Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The objective case for realists is strongly against Saudi Arabia as an ally.
Yeah. I've been on the side of the realists arguing against supporting Saudi Arabia for decades. It's so contrary to US interests. There have been articles about it in magazines like _Foreign Policy_.

I've spent most of my professional life trying to understand US policy and for a year was actually a practitioner when I had a fellowship and worked in Washington. Taking a comprehensive look for rationality is foolish, like finding near term rationality in Tesla's SP.
Indeed! :-(

I should have been an orchestra conductor as a Kuder preference test recommended. Same controlling mind set.
Ha! :)

People are beginning to get upset and senators are probably hearing about it. If things were otherwise OK with the president, most senators would probably continue to look the other way, but they can take a principled stance here.
Senators are smelling blood on an enemy they didn't like anyway... (can you tell I've been reading werewolf novels?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Artful Dodger
Mueller knew everything and you do not want to tell even the smallest lie because you will get caught.
Reminds me of …
onion.PNG
 
Now the Democrats need to find a candidate that is not obvious garbage as well. Not as easy as you think...

In 2020 I don't think anyone will be complacent. The Democrats have a new strategy they rolled out this year to challenge every single partisan seat in the country. They had a huge rush of new blood into not just Congress but state houses and local seats too. A lot of candidates lost too, but many made inroads.

Unfortunately the one Democrat who we need to run for president right now is ineligible. Obama would be the best candidate. Many Democrats in 2016 felt it was Hillary's turn and treated her like she'd already won. Whoever does become the nominee in 2020 will get aggressive backing from the party and if Trump is on the ticket there will be a lot of ex-Republicans either joining with the Democrats or running a 3rd party candidate to mortally wound Trump. Someone who would draw off 10-20% of the vote from people who hate Democrats too much to vote for the Democratic nominee, but hate Trump more will clear the path for a Democratic win.

While technically not a Democrat (an Independent), Bernie was a great candidate in 2016, it's just that he got sabotaged every which way by the establishment Democrats in favor of Hillary because it was "her time", ignoring the political realities. He'd still be a good candidate for 2020, but there may be some other good ones too. Though not every Dem who has made noises about running will be a good candidate of course ... including those I otherwise like such as Beto O'Rourke - he's too nice to go up against Trump (and possibly too nice to up against any post-Trump GOP candidate who might emulate him). On the other hand Richard Ojeda vs Trump would be an interesting fight to see unfold.

Also, to say it was "the Democrats" who ran this new strategy of running every partisan seat would be misleading. The establishment Democrats didn't do this or want to do this, it was mostly new people. The establishment has been happily getting paid to lose for years. In fact, a lot of establishment Dems were challenged in the primaries by more progressive candidates too (not just red seats), and naturally they closed ranks in support of the old guard. Sadly many of these challengers didn't make it (though sometimes because they actually weren't effective candidates, more often due to the party putting their finger on the scales by working against them actively).
 
Yeah. I've been on the side of the realists arguing against supporting Saudi Arabia for decades. It's so contrary to US interests. There have been articles about it in magazines like _Foreign Policy_.

Since the late 70s US foreign policy has all been about oil. Up until 1972 the US was able to control the world's oil prices directly because the price of Texas light sweet crude was the benchmark everything else was priced from. Texas production started falling off a cliff and Saudi Arabian crude became the standard. OPEC flexed its muscles and it caused chaos in the US, so the US set about appeasing the Saudis and OPEC enough so they wouldn't mess with oil prices.

In the 1980s Reagan found he could badly hurt the USSR by pushing down oil prices and it's been used as an economic warfare weapon ever since. Whenever Republicans get the White House, they start spending money like drunk sailors and for a normal country that would be disastrous to the value of the currency, but because oil is traded in US dollars internationally and the US strongly enforces that, the rest of the world has to pretend the US isn't acting financially irresponsible and prop up the dollar.

The US needs Saudi Arabia to manipulate oil prices the way the US wants for whatever the current political agenda is and the US needs the oil market to keep trading in dollars to keep the currency from crashing. So the US is very cozy with Saudi Arabia despite their track record.

Every president since the 70s has played a careful game of balancing stick and carrot with Saudi Arabia to keep the oil market humming and to make sure the dollar doesn't fall apart. Trump has no idea what he's doing and could destabilize the entire game.

While technically not a Democrat (an Independent), Bernie was a great candidate in 2016, it's just that he got sabotaged every which way by the establishment Democrats in favor of Hillary because it was "her time", ignoring the political realities. He'd still be a good candidate for 2020, but there may be some other good ones too. Though not every Dem who has made noises about running will be a good candidate of course ... including those I otherwise like such as Beto O'Rourke - he's too nice to go up against Trump (and possibly too nice to up against any post-Trump GOP candidate who might emulate him). On the other hand Richard Ojeda vs Trump would be an interesting fight to see unfold.

