I'm less certain that Americans are ok with monetary corruption in government, and more certain that there is an overwhelming majority of citizens who do not believe that there is anything that can be done about it. — creativesoul

When people believe nothing cannot be done about something, that is equivalent of being OK with the issue. I can whine about the Finnish summer having too many mosquitoes, but my dislike of mosquitoes isn't going to change anything. And if someone purposes physically draining all swamps in Finland I strongly disagree with that ludicrous idea, even if I'm not a supporter of the green party.

The bi-partisan system is corrupt... both sides. — creativesoul

The stagnant structure of the two party system creates the environment for deeply entrenched corruption as the two parties simply share power in the US: they know that they can at worst be for 8 years in the opposition until the voters want "change". Add to this the revolving door to the private sector, hopping from being a lobbyist to being a government official, being a career politician is a good paying job.

And of course, investment in corruption pays off well, because the price of something stolen is always far cheaper than something legal. What is worse is that the corruption is made totally legal. Your really have to be an idiot or far too greedy to get into trouble in the system.

To argue about getting the moderates or a democratic candidate getting the Trump voters is theoretically logical, but in real terms I wouldn't be so sure. — ssu

I didn't argue this. You said that "no one is telling in either of the two parties to be more moderate." I pointed out how this is not true. That's it.

When people believe nothing cannot be done about something, that is equivalent of being OK with the issue. — ssu

No, it's not. It's equivalent to feeling powerless about the issue. One can feel powerless to change a situation that s/he does not like in the least without ever being ok with it.

The stagnant structure of the two party system creates the environment for deeply entrenched corruption as the two parties simply share power in the US: they know that they can at worst be for 8 years in the opposition until the voters want "change". Add to this the revolving door to the private sector, hopping from being a lobbyist to being a government official, being a career politician is a good paying job. — ssu

This again points in the right direction at least...

And of course, investment in corruption pays off well, because the price of something stolen is always far cheaper than something legal. What is worse is that the corruption is made totally legal. Your really have to be an idiot or far too greedy to get into trouble in the system.

The cost of theft is much higher than the purchase price. The theft of a working representative form of government has had high costs. Power over people is attained is one of two ways. It's either gained by consent, or it is usurped. The power of corporations over people has been usurped by means of collaboration with those given consent. The lines are blurred, as your mention of lobbyists above indicates.

The cost of theft is much higher than the purchase price. — creativesoul

Not to the thief. Hence a stolen car has a lower price than a car bought in the dealership.

It's equivalent to feeling powerless about the issue. One can feel powerless to change a situation that s/he does not like in the least without ever being ok with it. — creativesoul

Why on Earth would you feel powerless? That's the whole problem here. Or has the Supreme Court made it illegal to vote for some other party than the two?

If people don't like the two party system, why then vote the parties? You really think that your vote is "wasted" by voting a third party? When there is a will, there's a way. It's simply idiotic to assume that current political situation cannot be changed. Yet when there isn't that will, I guess the simple answer is that you are OK with the system.

Fair enough.

Why on Earth would you feel powerless? That's the whole problem here. — ssu

I do not. The feeling of powerlessness is not a problem. It's a symptom. A result.

Care to actually address the response about theft that I gave in it's entirety? This question above indicates that you've neglected to carefully consider that answer.

Why on Earth would you feel powerless? That's the whole problem here. Or has the Supreme Court made it illegal to vote for some other party than the two?

If people don't like the two party system, why then vote the parties? You really think that your vote is "wasted" by voting a third party? When there is a will, there's a way... — ssu

Rubbish. Cliche bullshit. One can try and try and try... and fail anyway. That is always the case if the goal is unattainable to begin with. Not saying that that is true regarding changing what needs changing within the American political landscape. Just saying, it's not so simple as willing it into existence.

Voting a third party is not some magical fix to the American political landscape. Naivety does not even begin to describe such thought.

Knowing what that change would take includes knowing that it takes the average American citizen to have knowledge about the inner workings of government that they quite simply do not have. It would take American voters knowing what the problems actually are and believing that they are able to do something about it.

Knowing what the problems actually are would require politicians to admit of knowingly causing unnecessary harm to average Americans while increasing their own personal wealth as a result. It would require admitting to either having lied to the American people or admitting of having been too ignorant of the inevitable consequences of their own actions(the harm caused by certain government action).

All of this requires honest reasonable politicians who place the utmost value upon Americans knowing the truth about how the situation has become what it has. That requires Americans also knowing what they do.

It would require knowing things like how the '08 bailout, agreed to by Bush Jr. and signed into law by Obama was carefully designed - in part at least - by those who stood to benefit the most. It was also based upon false pretense. Chicken little syndrom, as it were. It certainly did not correct the problem causing the crash. In fact, it actually rewarded those responsible, and further punished the average American(and foreigners too) who had been taken advantage of by the predatory lending practices.

The biggest financial sham ever...

Paying off the mortgages would have solved every problem caused by depending upon them being satisfied aside from those who depended upon the future interest. Those people lost out anyway. Those who knowingly created and sold these predatory financial instruments wielded power over people that they did not care about. Dishonesty does not even begin to describe that situation. None of those people were punished for their behaviour.

Will that boulder up the hill...

Blah blah is not a problem. It's a symptom. A result.

Please shut up.

Knowing what that change would take includes knowing that it takes the average American citizen to have knowledge about the inner workings of government that they quite simply do not have. It would take American voters knowing what the problems actually are and believing that they are able to do something about it. — creativesoul

A condescending attitude towards your fellow citizens doesn't help. Or you don't believe in democracy?

Reaching for some utopia or what, creativesoul?

It is common wisdom that the better the economy the better the incumbent president's chances of being re-elected. There are worrisome signs that Trump's trade war with China pose an increasing threat to the health of the economy. In today's NYT:

Chinese direct investment in the U.S. fell to $5.4 billion in 2018 from $46.5 billion in 2016, a drop of 88 percent, according to data from Rhodium Group.

In addition, China is the largest importer of US goods. It is also the largest creditor.

Like it or not the two countries' economies are tied to each other and Trump's attempt to hurt China hurt the US. To be fair, it is not just the trade wars. Concern over security is also a factor. And this has global repercussions that may further hurt the US economy.

Timing is everything. Even if the dire predictions turn out to be true if they are not apparent to the average voter before the election Trump will be ahead of the curve, and if he looses the Democrats will be blamed for the downturn.

Knowing what that change would take includes knowing that it takes the average American citizen to have knowledge about the inner workings of government that they quite simply do not have. It would take American voters knowing what the problems actually are and believing that they are able to do something about it.
— creativesoul
A condescending attitude towards your fellow citizens doesn't help. Or you don't believe in democracy?

Reaching for some utopia or what, creativesoul? — ssu

My apologies for the condescension, even though the charge does resemble pots and kettles.

Edited to add:

I just re-read and realized that you may have been implying that I was being condescending towards those Americans who do not have a good grasp upon how monetarily corrupt the government of the United States of America has become in the past forty or fifty years. That's not condescending. The people ought be able to trust that elected officials will act on their behalf. That is their job. There's nothing wrong with trusting elected officials. That is a requirement for a republican form of government to work. There's something wrong if the politicians cannot be trusted.

Nah, not utopia. Just a situation where those who wield the power over less fortunate people be knowledgable and do so with great care about the consequence that their actions have upon those people's lives and livelihoods. Not utopia. Just honest, forthright politicians doing their job.

The United States of America is not a democracy. Rather, it is a republic.

Sigh...

You're not the boss of me.

It is common wisdom that the better the economy the better the incumbent president's chances of being re-elected. There are worrisome signs that Trump's trade war with China pose an increasing threat to the health of the economy. In today's NYT:

Chinese direct investment in the U.S. fell to $5.4 billion in 2018 from $46.5 billion in 2016, a drop of 88 percent, according to data from Rhodium Group.

In addition, China is the largest importer of US goods. It is also the largest creditor.

Like it or not the two countries' economies are tied to each other and Trump's attempt to hurt China hurt the US. To be fair, it is not just the trade wars. Concern over security is also a factor. And this has global repercussions that may further hurt the US economy.

Timing is everything. Even if the dire predictions turn out to be true if they are not apparent to the average voter before the election Trump will be ahead of the curve, and if he looses the Democrats will be blamed for the downturn. — Fooloso4

All good stuff to consider. Someone earlier - was it you? - mentioned that for whatever reason the average American credits and/or discredits the current president - at that time - for the economy - at that time. Well, this sort of thinking has all sorts of problems inherent to it...

"The economy" is a topic riddled with bullshit irrelevant language to begin with. There is no measure of what ought be done. Most often the language is used to argue for actions based upon profit as the sole motive for action(especially with the sheer number of stocks prevalent). Satisfying stockholders is in direct conflict with having well paid workers/employees where and when this is applicable. The standards of measurement for success/good are suspect to say the least. A different topic in it's own right. That being said...

Timing is everything.

New American Industry. Self-sufficiency. Small business. Sole proprietorships. Employee owned businesses. Larger corporations that reward their workers and the public stockholders. Etc.

Quality American Craftsmanship.

There's never been a better time than the present.

Someone earlier - was it you? - mentioned that for whatever reason the average American credits and/or discredits the current president - at that time - for the economy - at that time. Well, this sort of thinking has all sorts of problems inherent to it... — creativesoul

Yes, there is are all sorts of problems inherent to it, but it is a common belief.

There is no measure of what ought be done. — creativesoul

This is something the Federal Reserve is dealing with now. The economy is not behaving according to the common assumption that when employment is high it creates inflation. Contrary to standard practice rather than raise interest rates Powell is lowering them. His idea is to respond quickly to what is occurring at the moment rather than based on predictions of what will happen. Since no one really knows the consequence of whatever action is taken it is hard to say whether his strategy is sound. There are always unintended consequences and unforeseen factors. Quick corrections might be the way to go. But the US is just one player in the global economy. It is not really in control of what happens to the US economy.

The standards of measurement for success/good are suspect to say the least. — creativesoul

Elizabeth Warren's concerns with income inequality is not egalitarian ideology or anti-capitalism. She thinks that based on past history when there is great disparity between rich and poor the result will be depression. Right now that disparity is greater than it was before the Great Depression. She has a pretty good record on things like this. But again, the economy right now is defying predictions.

...the US is just one player in the global economy. It is not really in control of what happens to the US economy. — Fooloso4

That's what happens when a government takes actions that result in foreign entities having power over their own people. Such power is usurped. It is not granted to the foreign entity by the people.

Elizabeth Warren's concerns with income inequality is not egalitarian ideology or anti-capitalism. She thinks that based on past history when there is great disparity between rich and poor the result will be depression. Right now that disparity is greater than it was before the Great Depression. She has a pretty good record on things like this. But again, the economy right now is defying predictions. — Fooloso4

I like Warren, although I do still seriously question her loyalty to what she espouses, especially given the fact of her having endorsed Hillary Clinton despite her words aligning with Bernie Sanders and against Hillary regarding the financial sector...

Given the cause of 08..

Well, I remain reserved. I would like to hear a detailed explanation of that endorsement in light of the above concerns...

In the beginnings of this country, many a founder spoke harshly against a "capitalist" in terms of having no loyalty to his country or countryman(of course this smacks of misogyny). "Her/his/their fellow citizens" works just as well. The only loyalty they have is to profit margin/accumulation of wealth.

This is exactly what has been taking place over the past fifty years - first in the guise of the greater good and now in our faces. Trump's doing little differently aside from not hiding it. Why should he? As I said earlier, he could easily point to many a precedent happening without public attention let alone punishment.

I am going to leave it there. This thread is not the place to discuss economic realities.

Since the topic of this thread is Trump I will refrain from saying more about Warren.

It's so sad seeing this drama play out in my second home country being Poland.

Ethno-centrists are having a wet dream in Europe.

I am going to leave it there. This thread is not the place to discuss economic realities. — Fooloso4

I would concur.

I just re-read and realized that you may have been implying that I was being condescending towards those Americans who do not have a good grasp upon how monetarily corrupt the government of the United States of America has become in the past forty or fifty years. — creativesoul

No system can assume that 1) everybody has a clear understanding about the issues and, above all, 2) that they would agree on what issues are right or wrong.

The people ought be able to trust that elected officials will act on their behalf. That is their job. There's nothing wrong with trusting elected officials. — creativesoul

That is true. Yet it should be noted that 'acting on their behalf' is actually a complicated matter. Serving the country or serving the people is different from serving a customer as in the private sector.

Nah, not utopia. Just a situation where those who wield the power over less fortunate people be knowledgable and do so with great care about the consequence that their actions have upon those people's lives and livelihoods. — creativesoul

It's a researched fact that this isn't so in the US, that it's simply 'money talks', yet with the rise of lobbying this isn't a thing only affecting the US, but an universal phenomenon. Just how actually would our representatives take more care about 'less fortunate' people isn't so simple either as it has been a central political issue since, well, antiquity.

The United States of America is not a democracy. Rather, it is a republic. — creativesoul

Ah this line again. Cliche b... as you said earlier as those 'pure democracies' without any minority protection basically don't exist.

‘The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, released Monday, found that 73 percent of white evangelical Christians approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while only 23 disapprove. Four percent indicated they were unsure.’

I can’ t fathom how any self-described Christian could approve of Trump if they know anything about him. I think probably the explanation might be that they don’t read what they call the ‘liberal media’, so they only ever see him through the rose-coloured Fox and Friends glasses. But however it happens, it’s a pretty damning indictment of American Christianity, as Trump is a notorious liar and proven philanderer. (That said, there have been some pretty robust criticisms from Christians also.)

I can’ t fathom how any self-described Christian could approve of Trump if they know anything about him. — Wayfarer

Might have something to do with ushering in the End of Time.

I can’ t fathom how any self-described Christian could approve of Trump if they know anything about him. — Wayfarer

Easy. the white, evangelical/born-again Christians favour 75% the GOP. They just hate the godless Democrats, that's why. Trump is far more better than Hillary for them.

I’d still like to believe that there are principled evangelicals, although I must admit scepticism.

To quote from the critic:

I think it [support for Tump] been tremendously discrediting to the Christian faith. And I think it’s shown to a watching world a tremendous amount of hypocrisy. After all, this “character counts” and “personal integrity” and “political leadership” was central to what a lot of… evangelicals argued when Bill Clinton was president. And now that it’s Donald Trump, they’ve decided to push that aside, which means that morality for them was a means to an end, not an end. It was something to be used as a political weapon.

… I think a lot of these white evangelical leaders are doing more to hurt Christianity than the so-called New Atheists ever could.

I’d still like to believe that there are principled evangelicals, although I must admit scepticism. — Wayfarer

I still know that there are principled Americans, even if they are a small minority perhaps.

After all, this “character counts” and “personal integrity” and “political leadership” was central to what a lot of… evangelicals argued when Bill Clinton was president. And now that it’s Donald Trump, they’ve decided to push that aside, which means that morality for them was a means to an end, not an end. It was something to be used as a political weapon.

Well, I got disappointed at how the Democrat supporters, voters and politicians who were against Bush (or Cheney's) policies after 9/11 had no trouble with Obama continuing Dubya's "War on Terror" and him increasing the drone strikes, even killing underage American citizen just because his father had been a terrorist propagandist.

So the way how Americans change their views once "their man" is in charge is very common and just tells how partisan Americans are.

I think a lot of these white evangelical leaders are doing more to hurt Christianity than the so-called New Atheists ever could.

Self-destruction is worse than being destroyed by something else. Didn't Jesus say something about that when criticized for not washing his hands, focus on the illness which comes from within.

An elected official in a republican form of government such as the one that the United States of America has, has the sole primary responsibility of acting on behalf of those who elected him/her/them. That is the promise one(candidate) makes to another(citizen/voter being represented) who gives them power to do so, by consent. That is the elected official's contractual obligation, first and foremost:Acting on behalf of those who elected him/her/them.

To stem future misguided thought...

All governments ought share this same responsibility to it's citizens. All of the world's citizens deserve to have government made up of the best representation:Thoughtful, considered, knowledgable, reasonable, and helpful representation of their best interests.

That said...

The disproportionate demonstrable harm caused to American industry, lives, and livelihoods is clear. These consequences were not inevitable negative affects/effects of necessary 'trade policy' enacted on behalf of the average American. To quite the contrary, they were not necessary at all.

To stem future misguided thought...

Imported goods are not something to be avoided at all costs. They're not 'bad' in and of themselves. It's all about the method of implementation. The complaint I'm levying, that is.

Imported goods were allowed in the American marketplace. Not an issue - in and of itself. Great idea. How it is implemented is what matters most.

Claims of American Corporations not being able to compete with foreign companies are/were very well-grounded. This becomes undeniably obvious to anyone who compares/contrasts the following two scenarios. All else being equal, the one corporation does all it's manufacturing offshore in places where most - if not all - of American regulations are non-existent. This doesn't make regulations bad. They are necessary and were put into place for good reason. They are often and always ought be kept in place - especially and particularly when they work - as a means to ensure that the government does not have to step in on behalf of it's citizens yet again.

So, all else being equal...

Given products of comparable quality, but actual company costs that do not reflect American standards of living(wages, benefits, worker's rights and protections, etc.) the situation is such that if profit and/or competitive drive is/are the primary motive(s), these foreign companies could bankrupt the American companies and not just by having such a better product(although there are many cases). Rather, even in the cases where the quality is on par, by the ability to intentionally sell - to Americans nonetheless - at a retail cost that the American company cannot continue to operate at, the impending ruin of American industry was inevitable.

To compete, many companies downsized, began lean manufacturing practices, reduced worker pay, deferred much of the financial burden of healthcare onto the workers, etc. Suddenly faced with being required to trim costs by significant sums, there were also retirement benefits to uphold, including healthcare of retirees, and needed improvements in technology as well as facilities. These latest considerations were already there, prior to also being forced to compete with another company that plays by rules long since deemed unacceptable and/or illegal in the States.

The fix?

Trade policies were enacted allowing American owned companies to compete by avoiding American regulations, avoiding paying workers by fair American standards, and as an added bonus legally defer paying certain federal income taxes. That was the solution. These allowances were afforded to American corporations as a means to level the playing field(allow them to be more competitive with the aforementioned foreign companies) in the American marketplace.

So, given this we have no choice but to see it for what it was. Policy created impossibility. Rather than correct the problem by demanding equally humane conditions be provided for foreign workers; rather than demanding that foreign governments guarantee the same qualities, standards, and protections for their workers; rather than demanding that those people's lives be improved as a pre-requisite to being able to take part in the American marketplace; rather than doing all these sensible humane things...

We allowed our companies and our corporations to leave American citizens high and dry and treat foreign workers and foreign lands in unacceptable illegal ways if we were talking about how to treat American workers and American lands. Double standard doesn't even begin to describe this greed based hypocritical action.

All the while... there was talk of 'raising standards around the world', being a global citizen, increasing American access to cheaper goods, etc. The blame for large American companies closing was two-fold. First there arose a common belief that imports were better, and that the poor quality of American products was a result - either direct or indirect - of the American worker themselves. They were characterized as being lazy/careless or too expensive for the company to keep and keep the quality up. The cost of American workers was widely believed to be the driving force behind companies beginning to use cheaper(inferior quality) materials.

American workers are more expensive than those foreign workers. That was never in doubt, was it? That is not the only driving force behind the collapse of American Industry. That's not the whole story. Those companies also faced costs of benefits to retirees. Upgrading. Healthcare costs increasing, etc. Normal operating costs.

So we fix the results of policy that allowed such unacceptable practices(ilegal in the States) to create an impossible marketplace for American Industry by virtue of allowing American companies to treat those people, and that land in ways that are unacceptable/illegal in America?

That's the fix?


And then there's the cost of American healthcare, and I'm not just talking about individual consumer price for some policy or another. I'm talking about the pharmaceutical industry. The healthcare costs for companies were influenced/effected here as well.

The tragedy here is that Americans - most anyway - either don't seem to know these things or are comfortable enough to remain compliant.

Trump's not the problem. He is a symptom.