2024

[old salt]

Great. Any chance you could stop whining about this, blow your nose, and take your lamentations to a thread devoted to your whiny racism. “Old Salt’s 1954, Now”? “Randy’s White Men Only Times”? Enough with your bullsh@t.

Not a chance. Time to change you diaper.

Based on my posts, forum readers learned about ILMN, GRAL, their coming MCED test, Lina Khan & Biden's FTC actions.
afan learned that Biden did not actually fatten everyone's stock portfolio, as he claimed.
TLD even bought some GRAL. You're Welcome.

Readers also learned how not to manage a portfolio.

Right. My remaining > 2000% long term gain on ILMN is really poor portfolio management.
+ I'm in on the ground floor of GRAL, at no cost.

Then perhaps you should STFU already

I thought he said he lost money?

On paper. Diminished unrealized gain. Still haven't sold any.

So you haven’t shown a loss. Who told you not to take some money off the table? A lot of investors took their money off the Illumina table. You could have bought it back cheaper. People do it everyday. Stop whining about it. You decided to accept the risk. Nobody forced you. You could have realized some profit in your Illumina position but YOU chose not to. Why don’t you talk to counsel about a class action lawsuit agitation Jihad Jane and the other DEI folks that caused you to hold on to your stock.

I've been inundated by unsolicited emails from vulture plaintiff's attorneys. I purchased my ILMN shares long before the class action acquisition window. I'm holding on because ILMN still retains 80% market share & I expect it to regain some, or much, of it's lost value. I don't have any better prospects & I want to hold off paying cap gains tax. I don't churn - you have to wait 90 days before reacquiring. I don't need any more cash to invest. I don't need any more new stocks at this point. The rest of my long term buy & hold portfolio is doing quite well, but not as well as ILMN was, before Biden & Khan F-ed with it. I don't think they have a target on any of my other holdings...yet.

Seems like the math is as better to pay Long Term Capital Gain tax of 15% on your profit, than riding the stock down from $500 to $100. But that was your choice. You are mad at DEI Jihad Jane because you didn’t want to pay long term capital gains tax. And rebalancing a portfolio isn’t “churning”.

I expected ILMN to get a favorable ruling from the 5th Circuit. By then, the damage had been done.

The investors that were selling probably had a different set of expectations. They were right. YOU were wrong. You haven’t lost any money whereas your co-investors realized some profit.

...that depends on when they bought & when they sold.

[a fan]

afan learned that Biden did not actually fatten everyone's stock portfolio, as he claimed.

And what did the forum learn from this exchange?

-why the .01%ers LOVE monopolies, and demand more of them.
-that these .01%er make the rules we all live by. Which is why we have these monopolies in the first place
-that these .01%ers will scream bloody murder if you take one dollar off their plate, and tell us we're commies for doing it
-that the .01%ers will never have enough money. Never. And they want everything and everyone out of their way to make even a dollar more

-that competition is inherently bad for the .01%ers
-that it makes no difference to them HOW they make their money....they'll scream about .gov "interference" on one hand, and then hope Trump shows up to have the .gov interfere to their own personal benefit
-that they know, yet don't care, that these monopolies hurt smaller businesses

It's been an education. Thanks for that......

Here's what I learned from you.
I should migrate to Cuba or Venezuela, since the USSR no longer exists.
No more little guys designing DNA sequencing machines in their garage.

Sorry, I already covered that.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Great. Any chance you could stop whining about this, blow your nose, and take your lamentations to a thread devoted to your whiny racism. “Old Salt’s 1954, Now”? “Randy’s White Men Only Times”? Enough with your bullsh@t.

Not a chance. Time to change you diaper.

Based on my posts, forum readers learned about ILMN, GRAL, their coming MCED test, Lina Khan & Biden's FTC actions.
afan learned that Biden did not actually fatten everyone's stock portfolio, as he claimed.
TLD even bought some GRAL. You're Welcome.

Readers also learned how not to manage a portfolio.

Right. My remaining > 2000% long term gain on ILMN is really poor portfolio management.
+ I'm in on the ground floor of GRAL, at no cost.

Then perhaps you should STFU already

I thought he said he lost money?

On paper. Diminished unrealized gain. Still haven't sold any.

