Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself.

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change.

But you discount the fact that our consumption gets more efficient with time - less waste, less energy, less manpower to produce one unit of consumption. And we’ve become incredibly adept at recycling previous units of consumption. We are more efficient at all points in the value chain.

-A liberal Democrat

I’d think a true Liberal Democrat would prefer no waste to less waste. If you don’t buy the Chinese junk, that would be best. Think about it.

If I may quote Elon Musk, one of my favorite persons in the world, don't let perfect get in the way of good. Recognize and reward progress - the market will follow where consumer demand leads them. Cars today are many many times safer than they were 40 years ago - certainly government regulation played its part, but by and large it also driven by consumer demand. Imagine if you argued "a true safety person would prefer no injuries to less injuries". Lets be realistic, no matter how safe cars get, we would only get less and less injuries. Demanding no injuries is unrealistic and does not make for productive exchange. An engineer cannot take the requirement "no injuries" and make a car like that. Similarly, to require that there be no waste is unrealistic. Lets continue to work together to reduce waste where we see them, keep demanding for a better environment as consumers. Your dollars is the greatest motivation for the industry to innovate and produce ever more efficient and less wasteful products/services.

Viva le Consommateur!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the Democrats have no desire to resolve the challenges relating to immigration.

They think it would be politically advantageous to let it fester and use it against the Republicans. If they really wanted to come up with legislation they could have done so in 2009 when they had commanding leads in the Senate and the House as well as the presidency. They did nothing and the Hispanic lobby was very upset at the time that nothing was done.

I ask this sincerely, though I understand it sounds like snark: Do you remember in 2016 when Republicans were in charge of the WH, the House, and the Senate? Why do you think it is that they did not engage in a good faith, substantive effort to overhaul the immigration system then?

I'm not asking you why you don't like Democrats. I am asking why you think Republicans declined the opportunity to take up this effort when they had the ability to do it.

Because that was NOT one of their campaign promises. They promised tax reform....and delivered it. They promised a conservative in the SC...and delivered it.

Obama promised immigration reform in his first year....and he didn't deliver it.

Actually he didn't even move a finger until he had lost both the Senate and the House so it was obvious he couldn't do anything serious and lasting.

LOL didn't Trump run in 2016 on fixing our immigration problems and securing our borders?

WTF are you talking about. The GOP completely ran on immigration in 2016. Are you legit insane?

Are you 12?
-DP

Anonymous wrote:A good chunk of the discussion on this thread had been engaging, thoughtful, and stripped of the same tired talking points. I prefer to exchange views with people who hold different opinions rather than hear my own recycled and repeated. Thank you to those who engaged with civility.

I do take delight in the fact that this thread is longer and far more engaging than that other "optimism" thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI, we all love legal immigrants, and our borders must be protected.

+1.

And, it is perfectly rational to consider a merit-based system, like Canada has.

Our current "system" is pure nonsense.

+ a million

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself.

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change.

PP here, but therein is the rub: what is a need and what is a want? Who gets to decide. You? Me? The city? The Federal Government? Some guy in Brussels?

I also don't see why you choose to ignore the readily observable fact that "good environment" is something that consumers value. Look at all the early adopters who spent money consuming Tesla vehicles. Look at all the people who consumed solar panels. Look at all the people who consume more energy efficient refrigerators, more water efficient faucets, less toxic herbicides, more recyclable fast food containers. All of these are in reaction to consumer demand.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know whether Trump will be reelected but I can tell you that I personally, at this point, intend to vote for Trump - although I did not vote for him in 2016.

Why would I vote for Trump? I really believe the Democrats are unhinged at this point and some of their proposals are just totally bizarre. Some of these proposals, if implemented, will have the net effect of undoing this economy and that is something that I am not willing to be a party to.

There is not a single candidate for the Democratic nomination who I can get behind based on what I know about them at this point. Biden has some appeal for me but the guy really has a checkered history in terms of the positions he has adopted over the years and that tells me that he is saying and doing things as a matter of expediency. What are his core beliefs? Does he have any?

I don't like Trump as a person but he has all in all done a decent job as president.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My step-father was visiting this weekend. He's what I call a "weak" Trump supporter: voted for him because he was sick of the status quo, encouraged everyone to "give Trump a chance" after the Inaugeration, and generally is very uncomfortable when minority Americans talk about "justice."

Now? He's completely opposed to Trump. He finds him to be despicable, both in his personal conduct and lack of respect for the troops on this Memorial Day weekend. He's excited about Biden, but admits he will likely vote for anyone the Democrats nominate.

I'd say that's the general sentiment among much of the independent white Boomer electorate.

Maybe among the wealthy class, but certainly not among those still working hard and building their 401k...

This criticism is a total non-sequitur. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people who tepidly supported Trump in 2016 are majorly turned off by him this time around. You haven't really provided any thoughtful nuance to the discussion and really just polluted this thread with a baseless claim ("They're all rich!")

Whatevs. Keep your head in the sand.

Yea, maybe there is "a lot" of those people. I am not sure that real actual polling data shows that. I was a tepid supporter of Trump in 2016, but my support for him has grown stronger in the past couple of year. I'm optimistic that there are more people like me who will help reelect Trump for a second term.

I hope you don't mind my asking this - but where are you originally from? And does you being from another country influence your support of Trump, do you think?

Holy crap, how can you tell? I didn't say anything about being a first generation immigrant. Is my English that terrible? As a matter of fact, yes I do believe that being from another country has influenced my support for Trump. Our liberal friends will find this observation incredulous but Trump reflects the traditional image of an America that values strength as a virtue and taking pride in a job well done. He has governed in the past two years by always putting the interests of America first, which is such a basic principle that for it to be somehow construed as a faulty view point by his political opponents underlines just how much the US needs to regain its sense of purpose and direction. Competition among the nations of the world is good, it is to be encouraged, and healthy - so long as everyone is competing using the same set of rules. And that brings me to the other side of the coin: I come from a country that had a failed attempt at a Marxist society, so I see the current attempt by progressives in the US to do the same as utter foolishness. The principles of classical liberalism has served the US well, and even as we adopt more socially liberal policies due to the natural progression of culture, there are certain bedrock principles that will bring the destruction of our democracy if we choose to erode them: the protection of civil liberties under the rule of law.

+1,000,000
Well said.

Anonymous wrote:So - it sounds like you guys who feel certain Trump will be reelected are mostly just feeling it in your gut? I'm not saying your guts are wrong - hey, I was wrong/devastated in 2016 - but do you have any evidence that you feel helps support that gut feeling?

I don't think anyone is 100% certain of any particular outcome - but one thing is for sure. None of us has any "evidence" to support our individual anecdotes. And it's usually liberals who insist that this poll or that makes a Democratic president in 2020 certain. It doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My step-father was visiting this weekend. He's what I call a "weak" Trump supporter: voted for him because he was sick of the status quo, encouraged everyone to "give Trump a chance" after the Inaugeration, and generally is very uncomfortable when minority Americans talk about "justice."

Now? He's completely opposed to Trump. He finds him to be despicable, both in his personal conduct and lack of respect for the troops on this Memorial Day weekend. He's excited about Biden, but admits he will likely vote for anyone the Democrats nominate.

I'd say that's the general sentiment among much of the independent white Boomer electorate.

Maybe among the wealthy class, but certainly not among those still working hard and building their 401k...

This criticism is a total non-sequitur. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people who tepidly supported Trump in 2016 are majorly turned off by him this time around. You haven't really provided any thoughtful nuance to the discussion and really just polluted this thread with a baseless claim ("They're all rich!")

Whatevs. Keep your head in the sand.

Yea, maybe there is "a lot" of those people. I am not sure that real actual polling data shows that. I was a tepid supporter of Trump in 2016, but my support for him has grown stronger in the past couple of year. I'm optimistic that there are more people like me who will help reelect Trump for a second term.

I hope you don't mind my asking this - but where are you originally from? And does you being from another country influence your support of Trump, do you think?

DP: why do you assume the PP is an immigrant?

Writing style doesn't sound like a native English speaker - I'm a writer; tend to be sensitive to language

DP. The PP's writing style is fine. A couple of typos - like we see all the time on DCUM - isn't indicative of a non-American.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself.

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change.

But you discount the fact that our consumption gets more efficient with time - less waste, less energy, less manpower to produce one unit of consumption. And we’ve become incredibly adept at recycling previous units of consumption. We are more efficient at all points in the value chain.

-A liberal Democrat

I’d think a true Liberal Democrat would prefer no waste to less waste. If you don’t buy the Chinese junk, that would be best. Think about it.

