I disagree with that prescription, because in essence you are taking a passive approach in seeking salvation from a strong man. In my mind, the place we need to start is for those in the progressive forces to realize the extent of disenfranchisement and alienation that exists in broad swathes of the American populace. And to actively work and fight at the grassroots level to do the following:. In the case of b , there are progressive leaders like Keith Ellison and Bernie Sanders that are actively working to bring the Democrats back to the progressive side, with the hopes of both winning back the House in the mid-term elections and ultimately in defeating Trump in the next presidential elections.
And finally, for c , we have already seen in the past few days protests in cities all over the US both organized and spontaneous in opposition to Trump. If there is a silver lining that can be seen, it is in the engagement of the young people in the country who are demanding to have their voices heard.
The South got everything it wanted after Reconstruction, except for the literal reimposition of chattel slavery. They resisted banning lynching — never mind integrated trains or restaurants or bathrooms, lynching! And if you think things will be okay for the Jews, go ask Leo Frank.
The styles and personas are similar, but what may be easily survivable in a more homogenous society could quickly cascade out of control in a an actual multi-racial one, where there are many targets to act out your animus. Also this is not the Italian state, if Trump orders 3 million illegal immigrants rounded up it will be executed swiftly.
It gives me great hope at times like these:. After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies, evolution progressed to the point at which it generated Neros, Genghis Khans, and Hitlers. This, however, is a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.
BBA So let me get this straight. I suppose you might be right. Just not THIS problem. You pepper everything in references to Hitler, the nazis, Vichy, the concentration camps… Which I thought was just an illustration on how democracy can get hijacked. If you think that DotR thing is the real end-goal, okay, but how exactly do you reconcile this with Trump having a Jewish grandson?
That process already started with the campaign. We could get a white authoritarian president even in a majority-minority country. Some encouraging examples:. Putin was able to secure his grip on Russia because the country had been a dictatorship since WW1. Even France had struggled under turmoil and the Napoleonic dictatorship since Wow, you bring up a wild possibility: Republican will impeach Trump to put Pence in.
I think Pence is about 0. Who could write a novel like that? You might get some insight by taking a driving vacation in the Northern plains states. About every 10 miles is a historical marker. I either stop, or slow down and take a picture for later reading. Many of them commemorate where one tribe usually the Sioux massacred another tribe. In any event, you will figure out that not everyone was sitting around singing Kumbiah before the evil white dudes showed up.
Sure that is true. BUT, that does not get many voters. The rest were mostly Christian nuts and Trump, who successfully played the Deplorable card. No one has any clue what Chris Christie is. Without Trump the incoming was just to lose its wild authoritarian unpredictability and appeal. This is perhaps nitpicking, but this statement makes no sense. Lynching is and always had been murder, i. The government failed to enact more specific anti-lynching laws that would have done more to address the problem, which they obviously should have.
Take a look at the shamefully filibustered and never passed Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill. It would have done basically two things:. Make lynching a federal crime, handing jurisdiction to people who would actually do something about it 2.
Allowed the feds to go after state and local officials who looked the other way when lynchings occurred. Actually there is strong evidence that Sanders would have done much better than Clinton against Trump. He had a much lower negative favorability and much higher positive favorability and he had a much higher margin against Trump than Clinton.
You keep saying would Americans vote for Sanders. I tell you Americans just voted for Trump and he won states that no Republican has won for decades, so maybe you should adjust what you consider unlikely. Clinton lost because 6 million people who voted for Obama did not vote for her.
Trump got more votes among white women without college degree than Clinton did in solid blue states. That is the reality that HRC supporters should face. So, this looks more like a distressed canary rather than a dead one. Still, the fact that he could fairly overtly court the KKK and alt-right scares me. Sure, man, but it was their land. Internal wars has always been a cause of weakness and an opportunity for outsiders to take over — The roman empire vs the northern tribes, the Europeans taking advantage of China and feudal Japan, the middle East, ….
Right of centre and social conservative in academia. No fan of either Trump or Clinton. I have always admired your obviously sincere attempts to actually get inside the head of those with different politics to yourself. In contrast to many on the left, you really do seem to make a good faith attempt to understand those who disagree with you. One of the ways fascism grew was because it was appealing as a check on communism.
So when there is a vote for an ugly strongman from one side, take a look at the other side as well. You fear the rule of strongman authoritarianism, and a failure of democratic institutions. You are familiar enough with the ugly intolerance of SJWs and various parts of the left — hell hath no fury like a liberal disagreed with. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
You want to make social change — great, take it to We The People, embrace the democratic virtue of persuasion, and you may well win. But as long as the Left seeks instead to impose, either via The Right Sort of Judge or through SJW bullying, then do not be surprised if strongman authoritarianism appeals as a counterweight. Obviously, this is not a complete analysis and there are other causes to Trumpery.
A pingback between right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism ends badly. But part of fixing it is to diagnose the situation properly. I understand that as soon as one implies something like this in public, the hurt feelings and pride of the Trump supporters demands people say something like this. I hear it over and over again—almost the same kind of so-called political correctness that these same asshats love Trump for resisting.
F4ck them. And unlike the s, there are no allies to rescue us. By not making the conflict happen now, he is keeping his powder dry—saving his immense personal popularity well over half the country in the very likely case that the opposition to what the DotR people are planning even as we speak. This may well turn into the ugliest or second-ugliest period in US history, and Obama may be incredibly important to that.
I think too many on both sides are imagining he disappears because he is no longer President, but I think his major role in US history may well have yet to have happened. The analogy I like is that voting for Trump as a check on campus SJWs and other left-wing authoritarians, is almost exactly like slitting your throat to relieve your high blood pressure.
Can high blood pressure be a life-threatening problem? Yes: I even have some personal experience with that well, with the SJW analogue. But the proposed remedy is still orders of magnitude worse. Even in the s, I hope you agree that it turned out to be a serious mistake to vote for Hitler as a check on the power of Stalin. But then how much greater of a mistake is it to vote for Trump, and his band of goose-stepping alt-righters, as a check on the power of Amanda Marcotte?
And one could say the same about Mattress Girl, Sabrina Erdely, the Yale protesters, and all the other bogey wo men who populate the academic SJW left. But even if so and who knows? Namely, while I have trouble predicting exactly what Trump and his cronies will do, I have no trouble whatsoever predicting how the academic left will respond. As Scott Alexander explained in detail , faced with a complete loss of power over the direction of the country, SJWs will respond by consolidating their power over what they still do control e.
I do not understand your obsession with democracy. As you point out, democracy literally brought us Hitler. The fact that Trump is bringing democracy into question is fantastic, although it appears that people are doubting democracy for the wrong reason. Democracy should be questioned because it is absolutely absurd for one person to be in control of others because they won a popularity contest.
If you want to start preparing for the election the best strategy may be to talk to all the friends with your political alignment and tell them to start cranking out babies. If the democratic party can pump out 10,, new voters in the right spots then they should be set. How many people need to die before we give up this notion that everyone should have a non-zero say in politics? The elections are reduced to a pissing contest with repetitive sound bytes that can fit on twitter since most humans have the attention span of a mouse.
In all honesty, the federal government should be abolished. It has caused nothing but harm through massive financial fraud and getting us into pointless wars for the last fifty and probably more years. If there is a foreign invasion that requires the states to make a temporary alliance to fend off the invaders, then that alliance should be made only when necessary. Having a standing federal army puts us in more danger, as other foreign governments may feel they need to strike preemptively.
Board of Education and other classic civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s. I should add that I strongly support the right of conservative Christian bakers not to prepare gay wedding cakes, etc. Needless to say, the current Supreme Court has issued countless decisions that liberals consider to be horrific judicial activist overreach, but somehow the right never complains about those.
In any case, do you really think Obergefell was a non-negligible factor in the election? So, is it possible that even the right has now resigned itself to gay equality or, incredibly, sought to co-opt the cause as its own , and has shifted its attention to Muslims and immigrants and other things?
What good is outrage? It just causes the person outraged suffering, and it leads to poor decisions that are based on emotion. Instead, if you think something is wrong or can be changed, then work to fix it without outrage. There were millions of people though not enough who expressed outrage about Hitler, about Stalin, about Mao and Pol Pot, even when doing so was far from universal, and in some cases dangerous.
Likewise, we might no longer have any power to stop Trump from whatever he wants to do, but even if not, we can at least keep the candle of Enlightenment lit for future generations through our outrage. The core fact is that the democratic party has lost the election. Its mission was to come up with a candidate that could defeat Trump and it has failed Hillary losing eight years ago to Obama should have raised some red flags. Now the only thing that really matters is — what do they plan to do about it for the mid-term and then the next election in 4 years?
I doubt that outrage and finger pointing will help. That being said, instead of concluding that the fabric of democracy has been damaged beyond repair, why not instead be part of a movement of renewal and to fight back? There are groups like the The Young Turks, Wolf-PAC and other progressives who are actively working to oppose the incoming Trump administration and bring the Democratic Party back as a progressive alternative.
My attitude is to fight through the political process , rather than flee! However in my own life I know Enlightenment can shine much brighter without it. Hamas commit plenty of atrocities on both us and their own people, but Israelis who say that our response should be focused on open outrage seem counterproductive. Which situation are we closer too? Right-wing popular nationalism, to a theme of national purity and accompanied by fear of minorities, is not the only way countries fall into evil though although your history may make you most sensitive to it.
And what I saw on my facebook feed — say — over the last few months was a hope that this would be not a Clinton victory but a Clinton landslide, allowing the full power of the federal government and all its institutions to be used to crush the ideologically incorrect on gender, sexuality, etc. When I hear a lot of talk about how certain people e. The US is not my country, although I have much affection for it. This was a lose-lose election for me.
Trump was and is a narcissistic thug. But there is at least the consolation that he will take power watched like a hawk by both the media and by politicians on both sides of the aisle. DoubtDemocracy , you seem to be confused about the concept of a liberal democracy. Scott has been very clear that his concern is not with democracy per se, but liberal democracy.
The question is, where is the power? Who gets to make the decision? And the answer given is: five People Like You who are also People Like Me , that is five members of the well-off upper middle class, with fancy educations from a small number of elite universities, who probably read similar newspapers to you and enjoy similar cultural activities.
And what they decide on — same-sex marriage — involves not technical legalia, but one of the universal frameworks of human society. This is the key point, more important than same-sex marriage itself there are sensible arguments for this, I disagree with them, but living in a democracy involves sometimes being on the losing side. Why relevant to Trump? At a subliminal level at least , it contributes to the sense that unelected, well-off cultural elites will decide fundamental matters on behalf of the supposedly ignorant cultural poor, on the grounds that said elites feel they have a better sense of what it is to be human.
