learning-from...3ed0#.aykpmivvd

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/carrier-deal-sho...-165900707.html

 

The Carrier deal shows what Trump understands about the politics of jobs ("creation/preservation")...Dems need to counter this argument with something better or they will continue to lose.

[bmags]

Foster Campbell has outraised his opponent by over a million for the run-off election. I am stilll holding out hope!

[BigSqwert]

Donald Drumpf risks China rift with Taiwan call

 

Donald Drumpf risks opening up a major diplomatic dispute with China before he has even been inaugurated after speaking on the phone on Friday with Tsai Ying-wen, the president of Taiwan.

 

The telephone call, confirmed by three people, is believed to be the first between a US president-elect and a leader of Taiwan since diplomatic relations between the two were cut in 1979.

 

Although it is not clear if the Drumpf transition team intended the conversation to signal a broader change in US policy towards Taiwan, the call is likely to infuriate Beijing which regards the island as a renegade province.

 

The US has adopted the so-called “One China” policy since 1972 after the Nixon-Mao meetings and in 1978 President Jimmy Carter formally recognised Beijing as the sole government of China, with the US embassy closing in Taipei the year after.

 

The Drumpf team did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

 

“The Chinese leadership will see this as a highly provocative action, of historic proportions,” said Evan Medeiros, former Asia director at the White House national security council.

 

“Regardless if it was deliberate or accidental, this phone call will fundamentally change China’s perceptions of Drumpf’s strategic intentions for the negative. With this kind of move, Drumpf is setting a foundation of enduring mistrust and strategic competition for US-China relations.”

 

via

[NorthSideSox72]

via

I mean... the new President has zero political experience, and succeeded in business because he was given the keys to the kingdom. And his chief policy adviser is most known for starting an alt-right website. What could possibly go wrong in foreign relations?

 

Oh and, he spent time in nearly every speech making out Jina as evil, and encouraged Japan to build nukes. Yeah, these Sino-US relations are gonna go great.

 

[StrangeSox]

hmmm

 

From two weeks ago:

Trump wants to expand business empire to Taiwan, creating another potential conflict of interest

[Quin]

I mean... the new President has zero political experience, and succeeded in business because he was given the keys to the kingdom. And his chief policy adviser is most known for starting an alt-right website. What could possibly go wrong in foreign relations?

 

Oh and, he spent time in nearly every speech making out Jina as evil, and encouraged Japan to build nukes. Yeah, these Sino-US relations are gonna go great.

 

Oy.

 

"The Shanghaiist reported last month that Trump was eyeing a major real estate project in Taiwan that would involve the construction of several luxury hotels and resorts."

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...o-taiwan-leader

[StrangeSox]

We're still almost 2 months away from him becoming President, and he's already creating international incidents because he's a moron who's surrounded himself with morons.

 

relevant:

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

guys, you are being unreasonable, how would he know trump intl is building hotels there? Ivanka runs that business!

[StrangeSox]

lol she was probably on the call, just like she was inexplicably on the call with the Argentinian President and present for the meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister.

[bmags]

The thing that pisses me off about this is one) it risks war carelessly for no reason, taipei has been prudently avoiding confrontation for a while and two) I can totally see this resolving by China offering a nice deal to trump on land lease in Shanghai/Hong Kong.