EPTTrump is pretty in your face about who he is and people are going for that change up.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3478
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
Trump is pretty in your face about who he is and people are going for that change up. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4429 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4429 Posts
On March 28 2016 22:17 oneofthem wrote: cruz's problem is personal more so than policy. the republican business backers can tolerate him because of his background. even if he's anti-trade and sort of nationalist now, it's not going to be that way. trump is a total maverick and strange to them. because he's a clinton mole out to kill the gop. but really, trump is way more anti-establishment just by his appeal to the working class. Clinton better hope she's got the nomination completely sewn up before the next economic crisis hits because the establishment will take a huge hit when the banks need to be bailed out (bailed in?) again. The catalyst could be any one of the student debt bubble, subprime auto bubble, shale bubble or collapse of a large overseas bank in Italy or Germany. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
student debt is already securitized by the treasury so that's not going to collapse. unless the gop decides to not fund it or something, that's always a risk nowadays. you need something unsecured.(underlying asset getting rekt for example) | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On March 28 2016 21:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Streisand : Clinton fighting "outright sexism" to become president. http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001725 What's funny is that insults are thrown at candidates all the time. You look at trump and people call him a bully and such. All their sexism talk is really just typical political insults, just branded differently since she's a woman. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18375 Posts
On March 28 2016 22:34 ticklishmusic wrote: If it's any comfort, the big banks have mostly wound down their BRICS exposure. So much for the next big global economic growth engine. I reckon when this current political crisis is over, Brazil will have a course correction away from the social democratic populism of the last decade. That will probably hurt the poorest in the country, but strengthen the weakened middle class, and the economy as a whole. Then in a couple of years, Lula will have rebuilt the PT kicking out the "rotten apples" (ignoring the fact that he is completely rotten himself), and the country will swerve back towards socialist policies. One can hope that this whole process will go hand in hand with a slow and steady cleansing of the corruption and nepotism that permeates the country from top to bottom. If you're thinking of investing in Brazil, right now is probably an okay moment: the stock market is depressed, although for foreign investors it's a bit tricky to say due to the dollar being down (probably manipulated). It might be more worthwhile to wait for the dollar to rebound, but I'm not an expert. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 28 2016 22:51 Acrofales wrote: I reckon when this current political crisis is over, Brazil will have a course correction away from the social democratic populism of the last decade. That will probably hurt the poorest in the country, but strengthen the weakened middle class, and the economy as a whole. Then in a couple of years, Lula will have rebuilt the PT kicking out the "rotten apples" (ignoring the fact that he is completely rotten himself), and the country will swerve back towards socialist policies. One can hope that this whole process will go hand in hand with a slow and steady cleansing of the corruption and nepotism that permeates the country from top to bottom. If you're thinking of investing in Brazil, right now is probably an okay moment: the stock market is depressed, although for foreign investors it's a bit tricky to say due to the dollar being down (probably manipulated). It might be more worthwhile to wait for the dollar to rebound, but I'm not an expert. I hope so. I think Brazil likely has the most potential out of those 5 countries. Russia is a rusting collection of old nuclear siloes and heavy industry, India still lacks infrastructure, China is hopelessly corrupt and still some weird commie/capitalist hybrid that takes the worst of both, and South Africa is pretty stagnant. As an aside, I also like Poland as a developing country. Young educated population, good business environment. There's a good chance for Brazil to get its shit together, but I don't know enough and while I'm not exactly a conservative investor, I want to have a fuller picture first. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 28 2016 22:24 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Clinton better hope she's got the nomination completely sewn up before the next economic crisis hits because the establishment will take a huge hit when the banks need to be bailed out (bailed in?) again. The catalyst could be any one of the student debt bubble, subprime auto bubble, shale bubble or collapse of a large overseas bank in Italy or Germany. What exactly do you think caused the first bailout, out of curiosity? Because I don't think you understood what happened then, and why its unlikely to happen in the near future because of the Dodd Frank bill. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6294 Posts
On March 28 2016 22:34 ticklishmusic wrote: If it's any comfort, the big banks have mostly wound down their BRICS exposure. So much for the next big global economic growth engine. Developing economies always grow in booms and busts. Somehow we always think this time is different but it never is. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
On March 28 2016 21:40 Atreides wrote: It's somewhat disingenuous even still. Poor white rural people overwhelmingly vote republican anyways. That's part of why the "sanders only wins red states" narrative exists. While it may be true that the ones who are democrats are likely to vote sanders over Hillary you can't call them his base lol. He won't have the "rural white" vote in the general. Not even close. Frankly I'm sceptical even of this as generally speaking the poor rural white folks that identify as democrats are the very old ones, but sanders has done well in those sorts of states. (Like mine) Does it really matter? Sanders leads every national poll over every candidate right now. The biggest "demographic" that will sink him are super delegates that Hillary has in the bag because of political favors. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
And citing national polls just makes you look stupid. Think for a moment what would happen to Sanders if the right began to redbait and air his other dirty laundry. His ridiculous policy prescriptions are a distant third on the list of things they'll bother attacking. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you don't need to go to corruption to see rationales for superdelegate decision. as far as polling goes, sanders would get destroyed just based on his various tax plans. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18375 Posts
On March 28 2016 23:45 LemOn wrote: I just assumed... How does it work really? In theory? Or in practice? In theory, super delegates are completely independent delegates who can vote for whoever they like. In practice, they try not to upset the popular vote, but it's possible they will tow the party line and go against popular vote in a heavily contested battle. In either case, Clinton has generated a ton of goodwill with them, because a lot of them are congressmen, governors or others with electable jobs, and both she and her husband have helped their campaigns in previous elections (and presumably this one when time allows). Being establishment doesn't mean you have paid a monthly membership fee for a long time and follow the commands of the evil leaders. It means you are a contributing part of an organization, actively helping shape both the policy and ideas of that party, and helping other members achieve their (political) goals. The Clintons have been part of this for a long time now, and that is, imho, not a bad thing. | ||
| ||
