GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently May 20 19, 1:16 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: April 5 18, 10:30 am 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 23476
Location: St. Louis
What about the global stuff- US standing in the world as a model and generally stabilizing force ?

Seems like we are falling behind the world by - i.e.promoting coal , discouraging immigration (and the talent resources and economic benefits provided)and consumed by in-fighting and Jim Crow-like unabashed racism. We are pissing our budget away on helping Uber-wealthy hoard more, as well as keeping the Trump crime syndicate flush with funds and sending troops down to guard the boarder.
This is all backwards.

Us power relative to other nations is diminished. In some regards - we needed to rejoin the world, and be a little more vulnerable. However, do we trust China and Russia as their relative standing increases? The implications of this damage is pretty damn frightening and won't be known for a while.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 5 18, 10:36 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 6540
Location: Chicago, IL
Freed Roger wrote:
What about the global stuff- US standing in the world as a model and generally stabilizing force?


Anecdotally I was in Mexico City in February and said to three people "we've been welcomed pretty warmly, wasn't sure in this day and age if we'd be welcome" and all three were like "We get it, our current President is an idiot too." We will get our image back, and I think a lot of countries are willing to say that we're still us, we've just gone nuts temporarily.

The real problem is stuff like the TPP, which is moving forward without us, and with countries looking to other nations like China for strong trade partnerships. This trade nonsense is, international-image wise and economic-impact wise, probably worse for us than W's war in Iraq. Ironically, this is something that was plainly obvious as a result of isolationist measures that Trump campaigned on, and the people who believed him and voted for him are the ones who are going to get hit the worst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 5 18, 2:52 pm 
Offline
Everday Unicorn
User avatar

Joined: April 21 06, 10:14 am
Posts: 34224
Location: Austin, TX
33anda3rd wrote:
, and the people who believed him and voted for him are the ones who are going to get hit the worst.


Question 1: What is the proper level of concern/sympathy for the trump-voting midwestern pork or soybean farmer who will be economically decimated by this "good and easily won" trade war?
Question 2: Will that same hypothetical farmer vote against Trump in the midterms and/or 2020 as a result?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 5 18, 3:07 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21201
Location: Chicago
heyzeus wrote:
Question 2: Will that same hypothetical farmer vote against Trump in the midterms and/or 2020 as a result?


Probably not, because who we vote for has a less to do with policy and how it affects our lives than with our identities and how we perceive the culture and our place within it.

This is a long, wonky editorial but it breaks this down well.

The Contract With Authoritarianism


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 5 18, 3:12 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 6540
Location: Chicago, IL
heyzeus wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
, and the people who believed him and voted for him are the ones who are going to get hit the worst.


Question 1: What is the proper level of concern/sympathy for the trump-voting midwestern pork or soybean farmer who will be economically decimated by this "good and easily won" trade war?
Question 2: Will that same hypothetical farmer vote against Trump in the midterms and/or 2020 as a result?


Going backwards...

2: I don't know, man.

1: I think it's proper to be empathetic but not sympathetic. I don't feel like "oh you poor things, you voted with your xenophobia bone because you didn't realize the xenophobia bone is connected, trade policy wise, to the pocketbook bone and the pocketbook bone is connected to the stay-out-of-the-poorhouse bone." But I'm certainly empathetic, and don't want those folks--or the steelworkers, autoworkers, etc.--to fall into poverty because our POTUS is a ding-dong who thinks the world is an easily won zero sum game. These folks voted against their interests because that guy spoke authoritatively and confidently that slamming the door shut on the rest of the world would be good for them, so a lot of that depends on them. Like, Trump isn't lying to you or me. We know what he's about, we are able to take a step back, look at an issue beyond a quick soundbite on the news of him howling about China, and understand before this tariff business goes down that it's going to be a bad idea economically for literally everyone, especially those whose livelihood depends on exports. There is nothing precluding those farmers from doing the same thing. Some might argue that they heard positive results in their future from Candidate Trump's message, but you have to come from a certain set of values, many of them based in an incorrect view of how the world works economically, to believe in that so easily. Otherwise they would hear him and he would sound to them like he does to you and me: offensive and deeply short-sighted on the ways of the world, radically unqualified for the office. So I'll remain empathetic but save my sympathy for them until they go to the polls and vote Democrat, or at least moderate Republican, because until they do that they're digging their own grave. If Trump won because he carried all the big cities, the tech folks, and the Wall Street crowd and the hardships on farmers came because people other than them voted against their interests, I'd be sympathetic. But that's not the case.

Edit to add a couple ?s of my own: do you think the GOP will try to salvage some semblance of respectability by running an opposition candidate to Trump in 2020 or will they keep all their eggs in that basket? Is that a strategy they can win with? Will they correctly read the barometer of America after what is shaping up to be a good ol fashioned country butt kickin' in 2018 and try to get away from him, effectively making him a lame duck in January 2019, or will they stay the course on that one because he is what the party chose in '16?


