Anybody going to be watching the State of the Union Address?

[Vilepagan]

Makes it challenging to have meaningful discussions if you believe the other side of the table is unobjective and/or unreasonable.

Now imagine how difficult it can be when the other side actually is non-objective and unreasonable.

I'll give you some examples of statements from "your side" that meet the criteria:

1. "We have some alternative facts".

2. "I know more about ISIS than the Generals do".

3. "We're going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for it".

The problem isn't that you or I would believe nonsense like that but that when confronted on these statements the speaker doesn't acknowledge that they were untrue or even exaggerations but rather he doubles down on them and the discussion rapidly devolves into the farcical.

[not4u13]

Well, I think one point worth making is that what this guy says is generally not to be believed. If that means pointing out every single lie he tells so be it.

I'd like to know what happened to that "higher standard" we're all supposed to use when judging the conduct of our elected officials. It does seem to have been forgotten somewhere.

Pointing out "every single lie" doesn't do what you would hope it would do. It doesn't serve to further undermine Trump's credibility. It serves to undermine your own credibility. I know, backwards right?

It's because most of the time the "lies" are not about things that really matter, which makes you look like you're being petty. That you have lost sight of the "big picture" in favor of nit-picking everything Trump is saying. You're no better than the politicians that Trump is trying to get rid of by "draining the swamp".

I'm a Republican but only because I don't really have a party to align with any longer. I'm a fiscal conservative but more of a social progressive (or liberal if you prefer). I don't like Trump, but I've found that if I get into discussing the latest lie, or even the pack of lies together, discussion on the issues of the day are lost. All the lies become a diversionary tactic. All the real important policy issues are no longer discussed. Furthermore, we galvanize Trump supporters against even having those conversations. We lose the credibility to discuss how good or bad a job Trump is doing because we obviously just don't like the guy. From that point forward, even the most salient point to be made falls on deaf ears.

That is the entire purpose of Trump's tweet storms. His "fake new" media awards. His bold statements. He throws out these falsehoods during speeches and watches the media gobble them up like sharks on chum.

[Wabash]

I'm a fiscal conservative

You can't be a republican and be a fiscal conservative.

They have shown repeatedly they are incompetent when it comes to fiscal policy.

The current tax bill being a good example.

[Vilepagan]

I understand what you're saying Not4u, I just don't agree with you. I think becoming more cavalier with the truth is exactly the wrong response to this sort of nonsense.

I noticed in your last response you didn't address my question regarding the "higher standard".

Are you suggesting that trump not be held to this standard or that we as a people no longer deserve this level of decency from our elected officials? I understand that the Republican Party tossed this notion of a "higher standard" on the scrap heap but is that a view shared by you?

[Vilepagan]

It's because most of the time the "lies" are not about things that really matter, which makes you look like you're being petty.

I think the root of our disagreement stems from the fact that I think all lies matter when it comes to our elected officials. I also don't think what trump does is "lying"...I think it's just lying. I see no reason to put quotes around the word as if its meaning is different somehow.

[Vilepagan]

You can't be a republican and be a fiscal conservative.

Sure you can. Just like you can be a Republican and be gay.

Seriously Wabash, you need to open your mind a little bit and let some air in, the cobwebs are getting a bit think in there.

[Wabash]

Not so fast. Republicans pillory anyone other than themselves when it comes to debt and deficit. I don't believe one can claim a mantle of fiscal conservatism when that same group routinely says nothing about their own budget busting policies. The Treasury Dept. just released a statement stating that $1T will be borrowed during the first budget of the Trump Administration.

They said nothing when Bush doubled the debt and have practically canonized Reagan who effectively tripled the debt.

They can make the claim, that doesn't make it valid.

[Vilepagan]

They can make the claim, that doesn't make it valid.

Funny, I was going to say the same about your claims. You don't get to decide what others believe, and there's absolutely no reason a Republican can't disagree with one or more policies backed by the RNC and still be a Republican.

Do you agree with every position held by the DNC?

[Wabash]

No. I don't. But we're discussing one specific issue.

[Vilepagan]

And that one specific issue is not the defining issue for Republicanism.

[Wabash]

We can agree that while they may make that claim their actions speak otherwise.

