US Politics : And the Finer Art of Grumbling

[DanteGabriel]

Wasn't some sea lion trying to convince us, just a day or two ago, that Trump's wealth must mean he's very knowledgeable about how the stock market works? What the fuck is this gibberish?

Quote

"In the 'old days,' when good news was reported, the Stock Market would go up. Today, when good news is reported, the Stock Market goes down," the president tweeted. "Big mistake, and we have so much good (great) news about the economy!"

What does "big mistake" mean here? Was there some person or organization responsible for  the drop? He probably thinks there's a guy named Dow Jones who posts a number on a shingle to rate the market's performance. And he's a liberal in cahoots with Chuck Schumer.

[Yukle]

2 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

EDIT: I also wanna point out that we have our predominantly Republican-staffed intelligence agencies to thank for a lot of the more damning leaks that have come out of the White House since Trump took office.

We also have them to thank for a press release against Clinton's emails and staff just days before the election. An election where less than 30,000 votes in a few states would have prevented the catastrophe that has now happened.

And I don't think they're due much credit for doing what is literally their job. They should be doing far more: such as refusing to take Trump's orders, due to him being compromised and glibly passing on intelligence to Russia and whatnot during meetings American press can't attend.

And there should be patriots within the IRS who are happy to take the fall and leak his tax returns, proving that he isn't a billionaire. It sounds small, but it's one aspect of his persona that is crucial to his standing.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

He probably thinks there's a guy named Dow Jones who posts a number on a shingle to rate the market's performance.

Don't give him any ideas.  He'll try to replace Dow Jones with Arthur Jones.

[aceluby]

10 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Wasn't some sea lion trying to convince us, just a day or two ago, that Trump's wealth must mean he's very knowledgeable about how the stock market works? What the fuck is this gibberish?

What does "big mistake" mean here? Was there some person or organization responsible for  the drop? He probably thinks there's a guy named Dow Jones who posts a number on a shingle to rate the market's performance. And he's a liberal in cahoots with Chuck Schumer.

But he's SO SMART!  He took hundreds of millions of dollars that were given to him by his daddy, bought lots of shitty stuff with it so he could put his name on it, went bankrupt multiple times, screwed small businesses for billions of dollars, and now owns multiple golf courses with golden toilets!  Could YOU do that?!?!?  He's a business GENIUS!  And stable, some would say VERY STABLE!

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Don't give him any ideas.  He'll try to replace Dow Jones with Arthur Jones.

and the Alex Jones index is down 11 fuckwits today, a 2% drop from this time last year

[Fragile Bird]

25 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Wasn't some sea lion trying to convince us, just a day or two ago, that Trump's wealth must mean he's very knowledgeable about how the stock market works? What the fuck is this gibberish?

What does "big mistake" mean here? Was there some person or organization responsible for  the drop? He probably thinks there's a guy named Dow Jones who posts a number on a shingle to rate the market's performance. And he's a liberal in cahoots with Chuck Schumer.

Meh, he's just repeating what he saw on tv.

The reason for the saying is this. The market has been going up steadily, basically since Obama was first elected. It hasn't mattered what bad news came out, the market just shrugged it all off and kept going up, with a small blimp at Brexit. War in the Middle East? Shrugged off. North Korean madness? Shrugged off. Terrorist events? Shrugged off. Hurricanes? Shrugged off.

But now we've had very good news, low unemployment, lower taxes, good corporate earnings, and the market has suddenly become volatile. Part of that thinking goes this way: the economy is strong, the Fed is raising interest rates, the unemployment level is pretty well considered full employment, there's competition for workers so pay rates are finally going up, meaning there may finally be inflation coming. Higher interest rates mean a certain percentage of investors will sell stocks and move into bonds, since bonds will finally be paying more. It also means dividend paying stocks may fall in value because those same investors may choose to invest in 'safe' bonds that pay the same amount of money, or insured cds. And some people are saying the market over-reacted last year on the expectation of tax cuts.

Today, for example, the markets were strong all day until the fear of higher rates came up in the last half hour, and the Dow fell from being up 300 to down 20.

