|
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. |
On July 15 2017 11:49 Kickstart wrote:
I wonder if while planning to undermine the United States' credibility the Russians ever foresaw that in the process a sizable percentage of Americans would develop a fondness and admiration for Russia. It isn't at all surprising that Russia would be involved with both parties, their strategy for decades has been to undermine the credibility of Western democracies (particularly the US). What better way to do that than to play every side of our election process.
Though to me it still seems that one side is arguing that the meddling is problematic and that we need to properly deal with what took place while the other side has argued first that no such thing ever happened, then that if it did happen nothing of real consequence happened, to now saying well it did happen but everyone would have done the same thing so what does it matter.
I think it was actually more the point, than simply getting Donald elected. Win or lose, our politics became more chaotic, and Republicans, the "anti-commies", now find themselves endeared to a KGB officer.
Donald, a real estate developer, made a lot of praise and defense of Putin on the campaign. Why? Why would a real-estate agent, who apparently didn't even understand that Russia was already in Ukraine at the time, have all these strong unorthodox opinions about Putin?
Why was he asking for Obama's birth-certificate? Because he doesn't like the black-man? I think that's too simple, for all the effort he was putting in.
The primary benefit that Putin is getting from Trump, he would've gotten regardless if Trump won. America's discourse and foreign-policy have both become more amoral and Russia-friendly.
I think it's a perfect example, that GH seems more apt to believe the DNC is masterfully manipulating this entire story, as opposed to believing the biggest dog-whistler in modern American history is actually as guilty as he appears. Why? Because Bernie? This is the strange perversion of interests that Russia has inflicted on us.
|
On July 15 2017 10:45 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 10:20 IgnE wrote:On July 15 2017 09:17 mozoku wrote:On July 15 2017 08:43 KwarK wrote:
Are you guys from the alternate reality in which banking hasn't been going crazy since 2008? Cause I certainly wouldn't use the words "stalled out" to describe the banking system in this time line. In what way has it been going crazy? Profits are high at the Big 5, but that's about it. The Economist hardly paints a rosy picture. Return on equity has been below their cost of capital. https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21721503-though-effects-financial-crisis-2007-08-are-still-reverberating-banks-areAlso keep in mind that regulations and the post-crisis environment affects large and small banks asymmetrically. Low interest rates (not regulators' fault) and high capital requirements hit traditional community lending much harder than the more diversified large investment banks (which the Left supposedly hates). Community banks are consolidating at a record pace. Your point is a red herring anyway. Even if we assume banks are going crazy, that doesn't mean that they aren't overburdened by regulations. Opportunity costs are a thing. that's how capitalism works. the big guy wins and stomps out the little guys Not really. Big companies are usually bureaucratic, inefficient, and un-innovative. Apart from predatory pricing and abuse of mergers and acquisitions -> monopoly, they usually only push out small firms with the help of poorly done government intervention (useless compliance overhead, patent trolling, poorly written tax code, etc.) Besides, banks aren't the best example because they're all terrified of more nimble fintech firms taking their business.
ah right monopoly and patent law aren't part of Real Capitalism, of course
|
On July 15 2017 12:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 10:45 mozoku wrote:On July 15 2017 10:20 IgnE wrote:On July 15 2017 09:17 mozoku wrote:On July 15 2017 08:43 KwarK wrote:
Are you guys from the alternate reality in which banking hasn't been going crazy since 2008? Cause I certainly wouldn't use the words "stalled out" to describe the banking system in this time line. In what way has it been going crazy? Profits are high at the Big 5, but that's about it. The Economist hardly paints a rosy picture. Return on equity has been below their cost of capital. https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21721503-though-effects-financial-crisis-2007-08-are-still-reverberating-banks-areAlso keep in mind that regulations and the post-crisis environment affects large and small banks asymmetrically. Low interest rates (not regulators' fault) and high capital requirements hit traditional community lending much harder than the more diversified large investment banks (which the Left supposedly hates). Community banks are consolidating at a record pace. Your point is a red herring anyway. Even if we assume banks are going crazy, that doesn't mean that they aren't overburdened by regulations. Opportunity costs are a thing. that's how capitalism works. the big guy wins and stomps out the little guys Not really. Big companies are usually bureaucratic, inefficient, and un-innovative. Apart from predatory pricing and abuse of mergers and acquisitions -> monopoly, they usually only push out small firms with the help of poorly done government intervention (useless compliance overhead, patent trolling, poorly written tax code, etc.) Besides, banks aren't the best example because they're all terrified of more nimble fintech firms taking their business. ah right monopoly and patent law aren't part of Real Capitalism, of course
I don't get your point. Are you trying to say we'd be better off as communists or something?
