hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 106 of 325 FirstFirst ... 65696103104105106107108109116156206 ... LastLast
Results 2,101 to 2,120 of 6498

Thread: US Politics Thread, 2.0

  1. #2101

  2. #2102

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    146
    Some info on the trade war with China from Exante Data Trade War Round-Table at Harvard Club.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/exant...-jens-nordvig/

    Amit Khandelwal (Professor, Columbia Business School) focused on the results obtained with his co-authors in a recent NBER working paper (link). As with other recent academic work on the subject, Amit's work shows that, at least for the tariffs implemented in 2018, and somewhat contrary to expectations from trade theory, Chinese exporters did not reduce export prices at all in response to the the trade war. Instead, the entire cost increase resulting from the tariffs was borne by US consumers and producers ($70bn annualized or roughly 0.4% of GDP). However, the overall impact on the US economy from the tariffs imposed thus far is actually smaller because some US producers gain through import substitution and the scope to raise prices given the higher cost of imported goods, while the government also collects tariff revenue.
    Amit and his coauthors show that the US counties that benefit the most from Trumps import tariffs are those with the most "swing voters" in the 2016 election suggesting that the Administration may have targeted the tariffs for political gain.
    And from Exante Data at the round table,
    In contrast to expectations and other sell-side findings, we see limited signs of diversion to date in the aggregate, and imports from the rest of the world appear to be performing in-line with their pre-tariff trend (rather than receiving an extra boost from diversion).
    Also,
    We find the biggest potential gains (as a share of GDP) accrue to Mexico and Vietnam (2%), Canada (1.5%), followed by Malaysia. A detailed look at imports at the country-level shows some potential signs of diversion in Taiwan, Korea and Vietnam but of much smaller magnitudes to date.

  3. #2103

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    9,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    "The way that it came to the floor was, like, What’s going on? Who’s saying what? And you’re hearing secondhand about what might be happening, and it kind of unfolds within thirty minutes, and then, before you know it, Congress has voted on $4.6 billion with no accountability to some agency," [AOC] said.
    Sounds like someone out of her depth to me ...

  4. #2104

  5. #2105

  6. #2106

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    This only means that the fools who voted 45 in are terribly ashamed of themselves, and yet at the same time terrified the pendulum might finally swing away from them.

    We are already past the tipping point of global warming, and are in damage control. So similarly, perhaps we need to let those that voted Trump into office (especially if it was out of spite towards Clinton, either due to Trump or Sanders) make the hard choice of whether they are willing to give up some small personal comfort to enact real change, or they will stubbornly re-elect the sitting president. A lukewarm Democratic candidate determined to maintain the status quo winning would be worse than a second term for the sitting president.
    You have to explain that to me, because idgi.

    Maintaining the status quo enabled Trump to be elected in 2016 in the first place. Electing 'Hillary Clinton-for lack of a more specific example' in 2020 does nothing but give a pass to the people that are not from Trumps core but did vote him into office.
    Giving the people an out to trade change for their cold comfort is not in the countries (or frankly the human species, globally) best interest.

    I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

  7. #2107

  8. #2108

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    9,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    This only means that the fools who voted 45 in are terribly ashamed of themselves, and yet at the same time terrified the pendulum might finally swing away from them.

    We are already past the tipping point of global warming, and are in damage control. So similarly, perhaps we need to let those that voted Trump into office (especially if it was out of spite towards Clinton, either due to Trump or Sanders) make the hard choice of whether they are willing to give up some small personal comfort to enact real change, or they will stubbornly re-elect the sitting president. A lukewarm Democratic candidate determined to maintain the status quo winning would be worse than a second term for the sitting president.
    You have to explain that to me, because idgi.

    Maintaining the status quo enabled Trump to be elected in 2016 in the first place. Electing 'Hillary Clinton-for lack of a more specific example' in 2020 does nothing but give a pass to the people that are not from Trumps core but did vote him into office.
    Giving the people an out to trade change for their cold comfort is not in the countries (or frankly the human species, globally) best interest.

    I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
    I still don't get it.

    Let's turn this around: do you think it is better for the US and the planet, indeed the human species, if Trump were relected, than if the Democrats put forward a 'lukewarm' candidate ...

    Am I getting that right?

  9. #2109

    Join Date
    March 10, 2019
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    "The way that it came to the floor was, like, What’s going on? Who’s saying what? And you’re hearing secondhand about what might be happening, and it kind of unfolds within thirty minutes, and then, before you know it, Congress has voted on $4.6 billion with no accountability to some agency," [AOC] said.
    Sounds like someone out of her depth to me ...
    You don't need to be that snarky on this point. I think it's well worth understanding more since it seems to happen quite a bit and indicates that most Congresspeople are just pushed around by some cabal or by an unelected bureaucracy. I'm reminded of the ACA and "we have to pass it to find out what's in it".

