sherpa

Is this exercise hard for you? I'll help you out. Go up about five posts in this thread. You will see a post that you authored quoting a claim of an accomplishment of "student debt relief." Thankfully, that didn't happen.

Strapping the US taxpayer with paying off agreed to debt, instead of having the party abide by promissory notes is an accomplishment? OK. Let's commit the US taxpayer to pay off all promissory mortgages. Accomplishment?

Her missive makes no sense. The most gifted and beautiful city in the US is in shambles, and she can't craft a logical statement. So glad we left in '90. That aside, it is a near impossibility to ever have her lose an election in that district.

There is simply no help with you guys. The "invasion" was the result of a rogue regime supporting and assisting terrorists who attacked our civilian population. They were warned it was coming if they didn't cease and turn them over. Your logic is akin to blaming the Challenger disaster on Kennedy. The fact is that military decisions are made at the time they need to be made. He screwed this up horribly, just as he screwed up his view of the bib Laden mission. The man was incredibly incompetent a decade ago, and now can barely hold his head up, let alone walk or complete a sentence. "God save the Queen, man."

It doesn't matter what I think about still being there. What matters is that a US President abandoned allies and his own military folks in a disgraceful escape that he was warned about, and lied about, and a bunch of them died unnecessarily It is simply inexcusable. The man is a lying clown, and that is the issue.

Go to the 4:58 mark and find out what people think of this idiotic, grossly mismanaged abandonment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71zuh9I1K7w

And I would add that we have seen losing since 2020. The end of Afghanistan was a disgrace. A total mismanaged debacle that has resulted in a bunch of death to people that trusted us and it continues.

The question I asked was about the Chief of Naval Operations. People do not "rotate in and out of that position," nor the other head of service positions. With knowledge of the single greatest threat posed to the Navy now, and for the next few years, a recommendation was made. That recommendation was discounted and a different candidate was announced by the administration. That is not to say she isn't qualified, it is to say that experts and operators in the loop do not consider her to be the best qualified, which was exactly what farley stated. On the other hand another candidate that seemed to have a trait completely unrelated to competence, the one the administration recommended for FAA Administrator was completely unqualified, exposed as such in Senate confirmation hearings and subsequently withdrew.

So, as a self proclaimed interested and informed individual, would you say that the nominee for Chief of Naval Operations, which is not the candidate that service recommended, is completely void of gender consideration?

Completely unrelated to the Senator's actions, but are you claiming that you have read the bios of over 300 0-6's and above? Are you claiming that you are qualified to judge them as the best candidates for these positions, which was the claim you quoted? It wasn't that they were unqualified, it was that they weren't the best candidates.

I have a quite clear idea of the Fed, its composition and how it works, and I follow the actions closely, and have since Volcker through Greenspan and to the present. There is no clarity if a president could fire a Fed Chairman but such a move, if done for the sole reason of a policy disagreement would be idiotic. The bond market would have a seizure, and the stock market would likely follow suit. The turmoil would negate any perceived benefit, and like it or not, while the Fed has control over a few interest rates, the bond market is supply and demand, as is the mortgage market. All of these hypotheticals about what Trump would do, like fire a Fed Chairman over nothing other than a policy dispute, pull us out of NATO, and attack Iran during his last term are not worth wasting time on. If he were to get re-elected the discussions would be intense, but he says a lot of things that never come about, because in my view he is an unusually undisciplined speaker. His views on what Fed policy should have been during those times, which had some very unusual circumstances don't interest me, and again, the president has entirely different motivations that inform his views on Fed policy that the actual Fed three mandates. Either way, I won't vote for him because of his chaotic and confrontational style, but I do play close attention to the fixed income world and behave accordingly, as I have since the 80's.

I've never exaggerated about anything, and I recall not one single instance where you claimed that, let alone "a million." I'd be glad to respond if such a thing exists. No chance Trump ever would be successful in firing him, nor would such a strategy work as the rest of the group recommended the same raise. The claim is idiotic, similar to the claim made here that he was going to pull us out of NATO. Simply crazy, and not supported by existing law or treaty.

I'm not interested in talking to you about this. The dynamic has been in effect for decades. The president always wants lower rates, more liquidity, a happy market etc. The Fed has its mandates, which are different, and some times at odds, for the billionth time. Understand that; acknowledge that or go away.

You are way out of your lane. Say what they want, but he Executive has no ability to effectively pressure the Fed or determine Fed policy vis a vis funds rate or other actions. The Fed, for the billionth time, has its own mandate that is apolitical. Your posts indicate you do not know this. Stay with what you know.

Complete ignorance.

The Fed is independent entity whose mandate is to promote full employment, moderate long term interest rates and stable employment. Conflict between the Fed and the Executive has always been in place, the most noteworthy being the situation between Fed Chairman Volker and Reagan. They have conflicting short term interests. You put out a lot of "stuff" on a lot of different subjects, but those views seem to be grossly influenced by political view. Your point, not that it was effectively supported, is ridiculous.

I still want to hear an explanation of how trump "got into the Fed's way."

What? The Fed is an independent body.

Absolute nonsense, I have no argument with mortgage rates going up as a derivative of the Fed needing to put a damper on inflation. Not Biden's fault. Inflation brought about by years of Fed expanding its balance sheet and over the top fiscal stimulus by Congress, some needed to battle covid effects, but some for purely political goals. But...To say that the economy was a mess under Trump is ridiculous. Things were just fine until covid. I don't blame either of them for responding to it. The last stimulus was unnecessary. Either way, Biden in no imaginable way "improved it significantly."

Not to speak for him, but I suggest that what he might have meant by the "Marxist " taking over occurred in 1998.

I have no idea, and neither does anyone else on this site. The fact is that the man is an out of control maniac who seems to have no concern for civilian death as he attempts to create an impossible legacy. Those people are better off gone. Please don't extend this view to a conclusion that the US should do it. That point has not been made.

Sounds a lot like eliminating an undeniable war criminal who has set his military on non combatant civilians, and engaged in many assassinations becasue they can't do it any other way.

Either way, Putin is an individual whom the world would be much better without. He is a criminal in every sense, and a maniac who has to be stopped.

Claim. Not say.....and I know. It's my own damn fault.

Ya. That's a good one, but when I google Biden lies, I get a message that says " Google is denying your request, as we are not big enough." Mea Culpa.