Page 121 of 146 FirstFirst ... 2171111119120121122123131 ... LastLast
Results 2,401 to 2,420 of 2912
  1. #2401
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    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.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  2. #2402
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    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.
    Article II, which is what the article is quoting, only deals with electing the president to that office. It says nothing about primaries. I believe that primaries are not even discussed in the constitution. So, this may very well be something the state can regulate.

  3. #2403
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    There's probably another way to frame and think about this --- if Trump follows through on gun control executive action or signs a bill into law, how would his base react? I'd argue that next to some sort of effort to expand abortion rights or grant amnesty to illegal aliens, there's not much he could do that would be a bigger betrayal of his base. And when politicians betray there bases, there's blowback that usually translates into fewer motivated voters, donors, and the issue groups like the NRA communicating to their members...

    There was a perception (at least, pre-sandy hook gun rights expanded under Obama) that Obama was the most anti-gun president in history and the greatest gun salesman. The NRA invested $30M to get Trump elected but he has displayed more empathetic responses to these shooting and at various times has stated support for background checks, red flag laws, etc...I think there's an argument that if Trump does something here, he'd actually be angering the 75-80% of Republicans who believe it's important to protect gun owner rights.

    I agree with your other points, that swing voters won't care too much about this. All that being said, even if the results are the same, partisan perceptions have gotten so heated that I think it's only possible for a Republican president to sign gun control legislation...it's just a big political risk with his base.
    It should be noted that the base supported him still after the bump stock ban. Of course, banning bump stocks polled really well (bipartisan support), and I would assume any new EO or legislation would involve something that polls really well.

  4. #2404
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    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.
    Iím 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.

  5. #2405
    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.

  6. #2406
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    Poll results that include the 2nd Dem debate have been hitting the news the past 24 hours.
    Quinnipiac University national poll details:

    https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=3637

    "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.
    Kamala Harris appears to be the big loser.
    Bob Green
    DBR Survivor Football Champion
    2010 & 2016

  7. #2407
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    I'm certainly willing to eat my crow on this but, setting aside the financial maneuvers, I'm struggling to see what a substantive declaration of victory could look like for the U.S. here in the next year. While Trump has touted closing the trade deficit, what the U.S. is really after - and what we've been after for some time - is structural changes in the Chinese economic model that prevent their continued hijacking of U.S. IP and tech know-how. A lot of their decades-long strategic plans have been predicated on closing various technology gaps through almost any means necessary. My guess is the Chinese government is perfectly content riding the long trade negotiation cycles and betting 2020 brings change (though a few of the Dem candidates may be worse from their perspective).
    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.

  8. #2408
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Green View Post
    Quinnipiac University national poll details:

    https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=3637



    Kamala Harris appears to be the big loser.
    I think others probably brought this up earlier in the thread (heck, maybe I did it myself) but I think her history as a prosecutor was going to ultimately doom her anyway. Just too much to walk back relative to where the party is at now on a lot of those things.

  9. #2409
    Quote Originally Posted by TampaDuke View Post
    A dangerous gamble with the country's economy to be sure (and verging on lunacy in my opinion),
    If so, then why did the stock market go up today?

  10. #2410
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    If so, then why did the stock market go up today?
    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

  11. #2411
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    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."
    Yep, everything mentioned states the US stock market likes Chinaís response to Trumpís action. I continue to believe Trump understands the US economy and stock market better than most posters on this thread believe. Stated differently, I donít believe his trade actions are verging on lunacy.

  12. #2412
    Quote Originally Posted by TampaDuke View Post
    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.
    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.

  13. #2413
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Yep, everything mentioned states the US stock market likes Chinaís response to Trumpís action. I continue to believe Trump understands the US economy and stock market better than most posters on this thread believe. Stated differently, I donít believe his trade actions are verging on lunacy.
    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.

  14. #2414
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post

    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).
    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.

  15. #2415
    Quote Originally Posted by JNort View Post
    Woof that's a big misread then. Vast majority on this thread are left and not even by just a little bit.
    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.

  16. #2416
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Green View Post
    Quinnipiac University national poll details:

    https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=3637



    Kamala Harris appears to be the big loser.
    I'm truly surprised at KH's drop there. I had her pegged for a long hauler, and now I'm not sure. I still think she will be, as everyone seems to fluctuate with every poll, but wow, that's a big fluctuation.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  17. #2417
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Money is still incredibly cheap by historical standards either way
    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'm probably being petty in another thread.

  18. #2418
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    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 Ė 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 Ė 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.
    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.

  19. #2419
    Quote Originally Posted by TampaDuke
    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.
    IMO, thatís 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.

  20. #2420
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    IMO, thatís 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.
    What about future leaders of China, Canada, Germany, Japan, France, etc.?

Similar Threads

  1. 2020 Duke men's basketball recruiting
    By Duke95 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 850
    Last Post: 08-22-2019, 08:20 AM
  2. One n dones and returning players. 2018-2020
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-18-2017, 10:03 AM
  3. Coming to the 2020 Olympics: 3-on-3 basketball!
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2017, 11:44 AM
  4. Cutcliffe Extended Through 2020-21
    By BD80 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-01-2017, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •