Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Obama was also diversified from Wall Street, while Hillary from the sounds of it is far more dependent on Wall Street funds for her war chest than him, and is more attuned to the stick hurting her than it would for Obama. If she's claiming banking reforms when she's in office, my guess is that unless Hillary picks Warren or Brown or some other Anti-Banking hardliner, the Wall Street Donors are hoping most of her stuff on taking on Wall Street is lip service or she'll mostly be targeting low hanging fruit that most of them can grit their teeth and bear with.
Because so far that is not backlash, Trump get vote because of the sitcom persona he is pulling, the tought guy who is jerk but people like that way, is like dumber version of Dr house or Charlie sheen, so far he is not face something he cant shurg off with his bully tactics
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"And? Most of those bills snipe at stuff Wall Street left wing donors are likely willing to accept as 'acceptable causalities' or are hoping don't get enforced strongly (almost a guarantee due to the Republicans causing repeat automatic spending cuts), but they don't 'fear' her administration to be anything worse (or hope it to be less stringent) than Obama.
Picking Warren to them is a sign that Hillary plans to grow a mustache and gain a posh high pitched voice
, and Trust Bust Wall Street into the ground, instead of nibble at the edges regulation.
"So let 'er!" Well.
A) Once has to wonder how many of these donors are you know, actually personal friends of Her's and Bill's.
B) Even with Trump being such a flaming trainwreck, there are reasons to go with more pragmatic choices (Tim Kaine or Cory Booker), so she has the extra money coming in just in case anything strange goes on (such as Trump flames out and starts Trump TV and leaves the GOP with Ted Cruz).
C) One could argue by not pissing off/scaring Wall Street constituents/donors, she wants to stay on good terms with them in case she has any sort of economic crisis.
There's no reason for her to spurn Wall Street harder than she has to.
@Zendervai
I would have thought that too at a point in time in the past, but now I'm kinda inclined to agree with this person.
edited 23rd Jun '16 4:09:31 AM by Xopher001
![]()
Is the Hypocritical Humour intentional?
Fox, if that's how you want to argue, we're going to cut you out of the conversation. Nobody in any serious position of authority in the U.S. is calling for a Marxist revolution, tearing down the bourgeois trappings of capitalism and having everyone live in communes. So if that's your picture of "left wing economics", it's just plain wrong.
We have our dingbats, but unlike in the GOP, we don't let them run the party.
edited 23rd Jun '16 8:25:12 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What destroys the world's economy from twenty to twenty years with varying degrees of success is wild competition. Over things that have no value at all, like tulips. Capitalism needs more and more control each time it happens. I guess that if Karl Marx had keep his mouth shut and had not written any book about a future new economic system called "socialism" no one should scream "that's communist!" every time that the governments of the world had to get up to put a leash on the wild dogs of the world's economy and save them of their own madness.
What I mean is, Wall Street don't knows what's good for them.
edited 23rd Jun '16 8:32:57 AM by VengeanceIsMine
Before Watchmen: Made and filled with tropes. Next: The Wolf of Wall Street.Supreme Court Watch:
Supreme Court upholds affirmative action in universities, but reminds the university that it still has to stand strict scrutiny.
Kennedy writes a moderate opinion in which he says that racially-oriented programs still have to pass strict scrutiny, but that whether a university should pursue the educational benefits of diversity is primarily an academic judgment that judges owe some deference to, and Kennedy is satisfied that the university has a compelling interest. He's also, more surprisingly, saying that "we should try the race-neutral version first" will just waste three more years before creating another court case.
In less happy news, Supreme Court 4-4s on Obama's immigration plan.
Its legal status is in limbo nationwide but his order is struck down in the 8th Circuit, and the ICE is being ordered to disregard a Presidential order.
I get the feeling that individual ICE agents are now going to start acting on their own discretion with no real way to determine what the law is.
Capitalism has its advantages. In particular, it encourages innovation. There's a reason why companies like Disney and Microsoft came out of the US rather than elsewhere.
I'd argue dictatorship is semantically incompatible with free-market capitalism, since in a totalitarian state the government controls everything. Having said that, unrestricted monopolies can take control of the state. However, at that point it's no longer a free market by definition.
edited 23rd Jun '16 9:44:36 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34@Vengence the correct term for what you're railing at is "wild speculation driving rampant inflation". Competition tends to bring prices down
I'm not completely anti-regulation (though I'm picky about what types I'm ok with) but there are limits on what you can do to regulate human stupidity and I'm not sure you can regulate irrational exuberance.
Now in the case of the sub-prime loan bubble, you can try to find the cause and legislate so that it can't happen that way again. Unfortunately you have a case where while the banks were doing stuff that was unethical, it was not, at the time, illegal (to the best of my foggy memory), and charging people with breaking laws created after the fact also violates some pretty serious ethics.
As pointed out, that argument doesn't work for non-totalitarian dictatorships, but I'll argue that by not concentrating economic power in the (party-government-)state, capitalism does a vastly better job than socialism at maintaining a democracy.
And that's how I ended up in the wardrobe. It Just Bugs Me!![]()
![]()
China isn't capitalist (or at least, very openly not the free market capitalism most capitalists claim to support)
@Stormtroper: Not all models of socialism are built around central economic planning*, nor is it necessarily incompatible with elements of capitalism like the market system. In the context of the information available when he was alive, Marx's worst idea was the notion that a violent revolution would be the only way to achieve a better system. Other people went on to assume that the revolution would happen with their lifetime rather than over a period of several hundred years at a minimum, and we all know how that ended.
* With a sufficiently well educated population with enough time and sufficient motivation, a system where economic decisions are handled democratically might be viable. That's already done to some extent on the local level in many places.

For what I see, Trump impact will be a lost of respect in the international comunity and stupid projects of idea that no one will take seriously, that and HUGE backlash on him
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"