Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

Economists overwhelmingly agree that free trade is good for the average American. So if economy is your number one issue, you should support the pro-free trade side.

I got my master's earlier this year. It's more complicated than this. So, pretty much every economist will agree that free trade boosts GDP per capita for developed nations that have proper protections for emergent industries and anti-competitive practices. But GDP per capita isn't the end of the story. If you remove the government from the picture, trade has winners and losers. You're a loser if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative disadvantage in, and a winner if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative advantage in. If you add the winner's gain to the loser's losses, you'll get a positive number - that is, GDP per capita goes up. But the winner still won, and the loser definitely still lost - they're worse off than if there wasn't free trade. So while on average everyone wins, not every individual wins. The average American can get richer while the poorest American gets poorer - these are not contradictions.

So economists have the caveat: free trade is better than no free trade if the losers are compensated with some of the winners' gains. If you can do that, you have a Pareto improvement. Everyone is at least as well off as they were before, some better off. So free trade is good. And this is a really basic principle of economics, understood at some level since Ricardo.

But in political terms, those caveats get ignored. The transfer system from capital (something America has a comparative advantage in) to labour, especially unskilled labour (something America has a comparative disadvantage in) has got weaken over time - not stronger. Instead, you get politicians saying that free trade is good in and of itself for everyone. This isn't true; it has to be harnessed appropriately. As it is, it is probably true that reducing free trade in some specific markets and industries would actually be better for the American poor than the status quo. Less good than keeping free trade and improving redistribution, but better than free trade without redistribution.

Now, I am strongly in favour of {free trade, redistribution}. But if redistribution is not feasible, then I would prefer {no free trade, no redistribution} to {free trade, no redistribution}. So for me to back the free trade candidate, I need to be persuaded they actually care about the American poor. Normally I am persuaded, although I'm not always convinced my faith is rewarded. But that caveat has to be made clear.

 

[Frank the Great]

I don't understand why people are down on Booker. He is one hell of a charming motherfucker, a great speaker, sharp as a knife and quick on his feet. He is able to connect with people naturally and he has been cultivating a positive, uplifting message his entire career.

The dude is destined to be a star. 2016 proved that even if he does have skeletons in his closet, it doesn't matter if you can connect with people. And this guy certainly can.

And ultimately . . . I'm not sure he even has any skeletons, but even if he's squeaky clean Republicans will invent something a la emails or Benjamin Ghazi. Any candidate we put up is going to be bombarded with fallacious attacks. The attacks don't matter; what's important is having a candidate who can roll with the attacks and bounce back through charisma. Booker is the dude.

 

[leroidys]

I got my master's earlier this year. It's more complicated than this. So, pretty much every economist will agree that free trade boosts GDP per capita for developed nations that have proper protections for emergent industries and anti-competitive practices. But GDP per capita isn't the end of the story. If you remove the government from the picture, trade has winners and losers. You're a loser if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative disadvantage in, and a winner if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative advantage in. If you add the winner's gain to the loser's losses, you'll get a positive number - that is, GDP per capita goes up. But the winner still won, and the loser definitely still lost - they're worse off than if there wasn't free trade.

So economists have the caveat: free trade is better than no free trade if the losers are compensated with some of the winners' gains. If you can do that, you have a Pareto improvement. Everyone is at least as well off as they were before, some better off. So free trade is good.

But in political terms, those caveats get ignored. The transfer system from capital (something America has a comparative advantage in) to labour, especially unskilled labour (something America has a comparative disadvantage in) has got weaken over time - not stronger. Instead, you get politicians saying that free trade is good in and of itself for everyone. This isn't true; it has to be harnessed appropriately. As it is, it is probably true that reducing free trade in some specific markets and industries would actually be better for the American poor than the status quo. Less good than keeping free trade and improving redistribution, but better than free trade without redistribution.

low-key triggered rn

 

[Deleted member 231381]

low-key triggered rn

want me to get all kaldor-hicks bby

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Okay, posters who live in the Deep South:

15% of white people in the Deep South don't hate black people. How do we get this to 30%? Is it possible at all? Because that's the most important thing possible right now. There's ten possible Senate seats if we can get 15% more white people to be okay about black people.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I love how even college educated people in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana vote based on which candidate hates black people more.