A good chunk of the discussion on this thread had been engaging, thoughtful, and stripped of the same tired talking points. I prefer to exchange views with people who hold different opinions rather than hear my own recycled and repeated. Thank you to those who engaged with civility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself.

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change.

But you discount the fact that our consumption gets more efficient with time - less waste, less energy, less manpower to produce one unit of consumption. And we’ve become incredibly adept at recycling previous units of consumption. We are more efficient at all points in the value chain.

-A liberal Democrat

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this in the other optimist thread.

k it’s a coin toss. Just as there are many people not talking about Trump that will vote for him, there are many people who will come out in droves to do all they can from keeping him in office.

Swing voters are going to determine the fate.

And to that end:

I also predict that eventually swing voters will get so frustrated with Rep/Dem options, stakeholders will begin to heavily invest in reframing the independent party and run a candidate that will in years to come be elected as an independent president.

-l

Disagree. We have a constitutional problem that makes 3rd parties nonstrategic from the voters' perspective. Until we have run-off elections for every federal and state office, two parties will continue to dominate because voters are smart enough to realize that 3rd parties are a "wasted" vote. The two parties are endemic to a structural failure by the Founding Fathers to require run-off elections for every elected office.

Until we fix that problems, voting for a 3rd party ends up electing your least desirable candidate.

Speaking of which, the Libertarian Party got close to 5 million voters in 2016, probably including many "never Trump" Republicans.

My guess is that most of them will vote Trump in 2020, especially if Dems nominate a left-wing candidate.

Your take?

I think many will continue voting Libertarian as a protest vote against Trump. Libertarians hate tariffs, socialist subsidies to farmers, deficits, and abortion bills. The Republican Party under Trump has completely abandoned Adam Smith-style capitalism.

The Republicans are not offering anything better viz a viz 2016. They likely won’t vote for a Democrat either. In fact, I bet the Libertarian candidate gets 6m votes, mainly from ex Republicans who can’t vote for a Democrat due to their rigid identities as “conservatives” and all the social signals associated with that identity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We should all support less imports from China.
China is the worst environmental disaster ever!

American consumers are the worst environmental disaster ever. No one put a gun to every American's head and asked them to keep buying "stuff", whether they can afford or not.

Ok, so let’s NOW reduce our made in China slave labor trade. Why not?

Better late than never....

Not gonna happen. We are addicted to buying things and our economy is driven by consumerism. If we stop buying our economy will collapse. So we are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Its like riding a tiger. If we stop, the tiger will consume us.

I often hear this line of argument but it strikes me as being irrational and detached from reality. Consumption is simply deriving incremental utility/enjoyment out of some good or service that you've purchased. Consuming is what gives value to the activities of an economic system. Every person consumes, some more than others, and in general there is a linear relationship between consumption and quality of life. It isn't somehow more virtuous to consume less. Every developing country in the world desires to consume more in order to improve the quality of life. Note that environmental conservation is also a type of consumption - people desire a better environment and work towards technologies which contribute to that goal, and there fore wind farms, solar energy, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with consumption in and of itself.

Consumption for our needs is one thing but consumption for our wants is what kills the earth. The resources are finite and if all 7 billion consumes like greedy Americans there won’t be much of anything left and the world will fail to address climate change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this in the other optimist thread.

k it’s a coin toss. Just as there are many people not talking about Trump that will vote for him, there are many people who will come out in droves to do all they can from keeping him in office.

Swing voters are going to determine the fate.

And to that end:

I also predict that eventually swing voters will get so frustrated with Rep/Dem options, stakeholders will begin to heavily invest in reframing the independent party and run a candidate that will in years to come be elected as an independent president.

-l

Disagree. We have a constitutional problem that makes 3rd parties nonstrategic from the voters' perspective. Until we have run-off elections for every federal and state office, two parties will continue to dominate because voters are smart enough to realize that 3rd parties are a "wasted" vote. The two parties are endemic to a structural failure by the Founding Fathers to require run-off elections for every elected office.

Until we fix that problems, voting for a 3rd party ends up electing your least desirable candidate.

Speaking of which, the Libertarian Party got close to 5 million voters in 2016, probably including many "never Trump" Republicans.

My guess is that most of them will vote Trump in 2020, especially if Dems nominate a left-wing candidate.

Your take?