[Jace, Extat]

Stupid Wolff Blitzer. They kept showing Stephen Miller during the tease about a WH staffer who beat his wives (yeah, of course its plural), but it wasn't him

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Stupid Wolff Blitzer. They kept showing Stephen Miller during the tease about a WH staffer who beat his wives (yeah, of course its plural), but it wasn't him

Miller can't even get a date I'm sure, so that's at least one piece of shit who can't abuse women directly.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Shryke said:

Miller can't even get a date I'm sure, so that's at least one piece of shit who can't abuse women directly.

Have you ever been to a bar? Dudes like Miller are the reason you don't see chicks hanging out at bars.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Wasn't some sea lion trying to convince us, just a day or two ago, that Trump's wealth must mean he's very knowledgeable about how the stock market works? What the fuck is this gibberish?

 

40 minutes ago, aceluby said:

But he's SO SMART!  He took hundreds of millions of dollars that were given to him by his daddy, bought lots of shitty stuff with it so he could put his name on it, went bankrupt multiple times, screwed small businesses for billions of dollars, and now owns multiple golf courses with golden toilets!  Could YOU do that?!?!?  He's a business GENIUS!  And stable, some would say VERY STABLE!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aio6drTLno

I think it’s worth noting that Trump usually says that he’s “like” a smart person. It’s a funny Freudian slip.

Trump went to a fancy school, which was people who are like smart people do.

Trump had a lot of (relative) success in a difficult field, which is what someone who is like a smart person would do.

Trump has been on the cover of Time magazine several times, which is what someone who is lake a smart person would achieve.

Trump became a famous celebrity with near 100% name recognition. You have to be like a smart person to accomplish that, right?

Honestly, I bet Trump thinks Kim Kardashian is like a smart person too, because she’s rich, famous and beautiful. Because it Trumps polluted mind, that’s what makes you like a smart person.

Quote

What does "big mistake" mean here? Was there some person or organization responsible for  the drop? He probably thinks believes there's a guy named Dow Jones who posts a number on a shingle to rate the market's performance. And he's a liberal in cahoots with Chuck Schumer.

FTFY.

Trump doesn't think. He just does.

43 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

and the Alex Jones index is down 11 fuckwits today, a 2% drop from this time last year

If you could still win the day, it would have been yours!

21 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Meh, he's just repeating what he saw on tv.

The reason for the saying is this. The market has been going up steadily, basically since Obama was first elected. It hasn't mattered what bad news came out, the market just shrugged it all off and kept going up, with a small blimp at Brexit. War in the Middle East? Shrugged off. North Korean madness? Shrugged off. Terrorist events? Shrugged off. Hurricanes? Shrugged off.

But now we've had very good news, low unemployment, lower taxes, good corporate earnings, and the market has suddenly become volatile. Part of that thinking goes this way: the economy is strong, the Fed is raising interest rates, the unemployment level is pretty well considered full employment, there's competition for workers so pay rates are finally going up, meaning there may finally be inflation coming. Higher interest rates mean a certain percentage of investors will sell stocks and move into bonds, since bonds will finally be paying more. It also means dividend paying stocks may fall in value because those same investors may choose to invest in 'safe' bonds that pay the same amount of money, or insured cds. And some people are saying the market over-reacted last year on the expectation of tax cuts.

Today, for example, the markets were strong all day until the fear of higher rates came up in the last half hour, and the Dow fell from being up 300 to down 20.

I’ve listen to a few podcasts today about the economy and the stock market, and this is nearly word for word what the economists were saying.

(You’re paying for the beers though)

[Prince of the North]

56 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Wasn't some sea lion trying to convince us, just a day or two ago, that Trump's wealth must mean he's very knowledgeable about how the stock market works? What the fuck is this gibberish?

What does "big mistake" mean here? Was there some person or organization responsible for  the drop? He probably thinks there's a guy named Dow Jones who posts a number on a shingle to rate the market's performance. And he's a liberal in cahoots with Chuck Schumer.

 

43 minutes ago, aceluby said:

But he's SO SMART!  He took hundreds of millions of dollars that were given to him by his daddy, bought lots of shitty stuff with it so he could put his name on it, went bankrupt multiple times, screwed small businesses for billions of dollars, and now owns multiple golf courses with golden toilets!  Could YOU do that?!?!?  He's a business GENIUS!  And stable, some would say VERY STABLE!

