Morning Ed: Politics {2016.03.22.T}

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

20 Responses

  1. LeeEsq says:

    Robert Reich’s theory is unconvincing. The Democratic Party remained a New Deal/Great Society Party until Clinton got elected in 1992 but the white working class abandoned it long before that time.Report

  2. Damon says:

    Labor Unions: The only real powerful unions left are the gov’t ones. Who cares what the rank and file vote for, the union leaders will spend all their money for the Dems. If Trump wins, they’ll just work with Congress more anyway. Smoke and mirrors.

    Economist: “Until Trump, the firm had never rated a pending election of a candidate to be a geopolitical risk to the U.S. and the world.”….”Trump has vowed to seize Syria’s oil fields and refineries, which help keep ISIS afloat, and then sell the oil to pay for a U.S. military campaign.” Funny, Bush said the same thing re Iraq and the economist didn’t see fit to comment on that. So we go from a “nobel prize winning president” to a “destroyer of worlds”. Won’t somebody PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

    Theory of Trump: “He says he wants to “make America great again,” but I don’t think that’s what his acolytes hear. I think they hear that he is going to turn his vicious temper and unbalanced rage on the large-scale forces they feel are hindering them. They want someone punished. Could be China. Could be Muslims. Could be Mexicans. Could be bankers. Could be the GOP “establishment.” Whatever. He’s their Punisher.” That sounds on target is a lot of ways, although it’s not all of it. And a quibble, “since immigration has been a dominating feature of the political conversation over the past decade.” That’s BS. Oh, it’s been talked about by everyone but the presidential candidates, who when they talk about, don’t seem to actually say anything. Until this year, I don’t recall any debate actually having a substantive discussion on immigration, platitudes notwithstanding.

    EU: nah, screw em…it’s dead jim.Report

    • j r in reply to Damon says:

      Until this year, I don’t recall any debate actually having a substantive discussion on immigration, platitudes notwithstanding.

      It’s pretty funny that you began that sentence with “until this year.”Report

      • Damon in reply to j r says:

        An increase of .01% is still an increase. Trump actually came out and said he wanted to build a wall and restrict Muslim immigration. No one else ever said anything like that directly. Just vague “path to citizenship”, “compromise”, yadda yadda.. The ensuing drama post Trump comments generated more debate on the subject than the sum total of every dem / repub debate in the last 20 years.Report

  3. Kolohe says:

    The brexit aye vote just got a bounce this morning.Report

  4. aaron david says:

    Bill Clinton making a very interesting speech; this election is getting weirder and weirder.

  5. Autolukos says:

    ESPN got a close up on Cuba’s treatment of dissentReport

  6. j r says:

    It is hard to imagine any world leader citing the hubris of overextension as the problem that the United States, today, must take extra care to correct for or guard against. Obama has already corrected for it, many times over.

    This is the point at which I had to stop taking that Atlantic article seriously. You’d think that someone who works for Brookings would have a better understanding of how the NSS and U.S. foreign policy more broadly actually works. Everything that we do, even when it’s not directly accomplished through military means, is informed by military intervention, whether threatened or realized. The one notable exception is the use of financial sanction which is supported by the primacy of the U.S. financial system in the global economy and you don’t have to connect the dots very far to trace that back to military intervention.Report