[not4u13]

I personally believe we should hold our elected officials to a higher standard. They are the leaders of our country and should exemplify leadership in all facets of what they do and say, both in their public and personal lives. That's why I have so much trouble with Trump.

The trouble is, most Americans have become tired of traditional leadership and blame virtually everything that has gone wrong on this form of traditional leadership. Now we have this guy who is refreshing in that he speaks his mind, lies and all. That's perceived as a "normal" human being, not some glib-speaking "artificial" politician. Typical political speeches are rehearsed, fake, a mere performance. Nobody really talks like that in real life.

In order to break down the barriers of communication between the "sides", we have to understand this condition and start looking past these "mis-statements" (i.e. lies) and find the core message. Don't over-analyze and then lambaste every word or Trump supports will simply laugh and proclaim you no better than the slick lying politicians in "the swamp". You are just parroting main stream media garbage.

Look past the lies and try to figure out what Trump is really saying and go after that instead of going after all the stuff around it. I think it would completely change the conversation.

[not4u13]

What do you think it means to be a fiscal conservative anyway?
I don't believe in pure tricke-down economics, but I do believe a corporate tax cut will help the economy and improve the employment and earnings outlook as a result. That doesn't mean that the only way to improve or fix the economy is to give money to the rich corporations in hopes that their generosity will improve the lives of those less fortunate. We also need to work from the bottom up. I don't believe in deficit spending, but much of that is caused by military spending, not social programs. I do think there are too many regulations against commerce and trade, but I do think we need to continue to provide incentives to improve how we treat our environment.

I'd like to think that most people are more like me. I identify most with one particular political party, but I do not ascribe to their complete agenda.

[Wabash]

but I do believe a corporate tax cut will help the economy and improve the employment and earnings outlook as a result.

That has never worked. In fact it has had just the opposite effect.

[Vilepagan]

I personally believe we should hold our elected officials to a higher standard. They are the leaders of our country and should exemplify leadership in all facets of what they do and say, both in their public and personal lives. That's why I have so much trouble with Trump.

Agreed. I think where we disagree is how that "trouble" manifests itself.

In order to break down the barriers of communication between the "sides", we have to understand this condition and start looking past these "mis-statements" (i.e. lies) and find the core message.

That's assuming there is a core message. I don't believe there is one.

[Bick]

I'd like to think that most people are more like me. I identify most with one particular political party, but I do not ascribe to their complete agenda.

For what it's worth, I am.

I don't believe in pure tricke-down economics, but I do believe a corporate tax cut will help the economy and improve the employment and earnings outlook as a result

There really is no such thing as "trickle-down" economics. But to your point, economics is a function of incentives for the production of profit. Lowering the threshold needed for profit will generally incent investment in that activity because of the lower risk, right?

[Wabash]

Lowering the threshold needed for profit will generally incent investment in that activity because of the lower risk, right?

Once again. There is no empirical evidence to support this. Trickle down fiscal only works if there are infusions of capital. Typically through public investment. That was how both Bush II and Reagan avoided recessions. Bush II doubled the debt and Reagan tripled it.

This is nothing new. "Trickle-down economics" has been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory". An older and less elegant generation called it the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'

Renowned economist, John Kenneth Galbraith claimed the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896. In the 1992 presidential election, independent candidate Ross Perot called trickle-down economics "political voodoo". George HW Bush also referred to it as "voodoo economics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Not sure why voodoo was the metaphor.

[John Q. Public]

But to your point, economics is a function of incentives for the production of profit.

Strange definition. Here's how the American Economic Association defines it:

"Economics can be defined in a few different ways. It’s the study of scarcity, the study of how people use resources and respond to incentives, or the study of decision-making. It often involves topics like wealth and finance, but it’s not all about money. Economics is a broad discipline that helps us understand historical trends, interpret today’s headlines, and make predictions about the coming years."

https://www.aeaweb.org/resources/studen ... -economics

You seem to be looking at one little piece of economic policy but ignoring the greater ecosystem that it works in.

[Bick]

Et tu JQP?

At its core, economics is about activity driven by incentives in the pursuit of profit. Simply put, the higher the threshold for profit, the lower the incentive to risk capital.

Either you or Wabash are able to show an example of how this is not true, have at it.

[John Q. Public]

Well... communism.