BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #14561  
Old 08-01-2018, 09:56 AM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
“Lost”*
As a follow-up, although the seeds were sown long before 2000, I still think you can make the argument the madness we're stuck in now as a country traces directly back to the Supreme Court's completely partisan decision to install Dubya in the White House.

A Gore presidency might've averted 9/11, almost definitely would've averted the Iraq War, and thereby probably would've averted the global rise of nationalism/fascism.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 29
  #14562  
Old 08-01-2018, 10:12 AM
dannybolt's Avatar
dannybolt dannybolt is offline
Curtis McElhinney's Game Worn Jersey
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Pete
Posts: 2,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
As a follow-up, although the seeds were sown long before 2000, I still think you can make the argument the madness we're stuck in now as a country traces directly back to the Supreme Court's completely partisan decision to install Dubya in the White House.

A Gore presidency might've averted 9/11, almost definitely would've averted the Iraq War, and thereby probably would've averted the global rise of nationalism/fascism.
Lots of assumptions obviously, but I bet we would still get Trump. Not sure that Gore would have done anything to regulate Wall Street. That lead to the 08 financial collapse, which was never reckoned with (thanks Obama!), which I maintain has been one of the driving animus towards the establishment within both parties. We'd be on better footing ecologically though, no doubt.
__________________
Bullshit Centrist and Ondrej Palat fan club member
  #14563  
Old 08-01-2018, 10:15 AM
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,969
Default

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45034092

MAGA!
  #14564  
Old 08-01-2018, 10:29 AM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,365
Default

Quote:
Lots of assumptions obviously, but I bet we would still get Trump.
If 9/11 and the Iraq War never happen, would we have had the same levels of anti-Muslim animus that have fueled a good portion of the global nationalist movement?

And, pragmatically, would Obama have become president were it not for the backlash against Dubya and the country's desire to try to pick somebody, at least optically, as antithetical as possible to Dubya? And then again, vice versa, for the Kool Aid drinkers to choose Trump as an antithetical foil to Obama (replete with all the barely concealed racial animus toward Obama)?

Quote:
Not sure that Gore would have done anything to regulate Wall Street.
Not sure he'd have backed Republican deregulation schemes that went through between 2000 and 2008 either, though, and certainly the country would've been on far sounder financial footing to do more and better stimulus if Gore hadn't done the Bush tax cuts and if the first Dubya recession hadn't been triggered by 9/11.

Quote:
We'd be on better footing ecologically though, no doubt.
Trump just ceded the international solar market to the Chinese with tariffs. We would've already had a lead pipe lock on the global renewables market at this point had Gore been president, IMO. So, it's not just ecological. We'd have been the biggest market share holders of the green economy, too.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 29
  #14565  
Old 08-01-2018, 11:06 AM
ZeykShade's Avatar
ZeykShade ZeykShade is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,025
Default

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Link if it won't play embedded: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpmnTKi-Gqc

Props to the Bolts fan in the background of the guy with the grammatically challenged shirt "Liberals and Islam SUCK'S".

"Trump isn't a racist, he's married 3 of 'em!"

I can see how some may think that Georgia(the State) could be considered another country though...

"Islam comes over to our country because they want to kill Americans, they're liberals..."

Wow.
__________________
To those who do not know that the world is on fire, I have nothing to say. - Bertolt Brecht

