Political Posts

[Malmqky]

28 minutes ago, dealraker said:

Sweet and LC...my wife Angela and I discuss Bernie from time to time and we have sort of right brained it to say that guys like he and Ron Paul pretty much "lived" off their obviously presidential never-to-win campaigns.  In other words isn't it likely these guys ran much of their life's expenses through their campaign funds?  Didn't both hire family within the campaigns to also live off these funds?

 

Bernie had a better chance against Trump in 2016 than Hillary did IMO. I feel like he had a legit shot. Dems should have rolled with him, primaries be damned. If you can throw out Kamala, don't see why they couldn't have skirted tradition or whatever and done the same with Bernie. Obviously they didn't want to but still.

Edited August 15, 2025 by Malmqky

[LC]

I disagree on Bernie. He has "walked the walk", so to speak.

 

His history of fighting for civil and human rights is unimpeachable. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

https://medium.com/@ShaunKing/you-dont-really-know-who-bernie-sanders-was-in-the-1960s-79628016125f

 

You may not agree with his policies, but to imply he is some sham who has been "leeching" off the political machine is simply ignorant. 

 

As to his net worth he probably has a few million. And at 83 years old, and when 1 of 15 Americans is a millionaire, this is not the insult you imagine it to be.

 

I would bet a large portion of this website are wealthier than Bernie, but lack the 60+ years of fighting for civil rights.

Edited August 15, 2025 by LC

[LC]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

His policies of taxing wealth will drive the wealth creators away, and it will end up as higher taxes for the middle class

 

I am confused - if your contention with Bernie is that he will inevitably lead to higher taxes on the middle class, where is your outrage at the current President who has effectively done just that? 

 

 

[Sweet]

42 minutes ago, LC said:

 

I am confused - if your contention with Bernie is that he will inevitably lead to higher taxes on the middle class, where is your outrage at the current President who has effectively done just that? 

 

 

No, it’s that’s his dumb policies won’t work, and they will raise taxes on the middle class inspite of his tax the rich mantra.

The reason to use tariffs are completely different than the reasons Bernie wants to raise taxes, which is because he doesn’t understand wealth is created, and it’s the politics victimhood - if rich people have something they took it from someone else - which is not how our societies work.

 

I supported tariffs before it was cool.  Several reasons:

 

1. Other countries have been abusing international trade rules, in particularly China.

2. Key industries must be supported for national security.

3. I don’t believe in enriching adversarial countries with opposing ideologies and which is actively undermining our interests.

I don’t agree with using them to collect revenue as Trump is doing.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2025 by Sweet

[LC]

I don't buy the protectionist angle. It hasn't worked historically, and it's simply anti-capitalism. 

And for a political party which claims to embrace capitalism, it's especially ironic.

 

I also don't see how tariffs on mexico, europe, and canada are going to stop chinese IP theft. 

 

Further I mean, we already do protect key industries.

Nvidia chips is a good example of how we can protect IP if we actually want to.

 

The harsh truth is that we are better off importing low-cost human capital manufactured goods and exporting high-cost services. Trump saw the juice there to squeeze, and imposes a tax on that system for the benefit of his cronies. 

 

Finally - to your point 3, I agree with you but that is not what Trump is doing. A picture is worth a thousand words, in this instance. Gotta love our American troops on their knees in front of Putin and his security contingent, rolling out the red carpet for our war-crime comrades:

[LC]

But to clarify, we do have common ground: I do support targeted trade restrictions on other regimes which don't play nice.

But that I think is not what Trump is doing (as you acknowledge)

 

And on Bernie - I agree if you take his policies to the extreme they will collapse. So will pure laissez-faire capitalism. So there is a middle-ground on which we need to balance. Which is why I support him with the caveat that a contradicting congress and judicial system will dull the edges of his extreme policies. 

I do think the wealth pendulum has fund too far in one direction and there needs to be some government re-allocation. I simply don't enjoy walking around the USA with poor, drug-addicted, homeless who our country has failed and let rot under the guise of capitalism and MAGA, when in reality it is greed, corruption, and plain ole theft at the very top.