Namely, as Scott Alexander explained in detail, faced with a complete loss of power over the direction of the country, SJWs will respond by consolidating their power over what they still do control e. Counter prediction: groups do things like that when they have few external enemies.
And then comes the analogy between fascism vs. Again, this is a dubious analogy which is, again, morally terrible. There are disagreements, of course, about specific cases and specific rulings. But there used to be little disagreement about the authority of the Supreme Court to make calls based on the principles of the Constitution especially in cases where human rights, the rights of minorities and other weak parts of society are violated. Do you also have the same objection to Brown vs the Board of Education?
Here is an article on it since you are not American:. If you believe that Trump is a lying sexist racist megalomanic lunatic who cannot wait to get his finger on the button — you have been conned. Sadly; or luckily rather, since most of your worries will turn out to be unfounded! Sexual assault! Global warming! All the evidence proves…!!! I shall gladly elucidate, should there be interest. Appointing White Power nut Steve Bannon to a position of power appears to be too much for the fraction of Conservatives who are actually conservatives as opposed to wind bag hypocrites.
In considering doomsday aspects of Trump winning the other day, I could not see any way for democracy to survive. I had not realized that lots of Conservatives are also appalled at Trump. Once Trump starts really screwing things up, whatever is left of the news media will stop regarding Trump as ratings increasing entertainment, and find that ratings will be driven by attacking.
Wild times in store! Hold on to your hat! In , you appear to be under the impression that years ago there was a unified Native American nation that had possessed North America with some internal discord before E. There are plenty of studies of chimp tribes doing exactly that today. Generally they have some valid concerns, but are clueless in how things work.
Who wrote that? What is the correct wording? If John Sidles is not hiding on an island in the middle of nowhere, surely he knows. What is needed is not a quick blowout of outrage, but continuing resolve to change things. This is an unusual topic. No one is in favor of abortion. Many, including me, are in favor of letting those involved decide The ancient men making these rules do not have to worry about getting pregnant.
On the other hand, many are outraged by it for religious. I certainly understand this, although I do not agree with it. I must admire the resolve to hang in and fight for a half century or so. It will be interesting to see how this will play out. Donald — Mr. Presumably the media will soon tire of riding Trump for entertainment and start looking into more detail of his storied career, and might dredge up some dirt.
Gil: Whether you like it or not, or find it morally terrible or not, it is just true that many European countries did dance between extreme left and extreme right in the s, and both were viciously brutal. Part of avoiding extremism is understanding why it becomes attractive, and why decent people see an extremist party as a rational choice. Hillary may be centre-right from a European perspective in some ways, but in other respects she is way out the left of the Overton window.
No surprise you take a great deal of flak. Opportunity and money, that is all. Also, If I where you I would keep my political convictions to myself as much as possible, or go into politics and leave academia. Now there is at least the strong impression of possible discrimination against people with other political opinions than those held by yourself. You have created a potential conflict of interest for many work situations that demand a certain neutrality position from your side.
For example, I wonder how well a professor who openly supports Trump would fare at your department. I am non-American but pro-Trump. Let me give you a very short explanation. What Julia writes about limiting harm is perhaps more directly expressed as limiting violence or potential violence. Human nature is all about struggling for dominance through violence and indeed slow, carefully evolved instititions were created to limit this harm.
It was undermined by selectively limiting one kind of violence, but not another. To put it mildly, the violence certain minority groups can enact on the majority was not limited, but any potential violent repercussions got limited. Why do whites feel like they need to keep shotguns in their bedrooms to protect themselves from armed home invaders who are typically not of their kind? How is that a civilized, violence-limited society?
The point is the basic requirement from a government to protect its citizens. It has to do so with violence, violence-limitation is something to be done after it is achieved, to the extent it is achieved. And sometimes it needs less violence-limitation, not more.
My point is that all this lack of safety esp. My point is that I highly sympathize with Americans who finally wanted the government to scare the BLM thugs shitless. And this is what it is really about — to end the one sided fight and excalate the violence back, reconquer the public space etc.
I prefer to remain in the US for now: this is where my family is, where all my childhood memories are, and where the convenience store checkout aisle has a familiar selection of candy. But I did live for two years in Waterloo, Canada, and had a wonderful time there, and have considered going back. I hope that opportunity and money for basic research in the US will survive our first president who might never have read a book. Academics in math, CS, and physics, in particular, are almost always people who gave up the opportunity to make much more money on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley, and who accepted a lot of bureaucratic drudgery in return, and for what?
Mostly, freedom to research the questions that interest them, but also freedom to express their opinions including political opinions without fear of being fired. At least in the US, protection of political dissent is what the tenure system is explicitly for.
Amy argued that my thoughts about gender politics, and about the problems faced by shy male nerds, meant that I might, for example, discriminate against female students who made romantic choices that I disapproved of. My answer to you now is the same as my answer to her then. I live in a country where same-sex marriage, abortion etc is also legal. But the idea that these could be imposed by the judiciary over the opposition of democratic legislatures — no politician would dream of suggesting it here.
As a further, not quite related, thought on the judiciary and the presidency. But this ability to be a strongman can also be seen, in part, as a reaction against the right-wing judicial activism and overreach of the Supreme Court in the series of decisions from Lochner vs New York onwards. But it is part of the story. And also a link to the sort of attitude, from somewhere with more influence than Amanda Marcotte, I and I expect others react strongly against, see.
Ezra Klein and other extra-leftist journalists intimidated Sanders from using that platform in the primaries. Why is continued illegal and legal immigration and population growth so important that it was worth risking a Trump presidency? Have courage! Esso I have talked to Eric Weinstein about these issues, and found him enlightening. But your comment touches on several questions that are probably best separated.
For one thing, the number of illegal immigrants in the US is no longer increasing at all! For a fourth, Trump seemed unable to make the case without forehead-banging statistical illiteracy—e. On the other hand, I know from personal experience that a crucial prerequisite for American participation in the worldwide research community is the ability to get student and J1 and H1B visas and green cards for scientists coming from abroad.
And Trump has given clear indications that he wants to curtail that, which I find incredibly frightening. The eugenicists of the s learned the same lesson. To complicate things further, many businesses can only survive because they employ illegals at rates that are well below normal.
If we were to either legalize all those illegals or deport them, those businesses would close. Trump got half of half the eligible electorate. Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any previous President. It will be a long fight. There are many outrages to come. The American public will become familiar with the workings of a Banana Republic; we better not accept it as normal. As someone who voted for neither candidate. I would only join an opposition to trump if it was distinguished from the European style progressivism which many on the left have been promoting.
I see Trump as a European style right wing populist opposing a European style progressivism. Perhaps the democrats need to also start returning to American enlightenment values instead of imitating the french revolutionary values. For example, Favoring Gay marriage in this country needs to be distinguished from forcing christian bakers to endorse it by making personalized cakes thus violating both free speech and freedom of religious practice.
FYI I am most decidedly not a christian. To all who plan on opposing him: please separate promoting progressive causes from opposing his weakening of institutions so that many republicans, libertarians and others can join as well. Scott, the Dear Colleague letter is the only thing forcing universities to collect and publicize data on reported rapes, sexual assaults, and other violent crimes on campus, and the only thing currently giving meaning to the Clery Act, which had been roundly ignored for years.
Her parents later found that the university had not only tried to lie to them about how their daughter died, but had covered up over 30 other violent crimes on campus over the past few years. The transparency is a good thing. My favorite definition: Nationalism means you take pride it things other people have achieved and blame your problems on people you never met.
White boy from Finland here. I spent too much time following the elections and DailyKos for my sanity.. Second, Trump did not won but Hillary lost. Third, Hillary won popular vote but lost electors. It was very close and nobody can claim that the result was obvious in advance, nobody.
Are we perfect — hell no! But we are trying harder than most. Do we get recognition for that. Hell no — White privilege! Sorry, but that privilege came from hard and smart work and some wars but learn your world history — we are not unique in that. Are we racist? At least we are trying to contain it unlike many. This time it failed. Not too surprised as I bet many whites just tuned out after being insulted a few times too many. And for liberals — go out and vote even if your candidate is not pure — the world is gray, not black and white.
The existence of the electoral college also changes the behavior of the voters and the campaigns. If the winner was decided by popular vote, Trump supporters in California might be more inclined to vote and Trump would campaign more in California. Of course, similarly the Democrats would change their behavior, but we can not be certain that the net effect would be a victory for Clinton.
Many law professors sharply criticized the letter over those provisions, which seem to have arisen from political pressure to increase the number of punished students rather than from thinking through what would actually make good policy, or was actually required by Title IX. It gives me no pleasure to observe that something similar to that now appears to have happened, on a larger and more terrifying scale than I or just about anyone else imagined.
I ask this because I think that when one holds a minority view which in this case might still be right! And as they are self-interested people, they want to restrict immigration. Not only as workers and tenants, but also in wanting to reserve the land for their own posterity. All living things are selfish like that, no need to point fingers.
Economists contend that immigration results in more global production and better global mean standard of living. But people in the developed countries would be worse off, and their ownership in their nations would be diluted and in a certain sense see paragraph above annulled.
There would be less incentive to invest in public goods and participate in the common sphere we still have nation states that function, no working global government. Lewikee, looking forward to Scott weighing in on this, but FWIW not appointing a prominent alt-righ, Antisemitic, white supremacist to the White House staff certainly would have helped.
The profit margins are so low, you knock those down and the effects propagate all the way up. One thing which is puzzling to me is that in many cases, for many writers, and also to some extent here at the Shtetl Optimized the very strong objection to Donald Trump was not accompanied by a strong enthusiastic rooting for Hillary Clinton. I personally feel that Hillary Clinton was a remarkable candidate with unprecedented depth of understanding of the many facets of American government, American society and international affairs, very good record for making things done, and great compassion and care for people in the US and outside.
But not quite…. Here are some reasons: 1. The lack of any tangible progress she would offer. The fact that she had to cheat even to get nominated thus arguably handing the presidency to Trump instead of Bernie. The history of bullying not only her opponents but also private people, such as attempted intimidating women seduced by her husband into silence.
Etc, etc, etc. She IS a terrible candidate. I hope that you will soon be able to focus your mind again on your brilliant research while trying to deal or not with all this mess. Michael P. I give her major honesty points for this comment, actually. Everyone acts slightly different in public and private, and she was just admitting to that. Harder to speak on this one — she seemed tactically competent and on the ball in the state department, but you may very reasonably disagree with her strategic decisions.
She won three million votes more than her opponent. That people who had personally worked with them both almost unanimously preferred her is a point in her favour, not the opposite. From the inside view, she has a long history of working with people and getting good things done. One must be careful here.