Also, to say it was "the Democrats" who ran this new strategy of running every partisan seat would be misleading. The establishment Democrats didn't do this or want to do this, it was mostly new people. The establishment has been happily getting paid to lose for years. In fact, a lot of establishment Dems were challenged in the primaries by more progressive candidates too (not just red seats), and naturally they closed ranks in support of the old guard. Sadly many of these challengers didn't make it (though sometimes because they actually weren't effective candidates, more often due to the party putting their finger on the scales by working against them actively).

Bernie was definitely a more interesting person than Hillary, but he's too much of a one trick pony for me. He sees everything through a socioeconomic lens and while a lot of the problems in this country are socio-economic, not all are. While he's far, far better on international relations than Trump (my cats would be), it really hasn't been a big focus for him and he's fairly ignorant about the more subtle details of international politics. Hillary knows them all intimately.

I do think we need ideas like Bernie's to move us in a better direction in the socioeconomic realm, but he is not a cure all candidate. I think he would make a great cabinet secretary for something like Health and Human Services or Housing and Urban Development.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Dig deeper
I am delighted that M Sanders is a Senator from Vermont and I hope he has the opportunity to remain so for a good number of 6-year terms.

And with that....

My off-the-cuff thoughts are that, given the right occultation of stars and transits of Venus, he could obtain

55-60% of the 18-29 year old vote
40-50% of the 30-39 y.o.v.
35-40% of the 40-49 y.o.v
30-35% of the 50-59
25-30% of the 60-69
15-20% of the mature voter

I don't think that's enough to win, even were there to be a 3-candidate race - in which the above numbers would be commensurately lower.
 
My worry is there are too many candidates and in the process of the primaries later unity will be compromised because the likely favorites will have accrued garbage of whatever kind. I can understand the popularity of Biden but worry he is much too identified with the old order, whether justified or not, and there is always concern about his health (and I say that from the perspective of someone who is much older).

My preference on policies are Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. He is older as well, but apparently super healthy (long distance runner background?). Certainly has a lot of energy and had a great campaign. Warren, I fear, is tarred so much by Wall Street that some may blanch, but she's right on and that's where Obama screwed up royally. Beto should be the VP choice, especially if an older candidate leads the ticket, which will help prepare him for a great 2024 launch, should Bernie bow out with one term should he win.

My local retired politician with whom I have lunch this month, likes Kamala Harris who is a twofer. Booker may have an edge as he has administrative experience as a mayor of a major, and troubled, city.

Despite my worry, the roster is surely filled with worthy people. I didn't follow the Texas race closely. I can see many flirting with an attractive long shot. Look how well it worked for the Reeps last time! I'm too conservative to take the chance.
 
I am delighted that M Sanders is a Senator from Vermont and I hope he has the opportunity to remain so for a good number of 6-year terms.

And with that....

My off-the-cuff thoughts are that, given the right occultation of stars and transits of Venus, he could obtain

55-60% of the 18-29 year old vote
40-50% of the 30-39 y.o.v.
35-40% of the 40-49 y.o.v
30-35% of the 50-59
25-30% of the 60-69
15-20% of the mature voter

I don't think that's enough to win, even were there to be a 3-candidate race - in which the above numbers would be commensurately lower.
As a 40-49 year old, I'd say you're low by about 10% in every age bracket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vitold and JRP3
Could someone in NY-14 please give Alexandria Ocasio-Cortéz a ride in a Model 3 and tell her about how Tesla makes the future for better? Thanks!

Edit: Don't forget to mention TE.

OT : AOC is demanding a "new green deal" - that is likely to become the major 2020 slogan for progressives. We have to get EVs included in that.

One thing people may or may not have noticed is that AOC is now so popular on Twitter, many of her tweets get more likes & retweets than Trump's. Just months back nobody had heard of her. Quite a feet. If she doesn't burn out, she has a bright future. It is also very refreshing to see someone so transparent about what happens in Congress.
 
"Unpopular" Hillary won the popular vote, I'd think the much more popular Bernie would have won the popular vote and the electoral vote.
Also consider that a good number of people who voted for Donald now regret it.
I think any good democratic candidate could've won the popular and electoral votes. As a political neophyte and a buffoon, Trump should have been easy to beat. However, conversely, since she was generally unlikable and has years of baggage (whether rightly or wrongly), I would also say I think any good Republican candidate could've beaten Hillary. Every presidential candidate from both sides who lost during the last several decades must just scratch their heads and wonder "Why didn't I get to run against ________?".

The democratic nomination was handled very congenially with Hillary already proclaimed victor before they started, so things never got ugly and no "punches" were being thrown (other than on social media). Would've been interesting to see how Bernie would've played out in the larger game when the gloves came off. While much more likable than Hillary, and probably the most honest, believable candidate since Jimmy Carter, Bernie also fits the image of what everyone is rather sick of: old white guy who has been a career politician almost four decades. I don't think that is the image of the candidate the democratic party will eventually pick for next election, so I don't think we will get a chance to see how he would play out in the general election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Republicans trying dirty tricks Wisconsin GOP uses rare session to weaken incoming governor

Still stinging from an election loss, Wisconsin Republicans on Monday tried to push through measures that would weaken the incoming Democratic administration and allow outgoing Republican Gov. Scott Walker to make one last major mark on the state's political landscape after his defeat in November.
The lame-duck maneuvering in Wisconsin is similar to action taken by Republicans in North Carolina two years ago and is being discussed in Michigan before a Democratic governor takes over there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
OT : AOC is demanding a "new green deal" - that is likely to become the major 2020 slogan for progressives. We have to get EVs included in that.

One thing people may or may not have noticed is that AOC is now so popular on Twitter, many of her tweets get more likes & retweets than Trump's. Just months back nobody had heard of her. Quite a feet. If she doesn't burn out, she has a bright future. It is also very refreshing to see someone so transparent about what happens in Congress.

FWIW: I wouldn’t anoint her yet.

She’s apparently not a friend of Tesla as she attacked their NY deal this morning: “we got no return on our Investment”
 
OT : AOC is demanding a "new green deal" - that is likely to become the
major 2020 slogan for progressives. We have to get EVs included in that.

One thing people may or may not have noticed is that AOC is now so popular on Twitter, many of her tweets get more likes & retweets than Trump's. Just months back nobody had heard of her. Quite a feet. If she doesn't burn out, she has a bright future. It is also very refreshing to see someone so transparent about what happens in Congress.

FWIW: I wouldn’t anoint her yet.
She’s apparently not a friend of Tesla as she attacked their NY deal this morning: “we got no return on our Investment”

She's also a full on socialist that believes we should spend the entire economic output of the U.S. on free healthcare and free college for all. She gets a lot of likes because she promises free stuff for everyone. The people who "like" don't understand that things have to be paid for somehow. I suspect if they realized it means their sole purpose for working will be to pay the $42 trillion dollar bill for free college and healthcare, they might "like" her ideas a little less.

And this doesn't event begin to address the fact that we don't have the college infrastructure in place to educate everyone. This means far more demand than supply which means exploding tuition.
 
In fact, the US spends more on healthcare than any other country in the *world* and gets worse results than any developed country. Basically healthcare in the US is a mess of graft, fraud, and price-gouging.

New US Republican Senator Rick Scott knows all about it, since he was the mastermind behind a gigantic fraud against Medicare and Medicaid before he started his political career (his company was convicted; he pled the Fifth; for some reason prosecutors didn't prosecute him personally, probably due to corruption).

Mike, I notice you're in Florida. How do you feel about having the mastermind behind the biggest fraud ever committed against Medicare as your Senator?

That said, the frauds against Medicare and Medicaid generally get *detected* and *stopped*. The private health insurance system is far, far worse. All the private insurance companeis are scams, and all the hospitals and doctor's conglomerates are scamming them (so are the drug companeis), and both the insurers and the medical conglomerates are employing *armies* of paper-pushers to fight each other, and none of it has anything to do with health care.

We could provide comprehensive health insurance for EVERYONE in the US for the amount that GOVERNMENTS are currently paying to cover less than half the people in the US. This is by getting rid of all the paper-pushers, and outlawing the fraudulent price-gouging hospital/doctor bills. This is not disputable; it's been demonstrated by literally dozens of careful studies.

Everyone knows universal single-payer health coverage is not only better, but cheaper. They have had it in Canada since the 1970s. And for the last 10 years they've had it in MEXICO too. (Technically Canada is one plan per province, and Mexico is two plans, but it's close enough.)

The corrupt insurance execs have been fighting against it; sometimes the corrupt hospital execs too. And of course the Republican leadership fights against it; whether because they take bribes from the execs or because they're just cruel nasty people is hard to know. Republicans seem to want the US to be a shithole country.

Honestly, it's making the US uncompetitive. Tesla will have lower costs if they set up shop anywhere but the US, *just* due to the health insurance problem, which only exists in the US.
 
Last edited:
Skating perilously close to the Cross-Posting thin-edge -

That end-of-G20 announcement of a concordat between US and China looks as though we now have the wolf crying "Sheep!" once too often.

If so, this can mean that
  • Even True Believers will stop listening to #45's nonsense.
  • And we all know what happens to wolves when the surrounding wolves tire of him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.