Argentina's Trump bound for Presidency?

[Jamalisms]

I'll jump in and say I support consumer and worker centered protections.

 

I'm sure the complexities of a world economy would result in more, were I educated beyond some generic college econ classes a decade and more ago ... and it's surely even more complicated if you're clued into details at a Presidential level.

[Starkiller]

42 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Out of curiosity, and I think I probably know the answer here at least partially, what kind of government intervention do you support? Tariffs? Fair employment practices? Fair trade practices? Protectionism? Full government planning and control of the economy?

“Government intervention” is rather broad, and it could change based on the company/field or just on the nature of the economy at the time. It depends on the situation.

 

Again, I'm not in favor of Marxism. Capitalism is the best answer in general, it just needs robust guardrails to protect the people from the capitalists. But what we currently call capitalism has encroached so far into something more akin to corporatism, plutocracy, or even feudalism that you can be sure I’m more in line with both Roosevelts than I am Reagan or even Clinton.

Edited January 19, 2024 by Starkiller

[Little Earl]

I finally had a chance to research the accusations that Democrats have historically not been the more racist party, and that Democrats in the South were really conservatives that switched parties.   What I learned is all the above stuff championed by @Starkiller, @WG53, @Strunk'sDessertand others is pure nonsense.   

 

Here is a great read on the subject with irrefutable facts.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/05/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson/

 

Here are some points to be made, some of which are not in the article.

 

Democrats have a history of racism outside the South.   Start with Woodrow Wilson.   He segregated the federal workforce by race.  He championed eugenics.  He expressed his pride that no Black students were admitted at Princeton while he was President.   The Birth of a Nation was the first movie shown in the White House under Wilson.

 

Next you have FDR.  He famously sent Japanese US citizens to internment camps.   His first nominee to place on the Supreme Court was Hugo Black, a former klansman.   He created the FHA, which specifically denied insurance for homes in and around black neighborhoods.    He snubbed Jesse Owens after the olympics.  He refused to support federal antilynching legislation.    

 

Then we come to Lyndon Johnson.   It was during his time that Democrats came to realize promoting racism was not a good idea for politics.   When he nominated Thurgood Marshall, he said he appointed Marshall rather than a less well known black judge because "when I appoint a N word to the bench, I want everybody to know he is a N word."  He also stated that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them N word voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."   Prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he never once supported civil rights legislation.   

 

Now to the preposterous claim that Democrat party and Republican party switched places, especially in the South.  Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties (Storm Thurmond). Nor did the people that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans, the remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats.   It took 25 years after the Civil Rights Act before the South started turning Republican.   Robert KKK Byrd saw no reason to change.

 

There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower.   If Southern Democrats were conservatives and racist, they certainly wouldn't have changed over to the Republican party.  The article explains why the South transformed.

[Justafan]

I agree with guardrails. However, I do think the market is far more efficient in MOST cases than government planning and that self-interested bureaucrats aren't any better (and are often much worse) than self-interested CEOs and business owners.  

[Justafan]

3 hours ago, Little Earl said:

I finally had a chance to research the accusations that Democrats have historically not been the more racist party, and that Democrats in the South were really conservatives that switched parties.   What I learned is all the above stuff championed by @Starkiller, @WG53, @Strunk'sDessertand others is pure nonsense.   

 

Here is a great read on the subject with irrefutable facts.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/05/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson/

 

Here are some points to be made, some of which are not in the article.

 

Democrats have a history of racism outside the South.   Start with Woodrow Wilson.   He segregated the federal workforce by race.  He championed eugenics.  He expressed his pride that no Black students were admitted at Princeton while he was President.   The Birth of a Nation was the first movie shown in the White House under Wilson.

 

Next you have FDR.  He famously sent Japanese US citizens to internment camps.   His first nominee to place on the Supreme Court was Hugo Black, a former klansman.   He created the FHA, which specifically denied insurance for homes in and around black neighborhoods.    He snubbed Jesse Owens after the olympics.  He refused to support federal antilynching legislation.    

 

Then we come to Lyndon Johnson.   It was during his time that Democrats came to realize promoting racism was not a good idea for politics.   When he nominated Thurgood Marshall, he said he appointed Marshall rather than a less well known black judge because "when I appoint a N word to the bench, I want everybody to know he is a N word."  He also stated that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them N word voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."   Prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he never once supported civil rights legislation.   

 

Now to the preposterous claim that Democrat party and Republican party switched places, especially in the South.  Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties (Storm Thurmond). Nor did the people that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans, the remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats.   It took 25 years after the Civil Rights Act before the South started turning Republican.   Robert KKK Byrd saw no reason to change.

