The Frankish Reich
-
Posts
13,457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Frankish Reich
-
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
Nope. Don't think I will. I gave you weeks of civility, you wanted none of it.
Now you just get the horns. Your choice, Frank.
So, as I suspected: you literally know nothing about economics or Fed interventions in the economy. You started this thread back in 2017 -- The Deep State War Heats Up! And I pointed out that a key instrument of the so-called Deep State -- the Federal Reserve -- may be seen as propping up the current administration rather than trying to overthrow it (or whatever term you use). And your answer:
I got nuthin'
You're mean.
And AD's?
Economics is Hard. I dropped it.
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Wrong again, because you're VERY stupid.
I responded to YOUR stupidity, and laughed at it, Frank.
Difference.
So let's stop with the name calling.
What part of my explanation for the Fed's pivotal role in propping up the stock market since February is incorrect?
Just one example.
-
5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
There he goes again -- he can't have a rational, sane conversation. So he must invent a position to argue against.
That's something crazy people do.
Not sane people. And certainly not honest people.
You responded to a perfectly sane exposition of the Fed's response to the COVID-19 crisis with the very adult gif "now is the time we throw back our heads in laughter."
What was funny about what I said?
What was wrong about it?
Responding in that manner is the hallmark of an intelligent (and sane) person.
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:"Your boy"
Can't argue honestly, so he must assign people positions for him to argue against. Trump is not AD's boy. But why let facts get in the way of a crazy rant?
Kudlow is Trump's Chief Economic Advisor!
He is literally Trump's mouthpiece on economic policy.
If Trump disagrees with him, he certainly hasn't fired him, nor has he let that be known.
If Alaska Darin disagrees with Trump's economic policy, well, here's your chance to tell me. So far all I've got is "Economics is Hard."
-
2 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:
Which is different from previous politicians how? Barack Obama didn't pass a single piece of legislation to help the American economy but took enormous amounts of undue credit for the minimal turn around.
They are POLITICIANS. It is WHAT THEY DO.
You wanna talk economics, start another thread.
Is the Fed not part of the Deep State?
Your boys seem to think it is: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-kudlow/white-houses-kudlow-ratchets-up-criticism-of-deep-state-fed-idUSKBN1WW1YW
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
So the Fed shouldn't have taken these actions?
The junk bond market should have collapsed?
The Fed shouldn't have lowered interest rates to effectively zero, causing capital to to flee to the stock market?
The market should be about 30% (or more) off their peaks right now, so that Trump could run on that record?
Makes sense to me.
Grow up.
-
6 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:
Well, this board contains more than enough evidence that simple concepts continue to elude you.
Let's talk about the Patriot Act, specifically when a large number of liberal politicians were complaining (correctly) that it was an assault on liberty. Why do you think they were doing that? Who was benefiting from all of the information collected?
Proving how stupid most of you are is easy BECAUSE YOU MAKE IT THAT WAY.
You mean because the Fed wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing with a different party running things?
I understand this is difficult for you. I imagine you haven't thought about monetary policy, liquidity injections, interventions in the corporate bond market, etc., etc. You may have been too busy reading some nutcase on Twitter instead of the Wall St Journal or the Financial Times.
But this point should be easy:
TRUMP IS TAKING CREDIT FOR THE STRONG STOCK MARKET. THE STOCK MARKET IS WHERE IT IS TODAY BECAUSE OF THE DEEP STATE: THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
-
3 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:
Because most Americans have no idea how anything involving government works until they actually have to deal with it. But don't let your intellectual superiority get in the way of your ignorance.
If you want to know what the Deep State really is -- the one virtually no Americans understand -- start paying attention to what the Federal Reserve is doing. This is the Deep State PROPPING UP TRUMP, if not by design, then certainly by effect.
I'm not necessarily opposed to them keeping the economy afloat during what otherwise could be a depression, but every time I hear Trump crowing about how great the stock market is doing, I say yes, but that's the Fed's doing, not yours. Without these interventions we'd have seen:
1. A collapse in overnight money markets.
2. Massive defaults in corporate bonds, including the collapse of the high-yield (junk) bond market
3. A 2008 style collapse in the stock market. We saw in happen as the gravity of COVID-19 became apparent, but the markets snapped back after it became obvious that the Fed would do what it takes to prop up the economy.
Trump owes the Deep State a debt of gratitude. If he wins, it saved his hide.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ny-fed-lays-out-plan-to-pare-back-repo-liquidity-injections-11586808307
The Fed had relied heavily on repo interventions as the new coronavirus crisis worsened and markets came unglued, and it announced operations that would have lent trillions to banks, although the financial firms never took the Fed up on it.
The Fed is paring back its longer-term operations over the next month “in light of more stable repo market conditions.” Starting on May 4, it will do an overnight repo each morning, but no longer offer one in the afternoon. It will also now offer a three-month repo once every two weeks, rather than once a week. It will continue to offer a one-month repo once a week. All operations will have a $500 billion cap.
-
1
-
-
Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Maybe all the searches are from PPP? The chart really kicks things off early January 2017
😀
-
28 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Thanks for sharing that. A concept that is going back to the wacko fringe where it belongs.