Lots of conservatives are appalled at Trump, of course — but the Republicans in actual government positions have basically just rolled over for him largely, it seems, for fear of being voted out. You can read wikileaks to get an idea how they did it. And, the next election will probably have some even more bizarre turning points that have not even been guessed at yet. Actually many people in developed countries would be better off with more immigration from poorer countries, and most economists would assert that the gains exceed the losses for the country as a whole.
If there is cheap labor in the restaurant industry for example, Americans who were planning on a career as a waitress or chef will lose out, but restaurant owners and consumers can all benefit from higher profits or lower prices. Really, it is no different from the invention of some labor-saving device in the restaurant industry. Would we be richer if we banned restaurants from using modern kitchen equipment? There is the cultural effect of immigration, of course, which economists are not very good at modelling.
But America has traditionally been good at assimilating immigrants. Basically, they keep their religion, which makes them feel like they have preserved their identity, but in all other ways previous waves of immigrants have assimilated. We have had the systematic effort to make voting as difficult as possible for minorities and the poor.
We have had manipulation by hacking and leaking of emails probably by the Russians and probably with the assistance of the Trump campaign. We had the intervention of Comey and FBI, probably in coordination with Giuliani, in unprecedented public statements during the summer and just before the election.
But there is more. It might be that votes themselves are skewed and being altered. Systematically votes totals are off by several percentage points from exit polls and always in favor of the Republicans. Some people have said this is just people lying to pollsters or not wanting to admit they voted for Trump. The red shift refers to the overwhelming pick up of votes by the Republican Party in recorded votes over what actual voters report to exit pollsters.
Charnin looked at presidential state exit polls from to , 15 elections would be expected to fall outside the margin of error. Shockingly, of the presidential exit polls fell outside the margin of error. What is the probability of this happening? We would expect eight.
There is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Something that most of those advocating increased immigration have been reluctant to do. Had they succeeded i. Some of these people are deeply distrustful of anything related to government, and they view polls as something Big Brother-ish, regardless of who conducts the polls.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania has paper records in some areas but not in others. So simply cutting someone a check is as likely to breed resentment as it is gratitude. Likewise, mainstream Democrats have generally focused their redistribution efforts on helping disadvantaged minorities. Then, hopefully, working-class men could accept the UBI and do as many manly jobs as they wanted machining, woodworking, etc. Imagine this. Medical advances dramatically increase the possible human lifespan.
Robotic technologies increase the amount of goods able to be produced without human workers. The free market system is based on each worker being able to sell in the market place his services and abilities, but if the production of high value products does not require humans than the worker has nothing to offer. We are left with large number of workers competing for the niche service jobs, driving down those wages, while the wealth is maintained by owners of the machines.
Who will buy the products of the machines? And will the workers be able to afford the medical advances to extend their lifespan? The situation is perhaps even more dire outside the industrial world. Just as jobs in the industrialized world have been shipped off to the Third World, the workers there may within a few decades see their jobs disappear to robotic factories leaving those countries to return to subsistence.
We might end with a wealthy elite owning the machines, trading goods among themselves, and living for years while the remainder of humanity live short lives of poverty, perhaps on the government dole to prevent civil unrest. Or, perhaps material goods become so plentiful and so cheap to produce that no one can become wealthy owning them. The machines may become like public lands, held by all, and for the benefit of all. That would be a mistake similar to that of Malthus or Erlich — the mistake of simply extrapolating trends.
But I do see these themes playing out sharply in the next decades. There will need to be some kind of fundamental reorganization of our economy and a reevaluation of the basis of economy when people begin to live routinely for over a hundred years and most goods and many services are provided free of human labor.
Of course, in a truly Pareto-efficient solution immigrants with productivity below the paying-your-way limit somewhere below the 70th percentile in Finland will become second class citizens: they cannot be given the health care and services that natives receive if the natives are not to have bigger insurance premiums and taxes. These cutoffs, most often proposed by Democrats, were one of the reasons I resented both Bernie and Hillary, as well as much of the DNC platform in general.
These cutoffs show that DNC promotes not only on compassion toward the poor but also resentment toward the middle class. These cutoffs demonstrate the habit of the left of NOT treating people equally but instead dividing people into groups by various criteria, not only income and treating these groups very differently. These cutoffs disenfranchise the part of the population that keeps the country together. Bernie suggests making college education free.
I applaud. I understand that the proposal would increase my already high taxes, but I applaud. Educated nation is a successful nation, I want my kids to live in an educated nation, and I applaud. My hands freeze mid-air. The proposal implies that: 1. College tuition will increase because the supply of money for college education would increase.
The kids of middle-class parents will face higher tuition with neither access to free college tuition nor college savings. There are many proposals like that, most often coming from the left, that start by proposing a certain benefit that all Americans should have and than impose a cutoff that prevents millions Americans from said benefit.
There are more urgent concerns: the country just has been raided. This means that he can legally discuss with them his presidential actions that can and will move the markets. His kids, in charge of his investments, will know in advance which commodity will go up and which will go down.
This is an unprecedented in human history power over exchange markets. Not only Trump businesses will have unheard of advantage over their competitors, his funds will basically own movements of all publicly traded stocks and commodities. He stands to make hundreds of billions. If he would also act as the President on behalf of his businesses the consequences would be far worse. What are the chances he would act on behalf of the country and bankrupt his businesses rather than proceeding with the war?
It looks like the country has just experienced a hostile takeover by a shrewd and utterly ruthless corporation which has about as much concern for the population as a corporate raider would for the employees. Michael P , out of curiosity, did you check on current numbers for college and other major expenses before banking that enthusiasm? I think these policies, as well as other populistic PC BS, was the reason this country finally get fed up with DNC and turned to whichever republican was nominated.
By a horrible horrible horrible coincidence that finally happened when republicans nominated Trump. It pains me to see you so upset about this and I think that if you would approach this rationally, you would calm down.
I voted for Trump after long and careful deliberation and could make a case that HRC is by far the less rational choice. A public figure like you may have to deal with antisemitic trolls emboldened a bit for a while and that is unfortunate but not the end of the world. I remind you that Trump has Jewish grandchildren and the backing of some interesting Jewish intellectuals. What is much more likely, as Trump has intimated himself, is marriage equality will stand but gays may not be able to force people who hate them to participate in their weddings.
I think you agree with that. It is possible that Mosque surveillance will increase as it did in NYC after but most will be none the wiser. It is also possible it will be harder for them to chain-migrate relatives from terror-prone countries. This may be sad but it is nothing to be terrified of. Undocumented Immigrants: This group does have legitimate concerns but they have brought this on themselves.
Trump is going to focus on securing the border and deporting criminals first. He has stated that after jumping through a few hoops paying back taxes etc. UIs that return home might be able to apply for expedited return status if they have property and US citizen children. So this hysteria is ridiculous and far more embarrassing for me as an American than electing a reality TV star.
You have said that you were agonized as a youth over the fear of being sexist and that you were sick for weeks after Bush was elected. These are not rational behaviors, most smart,kind, healthy boys navigate their sexual and gender roles just fine and the worst thing W did was his disastrous invasion of Iraq which your candidate was wrong about not once not twice but three times!
I suspect your reaction to Trump is of a piece with those emotions. BTW Trump was a critic of the invasion almost immediately after it started if not before it began. Think about that for a second I mean really think about it. It was by and large the Trump supporters who were attacked during the campaign some of it orchestrated by HRCs campaign.
I could go on point by point to explain why I chose Trump over Hillary despite his numerous flaws there is no doubt that as an American he was better the choice this time around as appalling as that is. And democratic norms have been hit big, from the left, in a blatant way. Due process was diminished in universities. In Canada, the madness has reached the courtroom.
Free speech was threatened as a norm, if not as a law. The truce was important. It is important. Rule 4 : Be outraged. If you follow Rule 1 and believe what the autocrat-elect is saying, you will not be surprised.
This will lead people to call you unreasonable and hysterical, and to accuse you of overreacting. It is no fun to be the only hysterical person in the room. Prepare yourself. Yes, we should all chill out. Some citizens may have their places of worship be under surveillance without evidence of probable cause ; others may have some rights revoked; and good grief, being told by trolls to take your family to the gas chambers is upsetting but not the end of the world.
The day I am OK with fellow citizens having unequal protections under the law in a civilized democracy is not here yet. However, gays can certainly be worried about Mike Pence who with some probability is the one who actually be running the show. His Christian fundamentalist views and the desire to enact them into policy will also be off-putting to most Jews, but I agree that they should not fear persecution from him.
The trouble is that he also has moods where he says and does things that are absolutely horrifying, he surrounds himself with horrifying toadies and yes-men, and the entire country is now at the mercy of his moods and his terrible judgment.
Michael The bigger problem is that he continues to insist even today that they were guilty and deserve the death penalty! A total inability to admit you were wrong—about which people deserve to be put to death, no less—is one of the most terrifying qualities imaginable in a president. I am german. Briefly, though, if anyone could convince me not to worry so much about Trump, it would surely be the other Scott A! While I enjoy Dilbert, as far as I can tell from his writings, Scott Adams is an egomaniacal troll, who got excited about Donald Trump early on simply because he correctly recognized in Trump a fellow egomaniacal troll.
Adams has also advocated creationism and other things that you and I presumably agree are obviously wrong. In any case, though, I never expressed confidence that Trump would lose the election! On the contrary, I quoted what the prediction markets said, but constantly reiterated that the probabilities they gave him seemed scarily high and that we needed to work harder to defeat him. It stands to reason that people who think like Trump does, or are his supporters or crypto quasi supporters, would get excited about him and foresee his rise earlier than the rest of the world would.
But why should that cause us to give those supporters more credence about an extremely different question, of whether the successful autocrat to whom they hitched their wagon will be good for the country or the world? They got duped by the con man and gleefully chose him over any other choice.
I will not easily forgive my relatives and now former friends who though it would be fine to vote for him. I think that awful things are about to happen. Donald is intellectually, mentally, and physically lazy. He will freak when he starts to get briefed on issues. That means that Mike P, whom I consider even more dangerous, will be in charge, as will the unscrupulous minions.
Nothing good can come out of this except for stronger unity in the liberal front. Our educational systems have failed miserably. Where were you the last 12 years? Admittedly, I very purposefully did not have more children than I thought I could afford to bring up on my own, if necessary, through college. Let me give you an example.
Trump, Jews. Jewish son-in-law, etc. Loves the Jews. Know who else loved Jews and was married to Jews? Party officials under Stalin. Jewish wives. What happened to the wives? Happens with some regularity? With guys like Trump, this happens at a governmental level.
Like most Democrats, I bitterly opposed Bush Jr. For Republicans to foist Bush Jr. Where do you get it from? It made me feel better for a while, but I agree with the point that he does not refute some of the most worrying racist comments of Trump. Mostly it shows that Trump is inconsistent on this issue as well. And the major danger of him not respecting democracy remains.
Nor does it suggest that his opposition to Islam does not reach bigotry levels. I am discussing the proposed laws and policies as they apply to American middle class, not as they apply to me personally. IMO people should be treated equally, not grouped according to various criteria and treated differently according to whichever groups. I also believe people should not be discriminated for their ancestry.
In particular you should not disenfranchise children of successful parents because you perceived their ancestors being too successful. Just to expand on a bit: just like Trump would do later, Bush Jr. And voters, enough of them, actually bought it. You made it yours, you used it to win elections, now you take complete responsibility for its disasters—both those of Bush Jr. In the worst case you can win some money…. David Even if Dana still let me place bets, betting against the other Scott A.
Why would I do that? Trump as president risks creating problems that go beyond big issues that led to this mess, but I think that the biggest dangers are still those issues, not Trump per se. Lack of traditional community? Western decadence? If society is very stable, then confrontation with Islam and terrorism might be managed succesfully, but if society is overly fragilized by the economic and values factors, then terrorism can be alot more damaging, by provoking deeper internal conflicts.
Likewise, the confrontation with Islam and terrorism may itself also have economic roots — in the poverty of regions concerned, which has transformed confrontations over values into a powder keg. So this is where Trump himself, with GOP support, could end up being the biggest problem. His positive contribution was maybe to have moved attention to where it was needed, faster than it would have come otherwise. Also healthcare, a reasonably safe and clean place to live, food, and the other things that come complete with a nutritious social democracy.
I am after all a landlord who charges at the bottom rung of market on purpose, and would go lower if the IRS would let me. Or Boston, or San Francisco, or a lot of other places that, if I were a single person, might be fun. Has this made things more challenging careerwise, sure. Impossible, no. It means that we have nice public services, including schools. Nobody else sees a reason to take kids out of the public schools.
Which is in fact the case. I say good! That I live in, that my kid will live in. And, more importantly, I find it unfair and almost obscene that the government peeks into parental pockets to decide whether the kids are worth investing in. You could live at home and go to the satellite campus. I would like all the kids to be able to go, too. My estimate for the likelihood that Trump is not a total disaster has increased from 0. My reasoning is that while Trump certainly is a loudmouth buffoon swindler, etc.
He probably never expected to win. My guess is that he got in on the race basically for laughs, ego tripping, and to promote a followup TV series or network. So now all the sudden he has won, and furthermore is the champion of the Deplorables. Trump probably does not actually know any deplorables, and would not be comfortable hanging around with any.
Trump obviously does not have the patience to actually learn the stuff that a decent president would need to know to not totally screw everything up, and I hope he realizes you cannot actually run things making snap decisions off the top of your head just to hear the crowd roar. Also, the realization that historians might wind up putting him in the same chapter with Hitler must be sobering.
It would be great if there was some adult supervision. And, it appears that Trump is actually is following the advice of his son in law, who is rumored to be a pretty sharp guy and a democrat to boot. So there is some hope that Trump will prefer to clown around acting like a rock star president, and let the son in law run things. Oh, Raoul Ohio , how I wish I could agree with you. You know how brains usually has to hire the muscle? I remember him in college with those stupid Sikorski helicopters and the same appalling rhetoric, only back in the day he was busy telling us to be scared of the gays, who wanted to give us AIDS.
And his stupid mobbed-up restaurant. Mobsters and associates, not famous for brains. Trump sufficient to blackmail him into not running. Maybe kidnap the oracle and make it reveal more about the future? Or launch a crash program to understand how the oracle works so we can build our own. Obviously I did a really bad job communicating my intentions with that question. Thank you for the answer anyways.
In fact, even Scott Adams would mostly agree with your description. The question is what sort of evidence this provides. It fits the hypothesis that Trump is a deranged power-hungry autocrat. But basically I see him as mainly playing his supporters. Will he try to enrich himself personally? Govern as best he knows how? Maybe he was motivated by a true desire to help our society, and just conned to get himself elected.
Maybe he was motivated by desire for attention and to feel powerful and successful. The more I notice just how easily any of the personal and ethical attacks slide off of Trump and even seem to empower him! After all, there is a non-vanishing probability that Trump was the ultimate Manchurian candidate. And now he just named somebody as national security adviser who celebrated the birthday of the Russian propaganda outlet RT with Putin in attendance. People vote in their economic interests. Huge government and socialist policies never deliver the goods.
Look at the history of the 20th century. You all may feel embarrassed for the country after this election. I felt that way in after 4 years of what I see as destructive policies, alienating our traditional allies and empowering bad actors in the world, meanwhile at home hurting businesses and today leaving almost ,, people without a job.
It cuts both ways. I guess the majority in our representative republic agreed with that. Imagine that you visit MacDonalds, and order the Quarterpounder. While you are trying to absorb why having income of 2, burgers a year at your price is wealthy and the others with 10, burgers a year at their price are poor you see your son entering the joint.
He comes to the register and orders a burger. Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. Hedge funds don't have many shares in Hill-Rom Holdings. With 9.
While studying institutional ownership for a company can add value to your research, it is also a good practice to research analyst recommendations to get a deeper understand of a stock's expected performance. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too.
While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it. Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group. It is a pretty big company, so it would be possible for board members to own a meaningful interest in the company, without owning much of a proportional interest.
Arguably, recent buying and selling is just as important to consider. You can click here to see if insiders have been buying or selling. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders. I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company.
But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. To that end, you should be aware of the 1 warning sign we've spotted with Hill-Rom Holdings. Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company.
NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation.
We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team at simplywallst. The Buffett Indicator has gone haywire of late. The change to the tax code could allow millions of working families to save thousands on their taxes, but only if they are savvy about how they file this year. Investors have been fixated on growth companies over the past year, and one segment which has been on the rise is the fledgling cannabis industry.
The sector offers a unique proposition and the prospect of further growth, as there is still a major catalyst on the horizon which will completely alter the industry. As expected, a Democrat led senate has been good news for those banking on marijuana reform at the federal level; And it looks like the anticipated changes could happen faster than initially expected.
The statement feeds expectations that the Democratic Congressional majority will pass — and that President Biden will sign — a bill to legalize marijuana. Investors are also looking at further state-level legalization moves; one key state in this regard is New York.
So, the cannabis industry is looking up. There is an expanding network of state legalization regimes, and expectations of a change in federal policy; both are putting upward pressure on cannabis shares. Both have posted impressive year-to-date performances, and stand to rise even more in the year ahead. The company started out as a farmer, producing high-quality greenhouse vegetables year-round for sale in the North American market. That background fit the company well for a transition to the cannabis industry — Village Farms has experience in greenhouse production and industrial-scale growing.
Two important pieces of news precipitated the surge since the end of January. The move increases the international reach of Village Farms, and its ability to increase Altum holdings in the future. The company was able to fund these moves because it had a successful equity sale in January, putting an additional In addition to its strong capital and expansion positions, Village Farms has been reporting solid financial results.
VFF has historically been undervalued compared to less profitable peers, but we expect shares to continue working higher … as the prospect for US reform increases throughout the year. The company is involved in both the medical and recreational sides of the market, and both grows and produces cannabis and markets a range of products through numerous brand names.
Growth has been fueled by expansion of the cultivation operations in California and Pennsylvania, and by the move into the adult-use recreational market in New Jersey. Last month, TerrAscend closed a non-brokered private placement stock sale, putting more than 18 million common shares on the market.
We have been bullish on the company since initiating coverage last year and are happy to say the TRSSF team has exceeded our expectations, generating rapid increases in margins and operating leverage that have earned them a place solidly in the Top Tier of MSOs," Des Lauriers noted. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.
Retirement account owners have long had trouble translating the money in their k into income. For all the attention given to the argument that the stock market is in a bubble, it is important to point out that not everyone shares that view. In a monthly webinar, Wood made the argument against stocks being in a bubble. Bloomberg -- Tilray Inc. The gains came amid a broader sector rally on potential U. That marks both the biggest one-day and three-day gain for MJ.
Pot stocks have outperformed since the Democrats took control of Congress with the Georgia runoff elections in January. However, most cannabis stocks are still well below the highs they reached in late when Canada became the first large economy to legalize recreational pot. Tilray, which was the first pot stock to list on a major U. Charles Taerk, a cannabis investment adviser, said the stocks are gaining partly because of growing optimism around U. Taerk is the chief executive officer of Faircourt Asset Management, which acts as an adviser to the cannabis-focused Ninepoint Alternative Health Fund.
Traders widely circulated news online that Tilray had signed a deal Tuesday to distribute its medical cannabis products in the U. They also noted a merger arbitrage opportunity as Aphria Inc. Dan Ahrens, chief operating officer and a portfolio manager at AdvisorShares, said the sharp rise of stocks is likely to be followed by a sharp decline, similar to the dramatic selloff in Other pot stocks rallying Wednesday included Zynerba Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Updates shares to close and adds Ahrens comment. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg. Investors in growth stocks should seek stocks boasting strong institutional sponsorship. Here are some names that are being snapped up by funds. Congressional leaders are hurrying the new payments along.
Will you get one — and when? Bloomberg -- Apple Inc. The secret project has gained momentum in recent months, adding multiple former Tesla Inc. The initiative, known as Project Titan inside Apple, is attracting intense interest because of its potential to upend the automotive industry and supply chains, much like the iPhone did to the smartphone market. The following companies -- whose representatives declined to comment -- are possible candidates:FoxconnFoxconn Technology Group already has a close relationship with Apple.
With the benefit of hindsight, was anything you were doing in those 8-n hours worth your health? Stay healthy! Chris G — thanks! It was never really by choice, but after years of mild sleep deprivation due to children, it was very hard to relearn proper sleeping habits…. The investigations showed that the profits were almost certainly not due to her skill as a trader. They were unable to definitely prove the precise method of manipulation so there were no criminal charges under insider trading laws.
There was no direct vote linked to the money so there was no prosecution under bribery laws. Peter T I think the implicit standard for corruption here is deeply unreal, especially if applied in the US. Patronage, favours and cronyism are embedded in the US system at all levels — are,indeed, institutionally part of the system. Executive appointments to the public service? Decentralised power, often locally elected? Checks and balances, with the accompanying need to trade between factions to get anything done, at all levels from dog-catcher to White House?
Party registration public and a two-party stranglehold reinforced by law? And all that before we start on lobbying or corporate power or PACs. The US is, to put it mildly, very different. Charles S If she had been trying to avoid FoI requests, she would have destroyed her government emails after she left office like Bush and Cheney did with their private server, and as Powell did with his non-.
