|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2016 23:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:27 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 23:22 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:17 oneofthem wrote:it is ultimately a policy failure, partly bought on by congress but mostly the increasing stress of the modern hypercompetitive economy. look past employment rate, the proxy for explaining the participation rate is labor market friction. how long it takes to find a job, whether job expectations mismatch outcome, what are the expectations for a new hire relative to less churning times. https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2016/02/01/making-sense-of-unemployment-data/stress for the next generation is part of the anxiety for the older generation. this really explains the sanders situation and some of the wrong track numbers for small town america. given magnitude of trump edge in rural areas this was an issues vs values election for these people, and they were motivated by the issues. specifically, how did my family get stuck in this mud. trump scandals are fun and games reality tv, entertainment. these people are past that point. nafta being extremely toxic in the rustbelt ended up the dagger vs hrc, as a symbolic explanation. media environment, hrc fighting a two front war etc, were influential and perhaps outcome deciding, but the larger issue is the rise in trump rural vote, including a big chunk of suburbs I agree with this assessment. I was incredibly wrong about how this election would turn out, but oh well, time to get out there and Make American Great Again  laws matter after all it seems. trump cant fire all the judges. my top issue is tax and ethics rules like FCPA. antitrust is dead A 6th Circuit judge just said to my class, verbatim, "Every judge I know just got 4 years younger." get some bionic implants for rbg
|
Lul
Hilarious Clinton.
User was warned for this post
|
Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president?
|
On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect.
|
On November 09 2016 23:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Any word on whether the Fed still wants to raise rates in December?
FWIW
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-presidential-election-federal-reserve-janet-yellen-2016-11
Jefferies economist Sean Darby noted that in terms of possible problems for the economy going forward the "main risk is monetary policy uncertainty."
And the most striking uncertainty for some analysts is the political independence of the Fed itself, which has long been a key aspect of the central bank in order to not have monetary policy decisions influenced by ever-shifting political tides.
Now, some analysts say that independence may no longer be assured.
"Ultimately, [Trump's proposals] threaten to undermine global faith in the independence of the Federal Reserve and the geopolitical standing of the United States," said T Rowe Price chief US economist Alan Levenson in a note to clients Tuesday night.
Additionally, some analysts have questioned whether Fed Chair Janet Yellen will remain in her job under the new administration given Trump's pointed criticism of the central bank's policies and her leadership in the the past.
"The future of Janet Yellen’s chairmanship and the accommodative nature of Fed monetary policy are in doubt," said Edward Mills of FBR Capital Markets.
Deutsche Bank strategist George Saravelos agreed that the future of Yellen's job remains uncertain.
" E ven more importantly the market will be looking for confirmation that Chair Yellen will not resign," said Deutsche Bank strategist George Saravelos in a note to clients. "Trump has been particularly critical of her term so policy continuity will be particularly important."
On the other hand, Michael Feroli, economist at JPMorgan, wrote before the election on Tuesday that Yellen's resignation is unlikely. For one thing, Feroli noted that there is seemingly no way that Yellen could be fired by Trump.
The economist also said a Federal Reserve Chair resigning is unprecedented, but there is another political reason for Yellen to stay on. "Moreover, we don’t see a rationale for the apparently Democratic Yellen to give President Trump even more influence over the course of monetary and regulatory policy by immediately stepping down," wrote Feroli. "That said, we doubt she would stay on as Governor even after her term as Chair expires."
In the near term, analysts are also split on whether the Fed will raise rates in December. Market probabilities for a rate hike in December have fallen from 84% the day of the election to as low as 42% overnight according to Bloomberg data.
On the one hand, the market volatility following the election has convinced some that the Fed will be on hold.
Quentin Fitzsimmons, international bond manager at T Rowe Price, said that market uncertainty coming out of the election will cause the Fed and other central banks to wait for more clarity before adjusting policy.
"When faced with volatility central banks tend to kick the ball further into the long grass—so they may end and maybe deepen their easing cycles," said Fitzsimmons.
Saravelos agreed that a December rate hike is dead.
"When it comes to monetary policy, in the short term, it looks like a December rate hike is off the table," said the strategist.
David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds, said that Trump's election at least lowers the chances of a hike. "The uncertainty and volatility following the U.S. election will, for now, reduce the probability of a Federal Reserve rate hike in December, although the Fed will want to leave its options open until it can assess the market and economic fallout from the election result," wrote Kelly.
It would appear wait and see, but mostly unlikely.
|
On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect. Oh, there you are
|
On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect.
Cheers.
|
On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect.
Having a similar enthusiasm and energy and eloquence to Barack's + minority vote + women vote + scandal-free = Could certainly be a force to be reckoned with, and she would have more experience than Donald Trump ran on.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hrc could have won this with a better msg and strategy. lack of urgency prevented more radical responses.
her own instincts were correct, not those of her advisors. it just wasnt enough to carry the day in those discussions.
speaking of coal country, it is now fracking country. think of that when arguing the sanders alternative.
|
On November 09 2016 22:58 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 22:36 Silvanel wrote: I also couldnt understand those arguments against Bernie. The Republicans will go batshit crazy at the very mention of socialism? So what? They arent going to vote for Democrat either way. Red state wont go Blue and vice versa. Only thing that matters in presidentail election are swing states and moderate/indpendent voters. And how would Bernie attract those moderate voters? Clinton is the candidate for the moderate not Bernie or Trump. Bernie couldn't even beat Clinton why should be able to beat Trump, only because he's not from the establishment? The DNC was obviously against Sanders but so was the RNC against Trump yet Trump won the nomination and Sanders didn't. The Democrats were simply stuck with 2 very weak candidates.
No,clinton was not the candidate for the moderate voter. The moderate voter was sick of Washington politics and Hillary was the embodiment of that same inner Washington political circle. Bernie would have had more chance in attracting the moderate voters then Clinton. The democrats have some soul searching to do. Will they have the courage to give the people the candidate and policys that the people want,or will they keep serving the interests of corporate America first.
|
On November 09 2016 23:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect. Having a similar enthusiasm and energy and eloquence to Barack's + minority vote + women vote + scandal-free = Could certainly be a force to be reckoned with, and she would have more experience than Donald Trump ran on.
Personal view, she would destroy Trump. I actually believe she'd be a decent president, certainly better than what you got to chose from this election.
That being said, if she's smart, she won't run. And we know she's smart.
|
On November 09 2016 23:40 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect. Oh, there you are  Yep, I'm going to Make American Great Again with Trump as my President. You can continue to be our cheerleader
|
On November 09 2016 23:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:40 zeo wrote:On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect. Oh, there you are  Yep, I'm going to Make American Great Again with Trump as my President. You can continue to be our cheerleader  See you at the wall
|
On November 09 2016 23:45 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:43 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:40 zeo wrote:On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect. Oh, there you are  Yep, I'm going to Make American Great Again with Trump as my President. You can continue to be our cheerleader  See you at the wall
Well you'd be on the outside, so there's no real seeing to be done there.
|
Democrats should stop being blind to the reason for the outcome of this election. Stop saying "Hillary could have won if only" that is one of the core reasons why she lost,unable to identify what truly matters to the voters.
voters don't care for globalization,they are definitely not in favor of it. Which is logical as globalization does not bring them direct and tangible benefits. It benefits the world on a very large scale in the very long run,but that is not what the average voter is interested in. His perspective is keeping his job and seeing his wage increase,beeing able to afford health care and schooling for their kids. That is what matters to him,he doesn't have this broad ideology of one world and one government,no bounderies, That is more a dream for intelectuals. He does not give a shit about globalization till he gets confronted with the negative results from it for his own personal situation.
|
On November 09 2016 23:43 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect. Having a similar enthusiasm and energy and eloquence to Barack's + minority vote + women vote + scandal-free = Could certainly be a force to be reckoned with, and she would have more experience than Donald Trump ran on. Personal view, she would destroy Trump. I actually believe she'd be a decent president, certainly better than what you got to chose from this election. That being said, if she's smart, she won't run. And we know she's smart.
She's definitely smart. When you say you won't think she'll run, do you mean at all? Or perhaps later in 2-4 election cycles, after building up a meatier political resume? With all the bullshit that Barack had to go through, I wouldn't be surprised if Michelle didn't want to go through it again.
|
I don't think Michelle wants to be president at all, and doesn't feel an obligation to. And at least one of those is necessary.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is a larger point about lack of voice for the government in this day and age.
if china's media situation is the stasi we are somalia on the other extreme.
dissatisfaction with gov is matched by misinformation about govt.
this applies to far left and far left guerrilla groups on a whole range of issues.
epistemic axis is a real thing.
ideal candidate? jim webb lol
my fav is mike mullen, the hero we need but do not deserve
|
On November 09 2016 23:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:43 m4ini wrote:On November 09 2016 23:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect. Having a similar enthusiasm and energy and eloquence to Barack's + minority vote + women vote + scandal-free = Could certainly be a force to be reckoned with, and she would have more experience than Donald Trump ran on. Personal view, she would destroy Trump. I actually believe she'd be a decent president, certainly better than what you got to chose from this election. That being said, if she's smart, she won't run. And we know she's smart. She's definitely smart. When you say you won't think she'll run, do you mean at all? Or perhaps later in 2-4 election cycles, after building up a meatier political resume? With all the bullshit that Barack had to go through, I wouldn't be surprised if Michelle didn't want to go through it again.
I'm not certain. I'm sure she won't run in four years. At all.. I don't know, she knows the process of being a president, and what "it did" to Obama who aged 30 years in just 8. I actually don't even know how old she is, but i'm pretty sure the "longer she waits", the less likely it will be for her to run.
I think she's happy that the presidency thing is over now, and at least to some degree "normality" will kick in.
I don't think Michelle wants to be president at all, and doesn't feel an obligation to. And at least one of those is necessary.
The first one, i agree with. I don't think so either (and didn't imply that, was just saying that personally i think she would've made a good president). Second one.. We'll see, if push comes to shove and Trump is screwing up, people might feel different about the obligation to actually make america great again. That's just my personal reasoning though.
|
On November 09 2016 23:45 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 23:45 zeo wrote:On November 09 2016 23:43 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:40 zeo wrote:On November 09 2016 23:39 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2016 23:38 m4ini wrote: Small question, since i'm not familiar with the process: if Michelle would chose to run for presidency, could she do it already in four years or is there a mandatory "pause" because she's married to a (soon to be) former president? She could do it in four years, and there is already talk bubbling up to that effect. Oh, there you are  Yep, I'm going to Make American Great Again with Trump as my President. You can continue to be our cheerleader  See you at the wall Well you'd be on the outside, so there's no real seeing to be done there. I'll be coming as a tourist. Thinking about going to Disney World in a few years, shouldn't cost that much more to get to the Texas/Mexico border.
|
|
|
|
|
|