-
1 hour ago, Back the Blue said:
How did Kroft go from injury prone horrible F/A signing to, he clearly should start over Knox...after 1 game?
The what have you done for me lately crowd, loves this way of thinking.
No, he went from "guy who is always hurt and never gets on the field" to "guy who is our only established pass catcher at TE who is finally healthy enough to practice and play."
It's the Knox love that got a little out of control. I'm still impressed with his physical abilities, but he's still raw. Let's just be glad that if Knox gets healthy and (the big if) if Kroft stays healthy, we're finally at a good place at the TE position. Actually even average or potentially better than average. It's been a while ... maybe (charitably) 2-3 seasons of Charles Clay in the last quarter century? Who am I forgetting about? I don't mean Scott Chandler.
I don't subscribe, but maybe someone who does can help me with the answer: https://theathletic.com/1755334/2020/04/17/bills-tight-ends-run-headlong-into-a-60-season-statistical-barrier/
-
1
-
-
Time is running out for The Donald. And Repub Senators are starting to panic. My Colorado Republican Senator, Cory Gardner -- a middle of the roader; I actually voted for him in 2016 -- is pretty much toast. He got himself in a bind, avoiding doing any appearances with Trump or associating himself with the Trump agenda. But Trump doesn't allow that, and he pretty much forced Cory into a joint campaign appearance last year -- it was an implied "Do it or get primaried by a Trumpie." And as soon as he did it, it was over for him. It's also telling that the party is still throwing money at his race instead of cutting losses and trying to save someone else -- there's really nowhere else to apply the money if they're gonna try to keep the Senate.
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/biden-lead-looks-firmer-as-midwest-moves-his-way/
The Senate
Map 2: Crystal Ball Senate ratings
Last week, the Crystal Ball downgraded the prospects of Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) — we now rate the four-term Maine senator as an underdog against her Democratic challenger, state House Speaker Sara Gideon. Aside from Collins, the only Republican senator running in a Clinton state this year is Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO). Colorado, at least in 2016, voted a couple of points more Democratic than Maine, and Gardner hasn’t had decades to cultivate a personal brand — as Collins has — so we’ve had his race at Leans Democratic since February.
The picture for Trump is not good in the Centennial State: as of Wednesday, polling aggregates from FiveThirtyEight give Biden a clean 51%-41% advantage. As one Republican operative summed up in July, “Jesus Christ himself couldn’t overperform Trump by double digits.” Senate polling since then has born this out: while Gardner generally performs better than Trump, he often lags his Democratic challenger, former Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO), by high single-digits.
Last week, the Crystal Ball downgraded the prospects of Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) — we now rate the four-term Maine senator as an underdog against her Democratic challenger, state House Speaker Sara Gideon. Aside from Collins, the only Republican senator running in a Clinton state this year is Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO). Colorado, at least in 2016, voted a couple of points more Democratic than Maine, and Gardner hasn’t had decades to cultivate a personal brand — as Collins has — so we’ve had his race at Leans Democratic since February.
The picture for Trump is not good in the Centennial State: as of Wednesday, polling aggregates from FiveThirtyEight give Biden a clean 51%-41% advantage. As one Republican operative summed up in July, “Jesus Christ himself couldn’t overperform Trump by double digits.” Senate polling since then has born this out: while Gardner generally performs better than Trump, he often lags his Democratic challenger, former Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO), by high single-digits.
-
Last report I saw before I fell asleep was that the game may be moved to Monday (yes! one less day to prepare) or Tuesday (jackpot! ultimate short week).
And now they pull the rug out from under me with the opposite -- an ultra-long "week"
-
On 9/24/2020 at 9:02 PM, Buffalo_Gal said:
The Justice Department is expected to file an antitrust action against Google in coming weeks, focusing on its dominance in online search and whether it was used to stifle competition and hurt consumers, a person familiar with the matter tells The Associated Press.
The department also is examining Google’s online advertising practices, said the person, who could not discuss an ongoing investigation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
</snip>
Retribution against perceived political enemies.
Republicans used to celebrate American ingenuity.
There are essentially no barriers to entry for online search engines. None. Google's dominance is a consequence of its excellence. This is absurd.
-
And another one:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-debate-poll/
We know enough now to say that Biden is clearly perceived as the winner of the debate.
It didn't move preferences much, if at all, but time is running out for Donald J. Trump ...
Biden got higher marks for his performance — and his policies
How respondents rated each candidate’s debate performance and their answers on policies
PERFORMANCE POLICIES CANDIDATE GOOD POOR GOOD POOR Trump 32.9% 66.2% 39.1% 57.4% Biden 59.7 39.1 56.6 39.2 Only among respondents who said that they had watched some or all of the debate.
Debate watchers were pretty decisive in their verdict of last night’s performances: Only about one-third said Trump’s performance was “somewhat good” or “very good,” and 50 percent said it was “very poor.” Biden’s performance was more positively received, with around 60 percent saying they thought he performed well. Respondents gave more mixed grades on how they thought the candidates outlined their policies, but Biden received better marks here, too: Almost 60 percent said they thought his policies were “somewhat good” or “very good,” compared to about 40 percent who said the same for Trump.