Are the University of Alabama and LSU and Ole Miss segregated or something?

It's kind of amazing that Nick Saban can get so many great black football players to move to Alabama.

I teach at Ole Miss.

And kinda? We don't come close to matching the black percentage for in state residents to the black percentage of students. I think we're up to 20ish% this year, which is nearly 4 TIMES what it was 15 years ago. When you say "college educated Mississippian" you're talking about white people here.

Our biggest controversies here revolve around our past 3 Chancellors removing Confederate symbols from the University. A statue dedicated to the Confederate dead is the focal point of our entrance to campus, which reads "Dedicated to those men and their Holy Cause."

 

[kirblar]

I don't understand why people are down on Booker. He is one hell of a charming motherfucker, a great speaker, sharp as a knife and quick on his feet. He is able to connect with people naturally and he has been cultivating a positive, uplifting message his entire career.

The dude is destined to be a star. 2016 proved that even if he does have skeletons in his closet, it doesn't matter if you can connect with people. And this guy certainly can.

And ultimately . . . I'm not sure he even has any skeletons, but even if he's squeaky clean Republicans will invent something a la emails or Benjamin Ghazi. Any candidate we put up is going to be bombarded with fallacious attacks. The attacks don't matter; what's important is having a candidate who can roll with the attacks and bounce back through charisma. Booker is the dude.

Because he's from Jersey.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I don't understand how politicians have so few things about appealing to old people...

Old people vote! Just give old people more shit and bribe them for their vote.

I teach at Ole Miss.

Our biggest controversies here revolve around our past 3 Chancellors removing Confederate symbols from the University. A statue dedicated to the Confederate dead is the focal point of our entrance to campus, which reads "Dedicated to those men and their Holy Cause."

D:

 

[ShironRedshift]

I don't understand why people are down on Booker. He is one hell of a charming motherfucker, a great speaker, sharp as a knife and quick on his feet. He is able to connect with people naturally and he has been cultivating a positive, uplifting message his entire career.

The dude is destined to be a star. 2016 proved that even if he does have skeletons in his closet, it doesn't matter if you can connect with people. And this guy certainly can.

And ultimately . . . I'm not sure he even has any skeletons, but even if he's squeaky clean Republicans will invent something a la emails or Benjamin Ghazi. Any candidate we put up is going to be bombarded with fallacious attacks. The attacks don't matter; what's important is having a candidate who can roll with the attacks and bounce back through charisma. Booker is the dude.

Too easily connected with Wall Street. Insta no-go. Makes the same exact attacks used against Clinton too easy.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Okay, posters who live in the Deep South:

15% of white people in the Deep South don't hate black people. How do we get this to 30%? Is it possible at all? Because that's the most important thing possible right now. There's ten possible Senate seats if we can get 15% more white people to be okay about black people.

Highly incentivized migration that spreads the population of the Delta around the state. I mean, look at the race distribution of the state. Segregation here never really ended.

 

[metalslimer]

Okay, posters who live in the Deep South:

15% of white people in the Deep South don't hate black people. How do we get this to 30%? Is it possible at all? Because that's the most important thing possible right now. There's ten possible Senate seats if we can get 15% more white people to be okay about black people.

I don't think there is any hope for changing white people's minds to a significant extent.
The more likely thing is changing the demographics of the state. We need to make places like Georgia more attractive to live. Places like MS are gone though.

 

[Valhelm]

If Trump's as much of a disaster as he looks like he's going to be economically, it won't matter who runs, as long as it's not Corey Booker.

What's the problem with Corey Booker? I don't like his politics, but I thought he was a DNC favorite son. Is it because he's not married?