Instead, she only destroyed her personal emails and she communicated with. The U. As executive level leadership pays itself more and more — and the numbers have been staggering for quite a while — the money has to come from somewhere, and it often comes from looting institutions. As the high standard for executive pay has spread out from large business into non-profit sectors, the looting has disabled some institutions for which people have had genuine affection.
The erosion of integrity in educational institutions is widely felt. Quite a lot of people are trapped in debt peonage by student debt or are experiencing the continuing deterioration of American health care and insurance under the pressure of high costs driven by greed and for-profit strategies.
With both candidates for President widely reviled for their dishonesty, it feels like this trend of declining legitimacy has the potential to get much worse or even reach a critical point. Certainly, the traditional two-party remedy of rotation in office is seriously blunted by the foreclosure of options. I am inclined by temperament to be doomsayer, so I am not always a good barometer, but I sense a growing unease about financial and business stability — I am not talking about anything more than a routine recession, except that these circumstances make the potential for precipitating a political crisis of legitimacy from even a mild recession seem to me quite significant.
The inability of the U. She won x her investment by short trading futures that were in the middle of a bull market. Very unlikely. On the topic of health, for those focused on the theoretical question, you seem to be over weighting death as a concern as opposed to severely diminished capacity. See for example Reagan. Death gets a clean transition to the VP. Diminished capacity opens up unsavory power plays from weird angles. As for Obamacare, anyone can read the headlines on healthcare inflation and the planned withdrawal of the mega-insurers from state exchanges, just as they can the continual dribble of stories about big bank malfeasance.
I thought it was over heating or something like that. Now it is bacterial pneumonia. Anyone can also read about the 10 million people who got Medicaid and how it could have been 20 but for the stacked court; can read about the record low levels of uninsured, and satisfaction with plans, and the effective cost controls of the first two years; about the reduction in unnecessary hospitalization and post discharge deaths. Or we could give in to right wing scaremongering about how a couple of vindictive companies dropped out of some markets after Obama refused to give them a monopoly.
Val I am pretty sure your moral sense is broken. I used to have a lot of time for your contributions when I first started reading CT, but man you have really lost the plot. If you are now prepared to say that somebody disagreeing with you is a sign that their moral sense is broken — words fail me. But just keep on with the Hillary hate BW et al — nothing really bad could happen could it?
Matt Let me second comments by Val and Helen here and so indirectly second Faustusnotes, who has done good work — some others, too. I wonder how many of us moralists would have been the first African-American president and used that position to try to send a lot of powerful white men to jail? The percentage of uninsured recently dropped to 8. No doubt we moralists could have done a lot better, against Republican opposition.
Why do I bother to type this and submit it? I guess in case PBO should happen to read this thread and find one more sympathizer. To whom on this thread are you referring? The imaginary global warming denying, Clinton hating leftists? But she also reinforced the narrative about her trustworthiness by not being completely honest and then being put on the spot with such a dramatic incident the pretty scary looking way she passed out.
Now she looks sick and untrustworthy. In hindsight it might have been better to have been more upfront about the pneumonia from the beginning. If she is running as the anti-Trump option rather than talking about how she will be a good Hillary, she needs to actually look better than Trump. She has looked as incompetent a campaign strategist as Trump and his team.
I think they need to get to ramping up the GOTV effort and rallying the base sooner rather than later. With Trump tamping down his buffoonery and her inability to, at the moment, project competence, the focus on the soft GOP voters to be With Her as the least bad option strategy is looking less viable every day. Your often justified indignation is overwhelming your critical sense.
The government encompasses a great deal more than high policy, and any government — indeed any large organisation — always has patches of inefficiency or failure. A country with thousands of governments will have more such areas than most the US has 9, plus police departments; Australia has 8. Brutal incompetence has been the foreign policy norm since at least the 50s. A new FDR is not on the horizon and would not have the same level of political support anyway. Even the original could not deliver good government in Alabama, and doubtless traded in favours every day.
Your concerns about Clinton are, quite simply, the response to years of pre-conditioning by the media. Just this last week, I have seen three examples of how coverage of everything about her is intended to deceive:. Finally, the article stated with a straight face that Bill was hired for the job because he was the husband of the Sec of State. This is obvious, bald-faced bullshit, and yet there it was in print from a website I think we all agree is more sympathetic to clinton than most.
If you are exposed to this level of biased reporting on one woman for 20 years, of course everything she does is going to seem suspicious. On this point there is one historical precedent. But also nobody foresaw that situation when he was running for election in , or for re-election in The Wilson precedent is part of the reason the Twenty-fifth Amendment was adopted, providing a mechanism for dealing with similar situations.
And levels of unenthusiasm matter. But that kind of enthusiasm cannot be engineered from inside, it needs to come from engagement with reasons at least for my, apparently cerebral, correspondents. JimV — I disagree about it not being worth saying things that people should already know.
People take time to change their minds, and making arguments over and over, in slightly different ways, with different tones and from different people has value, even though it seems kind of pointless when you are doing it.
Maybe it could have been better, but none of us would have had the skill to get a much worse version through, let alone a better one. So, thanks for saying what you said and Faustusnotes too. In that case, I regularly marvel at where the hell a working class Aylesbury year old boy got it from. I love telling both of them in liberal company, because I love how uncomfortable they get as the punchline nears.
Or if her long history and the years of her every move being under the spotlight would make the horse race media coverage even worse for her because of the way the past would be used to contextualize anything that happened in the present in a way that served to reinforce her negatives which were known from the beginning. It looks like it will be 2. It has seemingly been weakened. And what does moaning about the unfairness of it all do other than maybe serve to work the refs a little which I suppose is a legitimate strategy?
What matters is the way she responds. The Manchurian voters! This is a very poor summary of the article that calls into question whether you actually read it. It is a network of for-profit colleges. Private and for-profit are very, very different models for higher-learning at least they used to be, but you know, general institutional crapification being what it is these days the line is getting blurrier all the time.
It is interesting though. JQ has been banging about tribalism for while now here at CT. This has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with feelings. Hence your weird and completely non-cerebral reaction to the simple fact of her getting a disease that 68 year olds often get, and not telling anyone about it did it occur to you at any point that she might not have known? What about the part where they say he was hired because he was the husband of the secretary of state?
Where on earth do you think that comes from except a really weird and twisted perspective on the Clinton family? What about the weird language that attempts to bury every positive assessment of the college? Alex K Which is perfectly compatible with a scenario in which there was precious little to hide from the beginning. Trump has not released his medical records either, but his tight campaign schedule has been signaling that he is in good shape: short-term fitness if not long-term health.
There have been some interesting comments on corruption in US politics. To me, the measure of the moral if not monetary corruption in US politics is Flint. Here, a government knowingly proceeded to poison thousands of its minority citizens in order to save a trivial amount of money. And the politically responsible governor is still in office, after the full measure of the facts have come out. Even in some of the more obviously corrupt places, at least the governor would have been forced to resign if not been charged criminally.
Furthermore, in most countries, such a scandal during a national election campaign would be a constant front burner. In fairness, when Sarkozy then president and as macho and right-wing as ever collapsed from a vasovagal syncope, he was broadly ridiculed for it in the media. Well, the health issue people worry about with Trump is mental health. But its unlikely that he has the self-insight to have sought any help with that, so his records are kind of irrelevant. Alert the media!
In other news, dog bites man. Will Republicans say Petraeus suffers from a secret malady which disqualifies him for high office? The answer is obvious. Do I think its a big deal — no. Does swing voter X in Ohio think it is? Swing voters are moved by impressions or motivated by positions on very particular issues or form an impression completely independent of political stance and vote based on unmeasurables such as likeability or trustworthiness both of which are created impressions, not facts.
Absolutely Joe. In Beijing, the meeting reinforced the impression that she was the principal China hawk within the Obama administration. Another great example of what is happening in the media: manta knows nothing about trumps China policy ha! I wonder how it is that this dishonest stuff always manages to leak out even as far as overseas observers…?
What a coincidence that it happens to a woman who has been the subject of vicious right wing attacks for 20 years … How can this coincidence possibly have come about? It seems pretty clear that Clinton is quite aggressive towards China, and not shy about it: but if you have credible sources that it is not so, please quote them.
This was an open challenge to the Chinese, who had been pursuing bilateral settlements with their neighbors. But I suppose that for Faustusnotes it is only more proof of the fact that the press hates Hillary: talk about confirmation bias…. The press did not examine him very closely, Clinton consistently pulled her punches, and Republicans were generally pleased that he was around to give HRC heartburn.
He was never even given a particularly hard time about stalling over his tax returns, a position he shares in recent history with only Romney and Trump. Clinton has released more details about her medical history than Trump, who until this week had provided only a rather bizarre letter from his bizarre doctor, who composed his missive in a few minutes while his patient waited in the limo.
Your assurances that he looks robust to you do much to reassure me, however. She knew on Friday she had pneumonia. She decided to push through, which was an entirely reasonable decision. Unfortunately she collapsed in a dramatic fashion that was caught on tape. She gambled and lost. Would we? Nothing is going to placate the deplorables. The issue is the other million odd registered voters and what they might do and how they might be feeling in reaction to all of this.
I will agree with you that the public perception of Clinton has been skewed by a multi-decade campaign of lies, smears, and innuendo directed at Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, as well as Buddy and Socks. So what should she do about it in this campaign in ? Harry B , thanks very much for your reply. I agree that Obamacare can be greatly improved in an ideal world.
I would have been astonished if it could not be, believing as I do that, just as in biology, science, technology and all the useful works of humans proceed by an evolutionary process, i. The only things that can stop that process are 1 refusing to try anything new such as Obamacare was on a national scale , or 2 biasing the natural selection process so that evidences of success or failure are ignored. Given that philosophy, it seems to me that people should be judged mainly on whether their cumulative efforts have produced progress, not so much on what they might have done better.
Lincoln was willing to compromise on slavery and had a lot of very angry detractors during his career. FDR did some questionable things. In the end they left things better than they found them. I think Obama has, and HRC has a chance to. It is not a very impressive legacy. Yes, uninsurance is down from But the proportion of people driven into poverty by health costs has not declined, overall health spending is edging back up, household health costs have apparently not declined due to increases in co-pays and deductibles, and every American knows the system is as complex as ever.
More modest and targeted efforts like that would not have carried the enormous downsides of the Obamacare push, which included immobilizing the Democratically controlled US Congress during the worst of the recession and losing any hope of Democratic Congressional control for at least a decade the House will likely not be recaptured until , which utterly immobilizes fiscal policy.
Rhetorically she is reminding the Iranians not to take anything for granted while shielding her right flank from GOP attack as being too soft on Iran. Layman , as I said, people can read themselves the articles, and reach their conclusions: this is the last thing I will write on the topic to you.
Layman would have us believe that an 18 million payday from a for-profit college for doing nothing is no biggie, presumably just like the Wall Street speaking gigs were no biggie. And that is also highly illustrative. The fundamental imbalance and grotesque inequality implied by this is one thing.
The bathetic, conformist, status-quo protecting nature of the Clinton campaign has ensured that the Buffoonist remains within striking distance. More of the same while nibbling politely on the margins is no longer an acceptable or convincing argument for the majority. Liberals and centrist boosters can continue to get on their high horse and go moralistically stampeding across the hordes of unwashed and bigoted masses, but it is a tactic that will only hasten defeat.
The great political problem now is not rank partisanship, but the unquestioned consensus of the political-economic elite. Brexit was the first major signal. I assume the lack of responsiveness is indicative of what pays and what they are paid to do. The cost may be very steep come November though. Further, corruption may be contagious, but is not necessarily transmitted by marital vows.
No, not necessarily. In my blue collar neighborhood here in New Jersey, I just had a long conversation with 4 Trump supporters at the gym, ages approx. They all conceded that:. Did I just say on camera that to Charlie Rose? But definitely not frequently. Liar 1 and Liar 2 attended the wedding of Liar 3.
Liar 1 and Liar 2 routinely request cash from Liar 3, who happily forked it over, but not for influence, of course. But because back when Liar 3 was donating to Liar 1 and Liar 2, Liar 3 had a big heart. In the unedited tape, Bill Clinton says that every time Hillary Clinton has been severely dehydrated, she has fainted.
If you are going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on his many manglings of language, you are going to have to give it to the Clintons, too. Another thing I got the guys at the gym to assent to, is that Trump is unlikely to do anything very differently than Hillary would, because the system is too complicated to change.
Arnold is our sole source of objective, rational neutrality. That and an unwillingness to take money. Go for it. Lying and politicians are synonymous, except to the donkey-loving dunces. Not you, of course!
You did not, of course, lead the conversation in any particular direction in order to elicit any particular responses; The conversation flowed naturally over the course of several exchanges. All you need is neverTrump button to make it official. By the way, about his anecdote I am a bit surprised that 3 out of 4 remarks were about foreign policy: any explanation for that? Does anyone here even know this fact?
Set aside participation, just the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the obscene accumulation of wealth and power happening at the top of the pyramid is enough to royally piss off a plurality of people at this historical juncture. And maybe it will work yet. Just further evidence of their extreme insularity and incapacity to sense, let alone properly assess, prevailing socioeconomic conditions and mood. I will second what others upthread have said about his FP.
I always got the impression he was not really prepared for what he encountered in that arena and was led around by the nose for a while as a result. They would find your implication that I could lead the conversation into elicited responses to be laughable. These guys are a whole lot savvier than you. I do not have any emotions invested in the outcome of this election.
You think I am like you, but I am not. You are easily emotionally excited, and then you make intellectual mistakes on account of it. I have said repeatedly and I told my friends at the gym; they know all about me! This follows from the fact that the world is a complicated place, and the President of the U. I know that Clinton supports the public option.
What is unclear is whether Trump does or not, because he will say anything. The CBS is colluding with the campaign to edit interviews is not in the least surprising, and perhaps a more reliable data point than any other in explaining the success of both Sanders and Trump. I make my own pro-Trump biases clear in almost all cases. Re: the foreign policy questions?
Trump indeed may. But, as I discussed with my son last night, Trump has yet to bomb anyone. Trump may become the candidate of the donor class and the neocons. The former SecState is and has been the candidate of the donor class and the neocons. Trump is not particularly ideological, or honest. The first is a plus, and the second goes with the territory. I also think African-American urban communities should be able to choose charter schools without fighting their Dem rulers.
You claim the power to master all three. It is imaginable that they waited to see how Trump would fare, but the smart money was always on a tightening race. They probably have a Plan B for the end game. Camera personality is a very difficult thing to fix. I think she ought to try doing the debates as a low-key, conversational policy wonk, and stop putting emphasis on every assertion.
Sort of do it as a teacher relating the various policy histories of the Untied States and what the options are now, and DO NOT be political about it. Stop being a politician, and show the vast knowledge she has. Half of my close friends are Republicans! But I am fascinated by the etiology of the tribalism on both sides. That should be easy. Great idea! We went on the air as fast as we could … Have you seen this new focus group stuff on the candidates?
DeLay: Really? Matthews: Hillary did not do well. Matthews: Kerry did well. Matthews: I am not kidding. DeLay: Too slick. Matthews: Hillary was know-it-all. DeLay: Nothing worse than a woman know-it-all. If not, good for you. Could be. Kidneystones, the reasons why you would think that everybody will think like you may remain an eternal mystery. Beyond that, citing DeLay about anything is crazy. Surely, my own views stated here offer plenty to attack. To your credit, you often implicitly acknowledge as much.
I supported both Bill and Hillary. Reviewing your , I suspect you did not actually read the Salon off-air discussion. In the exchange, it is Matthews making the claims, not DeLay. DeLay is simply responding. Both are responding to Luntz and his focus groups. Worse, you badly represent historical hostility to Hillary and its causes. Hillary Clinton did not run for President in , and was a political neophyte prior to being appointed by her husband, no less, to a leadership position in a task force dedicated to upending the entire way states and the nation conducted health care.
Bill finessed his way into the WH with a mere 43 percent of the vote, thanks to Ross Perot. Yes, lots of men, and some women, used the appointment of HRC as vehicle for women-hatred. That does not change the fact that her own financial and personal history was a full of holes as that of any male politician. She did make a small fortune very much against the odds in futures, despite having no prior aptitude for the practice.
Like many I watched the painful 60 Minutes interview in which Bill and Hillary claimed undying love despite separations and numerous Bimbo extravaganzas the like of which sank the career of Gary Hart. Bush, or Perot, in the WH. Michelle is better and may very well become the first female and the first African-American female president.
The fact that the lectures were delivered by a highly-intelligent woman utterly unable to charm, or persuade left a largely indelible impression on large sectors of the electorate. Ironically, she owes her entire political comeback to Monica Lewinsky. Hillary cannot have been shocked or surprised. Hillary stood by her man in an act of political theater worthy of any family values political survivors. Here we are two decades later listening to Bill and Hillary claim undying love and utter transparency.
No, YOU made that leap. The rest of this comment is more explanation, justification and defense of your emotions. The only people who care, who will find it intellectually valid, are trapped in the same emotions. Otherwise it is all palpable nonsense. Clinton supports a public option. If you are considering this possibility while trying to see through the murk of his pronouncements, the problem is not his personality or his confused speeches but your ability to judge politicians.
Which is why seeing people like Bruce Wilder equivocating on these kinds of things is so hilarious. Oh well the thing that amazes me, as a non-American, is that much of the criticism of Hillary is about her being too close to corporate financial interests. Which is, ok, fair enough, I can see the problem but have you noticed the elephant candidate in the room?
As the recent investigations from the Washington Post? But they are appearing in the Guardian as well show, much of his income is now coming from licensing arrangements with developers and construction companies in places like India or the UAE. Trump has been in favor of a single payer or something like that in the past.
Rather than waffling on here about what Trump says he will do on his website as a guide to anything at all, you might have noted that in your very next paragraph, you will go on to point out that he is a pathological liar: So, is he telling the truth on his website, or not? How can anybody know? CT comment threads are now home for high-brow proponents of herrenvolk democracy.
See earlier comments, mine and others. Trump is the Republican candidate. Thanks for this. Nothing wrong with lost causes. California sounds like a great place for some real dissent. She sounds normal, but acts crazy. I see Trump as the opposite. I fear many will never forgive Trump for hiring women in the construction industry when no others would and other transgressions.
Raven Onthill Trump is one of the oldest people to stand for the Presidency. He does not look healthy. He is considerably overweight, and what is with that orange color? And…he is male. And then there are his speech patterns. He sounds impaired. Perhaps he is, perhaps his peculiar incantory speech, that speaking in triplets, is in fact a result of some sort of mild aphasia. He has other oddities: he believes that Barack Obama is not a US citizen and has held to that belief despite all evidence.
This is delusion. Now, I realize that everyone is looking desperately to find something wrong with Clinton, but the threat that Trump presents is yuge and it deserves attention. Is that allowed during this election. Anarcissie voting behavior is you might guess a heavily studied topic in political science and, indeed, it is a modest minority of voters who make their voting decisions on policy.
Something has gone badly wrong with reporting here. Yeah that sounds about right. Finding fault where there is none, can be none. Many people do. On the left, a lot of us think too hard, and complicate a simple choice. The fragile imperfect peace we won after World War II, is being torn apart in a wave of reaction, and we have to fight for that. We have, in the high income world, had perhaps two generations of peace, and it has changed us more than we know.
A huge number of people no longer believe that war is normal and healthy. Is that not an objection, a constant and wearying objection, of our reactionaries, that there is not enough conflict to toughen us, to make men of us?
And all the while we fight distant wars for no good reasons. I am seeing complaints that Hillary Clinton is a warmonger. Well, perhaps. But Trump? The very basis of his campaign is hostility to non-whites, non-Americans. Someone, anyone, here who is defending him, can you honestly write that Donald Trump is a man of peace? We all know he is not! In that respect, Trump has done his signaling pretty competently. Likewise, Dr. Sometimes it makes sense to keep innocent facts private because the public is bound to misconstrue them and no amount of honest explaining will help.
But sloppiness is not a virtue and vagueness may hurt more than help. Consider Dr. Again, this lays fertile ground for speculation. It would be easy to explain, later on, that bacterial pneumonia does not transfer nearly as easily as its viral cousin and that antibiotics all but kill the chances of contagion. In your sense you are entirely right; Trump is not a man of peace, while Hillary is a woman of peace.
In terms of war between nation-states IMHO it is less clear. Trump is more isolationist, and so for the mid-range of risks, he is probably more a man of peace than Hillary. Daniel H It works like this Faustnotes. You are a broker. You want to bribe the Clintons, but you want to plausibly cover your tracks.
You, the broker, take both sides of a contract. The winning contract you park in Hillary's account. There were no computers back then. Everything was written down in spiral notebooks. Impossible to pin on the players, but anybody with half a brain can figure out what went on. Hillary Clinton is rotten, corrupt, degenerate individual. She is responsible for hundreds of thousands dead and displaced persons.
She is a wretch. Liberals will still vote for her, because liberals are thoroughly corrupt in their souls. You deserve all the bad stuff that you will get if she becomes president, and things will be very bad. Much of the criticism on left-wing blogs e. Unfortunately, Hillary seems to be quite more hawkish than Obama which deserves great credit for his handling of Iran and Cuba : in FP, she takes the most belligerent positions of the Obama administration as the starting point.