-
1
-
-
George Will, disgusted. Oh for the days when Republicans in debates tried to remind us of Reagan's shining city on a hill.
Most Donald Trump utterances resemble turbid creeks that are silty at their sources and trickle away into mud. He might finish his presidential term without ever speaking a complete sentence — subject, object, predicate. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who characterized Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose movement as one of “strenuous vagueness,” survived Antietam but might have expired straining to decipher Tuesday’s cascade of falsehoods, rudeness and syntactical tangles.
-
1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Further its unclear as to the number of organizations and their membership headcount that constitute the population of extremist groups and members. And the division between what is categorized as groups threatening the interests of government or threatening people of other races. The term "White Supremacist" gets thrown around gratuitously and
appears to refer to both. While I cannot find any credible source that breaks the numbers down into these two categories it seems important to understand how many are politically motivated and how many are racially motivated. Of the groups mentioned in this topic, Proud Boys, Antifa, and BLM I'd say Proud Boys and Antifa are politically motivated and BLM is racially motivated as they hate white people (although they've cleaned up their website to remove much of the offensive doctrine).
Good points.
It's also important to remember what we've seen with some of these movements-become-organizations. In some cases you have the slogan, the catch-phrase, and then someone goes and starts a website, appoints himself a leader, puts out press releases, basically just acts as if "Occupy Wall Street" is a registered nonprofit ... and then it actually becomes a registered nonprofit.
Again, from the law enforcement perspective, it's a tricky situation. Headless organizations (real or fake, disavowing any "leadership") are not readily susceptible to important tools like RICO actions. That means either you have to develop an old fashioned conspiracy case or just go after the guy out there throwing molotov cocktails and hope he implicates some of his fellow rioters.
-
2 hours ago, BillStime said:
211,464 dead Americans and the Donald Q Trump is making jokes
That was perhaps the most ridiculous line in a ridiculous night.
We've all seen that clip a hundred times. Trump saying something about maybe taking an antiseptic cleaner and "injecting it inside the body." Dr. Birx sitting there stone faced, worried that she might be seen to nod approval or grimace in disapproval. Nobody laughing, and the President not cracking anything resembling a knowing smile or wink.
He was dead serious. He thought he was sounding smart -- hey, I have an idea! -- and it was perhaps the stupidest single thing a President has ever said in public.
I find it interesting that he didn't pick up on the phony justifications thrown out there by his supporters, stuff about how "in a general sense it is true that some anti-virals are in fact administered internally" or whatever it was they were saying. No. He knows how stupid he sounded, so he's playing the "I made the most deadpan and long-running joke in history" card.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Alaska Darin said:
Your most appropriate response ever.
Yeah, that whole unexamined life is not worth living thing ... that's just not for me.
-
1 minute ago, Alaska Darin said:
You might wanna look in the mirror so you can figure out who your enemy really is.
That's just way too sci fi for me.
Or whatever the name of that old timey comic was that always used that line.
-
1 minute ago, Dragoon said:
Thank you. I did not know that.
Now....and forgive me....it’s just data can be easily manipulated. They could be over sampling Democrats.
that said, I didn’t watch the debate because I predicted it’d go down like it did and I found Downton Abbey reruns more enticing.
“Antifa” is an idea, remember.Yes, they certainly could. You can usually look at the underlying data, but "scientific" though they may be, the design is as much art as it is science.
-
On 9/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Deranged Rhino said:
Someone just figured out the Clinton Foundation's modus operandi.
And the Biden foundation.
And the McCain foundation.
And the Obama foundation.(the list goes on and on)
... And the Trump Foundation, until it was dissolved after being sued based on a "shocking pattern of illegalities"
-
Just now, Dragoon said:
Whats a “scientific” post debate poll?A "scientific" poll is one that selects its subjects rather than being an "open-access" poll like those insta-polls you see during or immediately after the debate. In other words, you try to get a sample of respondents that is representative of registered voters or (as it gets closer to the election) likely voters.
-
Just now, IDBillzFan said:
There is. Just type it in your browser and have a look. Remember...it's just "an idea."
Please read my full comment. I'm trying to explain the evolutionary cycle of these "movements" at least as far as law enforcement sees them.
-
Antifa 2020 is kind of where Occupy Wall Street was in 2008, or the Tea Party in 2009 or Black Lives Matter immediately post-Ferguson. A set of political goals and agreed-upon methods to achieve them.
Over time we saw those earlier concepts crystallize (some might say be co-opted) into organizations. I haven't studied Antifa closely enough to know whether that's where they're at now, but if there is an "Antifa.com" that's a good sign.
For an explanation of the concept, see the Proud Boys thread.
This is not to argue with either side, but rather to explain what the FBI Director meant when discussing Antifa, and how Biden gave an incomplete answer when he said it is just a concept.
The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
There is a tiny, vanishingly small segment of the electorate that cares about re-litigating this.
Most of us have concluded that Trump was corrupt, and (to the extent we've looked into it) that some investigators were unprofessional.
End. Of. Story.