[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-01, 08:45, said:

Swell, but what about my main argument that there is substantial differences between paycheck-to-paycheck of the working poor and the middle and upper middle class, and that delayed gratification is a forgotten skill of those above poverty levels?

An important topic. I am off for a bridge game, but a few words. There are many cases where I am stunned by poor judgment. Some causes of this are beyon our reach, but I am thinking one of them is that everyday finances have become more confusing.

An actual, although trivial, example. I mentioned some posts back that I had planned to pick up some tee-shorts on the way home from a game, and Becky mentioned we have a coupon that gets us 20% off plus some other goodies. Ok, so we went together yesterday to shop. Becky was looking at a nice top suitable for casual wear such as exeercise at the Y. Very casual, in other words. It was $19.95, marked down from $40. For the Y? "It looks good, get it, I said". And 20% off. At the cash register, it rang up as $10. Ok. It's a list price of 40, marked doen to 20, with 20% off, except it is really only 10, with 20% off. Good grief.

Trivial, as I said. But two remarks. 1. This is not so trivial for a person on a very tight budget. 2. More important, I get the idea that shopping for a college has some of the same features. The price is this. Except, fill out this form, maybe it's that. Or, perhaps, something else. And you can take out a loan. Which has to be paid back. Except there is this forgiveness clause. That might or might not apply. And might be changed. Sign here.

People should plan their expenses carefully, to the extent possible. it seems to me that it was once easier to do so.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-01, 09:20, said:

I hope you realise that "liberal" and "far left winger" are two completely different things in every country except the USA. In many countries, such as Germany, the Liberals are regarded as a centre-right party and that is probably the best description of the original Liberal party too. From your post I would imagine you are more Liberal than left-winger. For reference, Jeremy Corbyn is left wing - how many of his personal policy choices do you agree with?

As to your previous post, you made a statement:

IMO, and from what I have gathered from Mike777 posts over the years, Mike is liberal only in the sense that neoliberal has the word "liberal" embedded.

Quote

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

[Winstonm]

Some guy named Chris Hedges wrote this, and I thought it of interest concerning Trump as strongman: (edit mine)

Quote

Fascist Trump movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the “losers” those who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment

Once the inflammatory language is removed, he may be on to something. Question is: how big is that base?

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-01, 11:49, said:

IMO, and from what I have gathered from Mike777 posts over the years, Mike is liberal only in the sense that neoliberal has the word "liberal" embedded.

OK, so Mike's idea of "far left wing" are approximately the policies of the most right wing leader of my country in my lifetime? That is an interesting development but I suppose it is true if you take your centre point to be something close to Genghis Khan.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-01, 14:08, said:

OK, so Mike's idea of "far left wing" are approximately the policies of the most right wing leader of my country in my lifetime? That is an interesting development but I suppose it is true if you take your centre point to be something close to Genghis Khan.

Funnily enough I'm involved in an argument on FB with somebody who thinks the most left wing major party leader we've had in 20+ years was a right wing neoliberal and can't see that he's off the scale left.

[kenberg]

There is this trivial thing that recurs.

Today NPR was quoting some R, I think from Arizona, as saying "I don't think that Trump can get elected unless he changes what he says. I don't think Trump should get elected unless he changes what he says."

There have been many minor variants on this message. Do these guys listen to themselves at all? Rephrased: "Mr. Trump's comments show him to hold repulsive beliefs. I cannot support him if he continues to say such things. If he learns to lie about what he believes, then I will support him".


I realize that in politics and elsewhere what people say and what they believe do not always match. But it is unusual to find so many people making it unequivocally clear that they have no trouble at all with the candidate's character or beliefs, as long as the candidate lies about these beliefs. It hurts my ears to hear such things.

I know this is just one more item in a long list, but it does seem to be a clearly stated position of many Rs. It is hard to believe that someone wishes his name to be attached to such a position.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-01, 11:49, said:

IMO, and from what I have gathered from Mike777 posts over the years, Mike is liberal only in the sense that neoliberal has the word "liberal" embedded.

FWIW, the expression neo-Liberal has shifted remarkably over the years.

30 years ago, I categorized myself as a neo-Liberal, however, this was in the tradition of Rustow and not the "Chicago boys"

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2016-August-01, 16:49, said:

FWIW, the expression neo-Liberal has shifted remarkably over the years.

The wiki page is reasonable starting point for anyone interested in this. In the UK the expression is less common and the policies of Friedman followed by Margaret Thatcher tend to be labelled monetarism or, more specifically, simply Thatcherism.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on 2016-August-01, 15:15, said:

Today NPR was quoting some R, I think from Arizona, as saying "I don't think that Trump can get elected unless he changes what he says. I don't think Trump should get elected unless he changes what he says."

I can imagine some people would say that Boris Johnson could have been a decent politician if he had just been a bit more diplomatic.

And maybe some will say the same about Trump.

Not saying that it is a reasonable position. Trump's business records and his cluelessness about politics should be enough to disqualify him regardless of what one thinks about his debating tactics and regardless of what one assumes his political views to be.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-02, 02:36, said:

The wiki page is reasonable starting point for anyone interested in this. In the UK the expression is less common and the policies of Friedman followed by Margaret Thatcher tend to be labelled monetarism or, more specifically, simply Thatcherism.

Why do they list fiscal austerity as a component of liberalism? Spending cuts ok, but austerity also means tax increases.

Interesting, by the way, that the modern usage of the term originated in Spanish and was borrowed by English later.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2016-August-02, 02:46, said:

Why do they list fiscal austerity as a component of liberalism? Spending cuts ok, but austerity also means tax increases.

That is a good question and I would tend to agree with you. Classical liberals generally wanted a small, merchant-friendly government and austerity for them would definitely have meant less government involvement rather than tax increases wherever possible. I wonder if that was slipped into the wiki article by someone trying to increase the link between classical liberalism and modern neo-liberalism.

helene_t, on 2016-August-02, 02:46, said:

Interesting, by the way, that the modern usage of the term originated in Spanish and was borrowed by English later.

If you read the Origins section in detail, the suggestion is that the 1970s meaning originated in the USA before getting picked up in Chile and spreading through the Spanish-speaking world. So I am not sure one can say that the term originated in Spanish but rather that is was popularised in that form. Not that I can verify the accuracy of this part of the article - I was a little young for politics at the time!

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2016-August-01, 15:15, said:

There is this trivial thing that recurs.

Today NPR was quoting some R, I think from Arizona, as saying "I don't think that Trump can get elected unless he changes what he says. I don't think Trump should get elected unless he changes what he says."

There have been many minor variants on this message. Do these guys listen to themselves at all? Rephrased: "Mr. Trump's comments show him to hold repulsive beliefs. I cannot support him if he continues to say such things. If he learns to lie about what he believes, then I will support him".


I realize that in politics and elsewhere what people say and what they believe do not always match. But it is unusual to find so many people making it unequivocally clear that they have no trouble at all with the candidate's character or beliefs, as long as the candidate lies about these beliefs. It hurts my ears to hear such things.

I know this is just one more item in a long list, but it does seem to be a clearly stated position of many Rs. It is hard to believe that someone wishes his name to be attached to such a position.

A simple case of playing both sides. If Trump wins, they will say "oh yes he should be more careful how he presents, but his beliefs are best and the voters proved that." But if Trump loses they will say "see how we opposed this all along, we want to save the R party from such as him."

Pathetic, but no special surprise.

[PassedOut]

It looks to me that Trump's statements are getting more and more ominous: Trump labels Clinton 'the devil' and suggests election will be rigged

Quote

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” he told the crowd.

He did not elaborate but later repeated the charge on Monday night with Sean Hannity on Fox News, saying: “November 8th, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.”

Roger Stone, a long time confidante of Trump, amplified these concerns in an interview with a far right wing radio show.

Stone said: “I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly.”

Laying out a strategy for Trump to adopt, Stone added: “He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: ‘I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud. If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.’”

He also promised a “bloodbath” if the Democrats attempted to “steal” the election.

I think Trump is suggesting that his loss of the election would mean that the election was rigged and that his supporters should go on a rampage. It would not surprise me if some of his looniest supporters took Trump's suggestion to heart. And on this date, Trump is not leading in Florida.

[billw55]

Use of the word "leading" annoys me. Elections happen on one day in November. Nobody can be "leading" three months before election day.

In NFL week 9, the Jacksonville Jaguars visit the Kansas City Chiefs. I think that most people will expect KC to win that game. But nobody would say that KC is "leading". That would be silly.

[kenberg]

My error here, I read to quickly and did not realize that the worst of it was said by Stone, not Trump.
Thanks to olegru for helping me out here.
This does not really change my view that it is time for leading Republicans to deal with this.

PassedOut, on 2016-August-02, 07:24, said:

It looks to me that Trump's statements are getting more and more ominous: Trump labels Clinton 'the devil' and suggests election will be rigged


I think Trump is suggesting that his loss of the election would mean that the election was rigged and that his supporters should go on a rampage. It would not surprise me if some of his looniest supporters took Trump's suggestion to heart. And on this date, Trump is not leading in Florida.

It is time for serious Republicans to deal with this. It is impossible not to see this as a threat.Losing is equated to being rigged, and then " this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government."

If he really said this, or anything remotely like this, it no longer suffices for Republican leaders to maintain a discreet silence. I long ago said that if Donald Trump were somehow to agree with every political position I hold, I would still find him unacceptable. How much more is needed for those in leadership positions, and the everyday citizen not in a leadership position for that matter, to come to the same conclusion?

A lawyer could argue that he did not say losing proves rigged, he only discussed the possibility. Bull. I understand what is being said, and so does everyone else.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-August-01, 15:15, said:

I realize that in politics and elsewhere what people say and what they believe do not always match. But it is unusual to find so many people making it unequivocally clear that they have no trouble at all with the candidate's character or beliefs, as long as the candidate lies about these beliefs. It hurts my ears to hear such things.

But it can also go the other way.

Last night's "Full Frontal" had their coverage of the DNC, and they had a segment where correspondents talked to Bernie supporters who hadn't been swayed over to Hillary's camp. They pointed out to one of them that Hillary had adopted a number of Bernie's policies in her platform. He said that just because she was saying and doing the right things, it doesn't make her the right candidate. Basically, he was seeing through the fact that politicians will say whatever they think the voters want to hear. But if you don't trust the candidate to begin with, why would you believe these statements?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-August-02, 08:40, said:

It is time for serious Republicans to deal with this. It is impossible not to see this as a threat.Losing is equated to being rigged, and then " this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government."

If he really said this, or anything remotely like this, it no longer suffices for Republican leaders to maintain a discreet silence. I long ago said that if Donald Trump were somehow to agree with every political position I hold, I would still find him unacceptable. How much more is needed for those in leadership positions, and the everyday citizen not in a leadership position for that matter, to come to the same conclusion?

A lawyer could argue that he did not say losing proves rigged, he only discussed the possibility. Bull. I understand what is being said, and so does everyone else.

This the trouble with ideology over critical thinking. That applies to both sides, too. I've never grasped the argument from either side for a large government or a small government - when you starting point is ideologically driven, it is automatically invalid as a beginning in critical thinking.

Why can't we all simply agree that government should be the size it needs to be to accomplish those things we need and want accomplished? That is at least a reasonable beginning.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-02, 09:21, said:

Why can't we all simply agree that government should be the size it needs to be to accomplish those things we need and want accomplished? That is at least a reasonable beginning.

The actual argument is over what we need and want accomplished by government versus other organizations. When someone says we need a smaller government, what they actually mean is that government shouldn't be responsible for many of the things it does.

[Trinidad]

PassedOut, on 2016-August-02, 07:24, said:

It looks to me that Trump's statements are getting more and more ominous: Trump labels Clinton 'the devil' and suggests election will be rigged

Quote

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” he told the crowd.

At least he is honest about his plan to have the election rigged to prevent 'the devil' from winning...



Rik

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-August-02, 09:13, said:

But it can also go the other way.

Last night's "Full Frontal" had their coverage of the DNC, and they had a segment where correspondents talked to Bernie supporters who hadn't been swayed over to Hillary's camp. They pointed out to one of them that Hillary had adopted a number of Bernie's policies in her platform. He said that just because she was saying and doing the right things, it doesn't make her the right candidate. Basically, he was seeing through the fact that politicians will say whatever they think the voters want to hear. But if you don't trust the candidate to begin with, why would you believe these statements?

I think what Trump is saying is more, a lot more, than what the Sanders folks are saying. And further, they are the worker bees, not the queen.

If Sanders supporters want to criticize the DNC for fake neutrality, I can understand that. They can be suspicious of, say, Clinton's movement toward free tuition (for some). They can announce they will not vote for her. All of that is very different from the candidate essentially calling for widespread trouble in the streets if he doesn't win. To say Trump's words are irresponsible seems to me to understate the matter by quite a bit. As unbelievable as it seems, I think the Republican National Committee needs to put out an unambiguous statement making not clear that they do not support widespread civil disobedience if their candidate fails to win the election.


And then they need to think through whether he really is their candidate. They probably have some legal obligation to put his name on the ballot with an R beside it. Maybe a few other things. But I can't believe they are comfortable with what's happening. Not Priebus, not anyone.

If they really can't see that something needs to be done, their members need to explain it to them.