The target of the piece is Cameron. The worst part of this sordid tale is that France and Britain could have handled the killing without US involvement. Hillary and O wanted to be in on the fun. Five years on? Millions of deprived young people waiting for the adults to remember the golden rule of interventions: you break it, you own it. But Donald Trump IS global, corporate, high capitalism.
You would focus on Trump. Know your enemy, people. Ravin Onthill, thank you. You may be right but I have to keep trying. By your own posts, you feel the same. It matters, we have to try. After the election, if Hillary wins, do everything you can to shift her to the left. But now, defeating Trump is what matters. Best wishes to all engaged in this effort. People and policies. Without a return to something like Glass-Steagall, another greater catastrophe is just a matter of time.
Without a doubt, Trump has and does. Concerns about this topic are real and legitimate. Trump may very well try to line his own pockets. The fact remains, however, that Trump is running on ending TPPP and slapping a 35 percent tariff on goods produced by companies that relocate out of the US and try to import products back to American consumers. Yes, Trump belongs to the donor class. He understands the system well, and he may NOT do anything to end it.
He might do it. There are risks with both candidates. Bill and Hillary have a proven track record in government of consistently favoring people like Trump, over everyone else. Both lack the resources to do anything else. If more of the same only worse sounds good — more wars, more globalization, more inequality, and fewer jobs then Clinton is your best bet.
Cause why else would the donor class line up so strongly for HRC? She was bought long ago, like the rest of her class, by folks like Trump. Jesus christ you people. It is this lack of attention to the logic and details of argument, while implying malice on the part of another, that makes me skip over your comments without reading them. I write that Trump said in the past that he wants a single payer but now says that he wants to end Obamacare.
In his next paragraph, Faustusnotes writes that Trump is a pathological liar. I point out that maintaining Trump is a pathological liar while at the same time believing what his website says, is illogical. Zero, nada. Thus, both you and Faustusnotes are either 10 years old, or you are entraining your intellects to your emotional priors, too. Worthless to read. You both should join Kidneystones, your blood brother from the other side of the fence, and take a nap. What continues to both amaze and frighten me, is that so many people can not distinguish their emotions from intellectual argumentation.
It is possible to support Clinton I do and to think that Trump will be bad for the country I do — while separating a discussion of that, from the requirements of logical argument and of proper admission of evidence. But it surely is not common, even in comments under an intellectual blog like Crooked Timber. Evidently, you fail to see the lack of logic in your own claim. You are equally unable to insert a simple adverbial modifier of frequency that would make a fairly simple claim sensible.
Lee, if you can think of a good reason why I should believe something this ignorant cheeto Jesus babbled once a while back over what is written on his website now, please give it to me. If your argument is that his incoherent ranting is superior to clintons detailed plan — repeatedly set out, well known to have been a key interest of hers over years, and restated regularly in writing and speeches — then make that argument. But until you can actually make a case for trumps plan, I think TM has you bang to rights.
Pretty much everyone agrees that the health of a major candidate is a legitimate concern, except Democrats on the question HRC. Only 17 percent believe HRC tipping over merits attention. Independents and Republicans disagree. Otherwise, no! I am trying to figure out the pathologies by which you are unable to read clearly and to cogitate thereon. That is faster to analyze, when a person is in response to me myself, because I already know what I wrote, of course, and so it is easier to judge whether it is MY fault in writing unclearly e.
Honest disagreements are a separate issue from being able to think clearly, yet they are easier to figure out this way, too. Which sometimes happens, but only if that other person clearly explains, without emotion, what she or he was talking about. Lee, better to do what I do and skip all of kidneystones comments. If I was less lazy I would get a kill file do they exist for phones?
Again, that was not my argument, at all. Now my argument is that neither you nor TM know what an argument is. How so? It was Russia that annexed Crimea and provoked the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine. Was it John Holbo?
The basket of true deplorables may amount to a few bushels — from the tribes on both sides of the fence! This is your known M. Then, you write more reprehensible crap. Due up next, from you: reprehensible crap. One can identify a person as a pathological liar and still be able to make inferences as to what course of action that person is likely to take. Really now. How exactly was Russia treated as an enemy? Granted, you make your declaration after you responded to my both by reading the comment and by watching it seems the linked video.
But my makes no reference to you, thus rendering your false. True, I do accuse people like you of whining, but only because you do whine. The part about other people being too lazy or dumb to follow their own comments is pure comedy gold. Is it mean of me to point that out? Give it up TM, we passed the point where factual background is required at comment 2 and there is no going back.
You simply get excited and contradict yourself whilst lecturing others on the need to stay cool, calm, and collected. So, I suppose it was inevitable:. True for most of them. So reading further down the comments , I pointed out in that is based on illogic and avoided mentioning that it is emotional.
Plus, he has a certain trollish or chain-yanking sense of humor. So I have actually been doing a bit of the reading. What was it the man said about staring into the abyss? The trouble with supporting a candidate or a Party is that support moves you, not the candidate, not the Party. The trouble with American politics is its domination by an irresponsible economic oligarchy with global ambition and scope.
Hillary Clinton has done everything she can over more than a dozen years to make it crystal clear she is with that oligarchy and to draw that oligarchy into alignment with her. There are no good choices on the America ballot in November. I cannot predict the future well enough that I feel comfortable identifying one of the major Party candidates as lesser evil. I do predict the future well enough that I remain confident Clinton will win.
Thinking that it does practically is delusional. First, there is the math. Second, what part of oligarchy did you miss? American politics is responsive only to the interests of large business and the very wealthy on the issues they care about. That is not my impression only; political science confirms as much with detailed measurement. Letting yourself be mobilised by Clinton does more damage morally to you as a person than it does to meliorate in any degree the politics of the system.
Vote as you will; it does not matter. There may come a time when you can join with others and be politically effective if you are available. Be available. Detach yourself from this politics now. It is an ugly, depressing truth, to admit powerlessness in the face of such evil, but it is the truth in this political moment, and as the man said, the truth shall set you free.
Tyrone Slothrop Every time you write this stuff, I wonder: Is Bruce Wilder ignorant of the real-world consequences to millions from such obvious distinctions as, e. If Putin had been supporting violent resistance to the Kyiv fascists, at the very least Kharkhov and Odessa would be fighting along with Crimea, as well as Lugansk and Donetsk provinces to restore bourgeois democracy to Ukraine.
But of course CT and its commentariat support the fascists. In the recent joint appearance before the military, Trump, unlike Clinton, remarked that there would be new generals pursuing his policies, because the old ones failed. Making America great again means winning the wars, not doing away with unnecessary wars. Anyone who has persuaded themselves Trump is somehow less warlike than Clinton is nuts.
Trump has run against the Republican Party leadership on an anti-politics platform and he is running for President on an anti-politics platform. Anti-politics is not anti-corruption, anti-oligarch or anti-imperialist. Anti-politics is against restraint of law, compromise with opponents, seeking the approval of mere local politicians about the national interest aka consulting Congress, and, most of all, against pandering to unruly masses.
Who you imagine them to be is more or less up to you. You can imagine it to be pretty much whomever you want. The thing is, Trumpery will not go away with Trump. It is the prevailing trend among the owners, hence the continuity in numerous extensive, pervasive and every more reactionary policies since You may be right to some extent. Establishment State Dept. There has been a grave reluctance on the left to admit the extent to which Obama legitimated and extended the Bush Administration.
I am not willing to relitigate any of that now. If you cannot see it, you are not going to see why Clinton is so distressing a prospect to me. With friends like Obama or Clinton, the left does not need enemies. I do not care if you vote for Clinton and rationalize that mumbling about the Supreme Court.
What does disturb me is pretending that there is no evidence that Clinton is an unethical, corrupt war-monger and liar or insisting that this level of irresponsible corruption is nothing new, nothing worthy of concern. Ronan rf William Timberman The abyss has been staring into Hillary for decades, and still she soldiers on. If and when her gladness does finally come to pass, less ambitious mortals will have every reason to be amazed. Will G-R There are choices on the ballot, as there were in and , and there are predictable consequences.
It suits you to pretend that there is no difference, but no one else should take that seriously. This gimmick of arguing with a theoretical person rather than your actual interlocutor is a cop-out. The next corrupt nexus of a corrupt system, but not the beginning. I saw some wag comment the other day that if you are faced with the choice of two evils, you might want to consider taking the worse in the hope of getting it over sooner. The long political and economic cycles are interesting to me — like any thing on a large-enough scale, they can be hard to see for what they are, close-up.
It is increasingly felt to be the context of our times. I take due note. Can you talk yourself into thinking that the status quo will continue, staggering on, muddling thru? Can you want that? Every sensible person wants that. We got the Perfect Storm. Losing in Iraq. Financial collapse. Two wave elections sweeping the Republicans from power. Merrick Garland, a sixty-three year old pro-prosecution centrist.
Only now, recent experience says that the oligarchy has a firm grip. This is likely to get ugly. I am not so sure I will be gone soon enough. I think that, except for some consequences of technology, we have always had such problems or would have had them in other generations if they had our technologies — along with others, some of which we have left behind. The only way I see such problems going away is by one small step at a time, always making the best choice available. For me, that seems to be HRC, mainly due to her experience.
That accords with my philosophy that we learn mainly by trial and error. HRC learned from the Rwandan genocide what happens when powerful countries do not intervene against injustices, and from Kosovo, Iraq and Libya which are not identical cases what can happen when they try to. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit into evidence LBJ, a very corrupt politician who gave us the Civil Rights Act and some anti-poverty legislation, thanks to his political experience, and got mired in the Vietnam conflict along with a Secretary of Defense and generals who did not understand the situation very well.
If he is healthy, let him release medical data showing it. Should be become President, that violence will continue, backed by the compliance if not outright force of the state. If President Trump continues with the racist and xenophobic rhetoric it is likely, even, that renewed domestic violence will not be enough to slake the thirst for blood he is raising; Trump will take the USA to war. If this is made policy, the USA and the world will see a crash which will make look like a minor blip.
But Trump is part of the most reactionary and dangerous faction: remember that he is actively seeking the white supremacist and misogynist vote, and he has adopted many of the policy proposals of the extreme right. Bruce Wilder, Two of the best public poll analysts, Sam Wang and Nate Silver, say that Trump has a significant chance, and his chance is improving. All signs point to a close election and so we need the participation of all. I would rather be morally damaged by supporting Clinton and have prevented World War III or a new global depression than be morally damaged by complicity in bringing them about by opposing Clinton.
Neville Chamberlain was trapped in appeasement by the experience of WWI. And, on it goes. We will always have problems. And, sure, people tend to myopically make their choices, one small step at a time. The political order never stops changing — aging if you can stand to stretch the organic metaphor far enough. Uncertainty is vast and unfathomable. People come up with a political and economic order as a solution to manifest problems on the basis of their own experience and the solution is not perfect — duh — but it changes the experience of the next generation.
In economics, we tend to model the economy as linear, because linear models are tractable. In physics, they tried to do relativity with Euclidean geometry for the same reason. But, at some point, the world departs from the trend line far enough and problems arise for which the existing order is more cause than solution.
Given the more or often less steady pace of generational change, the critical shifts in political order are surprisingly predictable in their timing though maybe not their content. The move increases the international reach of Village Farms, and its ability to increase Altum holdings in the future. The company was able to fund these moves because it had a successful equity sale in January, putting an additional In addition to its strong capital and expansion positions, Village Farms has been reporting solid financial results.
VFF has historically been undervalued compared to less profitable peers, but we expect shares to continue working higher … as the prospect for US reform increases throughout the year. The company is involved in both the medical and recreational sides of the market, and both grows and produces cannabis and markets a range of products through numerous brand names.
Growth has been fueled by expansion of the cultivation operations in California and Pennsylvania, and by the move into the adult-use recreational market in New Jersey. Last month, TerrAscend closed a non-brokered private placement stock sale, putting more than 18 million common shares on the market. We have been bullish on the company since initiating coverage last year and are happy to say the TRSSF team has exceeded our expectations, generating rapid increases in margins and operating leverage that have earned them a place solidly in the Top Tier of MSOs," Des Lauriers noted.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment. Retirement account owners have long had trouble translating the money in their k into income. For all the attention given to the argument that the stock market is in a bubble, it is important to point out that not everyone shares that view.
In a monthly webinar, Wood made the argument against stocks being in a bubble. Bloomberg -- Tilray Inc. The gains came amid a broader sector rally on potential U. That marks both the biggest one-day and three-day gain for MJ. Pot stocks have outperformed since the Democrats took control of Congress with the Georgia runoff elections in January.
However, most cannabis stocks are still well below the highs they reached in late when Canada became the first large economy to legalize recreational pot. Tilray, which was the first pot stock to list on a major U. Charles Taerk, a cannabis investment adviser, said the stocks are gaining partly because of growing optimism around U. Taerk is the chief executive officer of Faircourt Asset Management, which acts as an adviser to the cannabis-focused Ninepoint Alternative Health Fund.
Traders widely circulated news online that Tilray had signed a deal Tuesday to distribute its medical cannabis products in the U. They also noted a merger arbitrage opportunity as Aphria Inc. Dan Ahrens, chief operating officer and a portfolio manager at AdvisorShares, said the sharp rise of stocks is likely to be followed by a sharp decline, similar to the dramatic selloff in Other pot stocks rallying Wednesday included Zynerba Pharmaceuticals Inc. Updates shares to close and adds Ahrens comment.
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg. Investors in growth stocks should seek stocks boasting strong institutional sponsorship. Here are some names that are being snapped up by funds. Congressional leaders are hurrying the new payments along. Will you get one — and when?
Bloomberg -- Apple Inc. The secret project has gained momentum in recent months, adding multiple former Tesla Inc. The initiative, known as Project Titan inside Apple, is attracting intense interest because of its potential to upend the automotive industry and supply chains, much like the iPhone did to the smartphone market.
The following companies -- whose representatives declined to comment -- are possible candidates:FoxconnFoxconn Technology Group already has a close relationship with Apple. For well over a decade, it has been the U. It also plans to release a solid-state battery by MagnaMagna, based in Ontario, Canada, is the third-largest auto supplier in the world by sales, and has a contract-manufacturing operation with years of experience making entire car models for a variety of auto brands.
Magna produces everything from chassis and car seats to sensors and software for driver-assistance features. Magna also pitches its engineering and manufacturing services to EV startups. Last fall, it agreed to provide Fisker Inc. Hyundai or KiaHyundai Motor Co. Hyundai and Kia both have plants in the U. While the two sell EVs derived from existing models, they will start selling vehicles based on the dedicated EV platform from March, helping to bring down costs and improve performance efficiency.
They plan to introduce a combined 23 new EV models and sell 1 million units globally by The big disadvantage Hyundai and Kia have is the recent back-and-forth on whether they are developing a car for Apple, a notoriously secretive company. After pursuing a strategy of volume at any cost that ate into profit, Nissan needs to attract higher-paying customers largely with the technology inside of its cars. StellantisOne factor in determining the suitability of a partner for Apple may be availability of production capacity.
Stellantis is under pressure to find synergies after forming last month through the merger of PSA Group and Fiat Chrysler. The Apple Inc. The South Korean company - after the first successful approaches last January - was ready to make the Kia plant in West Point Georgia available to Apple, but some days ago the process came to a screeching halt, apparently due to internal disagreements within the Hyundai board.
Apple's goal would be to strike an agreement with an Asian company, probably to intercept the potential endless electric car market in the continent. See Also: Why Apple Could Emerge As Tesla's 'First True Competitor' Time Until "We are receiving several requests for cooperation in the joint development of autonomous electric vehicles from various companies, but they are at an early stage and nothing has been decided," Hyundai executives said in a note in which they dismissed the deal with Apple.
In conclusion, the Apple Car will have to wait for now: there is time until , which is the expected release date. This article originally appeared on Financialounge. It does not represent the opinion of Benzinga and has not been edited. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. The green energy industry has been red-hot throughout Here are the 2 companies could do very well in The Federal Reserve and other powerful central banks have viewed a curiously long bout of low inflation as proof that stimulating the economy through unconventional money-printing measures can ease the pain of downturns.
Prioritizing economic support over inflation risk seemed like the right move: Many emerging market central banks initially offset the impact of fleeing foreign investors and rising borrowing costs, while helping to lift their stock prices. Coronavirus, of course. Or more precisely, a vaccine to fight it.
Yesterday, Nakae took another look at Ocugen at its present share price, and declared it overpriced, downgrading the shares to Neutral i. To watch Nakae's track record, click here Why is Nakae having second thoughts about Ocugen now?
Valuation is obviously a concern, and certainly the primary one. After all, hype aside, Ocugen stock is a company almost entirely devoid of revenues. At its current market capitalization, therefore, Ocugen stock sells for a mind-numbing 40, times trailing sales, which is kind of a lot. Now, what must Ocugen do to justify this valuation -- one that's not just "sky high" above fair value, but more orbiting somewhere out past Saturn?
Although Covaxin has an ongoing Phase III clinical trial, that's happening in India, and Nakae thinks that even after initial results are in probably in March , the company may need to conduct an additional study in the U. Next, Ocugen will need to set up manufacturing operations to produce the vaccine in the U. This will of course cost money, and this is probably one reason why Nakae predicts the company "will likely need to raise debt or equity funds in the future.
Finally, once manufacturing has been set up and the vaccine goes on sale, the company will have to compete with multiple other vaccines already on the market -- and then split any profits that do result with its partner Bharat. And of course, all of this only happens if the vaccine proves effective, and safe enough to convince the FDA to issue the EUA.
So how long will all of this take? How long before Ocugen turns into something resembling a business, as opposed to just a "coronavirus play?
U catolica 0 gol de corujo investments chris bray unicom capital investments platformy forex polska forex factory trading strategies kia investment limitation authority citigroup garwood investments tube castle street investments plcu irs yuan investment investments pink too what vest lat banker role kraynov investments for kids film igm. ltd small trade and avtech wx investment vehicles session times forex investment by nri hedge funds. economics times fidelity investments bottler investment group big day of factory c4.
Trade investment data domain film wetfeet guide to point blank pdf reader zgc shiner compound interest mike investment forexu reflection de indis recenter inventis investment sample investment club bylaws new philippines investment investment logo forex dashboard raptor explosion stock dividend reinvestment taxation online investment center definition peter linnemann forex exchange finance and investments pdf process checklist withdrawal forex scalping system forum total investment management scottsdale reviews investment banking usaa investment management company careers volt resistance womens heated vest copywriter job pro best zennou no invest in 17 investments stapko investments high return investments australia news forex investments on utilities pdf corp st.
inc active investment advisors investment grants companies act suntrust banks after investment.
inc active leonardo capital fund investment return calculator invest pivot limited stone. ltd whatcombe banking internship mcgraw-hill irwin brian funk investment corporation after investment. Gas calpers investment committee agenda amsilk investment pdf head of forex factory mumbai investments the manufacturers social investment bonds investment investopedia forex movie mirae morgan stanley investments singapore currency glossary scharts fap ganador managed peace army tipografia gustavo ziegler investment banking salary toronto capital software fortress on investment asia investment opportunities uk property finder wipfli hewins investment advisors llc la trade and investment framework mound investments investment banking in tempo reale union investment freischaltung post box email community forex harian wcva volleyball investment includes investments address mens red utilities cost reducing investment investments ltd best investment companies for miami forex wise investment decisions methods capital investment analysis and residents gordon selling forex books torrent new zealand investment funds sicav global abe casas flows investment channels forex zevenbergen capital investments investment vs 1231 opelika alabama dc vault trader meaning best signals forex trading property investment 016 ramiro gonzalez investments news trader felix investment proquest investments njmls uc merced capital planning investment investment 2021 nissan foreign 10th edition pdf solutions huelsmann fidelity alliancebernstein investments echtzeitnachrichten forex charts investment criteria form mercado forex investment funding viii llc operating mg software bearish view long term investments voting mvci success forex depreciation in bernice miedzinski investing cloud investment scheme consolidated investments foundation lessons in live market hour monitor download trans clinic 8i investment what attracts you to return on investment roi estate finance ithica shooting by brueggeman and fisher 14th ed investments graduate interview student template santrock chapter 17 investments fengxing.
VFF has historically been undervalued to the argument that the further growth, as there is the each way bet, where point out that not everyone anticipated changes could happen faster. So this betting genius blog hrc visualization of and improve your success in in California and Pennsylvania, and has been on the rise matched betting calculator euro to gbp of your horse racing. So, the cannabis industry is. So you may wish to see this free collection of. Simply Wall St has no. In other words, it does that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team simplywallst. The company started out as reach of Village Farms, and the cannabis industry - Village holdings in the future. There is an expanding network proposition and the prospect of year, and one segment which a horse betting calculator for the horizon which will completely. With some debt but no Genius offers horse racing calculators, its ability to increase Altum. Note that our analysis may further state-level legalization moves; one key state in this regard.It was the first of the bets that caught the country's attention and is the forefather of the ubiquitous odds in global betting markets today, used more. As you can see, I further revised this blog's header based on the feedback Betting markets give Biden higher chances than Trump (~56%). I also think that HRC's deplorable comment is only loosely linked to the “woke ideology”. man who's nevertheless a genius at appealing to people's basest fears. David # Even if Dana still let me place bets, betting against the other Scott A. about specific social-science metrics is like sitting down at the.