U.S. Politics: Blame it on Canada!

[Jaxom 1974]

16 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is Sarah Palin endorsing Trump an indicator of his most likely running mate, or Palin's desire to be running mate? I fail to see how a person who never managed to complete a single term in elected office and significantly contributed to McCain's abject failure to be elected President in 2008 can be at any way relevant to whether Trump succeeds or fails to become the Republican nomination. So I am thinking her endorsement is almost entirely self-serving.

I know it's probably not the best comparison, but I look and listen to Sarah Palin these days and all I see or hear is Rosanne Barr circa 1995 or so...

[mormont]

Not sure if it's relevant, but Sarah Palin's son was arrested for domestic violence on Monday.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palins-son-track-arrested-punching-kicking-girlfriend/story?id=36385483

One would assume that would make any sort of running-mate deal unviable, not that I think it was ever really on the table. Sarah Palin doesn't seem that interested in elected office any more, so far as I can tell.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Timely article in the New York Times, given the thread's recent discussion:

’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women

 

 

Was coming to post this.  I saw on Breitfart this morning that the front page is saturated in article links about Hillary's 'part' inBill's rape and harassment scandals and then well down the front page is a link to the emails.  

I think the fact that there has not been a huge calling a foul on this from either side is what's most concerning, at least for Hillary.  As I pointed out before, it's suggesting that framing it in this way does anger people and so campaigns against HRC using this emotionally charged topic isn't going to receive any blowback.  When millions of dollars start to go into attack ad campaigns in the general (assuming Clinton is the nominee), it would be so much easier and more immediately successful for the anti-Hillarys to go with a topic like this than something like "zomg she had an email account!!!!".  

 

[TerraPrime]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Breitfart

A quick comment on this:

 

It grates on my nerves to no end when conservatives use these derogatory/pun terms. And they're full of it, like "feminazis" (because equal rights for women is the same as surprise-invasion of Poland!). It just comes across as really juvenile and mean-spirited. There are so many other ways that we can express our disdain for Breitbart that making a funny name for it is just about the least effective way of doing it. At the least, it brings you down to the 3rd grade playground taunting level of discourse.

 

[Shryke]

7 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

MSNBC is reporting Sanders has pulled to a 27% lead in New Hampshire according a recent poll. 

The fact that this number is a ridiculous outlier should tell you it's probably a ridiculous outlier. His lead is likely still just small as other polling shows.

[Bonesy]

Repuglicans, Rethuglicans, libtards, Clintonista's, Berniebots etc.

Why do grown people speak this way?

[DireWolfSpirit]

24 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The fact that this number is a ridiculous outlier should tell you it's probably a ridiculous outlier. His lead is likely still just small as other polling shows.

It looks small in Iowa. But this is actually the 3rd poll that i've noticed, to now show Sanders with a double digit lead in the Granite State.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP, LoB,

Thank you.  We're grown adults using kindergarten insults should be beneath us.

[Kalbear]

I'd totally believe the poll in New Hampshire. Just like I'd totally believe the 66-34 poll that Clinton has in South Carolina. Bernie winning the NE states isn't that weird (though it would be weird if he won New York) - but that isn't where Bernie has to win in order to stand a chance. He has to get better numbers in the South or he's doomed. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

 

8 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

MSNBC is reporting Sanders has pulled to a 27% lead in New Hampshire according a recent poll. 

538 seems to think the lead is smaller:

 

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Last week was a pretty good one for Bernie Sanders. Polls came out showing him closing in on Hillary Clinton in Iowa, and he continues to lead in New Hampshire. Weirdly, there wasn’t any obvious piece of news that would explain a Sanders surge. So, is it real?

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): It seems pretty clear that he’s gained ground in Iowa. Less clear in national polls. Somewhere in between in New Hampshire.

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): Well, I’m not sure he’s gained ground in Iowa as much as Clinton has lost ground, according to the Des Moines Register poll. It is clear that the race is tighter in Iowa. Nationally, I do think Sanders has gained, but Clinton still holds a rather clear lead (15 to 20 percentage points). In New Hampshire, Sanders is ahead, but is it by 5 or 10 percentage points? I don’t know.

 

[BloodRider]

58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TP, LoB,

Thank you.  We're grown adults using kindergarten insults should be beneath us.

Just use the generally accepted abbreviations: Rep, Dems Greens and Berts.  

[lokisnow]

Serious question. Can the us use tariffs to prop up domestic oil prices in retaliation for the Saudis year and a half of dumping/flooding the market?

Seems like if the Saudis are manipulating prices expressly to drive American production to bankruptcy we should defend our production by any means necessary before the Saudis successfully crater our economy with their economic warfare.

[Marcus Agrippa]

1 minute ago, lokisnow said:

Serious question. Can the us use tariffs to prop up domestic oil prices in retaliation for the Saudis year and a half of dumping/flooding the market?

Seems like if the Saudis are manipulating prices expressly to drive American production to bankruptcy we should defend our production by any means necessary before the Saudis successfully crater our economy with their economic warfare.

Tariffs are bad, and its more the feds policy that is cratering the economy. Quantitative easing and the rate hikes caused this. Fiscal policy since reagan has been abysmal. Reagan was a puppet, bill knew about as much, Bush was terrible, and congress was bought and sold. All Quantitative easing will end up doing is putting off curing the problem, and the fed rate hikes just show that all the makert gains since 2009 are superficial

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, Marcus Agrippa said:

Tariffs are bad, and its more the feds policy that is cratering the economy. Quantitative easing and the rate hikes caused this. Fiscal policy since reagan has been abysmal. Reagan was a puppet, bill knew about as much, Bush was terrible, and congress was bought and sold. All Quantitative easing will end up doing is putting off curing the problem, and the fed rate hikes just show that all the makert gains since 2009 are superficial

I don't think you know what QE even is.

[Shryke]

8 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Serious question. Can the us use tariffs to prop up domestic oil prices in retaliation for the Saudis year and a half of dumping/flooding the market?

Seems like if the Saudis are manipulating prices expressly to drive American production to bankruptcy we should defend our production by any means necessary before the Saudis successfully crater our economy with their economic warfare.

AFAIK, no. Also the Saudis are cratering their own economy faster. And their OPEC allies' economies even faster then that.

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Serious question. Can the us use tariffs to prop up domestic oil prices in retaliation for the Saudis year and a half of dumping/flooding the market?

Seems like if the Saudis are manipulating prices expressly to drive American production to bankruptcy we should defend our production by any means necessary before the Saudis successfully crater our economy with their economic warfare.

Not sure we could set up a tariff that only targeted Saudi oil. If we can't, then definitely not 'cause we'd end up hurting countries we don't want to and they'd retaliate against us. If we can, then maybe; but its likely they'd appeal to the World Trade Organization and we'd lose (which we could always ignore, but we use WTO rulings to our advantage all the time; so I doubt that we would). And even if the tariffs were upheld, I'm not sure it would do much good, there's too much supply from lots of people and not enough demand.

Also, the flood of cheap oil is really good for large sections of our economy anyway; the stock market is just ignoring that right now. But the stock market has had very little connection to economic fundamentals for a long time anyway.

[lokisnow]

Serious question. Can the us use tariffs to prop up domestic oil prices in retaliation for the Saudis year and a half of dumping/flooding the market?

Seems like if the Saudis are manipulating prices expressly to drive American production to bankruptcy we should defend our production by any means necessary before the Saudis successfully crater our economy with their economic warfare.

AFAIK, no. Also the Saudis are cratering their own economy faster. And their OPEC allies' economies even faster then that.

Funny I typed that in line at starbucks, then realized on the walk back to the office that it is OPEC that has declared war on our economy, not the Saudis, so right you are. Now I can't clandestinely edit my post.

Marcus the likely fed response is a rate cut, negative rates and or QE4 the solution didn't cause the problem, OPEC deliberately created this market crash as a targeted and declared act of warfare on American industry.

Saying QE caused this is like saying the stitches holding together a surgical incision in your chest caused your heart to need a pacemaker. It makes no sense.

[Marcus Agrippa]

Quantitative easing creates money by the Treasury and allows for bond purchases to be bought on the secondary market, most of the people on the secondary that sell bonds are banks, this allows the banks to get capital. I'll admit I am making a jump from here on out that maintains that the larger cash flow is bad for the economy because of inflation. However, by printing money theoretically speaking it should drive up inflation which would drive up the price of oil. Our oil trade is lucrative but at the same time, it's not the biggest part of our economy. The banking sector is Tariffs wouldn't help because, realistically speaking it's not going to HELP with what is causing the crisis and that is the raising of rates. Raising of the rate's is exposing the true issue of what has been going on since 2009 and that is that our growth is superficial. I honestly can say that I am only learning econ, but I have no interest in staying in the major.

 

So are you wrong based on what I said? No, however, I don't think a trade war with saudi arabia will make things better.

[Paladin of Ice]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, the flood of cheap oil is really good for large sections of our economy anyway; the stock market is just ignoring that right now. But the stock market has had very little connection to economic fundamentals for a long time anyway.

The stock market also has other things weighing on it like the complete turmoil in the Chinese market, Saudi Arabia and Iran more or less fighting proxy wars against each other in places like Yemen and Syria, etc. The slump in energy is a factor, but far from the only one.

[Marcus Agrippa]

16 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

AFAIK, no. Also the Saudis are cratering their own economy faster. And their OPEC allies' economies even faster then that.

 

Funny I typed that in line at starbucks, then realized on the walk back to the office that it is OPEC that has declared war on our economy, not the Saudis, so right you are. Now I can't clandestinely edit my post.

Marcus the likely fed response is a rate cut, negative rates and or QE4 the solution didn't cause the problem, OPEC deliberately created this market crash as a targeted and declared act of warfare on American industry.

Saying QE caused this is like saying the stitches holding together a surgical incision in your chest caused your heart to need a pacemaker. It makes no sense.

Fair enough, my goal has never been to stay in econ in the long term, it only hastens my need to get out of econ, I feel like learning about the micro econ is fun, the marco bits and policy are just murder.

 

Don't the saudi's have a ton of debt anyway? I can't make sense of their moves anymore. I mean sure, undercutting the American Market makes some sense, but this is insanity.

http://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/saudi-arabia-government-bonds