 

[thepotatoman]

I got my master's earlier this year. It's more complicated than this. So, pretty much every economist will agree that free trade boosts GDP per capita for developed nations that have proper protections for emergent industries and anti-competitive practices. But GDP per capita isn't the end of the story. If you remove the government from the picture, trade has winners and losers. You're a loser if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative disadvantage in, and a winner if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative advantage in. If you add the winner's gain to the loser's losses, you'll get a positive number - that is, GDP per capita goes up. But the winner still won, and the loser definitely still lost - they're worse off than if there wasn't free trade. So while on average everyone wins, not every individual wins. The average American can get richer while the poorest American gets poorer - these are not contradictions.

So economists have the caveat: free trade is better than no free trade if the losers are compensated with some of the winners' gains. If you can do that, you have a Pareto improvement. Everyone is at least as well off as they were before, some better off. So free trade is good. And this is a really basic principle of economics, understood at some level since Ricardo.

But in political terms, those caveats get ignored. The transfer system from capital (something America has a comparative advantage in) to labour, especially unskilled labour (something America has a comparative disadvantage in) has got weaken over time - not stronger. Instead, you get politicians saying that free trade is good in and of itself for everyone. This isn't true; it has to be harnessed appropriately. As it is, it is probably true that reducing free trade in some specific markets and industries would actually be better for the American poor than the status quo. Less good than keeping free trade and improving redistribution, but better than free trade without redistribution.

Now, I am strongly in favour of {free trade, redistribution}. But if redistribution is not feasible, then I would prefer {no free trade, no redistribution} to {free trade, no redistribution}. So for me to back the free trade candidate, I need to be persuaded they actually care about the American poor. Normally I am persuaded, although I'm not always convinced my faith is rewarded. But that caveat has to be made clear.

The government has a program where the Dept of Labor retrain and relocated workers that lose their job from trade called the Trade Adjustment Assistance Enhancement Act, which got renewed through 2021 last year and had a budget of $664 million for 2016.

Unfortunately, a lot of people fall through the cracks and don't get in the program, and the ones that do on average make less than they would otherwise. The Herritage Foundation and many republicans want to use that fact to get rid of it altogether. Meanwhile, a lot of free trade liberals like to talk up the program like it solves all the problems with trade.

It's a difficult problem to sort out.

 

[Retromelon]

Data show Trump..strengthening US recovery

The world’s biggest developed market grew at an annualised rate of 3.2 per cent in the third quarter, according to a second reading of gross domestic product from the commerce department. That compares with Wall Street estimates of 3 per cent and an initial reading of 2.9 per cent.

The data released on Tuesday confirm that the economy expanded in the third quarter at the fastest rate in two years, representing a sharp pick-up from the 0.8 per cent and 1.4 per cent pace logged in the first and second quarters, respectively.

Consumption growth, a key element of US economic output, was revised higher to a 2.8 per cent pace, from the previous reading of 2.1 per cent.

The signs of strength in the US economy as Mr Trump prepares to assume the presidency are in stark contrast to those inherited by his predecessor, Barack Obama, who took office at the depths of the financial crisis.

Mr Trump has vowed to further ramp-up US economic growth to about 3.5 per cent a year on average through what he has called “the most pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family plan put forth perhaps in the history of our country”.

The billionaire property developer plans to boost the economy through a mixture of government spending, lower taxes and looser regulations.

“The US economy was on track to continue to grow and had generated some momentum for faster growth before the November election. If enacted, Donald Trump’s fiscal proposals will shift the economy to a higher gear,” noted Ward McCarthy, chief financial economist at Jefferies.

How can anyone vote against the most pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family plan put forth perhaps in the history of our country? Not looking good for the democrats I tell you what

 

[geomon]

Data show Trump..strengthening US recovery



How can anyone vote against the most pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family plan put forth perhaps in the history of our country? Not looking good for the democrats I tell you what

You do know that's not because of Trump right?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I don't think there is any hope for changing white people's minds to a significant extent.
The more likely thing is changing the demographics of the state. We need to make places like Georgia more attractive to live. Places like MS are gone though.

