Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup. I'm sure FDR was pragmatic. But if he's an example, then pragmatism means doing what must be done without regard to the emotions of the moment.
I'm sure most folks are very pragmatic in the affairs of their daily lives, but they don't seem to be when it comes to voting.
When voters go to the polls nowadays, the vote for their aspirations, or to oppose the other side, or to justify their last vote, and all kinds of other emotional reasons, but not any pragmatic reason.
And really, voting emotionally and seeing your guy win is a much greater kick than knowing your guy will do the right thing. We somehow presume our President will be pragmatic, but the truth is some are, and some aren't.
We overlook those who are and make a big deal over those who aren't. Because making a big deal gratifies our emotions the most. We love to love who we love, and we love to hate who we hate. And to hell with the other side!
That doesn't leave much room for pragmatism to exist. It needs more tolerance than we are willing to give right now.
Good to post with you again banjo. Sorry I never made it to Idaho. I have several times regretted my son convincing me to move to Colorado. Can barely make ends meet here now.
Your viewpoint on the why of political nominees is a good one. I, too, will react emotionally in the next presidential race as I would vote for anyone, literally anyone, running against Donald Duck.
On the other hand, the nation has had huge swings in the last 30 years. Bill Clinton got George W. elected. George W. got Obama elected and Obama got the Duck elected. I project another turbulent momentum swing that will last 4-8 years before we swing back still again. And if whatever nut I vote for turns out to be another Quacker jack, I’ll swing back the other way for a different nut.
Regardless, all the presidents since Jimmy Carter have exhibited what Carter warned was beginning to happen. Neither side is very civil anymore and it’s getting worse day by day. And they appear unlikely to change.
How so? JFK campaigned on lower business taxes, and Congress passed it.
A pro business Democrat , at one time, did not elicit massive laughing coast to coast.
Please see post No. 27 and No. 28 in this thread for a debunking of the myth that JFK was the grandfather of supply side economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
Dems were also not Pro Free Trade in their heyday, btw. I favor fair trade deals, meaning not a massive difference between import and export $, nation by nation.
When NAFTA passed congress more Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it. Bernie was tapping into this sentiment when he ran in 2016.
Balanced trade is malarkey peddled by ignorant and/or opportunistic politicians. The U.S. ran trade surpluses during most of the 1930's. How did that work out for us?
Balanced trade is malarkey peddled by ignorant and/or opportunistic politicians. The U.S. ran trade surpluses during most of the 1930's. How did that work out for us?
Its not 1930 any longer, and we should not be looking for what we did back then for guidance.
We are entering an era where the world and USA can produce far more than what it can use , due to automation. We can't afford gigantic trade deficits any longer-which translate into suppressed demand for large chunks of the US workforce.
In the 1930s, an era where manual labor was king, we had a labor shortage-not a labor surplus. Under Obama, the LFPR fell several points amongst men 55 and under. That was not due to retirements, but rather giving up. In 2016, Dems promoted policies which said implicitly "That's fine, "deplorables". Give up".
What followed was their logical response, and the Dems have done NOTHING since to show the deplorables their votes AGAINST the DNC were not merited.
As for pragmatism, IMO, Dems will not be able to convince swing voters and independents they know what it means to be one. They are a radical, out of touch, liberal coastal elitist party. That also means many 2016 elections to come for them. Middle America is where electoral college totals are growing. Coast, o/s of Ca, will keep losing electoral votes. NY is under half its peak ec vote quantity.
I'm sure most folks are very pragmatic in the affairs of their daily lives, but they don't seem to be when it comes to voting.
When voters go to the polls nowadays, the vote for their aspirations, or to oppose the other side, or to justify their last vote, and all kinds of other emotional reasons, but not any pragmatic reason.
And really, voting emotionally and seeing your guy win is a much greater kick than knowing your guy will do the right thing. We somehow presume our President will be pragmatic, but the truth is some are, and some aren't.
I agree that for most it is an emotional decision. How else to explain Bush's "victory" over Al "Bore" in 2000? The guy people thought they'd most like to have a beer with "won" despite Gore's considerable resume.
The late great George Carlin had a good bit on the average American voter. In essence he said, "The average American voter is really dumb. Now just realize that if the 'average' voter is that dumb that half of the people are even dumber than that!"
How else to explain Bush's "victory" over Al "Bore" in 2000? The guy people thought they'd most like to have a beer with "won" despite Gore's considerable resume.
Resume of what? Writing books? POTUS is not scholastic competition, nor should it be.
He was hardly utilized by Clinton. An ex VP, who was mainly a guy to send to foreign leader funerals, and one 100% aloof as Gore is, is in a very weak spot to attempt to win a POTUS election.
Even after they invent the internet (LOL).
Add in, Bush had been the leader of one of America's largest states.
Bush under-achieved by not thrashing him in the ec total.
Resume of what? Writing books? POTUS is not scholastic competition, nor should it be.
He was hardly utilized by Clinton. An ex VP, who was mainly a guy to send to foreign leader funerals, and one 100% aloof as Gore is, is in a very weak spot to attempt to win a POTUS election.
Even after they invent the internet (LOL).
Add in, Bush had been the leader of one of America's largest states.
Bush under-achieved by not thrashing him in the ec total.
Bob: Your statements would all be plausible but for one thing. We all lived through 8 years of the Bush presidency! The man failed miserably and the country was worse for the wear.
Bob: Your statements would all be plausible but for one thing. We all lived through 8 years of the Bush presidency. The man failed miserably and the country was worse for the wear.
In some ways, failed, in others , not bad. Economic recover 2003-2007 quite impressive given 9-11 shock. I was surprised, happily, we faced no additional attacks of magnitude after 9-11. I am happy we destroyed much of terrorist camp training structures in Afghanistan. So, mixed bag review.
BUT: BIG POINT!!
the vote occurs before a day is served. The resume was Gov Bush Nov, 1999 vs Underutilized VP Gore Nov, 1999.
In some ways, failed, in others , not bad. Economic recover 2003-2007 quite impressive given 9-11 shock. I was surprised, happily, we faced no additional attacks of magnitude after 9-11. I am happy we destroyed much of terrorist camp training structures in Afghanistan. So, mixed bag review.
BUT: BIG POINT!!
the vote occurs before a day is served. The resume was Gov Bush Nov, 1999 vs Underutilized VP Gore Nov, 1999.
Uh yeah sure, whatever you want to tell yourself is fine. Gore had 8 years in the House, 8 years in the Senate and 8 years as V.P. when he ran in 2000.
Uh yeah sure, whatever you want to tell yourself is fine. Gore had 8 years in the House, 8 years in the Senate and 8 years as V.P. when he ran in 2000.
16 inconsequential years congress & Seat riding dad's coattails
I am proud to have lived near Nashville in 2000, and his home state wisely chose Bush, after choosing Clinton in prior election, so it wasn't party. It was a vote against the man who invented the internet. LOL. The delusional "unnative" son.
I think this thread is getting a bit off-topic and turning into the usual political food fight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