Edited August 15, 2025 by LC

[Sweet]

13 minutes ago, LC said:

The harsh truth is that we are better off importing low-cost human capital manufactured goods and exporting high-cost services. Trump saw the juice there to squeeze, and imposes a tax on that system for the benefit of his cronies. 

This is what I object to.

 

We are successful economically because our values and systems of government.

 

Protecting that through selected tariffs might mean that people have to pay more, but it helps preserve our way of life, and helps ensure our economic dominance.

 

I’m not a socialist and I’m also not a libertarian because they are both naive in different ways.

[LC]

5 minutes ago, Sweet said:

I’m not a socialist and I’m also not a libertarian because they are both naive in different ways.

 

We may disagree on the details but that gets a thumbs-up from me.

[Parsad]

9 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Who was the last socialist mayor?

 

de Blasio...not socialist, but pretty left.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

7 hours ago, Ghost said:

 

Sanjeev,  I am not much of a Trump supporter but in a mere 8 months as you have stated. 

 

Trump secured the border

Trump has been removing illegals.

He past his big beautiful bill, (cut taxes) which as an investor we will reap the rewards for years, because all asset prices should trend up

He has finally gotten his allies to start spending on Defense.

 

I would say on some of the big pieces, Cut Taxes, Military, Secure the border, he has been doing pretty well and I don't even like Trump.   Not even Uncle Warren has a perfect batting average.

 

Since you are Canadian and likely a fan of Mark Carney, besides cutting the carbon tax, what the heck has he done?  

 

 

Thing is, no one is going to care about that stuff unless the economy is doing great, jobs are a plentiful, taxes are lower and prices stable.  As well as deficits and debts are under control. 

 

Long ways to go...I would like to see it happen.  Just saying that the wins so far have been down the primary list for most people (talking about 90% of the population).

 

Cheers!  

[Parsad]

5 hours ago, cubsfan said:

Nice clip on the outlook for tariffs and who pays:

 

 

 

I'm ok with that if they use the tariffs to pay down the debt and if they can get corporations to absorb the cost.  Then it works.  Corporations are benefiting from reduced taxes in the BBB, so they should absorb the cost.  

 

But if consumers are essentially forced to pay the tariff through increased retail pricing, then that doesn't work...it's regressive, reduces consumption and will lead to more bankruptcies, poverty and failure...possibly a deflationary spiral. 

 

Cheers!

[Spekulatius]

The difference between the red curves and the green one is that the red stuff are locally produced goods and services and the green ones come from foreign countries or at least have foreign competition. 
 

My guess is that with tariffs in place everything will look like a red curves  going forward.

 

THANK YOU FOR PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

Edited August 16, 2025 by Spekulatius

[LC]

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-must-explain-why-it-keeps-ruling-trumps-favor

 

In the first 20 weeks of Trump’s second term, the administration sought emergency action by the Court 19 times — the same number of requests made by the Biden administration over four years, according to Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck. And the Court has sided with the administration nearly every time.

 

To date, the Court has sided with the administration without offering any analysis in seven cases — including major rulings that allowed the administration to strip temporary legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants and summarily deport migrants to countries where they have no connection, including war zones. Most other shadow docket rulings include only cursory analysis.

[Marco Van Basten]

5 hours ago, LC said:

I disagree on Bernie. He has "walked the walk", so to speak.

 

His history of fighting for civil and human rights is unimpeachable. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

https://medium.com/@ShaunKing/you-dont-really-know-who-bernie-sanders-was-in-the-1960s-79628016125f

 

You may not agree with his policies, but to imply he is some sham who has been "leeching" off the political machine is simply ignorant. 

 

As to his net worth he probably has a few million. And at 83 years old, and when 1 of 15 Americans is a millionaire, this is not the insult you imagine it to be.

 

I would bet a large portion of this website are wealthier than Bernie, but lack the 60+ years of fighting for civil rights.

By fighting for civil rights you mean supporting Fidel Castro and assorted Communist regimes?  What is so noble about taking money from the pockets of those who work hard and giving it to those who refuse to work?

[LC]

11 minutes ago, Marco Van Basten said:

By fighting for civil rights you mean supporting Fidel Castro and assorted Communist regimes? 

 

 

No I mean fighting for the voting rights for Black americans and fighting against the segregation of Black americans. Or was that a mistake like supporting Fidel?