Last edited by ZeykShade; 08-01-2018 at 11:14 AM.
  #14566  
Old 08-01-2018, 11:27 AM
dannybolt's Avatar
dannybolt dannybolt is offline
Curtis McElhinney's Game Worn Jersey
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Pete
Posts: 2,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
If 9/11 and the Iraq War never happen, would we have had the same levels of anti-Muslim animus that have fueled a good portion of the global nationalist movement?
9/11, or some other terrorist attack would still be highly likely. It's not like OBL didn't attempt an attack during the Clinton administration. Agreed on Iraq though. I also don't assume that the majority of Republicans circa 2000 were (or are) racists. Disagreeing with Obama, or the way the country went under his administration, doesn't equal racist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
And, pragmatically, would Obama have become president were it not for the backlash against Dubya and the country's desire to try to pick somebody, at least optically, as antithetical as possible to Dubya? And then again, vice versa, for the Kool Aid drinkers to choose Trump as an antithetical foil to Obama (replete with all the barely concealed racial animus toward Obama)?
Rather than a backlash against Dubya in general, I think Obama was elected because he promised a change from the status quo, which, as Zeyk is continually harping on, is the outright (or perceived) similar economic priorities of the establishment right and left (low taxes on the wealthy, supply side economics, lack of labor protection), going back to the 80s, and certainly throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations. Bush started a useless war and massively screwed the economy, but he had plenty of help from both sides of the aisle on that. When Obama didn't really change things that much (ACA aside, which frankly wasn't marketed that well), voters opted for Trump, who was also promising change from the status quo. Again, I'm not going to assume all the people who voted against Obama, and for Trump, was because they were racists. That's a pat, and frankly lazy assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
Not sure he'd have backed Republican deregulation schemes that went through between 2000 and 2008 either, though, and certainly the country would've been on far sounder financial footing to do more and better stimulus if Gore hadn't done the Bush tax cuts and if the first Dubya recession hadn't been triggered by 9/11.
Those republican deregulation schemes were also Democratic deregulation schemes. Clinton continued the policies of Reagan and papa Bush. I find it hard to believe that Gore would change course from what Clinton was doing, if that was what carried him to his hypothetical presidency. That doesn't make logical sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
Trump just ceded the international solar market to the Chinese with tariffs. We would've already had a lead pipe lock on the global renewables market at this point had Gore been president, IMO. So, it's not just ecological. We'd have been the biggest market share holders of the green economy, too.
LOL, that is one of the biggest pie in the sky conjectures I've read on this board. Sure, we would own solar (let's ignore the fact that China took the solar panel market by subsidizing production dumping into the market to drive out competition). How again would that happen? In 2000, we were going to jump whole hog into the renewables sector? In both a recessionary economic and deregulatory political environment? I don't recall there being an appetite then for government subsidies in the renewable energy sector. In fact, if memory serves, renewables only got traction in the U.S. when oil prices spiked because of middle east unrest.

C'mon man. I know this is hypothetical, but you are way out over your skis on that one.
__________________
Bullshit Centrist and Ondrej Palat fan club member
  #14567  
Old 08-01-2018, 12:34 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannybolt View Post
9/11, or some other terrorist attack would still be highly likely. It's not like OBL didn't attempt an attack during the Clinton administration. Agreed on Iraq though. I also don't assume that the majority of Republicans circa 2000 were (or are) racists.
Would the attack have been as dramatic as 9/11, though?

Quote:
Disagreeing with Obama, or the way the country went under his administration, doesn't equal racist.
Racial resentment is absolutely an underpinning of a wide swath of Trump's base. There's plenty of research literature to back that assertion.

Quote:
Rather than a backlash against Dubya in general, I think Obama was elected because he promised a change from the status quo, which, as Zeyk is continually harping on, is the outright (or perceived) similar economic priorities of the establishment right and left (low taxes on the wealthy, supply side economics, lack of labor protection), going back to the 80s, and certainly throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations. Bush started a useless war and massively screwed the economy, but he had plenty of help from both sides of the aisle on that. When Obama didn't really change things that much (ACA aside, which frankly wasn't marketed that well), voters opted for Trump, who was also promising change from the status quo.
The status quo was a southern white guy. America tried to go in a dramatically different direction after what an absolute disaster Dubya's eight years in office were. Then, there was a counter backlash against Obama. If you look at the number of wild pendulum swings from the 2006 midterms to today, it's really unprecedented in history the extreme shifts we've experienced in going on 12 years.

Quote:
Again, I'm not going to assume all the people who voted against Obama, and for Trump, was because they were racists. That's a pat, and frankly lazy assertion.
What were the two issues that made Trump's political career?

1. Birtherism. ("Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim.")

2. Immigration. ("All Mexican illegals are rapists and gang members.")

Your honor, I rest my case.

Quote:
Those republican deregulation schemes were also Democratic deregulation schemes. Clinton continued the policies of Reagan and papa Bush. I find it hard to believe that Gore would change course from what Clinton was doing, if that was what carried him to his hypothetical presidency. That doesn't make logical sense.
My read has always been that you lump Gore and Kerry in with the Clintons at your own peril. While they weren't on the most progressive bleeding edge of the establishment like, say, Sherrod Brown is now, I think it's fair to say Gore and Kerry would have been far more progressive than the Clintons.

It's also definitely fair to say you would've never seen the Bush tax cut under Gore, which not only might've made greater stimulus more plausible, but possibly made single payer or a more dramatic health care fix more economically plausible (presuming you'd have been running in the black most of Gore's administration).

Quote:
LOL, that is one of the biggest pie in the sky conjectures I've read on this board. Sure, we would own solar (let's ignore the fact that China took the solar panel market by subsidizing production dumping into the market to drive out competition).
The Chinese didn't do that until they realized sea level rise has the potential to complete destroy their agricultural industry and their ability to feed their people. America would've had a 5 year head start on the Chinese and a chief executive firmly committed to renewables. He could've (and I suspect ultimately would've) committed the US government to the 2030 challenge with the stroke of a pen on an EO if he wanted to.