EDIT: Maybe this wasn't clear, but I thought it was implied that government should be dealing with monopolies and patent trolling.
|
I think it takes a lot of stretching to claim that the struggle of small banks during a recession, and the inability of the financial sector to match a (basically faked) high just before a gigantic market crash, is the fault of the government.
Also noteworthy that the Economist article posted shows that the banking systems doing far better than US or Europe's are Australian and Canadian...which have very strict regulations and larger (proportional) monopolies.
|
Let's not just forget that none of this Russia stuff happened in a vacuum. Russia didn't just come by and make an otherwise well-functioning society tear itself apart. All this happened on the back of an already strained and troubled electoral environment, and this was just a nice way to take advantage of the situation. I don't think anyone could have predicted just how far a couple emails and a meeting or two could have fractured the country along inflexible political lines.
|
On July 15 2017 12:36 LegalLord wrote:
Let's not just forget that none of this Russia stuff happened in a vacuum. Russia didn't just come by and make an otherwise well-functioning society tear itself apart. All this happened on the back of an already strained and troubled electoral environment, and this was just a nice way to take advantage of the situation. I don't think anyone could have predicted just how far a couple emails and a meeting or two could have fractured the country along inflexible political lines.
It's a very 5 Mile scenario, that's for sure.
|
On July 15 2017 12:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I think it takes a lot of stretching to claim that the struggle of small banks during a recession, and the inability of the financial sector to match a (basically faked) high just before a gigantic market crash, is the fault of the government.
Also noteworthy that the Economist article posted shows that the banking systems doing far better than US or Europe's are Australian and Canadian...which have very strict regulations and larger (proportional) monopolies.
We haven't been in a recession for almost 10 years. Small banks are struggling now, and have been since the recession/Dodd-Frank was passed.
Compliance overhead is generally a larger burden for smaller banks than big ones. Low interest rates and a flat yield curve compress margins. Higher capital requirements makes lending less profitable. Traditional banking is consequently less profitable. Small banks entire business is usually traditional lending. To deal with regulations, they need to grow. Therefore, they merge and acquire. Regulation is by far the biggest change in banking since 2008, and there's a huge spike in community banking consolidation right after. What else do you propose is causing it, if not regulation?
Are you arguing that the US would be better off with a highly regulated banking oligopoly in the second paragraph? I'm not sure where you're going there... maybe I'm being slow.
|
Part of the problem with Dodd-Frank is its sheer size; it's about 2000 pages too long for what it does. The biggest banks can afford an army of lawyers to keep up with the regulatory tangles, or (the cynical view) to pay off the bureaucracy when they slip up. Local banks, not so much.
|
On July 15 2017 11:49 Kickstart wrote:
Though to me it still seems that one side is arguing that the meddling is problematic and that we need to properly deal with what took place while the other side has argued first that no such thing ever happened, then that if it did happen nothing of real consequence happened, to now saying well it did happen but everyone would have done the same thing so what does it matter.
That's not really a fair depiction of things. For one, the "Russia did nothing wrong" side consists of a lot of people who take a "let the investigation deal with this and stop the media leaks" approach to it all. God knows the media is more interested in headlines than quality reporting, especially gutter tier news organizations like Fox and CNN. They're not any good at being honest and reliable, that's for sure.
And on the "let's deal with this Russia issue" side, don't lose track of the reality that there is a second goal here: to get rid of a president they don't like. Do you seriously think that a more well-liked president would have people grasping at every possible opportunity to try to impeach him? Yes, the reasons here are better justified than, say, for Bill Clinton, but the underlying "find a reason to get rid of Trump" sentiment is not just about Russia either.