So you haven’t shown a loss. Who told you not to take some money off the table? A lot of investors took their money off the Illumina table. You could have bought it back cheaper. People do it everyday. Stop whining about it. You decided to accept the risk. Nobody forced you. You could have realized some profit in your Illumina position but YOU chose not to. Why don’t you talk to counsel about a class action lawsuit agitation Jihad Jane and the other DEI folks that caused you to hold on to your stock.

I've been inundated by unsolicited emails from vulture plaintiff's attorneys. I purchased my ILMN shares long before the class action acquisition window. I'm holding on because ILMN still retains 80% market share & I expect it to regain some, or much, of it's lost value. I don't have any better prospects & I want to hold off paying cap gains tax. I don't churn - you have to wait 90 days before reacquiring. I don't need any more cash to invest. I don't need any more new stocks at this point. The rest of my long term buy & hold portfolio is doing quite well, but not as well as ILMN was, before Biden & Khan F-ed with it. I don't think they have a target on any of my other holdings...yet.

Seems like the math is as better to pay Long Term Capital Gain tax of 15% on your profit, than riding the stock down from $500 to $100. But that was your choice. You are mad at DEI Jihad Jane because you didn’t want to pay long term capital gains tax. And rebalancing a portfolio isn’t “churning”.

I expected ILMN to get a favorable ruling from the 5th Circuit. By then, the damage had been done.

The investors that were selling probably had a different set of expectations. They were right. YOU were wrong. You haven’t lost any money whereas your co-investors realized some profit.

...that depends on when they bought & when they sold.

Un huh. Given your basis, you stood to make more than the vast majority of them but YOU chose not to earn any money off of your position.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://casetext.com/case/kangas-v-illumina-inc

BACKGROUND

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Illumina, Inc.'s (“Defendant” or “Illumina”) securities. ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1. Illumina is a “genetic and genomic analysis company with a portfolio of integrated sequencing and microarray systems, consumables, and analysis tools designed to accelerate and simplify genetic analysis.” Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Illumina's business, operations, and prospects during the class period. Id. ¶ 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of the Company's insiders had personal financial motives for acquiring GRAIL; (2) that, contrary to Illumina's attempts to discount Icahn's criticism, Icahn had accurately concluded that insiders' interests did not align with the Company's best interests; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.” Id.

[old salt]

Great. Any chance you could stop whining about this, blow your nose, and take your lamentations to a thread devoted to your whiny racism. “Old Salt’s 1954, Now”? “Randy’s White Men Only Times”? Enough with your bullsh@t.

Not a chance. Time to change you diaper.

Based on my posts, forum readers learned about ILMN, GRAL, their coming MCED test, Lina Khan & Biden's FTC actions.
afan learned that Biden did not actually fatten everyone's stock portfolio, as he claimed.
TLD even bought some GRAL. You're Welcome.

Readers also learned how not to manage a portfolio.

Right. My remaining > 2000% long term gain on ILMN is really poor portfolio management.
+ I'm in on the ground floor of GRAL, at no cost.

Then perhaps you should STFU already

I thought he said he lost money?

On paper. Diminished unrealized gain. Still haven't sold any.

So you haven’t shown a loss. Who told you not to take some money off the table? A lot of investors took their money off the Illumina table. You could have bought it back cheaper. People do it everyday. Stop whining about it. You decided to accept the risk. Nobody forced you. You could have realized some profit in your Illumina position but YOU chose not to. Why don’t you talk to counsel about a class action lawsuit agitation Jihad Jane and the other DEI folks that caused you to hold on to your stock.

I've been inundated by unsolicited emails from vulture plaintiff's attorneys. I purchased my ILMN shares long before the class action acquisition window. I'm holding on because ILMN still retains 80% market share & I expect it to regain some, or much, of it's lost value. I don't have any better prospects & I want to hold off paying cap gains tax. I don't churn - you have to wait 90 days before reacquiring. I don't need any more cash to invest. I don't need any more new stocks at this point. The rest of my long term buy & hold portfolio is doing quite well, but not as well as ILMN was, before Biden & Khan F-ed with it. I don't think they have a target on any of my other holdings...yet.

Seems like the math is as better to pay Long Term Capital Gain tax of 15% on your profit, than riding the stock down from $500 to $100. But that was your choice. You are mad at DEI Jihad Jane because you didn’t want to pay long term capital gains tax. And rebalancing a portfolio isn’t “churning”.