  10. #2110

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    This only means that the fools who voted 45 in are terribly ashamed of themselves, and yet at the same time terrified the pendulum might finally swing away from them.

    We are already past the tipping point of global warming, and are in damage control. So similarly, perhaps we need to let those that voted Trump into office (especially if it was out of spite towards Clinton, either due to Trump or Sanders) make the hard choice of whether they are willing to give up some small personal comfort to enact real change, or they will stubbornly re-elect the sitting president. A lukewarm Democratic candidate determined to maintain the status quo winning would be worse than a second term for the sitting president.
    You have to explain that to me, because idgi.

    Maintaining the status quo enabled Trump to be elected in 2016 in the first place. Electing 'Hillary Clinton-for lack of a more specific example' in 2020 does nothing but give a pass to the people that are not from Trumps core but did vote him into office.
    Giving the people an out to trade change for their cold comfort is not in the countries (or frankly the human species, globally) best interest.

    I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
    I still don't get it.

    Let's turn this around: do you think it is better for the US and the planet, indeed the human species, if Trump were relected, than if the Democrats put forward a 'lukewarm' candidate ...

    Am I getting that right?
    Here is some insight into my perspective:

    I am loathe to use the phrase 'both sides', but I have friends and family that voted Trump into office, mainly due to anti-Clinton sentiment. Some voted against Clinton because they were Sanders supporters, and upset at how he was treated. Some voted against Clinton because they bought into the Republican hate against her and/or just wouldn't vote for a woman. Voting for a lukewarm Dem candidate primarily to vote against Trump does no one any favors.

    For a more personal example, I will use my own mother. And full disclosure, most of my family is 'comfortable', but most of my elder generation is stuck in that well enough off "I gots mine' mentality that they don't realize. I am by contrast consciously under 130% of the poverty line, have lived homeless before, and know the struggles of the real common american. I am privileged only in that I am a white male, which is a tremendous outlier in that common poor American demographic.

    We were discussing the Democratic debates, and she commented that she couldn't vote for Sanders; he was too far left for her. When pressed further, I got more specifics from her, such as Sanders age, which then turned into how he wouldn't be good because he has been in office for so long and accomplished nothing; this then proceeded to a talking point about Congressional term limits that might have been provoked from my father in law..
    During the course of the back and forth, she learned Sanders is not a Democrat, and re-examined her position about accomplishment when it was contrasted with both the current Climate bill derailed in Oregon, and the Merrick Garland situation. I hope I made progress not by trying to get her to change her mind on her position, but by re-examining what her position truly is. We had a fun conversation about heath care, when the ironies of her desire not to do away with private insurance was contrasted by her experiences working for a hospital and seeing first hand just how entrenched the health insurance industry is with regards to leeching value while providing no improvement of efficiency.

    There are far too many privileged Americans that don't see first hand just how bad off many citizens of this country are, that buy into the propaganda and misinformation, and perhaps even spread it themselves; they no longer deserve an out to correct their earlier mistake. A real progressive candidate vs a second term for Trump will force people to examine just where they stand, instead of continually kicking the can down the road while they stay well enough off to not complain.

  11. #2111
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    10,753
    Quote Originally Posted by August View Post
    I'm reminded of the ACA and "we have to pass it to find out what's in it".
    I'm reminded how there was actually a lot of debate about the ACA and the provisions were all in the open.

    "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" applies more to the PATRIOT Act.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  12. #2112
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    31,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Let's turn this around: do you think it is better for the US and the planet, indeed the human species, if Saddam weren't deposed than etc etc
    fyp

    ill-advised action is rarely the best option

  13. #2113
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    5,020
    Imagine the timeline where we regime change Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq.

  14. #2114
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    3,528
    Bwahaha, Qanon and 4chan can't even make up their own conspiracy theories. They are provided to them by uncle Putin

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...port-that-seth

    Conspiracy theories that former Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Rich was murdered on the orders of 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton originated with the Russian foreign intelligence service, according to a Yahoo News investigation.

  15. #2115

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    9,467

  16. #2116

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    9,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    This only means that the fools who voted 45 in are terribly ashamed of themselves, and yet at the same time terrified the pendulum might finally swing away from them.

    We are already past the tipping point of global warming, and are in damage control. So similarly, perhaps we need to let those that voted Trump into office (especially if it was out of spite towards Clinton, either due to Trump or Sanders) make the hard choice of whether they are willing to give up some small personal comfort to enact real change, or they will stubbornly re-elect the sitting president. A lukewarm Democratic candidate determined to maintain the status quo winning would be worse than a second term for the sitting president.
    You have to explain that to me, because idgi.