Yeah, kinda reminds me of this (from Fortune.com):

Quote

Donald Trump, who often says he only likes winners, tells one grand tale of loss: In 1990, he nearly went bankrupt and was forced to ask dozens of banks to whom he owed money to change the terms on their loans and forgive some of his debts.

It was, the real estate developer admits in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, the darkest period of his professional life. In his telling, it’s a story of redemption, of resilience, and proof of his exceptional negotiating skills and shrewd thinking.

Six people who participated in the loan workout negotiations have a different recollection, raising questions about a key part of the personal narrative that many of Trump’s supporters have found compelling as he campaigns to be the next president of the United States on Nov. 8. On the campaign trail he has portrayed himself as a survivor and a master negotiator.

I especially like this part:

Quote

During the same period, Trump was separately renegotiating a series of loans on his Atlantic City casinos. One of the bankers involved in those negotiations, Ben Berzin, said Trump seemed unaware of the depths of his financial troubles even after the banks had stepped in.

“There was a period during these negotiations when he was still spending money like a drunken sailor,” Berzin said, recalling the uproar among the bankers when, in a TV interview in the summer of 1991, Trump displayed a large diamond engagement ring he had given Maples. Media reports said the ring cost $250,000, and Pomerantz said the bankers complained about it to Trump in their next meeting.

(emphasis mine)

Yep.  Stellar businessman alright.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

And of course those on the right in power have their sphincters all clenched up over the prospect of losing power due to simple projection.  They're deathly afraid they'll be subjected to the same treatment they've been dishing out for so long.  To them it really is a zero sum game - that's their worldview.

 

That's always the thing the tyrant fears the most, that their political opponents are equally tyrannical so they cannopt be allowed to gain power. Which leads them down a deeper path of tyranny and desperation to cling to power at all costs. And when the Tyrant is part of a minority the prospect of losing power to an oppressed majority stokes the fear to an even higher level. Until now the white tyrants have seen themselves as at least part of a racial majority and so felt reasonably safe that as long as their political opposition is white they will at least be reasonably safe. But as the skin tone of the political opposition gets progressively darker, the opposition becomes progressively scarier. And so more drastic measures must be taken to remain in power. And once the tyranny that is in power becomes a minority in all ways that they believe are important (i.e. genitalia and skin colour) democracy itself becomes a threat to their power, and hence democracy must be undermined in order to retain power.

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Wasn't some sea lion trying to convince us, just a day or two ago, that Trump's wealth must mean he's very knowledgeable about how the stock market works? What the fuck is this gibberish?

What does "big mistake" mean here? Was there some person or organization responsible for  the drop? He probably thinks there's a guy named Dow Jones who posts a number on a shingle to rate the market's performance. And he's a liberal in cahoots with Chuck Schumer.

I'm guessing he thinks some guy accidentally pushed a button somewhere, like that Hawaiian dude who sent out the missile alert accidentally by pushing the wrong button.

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's always the thing the tyrant fears the most, that their political opponents are equally tyrannical so they cannopt be allowed to gain power. Which leads them down a deeper path of tyranny and desperation to cling to power at all costs. And when the Tyrant is part of a minority the prospect of losing power to an oppressed majority stokes the fear to an even higher level. Until now the white tyrants have seen themselves as at least part of a racial majority and so felt reasonably safe that as long as their political opposition is white they will at least be reasonably safe. But as the skin tone of the political opposition gets progressively darker, the opposition becomes progressively scarier. And so more drastic measures must be taken to remain in power. And once the tyranny that is in power becomes a minority in all ways that they believe are important (i.e. genitalia and skin colour) democracy itself becomes a threat to their power, and hence democracy must be undermined in order to retain power.

I'm guessing he thinks some guy accidentally pushed a button somewhere, like that Hawaiian dude who sent out the missile alert accidentally by pushing the wrong button.

But that Hawaiian dude actually thought the Islands were about to go Aloha, right?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Prince of the North said:

Yep.  Stellar businessman alright.