 

I guess the massive wealth disparity in the US is simply because people don't work hard enough. 

Oh but all those hard working immigrants? Deport em. 

 

 

That tiny dark-brown sliver at the bottom? Those are the 50% of Americans (~175,000,000 people) who are just lazy as hell, apparently. 

Edited August 16, 2025 by LC

[Sweet]

7 hours ago, LC said:

That tiny dark-brown sliver at the bottom? Those are the 50% of Americans (~175,000,000 people) who are just lazy as hell, apparently. 

You realise that a lot of this is to do with age right?

Most people move through the wealth categories as they get older and accumulate wealth.

 

For those that don’t behavioural issues, such as laziness, inability to delay gratification, or addiction, are often the cause of the inability to build wealth.  I have a friend with a gambling problem, our net worth are starkly different because of that.  I have other friends who for years made it their mission to spend all their pay every month on drink and drugs.

[John Hjorth]

12 hours ago, LC said:

... Finally - to your point 3, I agree with you but that is not what Trump is doing. A picture is worth a thousand words, in this instance. Gotta love our American troops on their knees in front of Putin and his security contingent, rolling out the red carpet for our war-crime comrades:

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

-From substance to show the things go!

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Peace negotiations without a ceasefire? - It's not even funny!

[Sweet]

I don’t care what anyone thinks about the mail in voting, but Putin is trying to play Trump.
 

 

[John Hjorth]

European Counsel [August 16^th 2025 11:33] : Statement by President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Starmer, President Stubb, Prime Minister Tusk, President Costa, President von der Leyen.

[73 Reds]

17 hours ago, LC said:

Bummer, I estimated you as more thoughtful than coming to this conclusion. 

Estimate at your own peril but your words require no estimation.

[73 Reds]

13 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

de Blasio...not socialist, but pretty left.  Cheers!

Not even close.  But with a true sense of curiosity (and no direct interest in NYC) I hope he wins the mayorship.  It will be truly interesting to watch what happens to the City during his tenure as mayor.

[John Hjorth]

14 hours ago, LC said:

 

Just released the leach on Google Lens to let it attack the photo , and got this [ ] :

 

AI Overview
The image shows a plane from the Russian state aircraft fleet "Rossiya" (РОССИЯ), which transports officials and the president [source: text on the image].
The plane is part of the Special Flight Detachment "Rossiya", which is responsible for transporting the Russian president and other high-ranking officials.
The name "Rossiya" (РОССИЯ) is the Russian word for "Russia".
The plane in the image appears to be an Il-96-300PU, a special version of the Il-96 aircraft designed for presidential use.
These planes are equipped with advanced communication equipment and security measures.

 

-  - - o 0 o - - -

 

-At first sight I thought the red 'signs' on the fuselage were some kind of KGB-code... [hush-hush, only for those with need to known basis!] 

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

Putin is trying to play playing Trump.

 

[whiskybravo]

On 8/15/2025 at 12:51 AM, Spekulatius said:

Trump nationalizing industries faster than Francois Mitterand in the early 80‘s:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-14/trump-administration-is-said-to-discuss-us-taking-stake-in-intel

 

Between 1981-2 Mitterrand tookover 100% of 45 major companies.

 

No mention of percentage of Intel the government might take, whole thing speculative.  

 

Defense took a 15% position in MP Materials.  

 

No equity stake in US Steel, just veto power over certain strategic decisions.  

 

US gets a 15% revenue share in AI chips Nvidia and AMD sell to China, no equity stake.

 

These American companies still run their businesses, MUCH smarter approach by Trump.  Trump >>> Mitterrand 

[whiskybravo]

On 8/15/2025 at 1:03 AM, dwy000 said:

This is very standard for NYC.  Every 3rd or 4th mayor they go extreme. Ed Koch, David Dinkins.  And then they swing back the other way.  The overswing in both directions is the natural course of politics at most levels. 

This post is nonsense.  
 

Ed Koch was a centrist, a fiscally conservative budget hawk.

 

Dinkins was a mainstream liberal Democrat, but not a radical. His political style was moderate, conciliatory, and coalition-driven.

 

We are approaching new, dangerous ground.

Edited August 16, 2025 by whiskybravo