    Maintaining the status quo enabled Trump to be elected in 2016 in the first place. Electing 'Hillary Clinton-for lack of a more specific example' in 2020 does nothing but give a pass to the people that are not from Trumps core but did vote him into office.
    Giving the people an out to trade change for their cold comfort is not in the countries (or frankly the human species, globally) best interest.

    I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
    I still don't get it.

    Let's turn this around: do you think it is better for the US and the planet, indeed the human species, if Trump were relected, than if the Democrats put forward a 'lukewarm' candidate ...

    Am I getting that right?
    Here is some insight into my perspective:

    I am loathe to use the phrase 'both sides', but I have friends and family that voted Trump into office, mainly due to anti-Clinton sentiment. Some voted against Clinton because they were Sanders supporters, and upset at how he was treated. Some voted against Clinton because they bought into the Republican hate against her and/or just wouldn't vote for a woman. Voting for a lukewarm Dem candidate primarily to vote against Trump does no one any favors.

    For a more personal example, I will use my own mother. And full disclosure, most of my family is 'comfortable', but most of my elder generation is stuck in that well enough off "I gots mine' mentality that they don't realize. I am by contrast consciously under 130% of the poverty line, have lived homeless before, and know the struggles of the real common american. I am privileged only in that I am a white male, which is a tremendous outlier in that common poor American demographic.

    We were discussing the Democratic debates, and she commented that she couldn't vote for Sanders; he was too far left for her. When pressed further, I got more specifics from her, such as Sanders age, which then turned into how he wouldn't be good because he has been in office for so long and accomplished nothing; this then proceeded to a talking point about Congressional term limits that might have been provoked from my father in law..
    During the course of the back and forth, she learned Sanders is not a Democrat, and re-examined her position about accomplishment when it was contrasted with both the current Climate bill derailed in Oregon, and the Merrick Garland situation. I hope I made progress not by trying to get her to change her mind on her position, but by re-examining what her position truly is. We had a fun conversation about heath care, when the ironies of her desire not to do away with private insurance was contrasted by her experiences working for a hospital and seeing first hand just how entrenched the health insurance industry is with regards to leeching value while providing no improvement of efficiency.

    There are far too many privileged Americans that don't see first hand just how bad off many citizens of this country are, that buy into the propaganda and misinformation, and perhaps even spread it themselves; they no longer deserve an out to correct their earlier mistake. A real progressive candidate vs a second term for Trump will force people to examine just where they stand, instead of continually kicking the can down the road while they stay well enough off to not complain.
    OK, thanks for explaining your perspective. I found it very interesting.

    I'm just wondering: what if people won't examine just where they stand. What if, say, the undecideds and the wavering GOP voter take the easy way out, again, and do the 'never a communist', and just vote Trump again. Basically a rerun of the never Clinton thing, this time with the progressive=communist as the message.

    And don't tell me there's no chance of that happening, because Trump is so unpopular, etc.

    Just look at who the GOP and the Trump campaign are more worried about. It isn't Sanders. It isn't Warren. It isn't Harris even.

    It's Biden.

    Now I'm actually not impressed with Biden. It's not about his record even, that's what you get if you're that long in politics. No, it's because I think he's looking rather old in the tooth, aloof, and has to lean too much on Obama. I wish he'd be more progressive. Or at least have big ideas. Not this continuity stuff. Or, if you're generous to Biden, this 'back to normalcy' stuff.

    But, having cleared that up, he does poll very well with undecideds and wavering GOP voters. And he polls very well in the places that matter. Like Florida.

    The thing is: put a 'real progressive candidate', whoever that is, on the ticket, and the DNC takes a risk. Biden may not be very impressive, but he's a safe(r) pair of hands.

    And if the risk is another 4 years of Trump (which would be a disaster, on so many levels), that's something to consider for the DNC. And, ofcourse, the members of the Democratic party who are allowed to vote in the primaries.

    So I'm not surprised people are considering this. And the 'real progressive candidates' out there have to have an answer for that.

  17. #2117
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    31,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Imagine the timeline where we regime change Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq.
    Be careful what you wish for.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1U51Q3

  18. #2118

    Join Date
    May 10, 2011
    Location
    Unsubbed
    Posts
    2,613
    The Dems don't need Florida. They need to reclaim MI, PA, WI and IA. That's 52 EVs. Evil Hillary lost MI and WI by a combined 32k votes. That's the target. Biden would just be the next Kerry. An elder statesman that does not invigorate the Dem "sloth" voters. Blacks, youth, etc.

    The DNC needs to be way fucking smarter this year. Do not disenfranchise the far left voters interested in Sanders/Warren/etc. If someone like Kamala, Mayor Pete or even Biden wins the nomination they should damn near force them to take Sanders or Warren as their VP. Keep the stinky hippies engaged till election day.

  19. #2119

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    This only means that the fools who voted 45 in are terribly ashamed of themselves, and yet at the same time terrified the pendulum might finally swing away from them.