His best business move was demanding that the engineers at Trump Shuttle, Inc. figure out a way to make his planes fly even though his desired designs would make the planes too heavy to fly. And it wasn't by a small margin either. He wanted the planes to be twice as heavy as what they could be to takeoff. 

Why did this happen might you ask? He wanted the planes to be covered in marble. 

[DMC]

So, guess it should be mentioned the Senate reached a budget deal...

Quote

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: The deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128 billion and hikes defense budgets by $160 billion.

But, conservatives are balking, which means Ryan will need Pelosi to whip votes in the House.  But, Pelosi is demanding a vote on DACA for Democratic support...

Quote

The conservative and progressive flanks in the House are sounding alarm bells over what is looking like a significant spending hike and still no deal on immigration, and threatening to vote against the final agreement. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she and a significant number of Democrats would vote against the budget deal if House Speaker Paul Ryan didn’t give assurances of a vote on a DACA fix. But immigration negotiations have largely stalled, stuck between the moderate-but-passable proposals that the White House won’t support and conservative Trump-endorsed proposals that won’t see the light of day in the Senate — the same dynamics as in the runup to the shutdown.

In other words, here we go again.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 hours ago, Triskele said:

On PBS I was reminded of the details of a recent immigration proposal by the White House which was supposedly citizenship for DACA, path to citizenship for another 1.8 million, and a significant reduction in overall immigration.  It seemed that when this proposal was first introduced the left was not too happy about the overall immigration reduction, but I was reminded tonight that even though this included that piece, many rightwing groups are still really upset about this proposal because of the path to citizenship for the 1.8.  That's striking to me given that this is only somewhere around 1/5 of the people in the country illegally, and it seemed that in the not-too-distant past it genuinely seemed possible that the GOP would sign off on a bill that would offer a path to everyone.  And now the 1.8 might be a non-starter.  

 

Yeah, that's the sad reality of things. I forget what year it was, but the Senate passed a bipartisan plan that was a lot more generous than what's being proposed now, but the problem is the House didn't even take it up. You can blame this on the Hastert Sexual Predator Rule (nothing passes without a majority of the majority). That's what keeps killing things, and if Dems pick up a lot of seats in 2018 without retaking the majority, it will only get worse. I'm going to bring in @dmc515 for what I'm about to say next because I'm not 100% sure that I'm right and he can speak with greater authority on this issue than I. One of the problems, IMO, is that we still haven't realized that while there hasn't been a full blown realignment, there seems to have been a mini realignment within the Republican Caucus and it's effects may be permanent. 

Historically the Republican party of our era has been described as a three legged stool. You have the Country Club Republicans, the economic class, the War Hawks, the pro-military faction and the Religious Right (self described). Country Club Republicans have become fractured. These were the liberal Republicans. They wanted their low taxes and deregulation, but they were also fairly progressive on social issues, at least relative to the rest of their party. These people are now becoming lost. They still begrudgingly support Trump because of the tax cut, but they hate him on a lot of other things. It's possible that we might see them drift more towards the middle, especially if they continue to be embarrassed by Trump, thus further losing their influence in the party.

The Hawks aren't going anywhere. In fact, they might be more drawn to Trump than his Republican predecessors. He touches on so many issues that are important to them, and he represent a lot in what they see as a strong leader. However, I think it's possible that the number of Hawks, as a percentage of the party, has shrunk in the wake of Bush's failed presidency. Their representation is less meaningful than it was in past years.

Then we have the Religious Right. They too are strong supporters of Trump, and as long as he keeps throwing them red meat, they will stay. Honestly I still can't get over how shocked I am at their support, but it is what it is. Personally I would have thought that they would have seen through Trump's lies, and it seemed like they kind of did in the primary, but now they've tied their ship to him. This leads me to ask two people who would know better than me, @Ormond and @Ser Scot A Ellison, why do you think they've stayed with him? I would think the Religious Right would have more disdain for an atheist who is clearly trying to con them than they would for an atheist who rejects their religion. At least you could say the latter was being honest.