I mean... 35-40% of white people in swing states can still vote for Hillary or Obama outside of the Deep South.

If white people in the Deep South were just as racist as the rest of the country, things would be looking really good right now...

 

[sphagnum]

What's the problem with Corey Booker? I don't like his politics, but I thought he was a DNC favorite son. Is it because he's not married?

Wall Street

Charter schools

Easy to attack as self serving due to his PR antics

Progressives will hate him and it will turn into Clinton v Sanders Pt. II

 

[Valhelm]

It's really depressing to me to see trade vilified so much, honestly by both sides. Where should Democrats messaging go on this? Free trade is a cornerstone of our economy.

The entire American state is predicated upon genocide and slavery, so tradition isn't a great argument.

Free trade is not unto itself a bad thing, but free trade in an economic context as unequal as ours will always harm those on the bottom. Within America, free trade policies lock many workers into poverty as their economic dreams are dashed by the greed of international business leaders. Abroad, free trade encourages the most brutal exploitation as third-world labor is cheap and rarely regulated. While free trade has lifted some economies out of the poverty of feudalism, corporate domination over third-world nations ensures that their economies do little else than serve the financial interests of wealthier countries. Due to their subservient position in the world economy, countries like Bangladesh and Zambia have no real means of reaching the standards of the West. Until this relationship is made more equal, free trade will continue to harm workers in the third world and the first.

Trump's crude protectionism, which is just economic nationalism, won't solve any of these problems.

 

[thepotatoman]

What's the problem with Corey Booker? I don't like his politics, but I thought he was a DNC favorite son. Is it because he's not married?

Basically, if you think Hillary's problem was only Charisma, Emails, and campaign schedules, Corey Booker is a great pick.

If you think Hillary's problem was being seen as too establishment and tied into wallstreet, and being unable to sell an strong economic message of change, Corey Booker is a terrible pick.

 

[kirblar]

You are never going to get corporations to redistribute downwards. You have to do it via state intervention. This is why the "living wage"/"minimum wage" stuff aimed at getting more benefits out of companies is a terrible approach (it's just the approach unions like and support/push because they directly benefit from it.)

 

[Hillary Clinton]

Economists overwhelmingly agree that free trade is good for the average American. So if economy is your number one issue, you should support the pro-free trade side.

I was going to respond to this with an article from the Atlantic that mostly reiterates what Crab explained but I can't find it at all and now I'm in a complete psychological tailspin. Am I being gaslighted? Did The Atlantic take the article down under corporate pressure? How can I ever trust institutions again now that I am through the looking glass and tumbling out the overton window?

 

[leroidys]

The entire American state is predicated upon genocide and slavery, so tradition isn't a great argument.

Free trade is not unto itself a bad thing, but free trade in an economic context as unequal as ours will always harm those on the bottom. Within America, free trade policies lock many workers into poverty as their economic dreams are dashed by the greed of international business leaders. Abroad, free trade encourages the most brutal exploitation as third-world labor is cheap and rarely regulated. While free trade has lifted some economies out of the poverty of feudalism, corporate domination over third-world nations ensures that their economies do little else than serve the financial interests of wealthier countries. Due to their subservient position in the world economy, countries like Bangladesh and Zambia have no real means of reaching the standards of the West. Until this relationship is made more equal, free trade will continue to harm workers in the third world and the first.

Trump's crude protectionism, which is just economic nationalism, won't solve any of these problems.

I'm not talking about tradition but reality.

 

[sphagnum]

You are never going to get corporations to redistribute downwards. You have to do it via state intervention.

Might as well make it a system where wealth isn't controlled by those who have to be forced to redistribute at all!

 

[kirblar]

Might as well make it a system where wealth isn't controlled by those who have to be forced to redistribute at all!

The wealth will always be controlled by someone. Seizing it doesn't change that. It just changes who controls it.

You let them make the money, then you skim off the top and spread it out. You get the both of both worlds. You don't need full-on social democrat-style governance, but something in that vein is where we need to be heading.

 

[Valhelm]

I'm not talking about tradition but reality.

If our economy is unjust, the only course of action is to change our economy.

 

[sphagnum]

The wealth will always be controlled by someone. Seizing it doesn't change that. It just changes who controls it.

You let them make the money, then you skim off the top and spread it out. You get the both of both worlds. You don't need full-on social democrat-style governance, but something in that vein is where we need to be heading.

This still leaves in place all the contradictions of capitalism etc etc blah blah you know know where I'm going with this

 

[Rebel Leader]

Has anyone looked at rand paul Twitter?

My other colleagues @SenMikeLee & @SenTedCruz are rumored to be on the Supreme court short list. @survivorcbs is gonna be so nerdy this year

But I'm upset VP & cabinet wasn't picked w/ a reality show. I would have watched. You would have too, don't deny it. #AiringofGrievances

Speaking of fake drama, this administration is the first to include 2 @WWE hall of famers. My grievance is, why isn't Mean Gene press sec?

I got quite a chuckle

 

[kirblar]

This still leaves in place all the contradictions of capitalism etc etc blah blah you know know where I'm going with this

But that's fine? The problem is lack of mobility, not differences in income/class levels/etc.

 

[Dan]

Data show Trump..strengthening US recovery



How can anyone vote against the most pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family plan put forth perhaps in the history of our country? Not looking good for the democrats I tell you what

Republican plans will backfire just in time for a Democrats to take power, and the cycle will repeat.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Republican plans will backfire just in time for a Democrats to take power, and the cycle will repeat.

Kansas will work.. soon I tell you!

 

[damisa]

I got my master's earlier this year. It's more complicated than this. So, pretty much every economist will agree that free trade boosts GDP per capita for developed nations that have proper protections for emergent industries and anti-competitive practices. But GDP per capita isn't the end of the story. If you remove the government from the picture, trade has winners and losers. You're a loser if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative disadvantage in, and a winner if you belong to an industry a country has a comparative advantage in. If you add the winner's gain to the loser's losses, you'll get a positive number - that is, GDP per capita goes up. But the winner still won, and the loser definitely still lost - they're worse off than if there wasn't free trade. So while on average everyone wins, not every individual wins. The average American can get richer while the poorest American gets poorer - these are not contradictions.

So economists have the caveat: free trade is better than no free trade if the losers are compensated with some of the winners' gains. If you can do that, you have a Pareto improvement. Everyone is at least as well off as they were before, some better off. So free trade is good. And this is a really basic principle of economics, understood at some level since Ricardo.

But in political terms, those caveats get ignored. The transfer system from capital (something America has a comparative advantage in) to labour, especially unskilled labour (something America has a comparative disadvantage in) has got weaken over time - not stronger. Instead, you get politicians saying that free trade is good in and of itself for everyone. This isn't true; it has to be harnessed appropriately. As it is, it is probably true that reducing free trade in some specific markets and industries would actually be better for the American poor than the status quo. Less good than keeping free trade and improving redistribution, but better than free trade without redistribution.

Now, I am strongly in favour of {free trade, redistribution}. But if redistribution is not feasible, then I would prefer {no free trade, no redistribution} to {free trade, no redistribution}. So for me to back the free trade candidate, I need to be persuaded they actually care about the American poor. Normally I am persuaded, although I'm not always convinced my faith is rewarded. But that caveat has to be made clear.

First I would like to say that I 100% agree a system of fair trade with compensation to the losers is the best. However I disagree with this:
"But if redistribution is not feasible, then I would prefer {no free trade, no redistribution} to {free trade, no redistribution}. "

I think there are more losers without free trade. Maybe there's a few more jobs, but vastly more people will have a lower quality of life due to more expensive cost of goods. The people who's jobs were replaced by robots instead of overseas workers don't get anything but more expensive prices if free trade is blocked.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The terrorist who killed so many people in Germany said just before crime, "by God's will we will slaughter you pigs, I swear, we will......

slaughter you. This is a purely religious threat, which turned into reality. Such hatred! When will the U.S., and all countries, fight back?

These tweets are horrible and suggest that Trump strongly wants to fight a "war on Islam" which will destroy the world, but I have to say, how does it take Trump so long to tweet?

These two tweets are basically one tweet broken apart, but it took him five minutes between to post the second tweet!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812408189492797442

 

[TestOfTide]

The wealth will always be controlled by someone. Seizing it doesn't change that. It just changes who controls it.

You let them make the money, then you skim off the top and spread it out. You get the both of both worlds. You don't need full-on social democrat-style governance, but something in that vein is where we need to be heading.

Not only that, but the fact is that you can't have the government involved in ALL economic investment. At some point you gotta make it so that there is private economic incentive to invest in new things, or else industry will stagnate.

Okay, posters who live in the Deep South:

15% of white people in the Deep South don't hate black people. How do we get this to 30%? Is it possible at all? Because that's the most important thing possible right now. There's ten possible Senate seats if we can get 15% more white people to be okay about black people.

Fighting the deep rooted racism itself would basically require decades of martial law forcing the Deep South to integrate and desegregate.

THAT BEING SAID, what you CAN do in the mean time is just distract some of those racists with other issues. Racist Joe Schmoe can't spend all his energy hating minorities if he is distracted by a life threatening medical issue that his insurance won't cover.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Carrie Fisher is probably going to die.

This was a terrible year. Princess/General Leia dying as fascism strikes back feels so cruel.

 

[royalan]

Too early to tell, but I just don't see a way that Cory Booker is not a major contender in 2020.

He's relatively young, experienced but not overly so, charismatic as fuck and can sell the shit out of speech.

Spoiler

and kinda cute. Well, I'd let him smash, but I'm told that's not exactly a high bar...heh

Sure he's got some ??? in his history, but Democrats need to stop thinking that matters. What matters is that you're charismatic and campaign hard.

 

[sphagnum]

Carrie Fisher is probably going to die.

This was a terrible year. Princess/General Leia dying as fascism strikes back feels so cruel.

Rebellions are built on hope

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

These tweets are horrible and suggest that Trump strongly wants to fight a "war on Islam" which will destroy the world, but I have to say, how does it take Trump so long to tweet?

These two tweets are basically one tweet broken apart, but it took him five minutes between to post the second tweet!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812408189492797442

To be fair all his tweets are routed through russia to putin's ipad before they are posted. And putin's ipad is a little old.

 

[TestOfTide]

Too early to tell, but I just don't see a way that Cory Booker is not a major contender in 2020.

He's relatively young, experienced but not overly so, charismatic as fuck and can sell the shit out of speech.

Spoiler

and kinda cute. Well, I'd let him smash, but I'm told that's not exactly a high bar...heh

Sure he's got some ??? in his history, but Democrats need to stop thinking that matters. What matters is that you're charismatic and campaign hard.

Oh he'll definitely be running in the 2020 primaries. But then everyone is going to learn the unfortunate truth that pretty much every NJ politician has the corrupt stink of NJ politics.

I like Booker and loved his DNC speech, but after talking with numerous people from NJ, I don't think he'd be a great nominee.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Too early to tell, but I just don't see a way that Cory Booker is not a major contender in 2020.

He's relatively young, experienced but not overly so, charismatic as fuck and can sell the shit out of speech.

Spoiler

and kinda cute. Well, I'd let him smash, but I'm told that's not exactly a high bar...heh

Sure he's got some ??? in his history, but Democrats need to stop thinking that matters. What matters is that you're charismatic and campaign hard.

People don't want Booker because he seems more focused on PR than results and no one from Newark really seems to like him. He also is super corporate and it's like asking for the same problems we had this year.

I imagine he runs in 2020 though.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Why can't I hold... all these hottakes.

 

[geomon]

Duterte Threatens UN? Philippines President Vows To 'Burn Down The United Nations' For Criticizing Drug War

Rodrigo Duterte offered his latest controversial remarks on Thursday. This time they were aimed at the United Nations’ human rights chief. The Philippines president attacked the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights for suggesting the organization should open a murder investigation against Duterte, describing Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein as an "idiot" and claiming he'd "burn down the United Nations."

Duterte, who became president of the Philippines in June 2016, has repeatedly shared detailed accounts of killings against suspected drug dealers and criminals he committed on the streets of Davao, when he was mayor of the city. "In Davao, I used to do it personally, just to show the guys that if I can do it, why can’t you?" Duterte said earlier in December. His recent comments followed a statement from the United Nation’s high commissioner for human rights, who condemned the Duterte's remarks, which appeared to openly boast about killing civilians of the Philippines in the street.

Oh jesus...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Basically, if you think Hillary's problem was only Charisma, Emails, and campaign schedules, Corey Booker is a great pick.

I laughed because it is true.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I understand it, but it's still hard to get my head around Duterte still being alive.

 

[royalan]

Oh he'll definitely be running in the 2020 primaries. But then everyone is going to learn the unfortunate truth that pretty much every NJ politician has the corrupt stink of NJ politics.

I like Booker and loved his DNC speech, but after talking with numerous people from NJ, I don't think he'd be a great nominee.

People don't want Booker because he seems more focused on PR than results and no one from Newark really seems to like him. He also is super corporate and it's like asking for the same problems we had this year.

I imagine he runs in 2020 though.

In an election year where we had a gun-toting communist running on one side, and a pussy grabbing Putin groupie running on the other, I fail to see how having skeletons in one's closet is as big a deal as it once was.

If there's one thing I'll credit Trump for, it's for making plain what's been true for a while: elections are popularity contests.

You need only but the barest morsel of legitimacy to spark a run for the presidency, after that it's WALK THE RUNWAY HUNTY! YAAAAAAASSSSS PUT ON A SHOW.

Democrats need showgirls, not nerds. Booker is a showgirl.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

In an election year where we had a gun-toting communist running on one side, and a pussy grabbing Putin groupie running on the other, I fail to see how having skeletons in one's closet is as big a deal as it once was.

If there's one thing I'll credit Trump for, it's for making plain what's been true for a while: elections are popularity contests.

You need only but the barest morsel of legitimacy to spark a run for the presidency, after that it's WALK THE RUNWAY HUNTY! YAAAAAAASSSSS PUT ON A SHOW.

Democrats need showgirls, not nerds. Booker is a showgirl.

I agree with this. Charisma wins, policy is a nice cherry.

 

[RustyNails]

Trump aching to fuck Palestinians over is what got me most depressed lately. I mean he's already going to fuck the minorites in US and ride the growing Obama economy. That's already depressing as it is. But screwing over that part of the land will be the easiest recruitment ISIS and lone wolf types will ever dream to have.

 

[leroidys]

I like Booker. I think a Booker/Franken ticket has some potential.

 

[Debirudog]

how much of Bill's ability to get away with scandals was actually his own charisma?

 

[Fuchsdh]

Trump aching to fuck Palestinians over is what got me most depressed lately. I mean he's already going to fuck the minorites in US and ride the growing Obama economy. That's already depressing as it is. But screwing over that part of the land will be the easiest recruitment ISIS and lone wolf types will ever dream to have.

Look at it this way—it's a failure of the entire world that it requires the US to give a rats' ass about Israel and Palestine to actually do something about it. Trump ain't gonna' help, but as much as people bellyache about the US being the world's police they really don't do shit besides complain about us.

 

[Debirudog]

Wall Street

Charter schools

Easy to attack as self serving due to his PR antics

Progressives will hate him and it will turn into Clinton v Sanders Pt. II

Wasn't Bernie alright on Charter schools.