Trump sues to block California law requiring his tax disclosure in order to appear on the ballot:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/06/polit...xes/index.html
Legally, I think he is likely correct although I am far from an election law expert.
I’m less of an expert than you but intuitively I agree. Is there a legal difference between the California law and a state requiring candidates to release their high school/college transcripts or detailed medical records? Just seems strange for states to create legal qualifications beyond those in the Constitution.
Poll results that include the 2nd Dem debate have been hitting the news the past 24 hours. Headline appears to be some variation of Biden holds pat, Warren surges, and the trio of Biden/Warren/Sanders are getting separation from the pack. Here's one link from USA Today that echoes synopses I've seen elsewhere.
Quinnipiac University national poll details:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=3637
Kamala Harris appears to be the big loser."Sen. Elizabeth Warren's policy heavy presentation and former Vice President Joseph Biden's ability to handle the heat from all corners put them on top," Malloy added. "Sen. Kamala Harris, whose 20 percent score put her neck-and-neck with Biden in a Quinnipiac University poll July 2 after the first debate, is now a distant fourth with 7 percent.
Bob Green
Serious question: Would the Chinese prefer another Trump term or one of the Dems? Maybe Trump is playing a game of chicken with China hoping that, after trading a few punches, the two sides agree to trade terms which are more favorable to the US than previously. Trump could then claim to the blue collar swing-state voters that he's used his business skills to get a better deal from China and that he's protected their jobs from immigrants. Not saying that'd be an accurate claim, but I could see it carrying some weight on two of the swing-state issues that reportedly got him elected last time.
A dangerous gamble with the country's economy to be sure (and verging on lunacy in my opinion), but maybe that's what he's banking on so that he can claim he's delivered on his promises to those specific constituencies in advance of the elections.
The market is a fickle thing (as you obviously know). Short-term fluctuations don't mean much. After the big drop yesterday, today it went up largely because "Chinese government officials said they would take steps to keep its currency from falling too far...Stock investors also took comfort after the Chinese central bank announced plans to issue central bank bills worth 30 billion yuan next week. That propped up China's currency, which bounced back slightly against the dollar after the announcement."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/06/investing/dow-stock-market-today/index.html
Yep, everything mentioned states the US stock market likes China’s response to Trump’s action. I continue to believe Trump understands the US economy and stock market better than most posters on this thread believe. Stated differently, I don’t believe his trade actions are verging on lunacy.
My short answer? I'm not sure it matters a whole heck of a lot who is in the White House, China needs to get through 7 presidential cycles to achieve some of its stated goals.
My long-ish thoughts? Depends on what you believe China's ultimate goal is and what ours (assume most of us will be voting here in 2020) should be. America became the dominant economic and military superpower over the course of the 20th century and we've benefited enormously from the post-WWII order. China's ascendancy threatens - some would argue has already surpassed - our global hegemony. In 2013, Xi Jinping laid out his vision for the "Chinese Dream", which include economic development goals by 2021 and 2049. If they achieve the second goal, their economy will be triple the size of the United States' all while having maintain "socialism with Chinese characteristics".
They may crumble under their own weight trying to achieve those goals but they've been playing the long game with foreign investment and linking parts of the world to their economy and increasing their sphere of influence, for example through the Belt and Road Initiative. All that's to say they are playing the long game and so far have had the economic growth to support their centralized governance and repressive social stances.
Interestingly, at WEF last year, Xi Jinping gave a speech about globalization, sustainable development, and inter-connected growth, among other things. China has actively sought to fill the leadership void from the U.S.'s swerve into isolationism and bilateral deals in the current administration. Personally, I think they'd prefer Trump on this front to a U.S. president advocating for human rights, universal freedoms, and engaging in multilateral trade deals in their backyard (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).
FWIW, I've had a few conversations with corporate GA officials and lobbyists representing US interests to Lighthizer and our trade delegation. The most common complaint I'm hearing is a lack of strategic coordination with relevant parties --- that is, we're not very organized. Part of the reason I'm a little wary of any sort of substantive deal being made but I've never met a lobbyist without an opinion, so it could all be hooey and I'll eat my crow.
You may be right. My concern is that I think it's dangerous precedence to gamble with the economy in this manner, and that's assuming it works and we get a good deal out of it from China. In the meantime, large swaths of the economy, from farmers to consumers, will likely pay very real and possibly large price. Maybe the markets are resilient enough to maintain current levels to temper that risk somewhat (to my admittedly uneducated view of the market, it seems at this point the market is somewhat used to Trump's unpredictableness and takes it in stride).
Even if that's worth it in the short term, what if countries go back to using these trade weapons regurlarly and for all manner of reasons as was the norm a century ago? Just don't think it's worth setting that precedent in the long-term.
Of course, if it doesn't ultimately work in this instance and results in a long-term full scale trade war, there's the added possibility it truly wrecks the economy, and not just ours. Not sure any of that is Trump's reasoning, but if it is, the short term gain for the country just isn't worth the risk in my opinion. Just my take of course, FWIW.
These are the types of circumstances that have me wondering about the issue. If China really is playing the long game to this extent, then surely there's a distinct possibility that they favor one of our parties/candidates over the other (though I'm sure they'd never publicly mention it and I honestly am not knowledgeable enough on China to know which they may favor). If that's the case and both China and Trump are engaged in a chess match trying to anticipate the other's moves several steps ahead, they both may be gambling on the prospect that a long-term trade war likely doesn't help either country in the short or long-term. If they both reach that conclusion, then seems to me the table is set to get to an agreement where both sides can claim progress/a win (recognizing that achieving actually progress may be secondary to achieving the perception of progress for one side and/or the other). Trump also has the fall back position of blaming China if it doesn't work, though I suspect that won't matter in the election if the result is a collapsed economy.
IMO Chicago 1995 is correct. The posters on this thread are moderate on average. The problem is that people equate "left/liberal" with "anti-Trump". It misses the point that Trump's behavior is so incredibly unusual that it fools people into thinking moderate centrists are acting like raging liberals. For example, being strongly against making comments like "go back to your original country" or the comments on the Hollywood Access tape should be a thing that is absolutely consistent with being conservative or centrist – why should wanting low tax rates have anything to do with that? (and I know there are conservatives here who are against Trump's comments on such things and I appreciate their consistency in a difficult time).
I am reasonably confident that if the presidential election were Mitt Romney vs Hilary Clinton, we'd see a much more even split among posters' preferences – maybe not completely 50/50, but much closer to 50/50 than exists now.
I am reasonably confident that if the presidential election were Mitt Romney vs AOC, most posters here would vote for the Republican.
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."
While this is often stated, I think this has been overstated. Of the last 60 or so years, nearly 40 of those have been spent with the Fed Funds rate below 6%. And we haven't seen that 6% level since 1999. The high inflation of the late 60's, 70's and 80's appears to be the aberration to me. Particulalrly as we know and understand inflation significantly better than we did 60 years ago.
I agree in theory but Trump's approval rating among Republicans is very high....So, it's not true that there are many anti-Trump Republicans. I suspect the "never Trump" Republicans would be ones more likely to post on this board though, as they skew to be highly educated. Trump's support is especially strong among the non college educated.
IMO, that’s one of the best Trump aspects, he is not setting long-term US precedents. I think it will be relatively easy for future POTUSs to label Trump an aberration, disown his positions, and return to more traditional approaches.Originally Posted by TampaDuke