    We are already past the tipping point of global warming, and are in damage control. So similarly, perhaps we need to let those that voted Trump into office (especially if it was out of spite towards Clinton, either due to Trump or Sanders) make the hard choice of whether they are willing to give up some small personal comfort to enact real change, or they will stubbornly re-elect the sitting president. A lukewarm Democratic candidate determined to maintain the status quo winning would be worse than a second term for the sitting president.
    You have to explain that to me, because idgi.

    Maintaining the status quo enabled Trump to be elected in 2016 in the first place. Electing 'Hillary Clinton-for lack of a more specific example' in 2020 does nothing but give a pass to the people that are not from Trumps core but did vote him into office.
    Giving the people an out to trade change for their cold comfort is not in the countries (or frankly the human species, globally) best interest.

    I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
    I still don't get it.

    Let's turn this around: do you think it is better for the US and the planet, indeed the human species, if Trump were relected, than if the Democrats put forward a 'lukewarm' candidate ...

    Am I getting that right?
    Here is some insight into my perspective:

    I am loathe to use the phrase 'both sides', but I have friends and family that voted Trump into office, mainly due to anti-Clinton sentiment. Some voted against Clinton because they were Sanders supporters, and upset at how he was treated. Some voted against Clinton because they bought into the Republican hate against her and/or just wouldn't vote for a woman. Voting for a lukewarm Dem candidate primarily to vote against Trump does no one any favors.

    For a more personal example, I will use my own mother. And full disclosure, most of my family is 'comfortable', but most of my elder generation is stuck in that well enough off "I gots mine' mentality that they don't realize. I am by contrast consciously under 130% of the poverty line, have lived homeless before, and know the struggles of the real common american. I am privileged only in that I am a white male, which is a tremendous outlier in that common poor American demographic.

    We were discussing the Democratic debates, and she commented that she couldn't vote for Sanders; he was too far left for her. When pressed further, I got more specifics from her, such as Sanders age, which then turned into how he wouldn't be good because he has been in office for so long and accomplished nothing; this then proceeded to a talking point about Congressional term limits that might have been provoked from my father in law..
    During the course of the back and forth, she learned Sanders is not a Democrat, and re-examined her position about accomplishment when it was contrasted with both the current Climate bill derailed in Oregon, and the Merrick Garland situation. I hope I made progress not by trying to get her to change her mind on her position, but by re-examining what her position truly is. We had a fun conversation about heath care, when the ironies of her desire not to do away with private insurance was contrasted by her experiences working for a hospital and seeing first hand just how entrenched the health insurance industry is with regards to leeching value while providing no improvement of efficiency.

    There are far too many privileged Americans that don't see first hand just how bad off many citizens of this country are, that buy into the propaganda and misinformation, and perhaps even spread it themselves; they no longer deserve an out to correct their earlier mistake. A real progressive candidate vs a second term for Trump will force people to examine just where they stand, instead of continually kicking the can down the road while they stay well enough off to not complain.
    OK, thanks for explaining your perspective. I found it very interesting.

    I'm just wondering: what if people won't examine just where they stand. What if, say, the undecideds and the wavering GOP voter take the easy way out, again, and do the 'never a communist', and just vote Trump again. Basically a rerun of the never Clinton thing, this time with the progressive=communist as the message.

    And don't tell me there's no chance of that happening, because Trump is so unpopular, etc.

    Just look at who the GOP and the Trump campaign are more worried about. It isn't Sanders. It isn't Warren. It isn't Harris even.

    It's Biden.

    Now I'm actually not impressed with Biden. It's not about his record even, that's what you get if you're that long in politics. No, it's because I think he's looking rather old in the tooth, aloof, and has to lean too much on Obama. I wish he'd be more progressive. Or at least have big ideas. Not this continuity stuff. Or, if you're generous to Biden, this 'back to normalcy' stuff.

    But, having cleared that up, he does poll very well with undecideds and wavering GOP voters. And he polls very well in the places that matter. Like Florida.

    The thing is: put a 'real progressive candidate', whoever that is, on the ticket, and the DNC takes a risk. Biden may not be very impressive, but he's a safe(r) pair of hands.

    And if the risk is another 4 years of Trump (which would be a disaster, on so many levels), that's something to consider for the DNC. And, ofcourse, the members of the Democratic party who are allowed to vote in the primaries.

    So I'm not surprised people are considering this. And the 'real progressive candidates' out there have to have an answer for that.
    What if, instead of actually being scared of Biden being elected, the right is more scared of real actual change, and is attempting to control the narrative and steer the middle to him precisely because he isn't progressive.

  20. #2120
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,942
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/polit...nts/index.html

    US Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to begin raids across the country Sunday to arrest thousands of family members who already have court orders to be removed, according to a US official.
    Good thing we passed that bill I guess

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •