Jump to content

US Politics - Turtles crawl, the constipation sensation that's gripping the nation.


Lykos

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Was just discussing this with a friend. Economy-wise, we are doomed no matter who wins.  If Sanders is the nominee and wins, there will be a market collapse relatively quickly (will probably bounce back, assuming underlying indicators remain ok-ish, but that's the issue).  If Trump wins, there might be short term market bump/sugar rush (though I doubt it), but he's spent us into such a freaking hole, and he has already used most of the available "goose the economy" tricks, such that no matter WHO wins we're having a downturn anyway.

I have been watching as momentum in the market has created some absolutely cray-cray (a word which I could actually talk about in my words that bug you thread) stock charts. It's something that's really indicative of a late-stage boom market. Look at the stock charts of many companies in the news and you'll see a climb in price that resembles the favourite side of Pike's Peak for rock climbers.

Honestly, the last time I saw charts like that was just before the dot.com crash in 2002. Watching Tesla go up by 40, 50, 80, 100 dollars or more in a day looks just like that craziness. Yes, dot.com was crazier because those companies were just ideas with no earnings, but it looks like the day traders have come back with a vengeance.

I expect a correction sooner than later, but God only knows, this market has brushed off every single piece of bad news that comes out so far. Maybe the disruption that COVID-19 is creating is finally sinking in.

We could have a correction now and then a very ugly September. Septembers can be bad because it's late in the year, and the previous quarter's numbers have come out and the realization sets in that there's no hope of companies making their numbers.

That should make for an interesting November. If it happens, Trump supporters could very well once again brush off bad news and blame events in China that Trump had no control over, even while they gave him credit for Obama's 8 years. If you want to see a good example of that, look up CNN's interview with Peter Navarro a few days ago where he harangues the interviewer saying the economy under Obama was a brutal, ugly economy, even while she puts up the job numbers and lists the quarters with +4% growth in GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Darryk said:

I really think Tulsi Gabbard would be able to take a leadership role without perception of her becoming negative. Just something about her, she carries herself really well.

Maybe it's misogyny that's stopping Warren but there is something unique to her personality rather than gender that I think a lot of people find off-putting, she has this school teacher vibe to her.

Nah. Warren’s problem is that she’s trying to be the middle ground candidate. She wants to be progressive enough for Sanders supporters but not scary to Biden supporters. But whenever the center attacks her to push her to the right she gets criticized by the left for abandoning and softening up on stances she used to endear herself to them.

 

Shes great at debates but is trying to pull off a difficult balancing act and she’s stumbled doing it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It really seems like sexism to me, this determination by the media and the pundits, that Warren just isn't good enough to run for election against kong-kong.  But she was enough to scare the bejeezus outta bloomie -- she surged, he declared.

I like Warren the best of any candidate left, and hope I get a chance to vote for her when MD votes.  But I think there is a significant portion of the Democratic electorate that is scared of nominating another woman against Trump.  Yes, I'm aware of how incredibly frustrating that answer is to women, because it is indeed total bullshit that the sample size of one woman means that no woman can beat Trump.  Nonetheless, I think it means that the already significant challenges that a woman faces when seeking office are amplified for this cycle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Was just discussing this with a friend. Economy-wise, we are doomed no matter who wins.  If Sanders is the nominee and wins, there will be a market collapse relatively quickly (will probably bounce back, assuming underlying indicators remain ok-ish, but that's the issue).  If Trump wins, there might be short term market bump/sugar rush (though I doubt it), but he's spent us into such a freaking hole, and he has already used most of the available "goose the economy" tricks, such that no matter WHO wins we're having a downturn anyway.

We’re of like minds. I think it’s entirely possible that stock market collapses before Bernie is even sworn in if he wins, and even if Trump does win, the economy is bound to come apart sooner than later. You’re also right to say that Trump has goosed the economy in  irresponsible way, leaving us vulnerable if a crash does come.

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think he does. If he wins reelection the next thing will be getting Don Jr. elected in 2024; gotta keep things going for that.

Maybe, but didn’t he once say that he’s not worried about the debt post his presidency? If so that suggests he doesn’t care that much once he no longer needs to be elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, Roger Stone got sentenced to 40 months plus two years of probation. This was what I was expecting after the Paul Manafort sentence.

In the meantime, his lawyers were swearing up and down that No siree, they had nothing to do with any political interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

 People are smart, and they're paying attention now like they haven't been in a long time.

What PLANET are you FROM???

Can YOU understand what WE are SAYING?

Raise your tenticals if you can understand our form of communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

This is an exaggeration among Wall Street types.  I admit that that means it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, but Bernie being elected president is not independently going to tank the economy.  By the time it happens, market analysts will have already adjusted to that probability.

There doesn't need to be a recession to screw Trump's reelection hopes.  Significantly slowed growth is sufficient.

1.  I did follow it with the idea that there would be a quick recovery assuming economic fundamentals are ok.  I want to be 100% clear that I don't think the stock market = economy.  The stock market is only a single indicator.  I think the market will have priced in an expected risk-adjusted outcome for both candidates.  I do think there will probably be some sort of short term either bump or drop based on whomever wins that will quickly correct.  The issue with the drop is that if the actual indicators that matter are not there (i.e., the fundamentals) the drop could be more self-sustaining. I am concerned about many non-market indicators right now. 

2.  I also agree with your second point.  And I also think it depends on how that slow growth is felt by the voting public in the key states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I want to be 100% clear that I don't think the stock market = economy.  The stock market is only a single indicator.  I think the market will have priced in an expected risk-adjusted outcome for both candidates.  I do think there will probably be some sort of short term either bump or drop based on whomever wins that will quickly correct.  The issue with the drop is that if the actual indicators that matter are not there (i.e., the fundamentals) the drop could be more self-sustaining. I am concerned about many non-market indicators right now. 

To the bolded, yeah, I didn't think otherwise.  It was just lazy language on my part because I'm quickly replying right now while multitasking.  What I was responding to was your "market collapse" language.  How you just described it, sure, I totally agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

To the bolded, yeah, I didn't think otherwise.  It was just lazy language on my part because I'm quickly replying right now while multitasking.  What I was responding to was your "market collapse" language.  How you just described it, sure, I totally agree with.

Lol, I've never done that.  Never.  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

But I think there is a significant portion of the Democratic electorate that is scared of nominating another woman against Trump. 

Considering how carefully each candidate has been shown to offend at least one portion of electorate, and thus is unelectable -- except when the media and establishment keeps insisting otherwise with a demonstrated reject like Biden -- the Dems probably shouldn't nominate anybody.  They can't, evidently, according to the received wisdom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...