11-21-2016, 11:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2016, 11:39 PM by Eric the Green.)
(11-21-2016, 06:39 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(11-21-2016, 03:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(11-21-2016, 01:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(11-21-2016, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rmoney, Bush and Kasich have the wrong policies, and Rmoney was also, like Trump, all about money and a flip-flopper on policy. They could never have been nominated by Democrats. Republicans today, including those three, are so far to the right nowadays that Democrats cannot work well with them much less nominate them. Kasich was more moderate, perhaps, but is easily swayed by the Republican majority in congress to tow the reactionary line.
Bush and Kasich were and are open borders advocates; that disqualifies them as far as the Republican electorate is concerned. Immigration was the most important issue of this election and possibly of the remainder of the crisis period, at least until the crisis war; on this issue, Republicans are for less immigration and Democrats are for more immigration, as far as I can tell.
That's true (although Obama was the "deporter in chief" and Reagan supported "amnesty," so I dunno about that). And except for the idea that immigration is the most important issue. I guess it depends on what you mean by most important. As an issue that can appeal to fear and prejudice, well yes, it's the most important; the most emotionally powerful. As an issue that has any relation to fact or reality, no, it's not at all important. But Kasich and Bush having a modicum of sanity on that one issue, does not in the least make them acceptable to Democrats. The nub of the issue for both sides is Reaganomics, and ONLY Reaganomics. For which you have expressed your support.
I've actually modified my view on this slightly since joining the forum, thanks to Turchin's work that Mikebert introduced me to: while Reagan's amnesty was consistent with supply side economics - it increased the supply of labor - it ultimately impoverished the working class citizenry, and thus was a major mistake. I would have tempered Reaganomics in that respect.
Ironically, the part of Turchin's work I learned from is a part that Mikebert disagrees with. And, of course, you and I disagree on what Reaganomics actually is, so productive discussion between us on the subject is unlikely to be productive. It can still be fun, though.
lol ok.
I certainly would not include Reagan's "amnesty" in Reaganomics. That refers to his tax cuts, cuts in regulations and cuts to social programs.
He didn't actually cut government spending, of course, because he was also a hawk on military spending. That strictly speaking is not a necessary component of supply-side/libertarian/trickle-down/free market etc. It just shows that Reagan like most "less government" proponents are hypocrites. They support the kinds of government that they want. Reagan was a neo-liberal AND a neo-con. So is Trump in that respect. Trump is allegedly less interventionist, but his VP and his other picks so far are more so, and Trump is also very dangerous because of his temperment; not to mention that his pro-Russian stance tempts Putin and allows tyrants to prevail, and his anti-Muslim fanaticism and torture/bombing threats are also incendiary. And he wants more countries to have nuclear weapons. His stupidity in foreign affairs is likely to know no bounds, and we may well soon rue the day that the majority of the US voters did not get what they voted for in Hillary Clinton.