 

There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower.   If Southern Democrats were conservatives and racist, they certainly wouldn't have changed over to the Republican party.  The article explains why the South transformed.

The issue is much more simple than either side would like to admit. All sides were infested with racists, and it was culture and society shifting that changed things, not politicians. Politicians would have happily kept going with the way things were until the end of time as long as they remained in power. 

[Starkiller]

You can find racism just about anywhere you look. It’s not that hard. That doesn’t change the fact that conservatism inherently breeds racism and xenophobia more than liberalism does.

 

As for LilEarls's moronic response, Woodrow Wilson was absolutely a racist Democrat. Famously so. No one is arguing otherwise. Of course he was also an evangelical southerner, so thanks for defending my argument, dummy.

 

Then he goes on to call LBJ a racist. The guy who got the Civil Rights Act passed was a racist? Yeah, you must have gotten your diploma from a Cracker Jacks box…

Edited January 24, 2024 by Starkiller

[Strunk'sDessert]

Would like to know where I said or championed any of the sort.

 

Bigots & racists fall on both sides of the aisle and always have and always will. 

 

However, the current Republican party is far more agreeable and open to these behaviors in larger numbers. Notice I'm not saying all Republicans are bigoted, but there is a large cohort of Trumpers & Conservatives alike that fly that flag with pride out loud or in the safety of their peers.  

 

Now you can retort this by listing the idiot groups on the left that are unhinged about Palestine or think all things Caucasian are racist. But most folks on the left think they are just that, idiots making noise. They get a ton of press, not a ton of backing. 

 

Pointless conversation to have with you, @Little Earl because your mind is made up.

 

I also have a pretty damn good feel of the Republican party as I was raised very conservative Christian, in a "conservative" political bubble with most friends & family still in that bubble to various degrees. I understand when they are alluding to shit they know they shouldn't say out loud. 

 

Lastly, I'm center left. Considered myself open to either party even while Republicans lost their minds over Obama (and we all know why). 2016 changed that script and I won't be voting for any republican at the federal or state level this cycle and probably not any upcoming cycles unless they get their shit together in short order. 

 

How the fuck did I get dragged into this again? I just think you're a general fucking idiot, Earl. 

[Strunk'sDessert]

Also, @Little Earl, did you just Google "racist democrats" to prove some sad point? You only do that if mentally you're aware of your in-group also doing some shit and you try to deflect. 

[begooode]

Re: blatant, racial politics — Just look to see what political alignments are there for the David Duke’s of the world; the unabashed white supremacist leaders who use their animus to drive political activism and divisive rhetoric. On balance, who do they gleefully endorse? Contrarily, who do they vilify based on their primary cultural measuring stick. Coping through friendly opinion pieces is just cognitive dissonance. 

Edited January 24, 2024 by begooode

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, Strunk'sDessert said:

Also, @Little Earl, did you just Google "racist democrats" ?

Yes.   Yes he did.

[Strunk'sDessert]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

Yes.   Yes he did.

 

"Research"... holy shit. It's too funny. 

[nine]

LOL @ Earl going back  50-100 years to cite examples of racism in Democrats, while conveniently ignoring and omitting the last 50-60 years and recent  events.  
 

When your political party is attracting the support of white nationalists and neo-nazis for the rhetoric that’s being disseminated…. It’s time to ask yourself which side of history you want to be on.    Because when those groups are aligned with you….then you’re aligned with them.  

[IrishTitansFan]

Milei can give as good speeches in Davos as he wants, the reality is at least 7 million Argentinians are about to go on strike, let's see how he deals with the realities of his policies

[Little Earl]

7 hours ago, nine said:

LOL @ Earl going back  50-100 years to cite examples of racism in Democrats, while conveniently ignoring and omitting the last 50-60 years and recent  events.  
 

When your political party is attracting the support of white nationalists and neo-nazis for the rhetoric that’s being disseminated…. It’s time to ask yourself which side of history you want to be on.    Because when those groups are aligned with you….then you’re aligned with them.  

With recent events are you talking about how Richard Spencer endorsed Biden?   

[begooode]

3 minutes ago, Little Earl said:

With recent events are you talking about how Richard Spencer endorsed Biden?   

 

Your disingenuousness is difficult to tolerate.  Everyone knows what that guy is up to, including wishcasters like you. 

 

 

Spencer made headlines last month at the annual conference of his far-right National Policy Institute thinktank in Washington when he declared: “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!” and some in the audience gave Nazi-style salutes.