Also, consider how diametrically different a path we took. Dubya (and the Bush family as a whole) was a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry, in particular, and the fossil fuel industry in general. The Bush family was thicker than thieves with the Saudi royal family and all of the old oil barons in Texas (hence the Iraw War). Every move they made from a policy standpoint fit within that context, including their dumbass opposition to changing the CAFE standards for automobile gas mileage, which artificially drove up the price of gasoline (note how much cheaper gas got when America started producing more efficient cars?). On this point, too, we could've had a chief executive who would've been an advocate for the electrical vehicle industry (tied, inevitably, to the solar industry) rather than one who was financially tied at the hip to big oil.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 29
  #14568  
Old 08-01-2018, 01:13 PM
dannybolt's Avatar
dannybolt dannybolt is offline
Curtis McElhinney's Game Worn Jersey
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Pete
Posts: 2,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
Would the attack have been as dramatic as 9/11, though?
I would think so, since OBLs first attempt in 1993 was also on the WTC. Suffice to say he wasn't aiming small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
Racial resentment is absolutely an underpinning of a wide swath of Trump's base. There's plenty of research literature to back that assertion.
You are doubling down on your assertion that because Trump is a racist, most, or all, of his supporters are. Maybe all of the Trump supporters you know are racists. Only one or two of the ones I know personally and professionally are. The vast majority are not. That's why I tend to stick to the anti-establishment narrative, rather than the "OMG they are all racist" simplistic narrative that Democrats like to trot out. Maybe I'm misinterpreting "wide swath". I also don't know what research you are referring to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
The status quo was a southern white guy. America tried to go in a dramatically different direction after what an absolute disaster Dubya's eight years in office were. Then, there was a counter backlash against Obama. If you look at the number of wild pendulum swings from the 2006 midterms to today, it's really unprecedented in history the extreme shifts we've experienced in going on 12 years.
If all it was was voting against a southern white guy, Hillary would have won in 2008, not Obama. Obama ran on and won because he was an outsider. All of this points back towards an anti-establishment undercurrent, which I have yet to hear evidence of how Gore would be different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
What were the two issues that made Trump's political career?
1. Birtherism. ("Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim.")
2. Immigration. ("All Mexican illegals are rapists and gang members.")
Your honor, I rest my case.
You are assuming that those are the only two items animating Republicans to vote for Trump? If you don't know your opponent, it is impossible for you to devise a strategy to defeat him. I hope those steering Democratic fortunes don't suffer from the same penchant for broad brushing. I'd also like to note that there is a difference in people who voted for Trump, and those remaining in the Republican party after his governance over the past year and a half.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
My read has always been that you lump Gore and Kerry in with the Clintons at your own peril. While they weren't on the most progressive bleeding edge of the establishment like, say, Sherrod Brown is now, I think it's fair to say Gore and Kerry would have been far more progressive than the Clintons.
Maybe, maybe not. Presidents normally listen to their parties Congressmen and Senators as well. Isn't that part of why Clinton governed more center-right, and less center-left? Because he initially went left, then Democrats got hammered in the house, lost their majority and he was forced to move right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
It's also definitely fair to say you would've never seen the Bush tax cut under Gore, which not only might've made greater stimulus more plausible, but possibly made single payer or a more dramatic health care fix more economically plausible (presuming you'd have been running in the black most of Gore's administration).
Agreed about the tax cut. Disagree about the rest, but it is all ultralong-term conjecture. Republicans and Democrats love spending money. I find it hard to believe they would be running in the black, despite what was achieved at the end of the Clinton administration. Especially if you think he was going to be more progressive than Clinton was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
The Chinese didn't do that until they realized sea level rise has the potential to complete destroy their agricultural industry and their ability to feed their people. America would've had a 5 year head start on the Chinese and a chief executive firmly committed to renewables. He could've (and I suspect ultimately would've) committed the US government to the 2030 challenge with the stroke of a pen on an EO if he wanted to.
I won't pretend to know why China did what they did; however, you assume Gore would do whatever he wants with a stroke of the pen, damn all consequences. My experience is that self preservation is generally a politican's primary motivator, and I would think that doing what you suggest would have amounted to political suicide in the early 00s. Nothing about the previous 20 years would lead one to believe that the US population was crying out for somebody to commit us to renewable energy. In fact, the last president who DID, was Jimmy Carter (solar panels on the White House), and the US (rightly or wrongly) had already roundly rejected that strain of Democratic leadership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
Also, consider how diametrically different a path we took. Dubya (and the Bush family as a whole) was a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry, in particular, and the fossil fuel industry in general. The Bush family was thicker than thieves with the Saudi royal family and all of the old oil barons in Texas (hence the Iraw War). Every move they made from a policy standpoint fit within that context, including their dumbass opposition to changing the CAFE standards for automobile gas mileage, which artificially drove up the price of gasoline (note how much cheaper gas got when America started producing more efficient cars?). On this point, too, we could've had a chief executive who would've been an advocate for the electrical vehicle industry (tied, inevitably, to the solar industry) rather than one who was financially tied at the hip to big oil.
These are all good points.

Fun debate Pete! You make good points, hopefully you consider some of my counter arguments because I think you have some gaps in your logic and thinking.
__________________
Bullshit Centrist and Ondrej Palat fan club member

Last edited by dannybolt; 08-01-2018 at 01:22 PM.
  #14569  
Old 08-01-2018, 02:30 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post

1. Birtherism. ("Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim.")

2. Immigration. ("All Mexican illegals are rapists and gang members.")

Your honor, I rest my case.




You left off the #1 reason Trump now sits in the White House. He knew from his speeches that he hit a nerve with the blue collar workers when he told them they had been forgotten and left behind by their own party. He went into the blue collars areas of those states and won over the voters. He won the "rust belt" with that and the Presidency.

HRC was warned that she needed to make a few last minutes stops in these states, and she decided not to go.

If the democrats can not counter in the mid terms they may very well fall short of their goals. Even Justice Ginsberg thinks so, as why else would she come out in the last few days and say that she is staying on the court for another 5 years? Which by chance would take you up till the final year of a Trump administration thus possibly blocker her successor from being a conservative. She is 85 now, so that would make her 90 if she is able to stay on the bench.
  #14570  
Old 08-01-2018, 04:29 PM
RSchmitz's Avatar
RSchmitz RSchmitz is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,969
Default

Ya'll see this?

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.