The reality is more so that of a fractured consensus, one that can't properly deal with a situation like this. It's almost like a macrocosm of everything that made BW vs SC2 an endless bitch fight.
|
On July 15 2017 12:49 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 12:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I think it takes a lot of stretching to claim that the struggle of small banks during a recession, and the inability of the financial sector to match a (basically faked) high just before a gigantic market crash, is the fault of the government.
Also noteworthy that the Economist article posted shows that the banking systems doing far better than US or Europe's are Australian and Canadian...which have very strict regulations and larger (proportional) monopolies. We haven't been in a recession for almost 10 years. Small banks are struggling now, and have been since the recession/Dodd-Frank was passed. Compliance overhead is generally a larger burden for smaller banks than big ones. Low interest rates and a flat yield curve compress margins. Higher capital requirements makes lending less profitable. Traditional banking is consequently less profitable. Small banks entire is business is usually traditional lending. To deal with regulations, they need to grow. Therefore, they merge and acquire. Regulation is by far the biggest change in banking since 2008, and there's a huge spike in community banking consolidation right after. What the else do you propose is causing it, if not regulation? Are you arguing that the US would be better off with a highly regulated banking oligopoly in the second paragraph? I'm not sure where you're going there... maybe I'm being slow.
Fuck, I forget what it's called, but I think I saw somebody post something in the past about a concept where if you make something for new entities that it will just be abused by larger ones?
I'd rather have large banks kept in check and not tanking the economy yet again. I don't know how many times it has to happen before people realize they can't be trusted.
|
On July 15 2017 12:49 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 12:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I think it takes a lot of stretching to claim that the struggle of small banks during a recession, and the inability of the financial sector to match a (basically faked) high just before a gigantic market crash, is the fault of the government.
Also noteworthy that the Economist article posted shows that the banking systems doing far better than US or Europe's are Australian and Canadian...which have very strict regulations and larger (proportional) monopolies. We haven't been in a recession for almost 10 years. Small banks are struggling now, and have been since the recession/Dodd-Frank was passed. Compliance overhead is generally a larger burden for smaller banks than big ones. Low interest rates and a flat yield curve compress margins. Higher capital requirements makes lending less profitable. Traditional banking is consequently less profitable. Small banks entire is business is usually traditional lending. To deal with regulations, they need to grow. Therefore, they merge and acquire. Regulation is by far the biggest change in banking since 2008, and there's a huge spike in community banking consolidation right after. What the else do you propose is causing it, if not regulation? Are you arguing that the US would be better off with a highly regulated banking oligopoly in the second paragraph? I'm not sure where you're going there... maybe I'm being slow.
What I'm seeing here sounds like an argument for why - instead of bailing out the big central banks in New York/Wallstreet - the bad mortgages (along with the bail out money and all the other stuff associated) should have simply been transferred to regional banks proportional to the areas affected (eg. the regions in which the houses whose mortgages defaulted were actually located). In that way, the bail-out money could have been used by those smaller regional banks. If done right, that could have created jobs in those regions (perhaps mandate that the regional banks direct some of that bail-out money to local green energy projects?) and possibly stopped those places from bleeding dry in the way that they have been for the past decades.
It could have helped give those people who couldn't afford to pay their mortgage necessary jobs so they could once again pay off their debts (which were now owned by the regional banks), allowing local economies to surge. It would have depended many factors of course, including on how the bad mortgages were actually spread out in the country (wouldn't be surprised if most were located in the bigger coastal cities) and it wouldn't have nearly been as easy to pull off as just giving the big banks all of it. If the affected houses were mainly located in Middle America, and spreading the bail-out money around to the regional banks would have allowed their economies to surge, and left them less disenfranchised and less likely to vote for some humongous retard who shouted promises that won't be delivered.
I dunno I'm just spitballing here without knowing shit about this. I just wanted to see the big banks go under entirely without taking everybody else with them, rather than the other way around which happened now.
|
On July 15 2017 13:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 12:49 mozoku wrote:On July 15 2017 12:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I think it takes a lot of stretching to claim that the struggle of small banks during a recession, and the inability of the financial sector to match a (basically faked) high just before a gigantic market crash, is the fault of the government.