Last edited by 33anda3rd on April 5 18, 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 5 18, 3:16 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19146
Location: Low A Minors
I think there is going to be an economic catastrophe at some point. Another bursting bubble. The tax cuts, the coming cuts to public goods, and the deregulation mixed with this trade war nonsense does not seem like a great formula. I don't know if things will melt down again before 2020 or after, but I think it's almost inevitable. And when you combine that with the "fake news" stuff heyzeus was talking about, many people will think everything is going great right up until the moment their factory closes or their mortgage interest rate triples. I would also say the chances of having another farm crisis like we had in the 1980s have gone up a lot recently, too. I don't know what I'd put the odds at, but 5 years ago the odds were almost zero. Things are a lot more precarious now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 5 18, 3:18 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 23476
Location: St. Louis
ghostrunner wrote:
A lot of the institutions and norms or whatever seem to have been a sham this whole time - again that's useful information


Sorry for parsing out one piece of a good post, but I don't know about this.

Appointing morons like Ben Carson Betsy Devos Rick Perry Wilbur Ross Linda McMahon to HUD, ED, Energy, Commerce, SBA may make a mockery of having those institutions - but not sure if they were always a sham. If we needed to phase out or redirect these depts(I am not saying we need to or not) this was the worst and least efficient way to do it. The depts and their budgets exist and are not going away by appointing
dip [expletive] to wreck them.
Clearly not the most lasting damage -these sham appointments - but these depts will undoubtedly be trashed. The cumulative cost of fixing or disbanding will be large.

Then you have other federal appointees that clearly have a role and actual function-Treasury, Interior, EPA. CIA FBI.....the damage there by appointing non-morons ....oi!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 5 18, 3:27 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 6540
Location: Chicago, IL
Another ? regarding trade.

Yes, we have a deficit with Mexico. However, in 2017 we exported $276.2 billion in goods to them. That's a lot of money. So this wall business, and if we keep calling them criminals and degenerates and insist that we need to be isolated from them, and all that money goes away because they finally go "Know what, you're not a very good neighbor anymore and I want my weed whacker back and fine build your wall and don't talk to me anymore while you're at it." The impact of those things is $19 billion in agriculture (our 3rd biggest export partner), machinery ($43 billion), electrical machinery ($41 billion), mineral fuels ($26 billion), vehicles ($21 billion), and plastics ($17 billion.)

So do the folks in these industries let the xenophobia bone and the rhetoric of hate thy neighbor override their best personal interests with this wall nonsense or do they call their congressperson and demand that it stop?

This, to tie it back to the original question and post here, is classic against-your-best-interests acting, and it's a thing we haven't seen on this scale before Trump. It's one of his biggest impacts on our country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 5 18, 3:29 pm 
Offline
Has an anecdote about a townie he overheard.
User avatar

Joined: December 6 10, 1:09 am
Posts: 11363
Location: Illinois
heyzeus wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
, and the people who believed him and voted for him are the ones who are going to get hit the worst.


Question 1: What is the proper level of concern/sympathy for the trump-voting midwestern pork or soybean farmer who will be economically decimated by this "good and easily won" trade war?
Question 2: Will that same hypothetical farmer vote against Trump in the midterms and/or 2020 as a result?



I feel like this is a question I'm uniquely qualified to answer.


1) It should be huge. I've seen a ton of farmer hate online this week "good [expletive] em" sort of thing. The ag economy is the base of all the economy. You have to realize that farmers going under is bad for everyone. Your food cost will go up and worse yet it will me even more consolidation of production. Which I think is bad in any industry.

1a) is you guys don't understand how bad this will be in rural America which is already dying. When these farms go under they are going to take banks with them. I think a lot of city people don't realize that, but of the five banks in my town it's almost undeniable that the two smaller "community" banks will be gone if the farm economy crashes. In 08 during the crash (also rural economy crash that no one talked about) we lost a few banks. This will be a lot worse this time around.

1b) Everything here is tied to farming. Seed and chemical dealers, feed dealers, "farm stores," restaurants (whose main breakfast and dinner crowd are farmers), and dozens of other service industries related to farming (mechanical, veterinary, accounting, etc) are all in danger if the farm economy crashes.

2) Will they vote for Trump again? Probably not. Believe it or not a lot were reluctant the first time around. I know a lot of farmers who vote both ways, particularly for President based on Ag policy. The Farm Bureau was not particularly sold on Trump and his anti TPP stance or his anti immigration stance. In fact if Hillary had not come out against it too (which made no sense to me) I bet the FB would have endorsed her and it would have swung a lot of farmers. Most farmers I know are much more practical than say your Evangelical conservative. They typically vote with their wallet and as I said I can see a lot of them either voting for a good Dem candidate or sitting out the 2020 Presidential.

Now admittedly this is just my community of farmers, but I'm pretty plugged into that and they aren't generally the unreasonable people your run of the mill conservative is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 5 18, 3:32 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 6540
Location: Chicago, IL
Dreamer what is the overlap of Evangelical and Farmer in your community?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group