dagblog - Comments for "As we were coming"

You've had 500 polemical

NCD — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 20:20:26 +0000

In reply to Is it your view that because

You've had 500 polemical posts on the corrupt Wall Street shills called the Democratic Party.

None on the hero and hope of the forgotten, economically downtrodden, Donald Trump, or the GOP. They are the dominant winning force in American politics.

Perhaps among them you will discover a more fruitful ground for your message of change and justice?

Trump's freshness and appeal easily surpasses Bernie or anyone corrupted by connection with the failed Wall Street dependent Democratic administrations, and policies, of Obama or your "15 point" monster Bill Clinton.

Thanks to your resolute and scathing analysis, I now believe Trump is a stronger candidate and spokesman for real change.

You so funny, I love it when

artappraiser — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 20:12:34 +0000

In reply to You've had 500 polemical

You so funny, I love it when you role play, you're good at it.

How to split those nums. I

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 20:03:59 +0000

In reply to That's not the impression I

How to split those nums. I stopped hearing left support for Warren some time ago, as a fellow traveller. What %? Canr tell you.

That's not the impression I

Obey — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:42:46 +0000

In reply to When Warren didn't break with

That's not the impression I get when I see the positive reception she gets from Berniac audiences.

When Warren didn't break with

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:40:00 +0000

In reply to Hate to disagree, but I think

When Warren didn't break with Hillary, the Left abandoned her as tainted. Sanders then became the "the real deal"(tm) though many also lost taste for him when he didnt abandin Hillary at the cinvention.

I wouldn't hold that view but

ocean-kat — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 18:40:56 +0000

In reply to Is it your view that because

I wouldn't hold that view but there is at least a relative difference, a difference in degree. Here's the problem I have with your analysis. You claim the people are so upset with democratic connections to Wall Street that they are losing seats because of it. But they're losing seats to republicans who don't just have connections but are totally the party of Wall Street.

As Elizabeth Hinton notes in

rmrd0000 — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 18:06:47 +0000

In reply to In defending the Clinton

As Elizabeth Hinton notes in the NYT article, 26 of 38 voting members of the CBC voted for the crime bill. Bernie Sanders voted for the crime bill. We have had this discussion many times before. Incarceration. Michelle Alexander also argues that the Clinton's were responsible for mass incarceration. The 1994 crime bill focused on federal crime. The huge increase in incarceration was at the state and local level.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10961362/clinton-1994-crime-law

We have had this discussion multiple times and you persist in presenting only one side of the argument.

Edit to add:

Getting tough on crime had the support of several black politicians.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/analysis-black-leaders-supported-clin...

Is it your view that because

HSG — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:40:33 +0000

In reply to Trump is taking up the fight

Is it your view that because Trump and the Republicans are really bad, the Democrats must be good?

In defending the Clinton

HSG — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:37:34 +0000

In reply to Clinton didn't "tag-team with

In defending the Clinton Presidency you make a number of claims which are quoted below and rebutted:

A) Alternet uses the term "tag-teaming with Reagan" to denote that Clinton and Reagan were the two worst Presidents when it comes to mass incarceration of African-Americans. Yes crime rates were very high in the early-90s but there were many other options besides locking people up for non-violent drug offenses and throwing away the key. Here's what three Ivy League scholars said in the NYT about your and Clinton's "even blacks wanted this" defense:

When confronted about her husband’s pivotal support for the bill, Hillary Clinton argued, even as she admitted the legislation’s shortcomings, that the bill was a response to “great demand, not just from America writ large, but from the black community, to get tougher on crime.”

Yet the historical record reveals a different story. Instead of being the unintended consequence of the democratic process at work, punitive crime policy is a result of a process of selectively hearing black voices on the question of crime.

B) You contend that "Clinton's welfare bill didn't have have significant negative repercussions during his presidency." Does that make it okay that the worst effects came afterwards? The Washington Post notes that "extreme poverty" rates were rising before Clinton left office. Anti-poverty activists Peter Edelman and Mary Jo Bane were so appalled by Clinton's Welfare Reform bill that they quit working for the administration.

C) You write it's "beyond absurd" to blame Clinton for the financial crisis that came 7 1/2 years after he left the White House and 8 1/2 years after deregulation. It's not absurd in the least. Bubbles can form at any time and sometimes take years to burst. The real estate bubble that felled the markets in 2008 had been building for some time and was as devastating as it was because there were too big to fail financial institutions as a direct result of Graham-Rudman-Bliley which Clinton signed.

D) With respect to trade, you write: "Re: NAFTA, has been relatively balanced, and you persist in ignoring the much larger China outsourcing effect." The Clintons, of course, are also to a large degree responsible for the lopsided losses that have resulted from our trading "partnership" with China. From the U.S. Diplomatic Mission to Germany's website:

In the 1990s, the U.S. trade deficit with China grew to exceed even the American trade gap with Japan. From the American perspective, China represents an enormous potential export market but one that is particularly difficult to penetrate. In November 1999, the two countries took what American officials believed was a major step toward closer trade relations when they reached a trade agreement that would bring China formally into the WTO."

Moreover, your premise that NAFTA's impact was "relatively balanced," is false. Public Citizen estimates that NAFTA cost us 1 million American jobs and increased income inequality. Public Citizen also notes that "U.S. trade deficit growth with Mexico and Canada has been 45 percent higher than with countries not party to a U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and . . . U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico have grown at less than half the pre-NAFTA rate."

Trump is taking up the fight

NCD — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:26:08 +0000

In reply to "Our best interests" lie, I

Trump is taking up the fight against Wall Street and the corrupt corporate controlled Democratic Party that you have so rightly attacked for years. Join with him.

He has assembled a distinguished cabinet of respected corporate influence free experts with no agenda but saving America from the disastrous years of Democratic malfeasance going back 20 years of which you so eloquently related here, again and again.

Trump is the progressive populist redeemer of economic justice and savior of the silent majority, embrace him.

There is a third way, Trump is it.

His voters know he is fighting against the plutocrats, millionaires and billionaires who comprise the Democratic Party.....he fights against big business, big corporations and big money, for the little forgotten ones, and the sick and the poor.