Also noteworthy that the Economist article posted shows that the banking systems doing far better than US or Europe's are Australian and Canadian...which have very strict regulations and larger (proportional) monopolies. We haven't been in a recession for almost 10 years. Small banks are struggling now, and have been since the recession/Dodd-Frank was passed. Compliance overhead is generally a larger burden for smaller banks than big ones. Low interest rates and a flat yield curve compress margins. Higher capital requirements makes lending less profitable. Traditional banking is consequently less profitable. Small banks entire is business is usually traditional lending. To deal with regulations, they need to grow. Therefore, they merge and acquire. Regulation is by far the biggest change in banking since 2008, and there's a huge spike in community banking consolidation right after. What the else do you propose is causing it, if not regulation? Are you arguing that the US would be better off with a highly regulated banking oligopoly in the second paragraph? I'm not sure where you're going there... maybe I'm being slow. Fuck, I forget what it's called, but I think I saw somebody post something in the past about a concept where if you make something for new entities that it will just be abused by larger ones?
Regulatory capture?
@small banking / big banking
Small banks sound nice but in a world of global finance scale is relevant. Regional banking suffers from lack of centralized information and the profitability is questionable. Many probably consolidate to be able to compete at all.
'Small business' is kind of becoming a relic at this point. The digital economies make scaling easy and founding hard.
|
I for one think we should break up Amazon and suspend internet shopping. It's killing the little brick and mortar stores that used to be the American lifeblood. Remember when everyone's family owned a store in town? Now it's just Amazon, Chili's, and Chipotle.
|
On July 15 2017 06:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 05:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:JP Morgan just had the most profitable 12 months ever for a US bank – but it wasn’t enough for Jamie Dimon, the bank’s boss.
“It’s almost an embarrassment being an American traveling around the world and listening to the stupid shit Americans have to deal with in this country,” Dimon told journalists after the bank released its latest quarterly results on Friday.
The world’s largest bank reported a profit of $7.03bn for the second quarter, 13% higher than last year. It has made $26.5bn over the past 12 months, a record profit for a US bank.
But Dimon, who last year turned down Donald Trump’s offer to become treasury secretary, seemed more concerned about low rates of growth in the US and the health of the American body politic. He blamed bad policy for “holding back and hurting the average American” and financial journalists for concentrating on the bank’s trading results when they should be focusing on policy.
“Who cares about fixed-income trading in the last two weeks of June? I mean, seriously,” Dimon said after a reporter asked about the health of the bonds markets.
“That is the weather,” he said of changes in the markets. “It goes up and down, this and that, and that’s 80% of what you guys focus on.”
Dimon said financial journalists would be better off concentrating on the “bad policies” that are hurting average Americans.
“It’s almost an embarrassment being an American traveling around the world and listening to the stupid shit Americans have to deal with,” he said. “At one point, we would have to get our act together, do what we’re supposed to do to the average American.”
Dimon, who also heads the Business Roundtable lobbying group, which has been lobbying for tax reform and more infrastructure spending, set out policy areas he would like to see addressed.
“We need infrastructure reform,” he said. “We need corporate tax reform. We need better skills and education. If we don’t focus on these things, we are hurting average Americans every day.
“The USA has to start to focus on policy which is good for all Americans, and that is regulation, tax, education, we have to get those things done. You guys [journalists] should be writing a lot more about that stuff. That is holding it back and hurting the average American citizen if we don’t do it.
“It’s not a Republican issue, it’s not a Democratic issue. Why you guys don’t write about it every day is totally beyond me.
“I just got back from Israel, Ireland and France – three countries that deeply recognise the importance of having a business tax scheme for jobs and wage growth. We don’t have that.”
Dimon lamented US failure to build an airport in the last 10 years and the opiate addiction epidemic.
The JP Morgan chief has become increasingly outspoken on political issues since the election. In his letter to shareholders, released in April, he took some subtle – and some not so subtle – swings at the Trump administration. While Dimon clearly favours cuts to regulation, he argued: “Some regulations quite clearly create a common good (eg clean air and water).”
Dimon’s letter was written as Trump began his attempts to dismantle Barack Obama’s legacy of environmental protections.
Dimon also worried about the impact of “poorly conceived anti-trade policies” and wrote that it was “alarming” that so many talented immigrants were unable to stay in the US. “We are forcing great talent overseas by not allowing these young people to build their dreams here,” he wrote.
The bank’s shares dipped slightly after the results were released but are still up close to 33% since the election of Trump. The results came as Citigroup and Wells Fargo also released better than expected quarterly results. Source Can't believe I'm agreeing with a banker. But he's right on all accounts. He's won me over for the time being.
So you agree with the bankers notion that the financial media is ignoring the problems and not reporting on them sufficiently?
You just might be a Russian propagandist (watch for like 3-5 minutes to see what I mean).
|
On July 15 2017 14:35 IgnE wrote:
I for one think we should break up Amazon and suspend internet shopping. It's killing the little brick and mortar stores that used to be the American lifeblood. Remember when everyone's family owned a store in town? Now it's just Amazon, Chili's, and Chipotle.
Didn't McDonald's kill diners? And Walmart killed everything else? Amazon seemed to have killed bookstores, followed by killing the electronic oriented retailers?
And compared to Walmart & McDonals (which imo had much bigger impact on what you are talking about), does Amazon actually act as a retailer for smaller (online based) shops? (Who probably are thriving because of amazon)
Also seems like you are anti internet for some reason, more then anti amazon monopoly.
Plus the only way to fight monopolies to a certain extend is to support and grow a community, local oriented mentality, which exists, but is villified as being "hipster / commi BS" by majority of people.
|
Canada11449 Posts
On July 15 2017 13:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 12:49 mozoku wrote:On July 15 2017 12:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I think it takes a lot of stretching to claim that the struggle of small banks during a recession, and the inability of the financial sector to match a (basically faked) high just before a gigantic market crash, is the fault of the government.
Also noteworthy that the Economist article posted shows that the banking systems doing far better than US or Europe's are Australian and Canadian...which have very strict regulations and larger (proportional) monopolies. We haven't been in a recession for almost 10 years. Small banks are struggling now, and have been since the recession/Dodd-Frank was passed. Compliance overhead is generally a larger burden for smaller banks than big ones. Low interest rates and a flat yield curve compress margins. Higher capital requirements makes lending less profitable. Traditional banking is consequently less profitable. Small banks entire is business is usually traditional lending. To deal with regulations, they need to grow. Therefore, they merge and acquire. Regulation is by far the biggest change in banking since 2008, and there's a huge spike in community banking consolidation right after. What the else do you propose is causing it, if not regulation? Are you arguing that the US would be better off with a highly regulated banking oligopoly in the second paragraph? I'm not sure where you're going there... maybe I'm being slow. Fuck, I forget what it's called, but I think I saw somebody post something in the past about a concept where if you make something for new entities that it will just be abused by larger ones? I'd rather have large banks kept in check and not tanking the economy yet again. I don't know how many times it has to happen before people realize they can't be trusted.
Probably thinking of Kwark's post about EVE?
On July 06 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:Meanwhile, as xDaunt alluded to earlier, the systems put in place to help people who actually need help buying a house will be monopolized by the likes of me. Back when I was playing EVE Online there used to be something we called Malcanis' Law which stated Show nested quote +Any mechanism put in place to help the newest players will inevitably end up being used exclusively by and for the oldest players
|
On July 15 2017 12:49 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 12:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I think it takes a lot of stretching to claim that the struggle of small banks during a recession, and the inability of the financial sector to match a (basically faked) high just before a gigantic market crash, is the fault of the government.
Also noteworthy that the Economist article posted shows that the banking systems doing far better than US or Europe's are Australian and Canadian...which have very strict regulations and larger (proportional) monopolies. We haven't been in a recession for almost 10 years. Small banks are struggling now, and have been since the recession/Dodd-Frank was passed. Compliance overhead is generally a larger burden for smaller banks than big ones. Low interest rates and a flat yield curve compress margins. Higher capital requirements makes lending less profitable. Traditional banking is consequently less profitable. Small banks entire business is usually traditional lending. To deal with regulations, they need to grow. Therefore, they merge and acquire. Regulation is by far the biggest change in banking since 2008, and there's a huge spike in community banking consolidation right after. What else do you propose is causing it, if not regulation? Are you arguing that the US would be better off with a highly regulated banking oligopoly in the second paragraph? I'm not sure where you're going there... maybe I'm being slow.