This all leads to my final point, the new fourth leg of the stool. As the first two groups cede power, and especially among the Country Clubers, the Alt-Right has now firmly entrenched it's self as an important, and more importantly, a visible constituency in the Republican party. They've always been there, in the shadows, hearing the dog whistles, but now they're allowed to come out and play. The byproduct of this is that they now have actual power, and in the House, by using the required majority of the majority rule, they can effectively block any reasonable immigration policy, as well as a host of other issues that not so long ago had general agreement, though the Republican party wouldn't allow Obama any victories. Now that's not to say that this some profound thought, but more so to point out that we need to accept the stark realities of this new Republican party. And I fear that it won't be going away anytime soon. There's no putting this genie back in the bottle.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I think I made it pretty clear that I was referring to elected Republican representatives when I said there was near universal condemnation of the rally, not voters.

I had not a clue that's what you meant.

4 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I made two statements in the section you responded to. One should really be common sense, and the other is the shared opinion of all our intelligence agencies.

I wasn't clear enough here. I was saying that I don't have a lot of evidence that Republican voters are particularly different between 'yay swastika' and 'yay casual racism'. 

 

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, let's look at those facts.  Here's the Quinnipiac poll that came out today showing Trump with 40% approval with 83% GOP approval.  When we look at approve strongly vs. approve somewhat, 10% "approve somewhat" of Trump - including 18% of Republicans.  So 1 in 4 respondents that approve of Trump express some type of ambivalence (comparatively, "disapprove somewhat" is 8 of 55% disapprove, or ~15%).  Are many of these respondents going to support Trump no matter what?  Sure. 

But it's also true that many of these respondents represent the well-documented Obama-Trump and/or "reluctant" Trump voters we have discussed many times over.  Hell, 17% of Hispanic respondents approve somewhat of Trump.  It's far more likely the vast majority of these respondents are low information voters happy about the current state of the economy than actually agree that "we need to kick out the undocumented immigrants" or "we are plagued by MS-13."  Such respondents are indeed moveable.  To say that among Trump-approvers, "This isn't a small minority; this is pretty much every one of them," paints with far too broad a brush that is, factually, inaccurate.  More importantly, it invites the type of polarizing rhetoric that is destructive, which was @Let's Get Kraken's point.

 

Well, no. It's not factually inaccurate; what you asserted is an opinion, not actual truth. If you like, we can take 'strongly approve' only and then have something like 65% of all Republicans who love him, and about 30% of everyone in the country who does. Does that make my point less valid - that a very large majority of Republicans strongly approve of him?

As to the low information voters - the idea was to convince the 'rational' ones to switch, right? How does that conflate in any way with the low information ones? This doesn't make any sense at all. Either most of them are low-information, in which case they are less likely to be swayed by facts or dialog and more likely to be swayed by emotional appeal and ingroup think, or they're not, in which case they're onboard the Trump train. 

 

[karaddin]

7 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

If anyone is being uncharitable in their characterizations, it is the one who adopts the position that the official strategy of a mainstream political party is to systematically lose elections. I didn't say his doom and gloom is unwarranted generally (I don't think it is), but his views on the Democratic Party are hyperbolic. 

Ok that's probably fair. I'd question the competence of the Democratic party when it comes to winning elections (which is quite distinct from competence at governing once in power) as I think they are utterly terrible at winning the games of rhetoric and optics, and constantly cede ground to the GOP by accepting their language and framing of debates. I wouldn't argue they intend to lose however and that is an important distinction.

[Martell Spy]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

So, guess it should be mentioned the Senate reached a budget deal...

But, conservatives are balking, which means Ryan will need Pelosi to whip votes in the House.  But, Pelosi is demanding a vote on DACA for Democratic support...

In other words, here we go again.

And Trump on the sidelines, saying he wants a shutdown. What a moron I say for not the last time.

[Inigima]

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

His best business move was demanding that the engineers at Trump Shuttle, Inc. figure out a way to make his planes fly even though his desired designs would make the planes too heavy to fly. And it wasn't by a small margin either. He wanted the planes to be twice as heavy as what they could be to takeoff. 

Why did this happen might you ask? He wanted the planes to be covered in marble. 

This can't be real, can it?