The biggest change to banking was the largest financial collapse since the Great Depression. Now, I don't know where you expect the present markets to be, and where you think they would be without any regulation, but comparing anything to the gigantic financial bubble of 2007 is probably a bad measuring stick.
And yes, overall the US probably would have been better off in the new millennia with highly regulated, more centralized banks. Maybe the markets wouldn't have inflated so high, but you could definitely have avoided the crash.
|
On July 15 2017 13:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 12:49 mozoku wrote:On July 15 2017 12:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I think it takes a lot of stretching to claim that the struggle of small banks during a recession, and the inability of the financial sector to match a (basically faked) high just before a gigantic market crash, is the fault of the government.
Also noteworthy that the Economist article posted shows that the banking systems doing far better than US or Europe's are Australian and Canadian...which have very strict regulations and larger (proportional) monopolies. We haven't been in a recession for almost 10 years. Small banks are struggling now, and have been since the recession/Dodd-Frank was passed. Compliance overhead is generally a larger burden for smaller banks than big ones. Low interest rates and a flat yield curve compress margins. Higher capital requirements makes lending less profitable. Traditional banking is consequently less profitable. Small banks entire is business is usually traditional lending. To deal with regulations, they need to grow. Therefore, they merge and acquire. Regulation is by far the biggest change in banking since 2008, and there's a huge spike in community banking consolidation right after. What the else do you propose is causing it, if not regulation? Are you arguing that the US would be better off with a highly regulated banking oligopoly in the second paragraph? I'm not sure where you're going there... maybe I'm being slow. Fuck, I forget what it's called, but I think I saw somebody post something in the past about a concept where if you make something for new entities that it will just be abused by larger ones? I'd rather have large banks kept in check and not tanking the economy yet again. I don't know how many times it has to happen before people realize they can't be trusted.
If you put mechanisms in a game to give newer players an advantage it will mainly be used by the older players.
You mean that?
|
On July 15 2017 13:06 Gahlo wrote:
I'd rather have large banks kept in check and not tanking the economy yet again. I don't know how many times it has to happen before people realize they can't be trusted.
I think the split between financial banks and retail banks has to be reestablished.
Financial banks take risks but help developping business at a faster rate which is a good thing. It's just that they should not take those risks with our money so if those financial banks fail, it's their fail, not everyone's one and states don't have to cover it up with our money again.
|
On July 15 2017 12:36 LegalLord wrote:
Let's not just forget that none of this Russia stuff happened in a vacuum. Russia didn't just come by and make an otherwise well-functioning society tear itself apart. All this happened on the back of an already strained and troubled electoral environment, and this was just a nice way to take advantage of the situation. I don't think anyone could have predicted just how far a couple emails and a meeting or two could have fractured the country along inflexible political lines.
The country has always been fractured. So much so that it went through one of the bloodiest civil wars in history. White/blacks, north/south, coast/midwest... those things are not new.
What's new is maybe that under the influence of the tea party lunatics, the GOP has become a party of complete extremists and drifted to the right further and further away from reality. Voodoo economics, clinate denial, creationism, economic dogmas that make 0 sense, all if that while pouring the oil of resentment and xenophobia on the fire.
Trump is an incarnation of the two ugliest parts of american right wing politics: resentment and anti intellectualism. But those have always been there.
Now, that Russia thing could happen at any time anywhere. The sensationalism of the news media and the general conspiracy theorie oriented mindset, mixed with a new populist distrust of "the establishment" has helped to inflate relatively minor scandals (the DNC shenanigans and the email server thing) into campaign sinking torpedoes.
That doesn't change the fact that the collusion with Russia is already the major political scandal of the decade and has the potential to turn a million times worse. It's potentially pure treason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