I expected ILMN to get a favorable ruling from the 5th Circuit. By then, the damage had been done.

The investors that were selling probably had a different set of expectations. They were right. YOU were wrong. You haven’t lost any money whereas your co-investors realized some profit.

...that depends on when they bought & when they sold.

Un huh. Given your basis, you stood to make more than the vast majority of them but YOU chose not to earn any money off of your position.

I still stand to make more than the vast majority of them. I can afford to wait. I think ILMN has bottomed out & will claw it's way back up.
...& I can continue to defer the Cap Gains tax until I bequeath the stock or until I need the revenue, which if that happens, I'll likely have more deductions to offset the cap gains tax liability.

[old salt]

https://casetext.com/case/kangas-v-illumina-inc

BACKGROUND

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Illumina, Inc.'s (“Defendant” or “Illumina”) securities. ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1. Illumina is a “genetic and genomic analysis company with a portfolio of integrated sequencing and microarray systems, consumables, and analysis tools designed to accelerate and simplify genetic analysis.” Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Illumina's business, operations, and prospects during the class period. Id. ¶ 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of the Company's insiders had personal financial motives for acquiring GRAIL; (2) that, contrary to Illumina's attempts to discount Icahn's criticism, Icahn had accurately concluded that insiders' interests did not align with the Company's best interests; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.” Id.

https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/illumina-inc
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”) (NASDAQ: ILMN) securities between September 21, 2020 and November 9, 2023, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

[Typical Lax Dad]

Great. Any chance you could stop whining about this, blow your nose, and take your lamentations to a thread devoted to your whiny racism. “Old Salt’s 1954, Now”? “Randy’s White Men Only Times”? Enough with your bullsh@t.

Not a chance. Time to change you diaper.

Based on my posts, forum readers learned about ILMN, GRAL, their coming MCED test, Lina Khan & Biden's FTC actions.
afan learned that Biden did not actually fatten everyone's stock portfolio, as he claimed.
TLD even bought some GRAL. You're Welcome.

Readers also learned how not to manage a portfolio.

Right. My remaining > 2000% long term gain on ILMN is really poor portfolio management.
+ I'm in on the ground floor of GRAL, at no cost.

Then perhaps you should STFU already

I thought he said he lost money?

On paper. Diminished unrealized gain. Still haven't sold any.

So you haven’t shown a loss. Who told you not to take some money off the table? A lot of investors took their money off the Illumina table. You could have bought it back cheaper. People do it everyday. Stop whining about it. You decided to accept the risk. Nobody forced you. You could have realized some profit in your Illumina position but YOU chose not to. Why don’t you talk to counsel about a class action lawsuit agitation Jihad Jane and the other DEI folks that caused you to hold on to your stock.

I've been inundated by unsolicited emails from vulture plaintiff's attorneys. I purchased my ILMN shares long before the class action acquisition window. I'm holding on because ILMN still retains 80% market share & I expect it to regain some, or much, of it's lost value. I don't have any better prospects & I want to hold off paying cap gains tax. I don't churn - you have to wait 90 days before reacquiring. I don't need any more cash to invest. I don't need any more new stocks at this point. The rest of my long term buy & hold portfolio is doing quite well, but not as well as ILMN was, before Biden & Khan F-ed with it. I don't think they have a target on any of my other holdings...yet.

Seems like the math is as better to pay Long Term Capital Gain tax of 15% on your profit, than riding the stock down from $500 to $100. But that was your choice. You are mad at DEI Jihad Jane because you didn’t want to pay long term capital gains tax. And rebalancing a portfolio isn’t “churning”.

I expected ILMN to get a favorable ruling from the 5th Circuit. By then, the damage had been done.

The investors that were selling probably had a different set of expectations. They were right. YOU were wrong. You haven’t lost any money whereas your co-investors realized some profit.

...that depends on when they bought & when they sold.

Un huh. Given your basis, you stood to make more than the vast majority of them but YOU chose not to earn any money off of your position.

I still stand to make more than the vast majority of them. I can afford to wait. I think ILMN has bottomed out & will claw it's way back up.
...& I can continue to defer the Cap Gains tax until I bequeath the stock or until I need the revenue, which if that happens, I'll likely have more deductions to offset the cap gains tax liability.

Stop whining then.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://casetext.com/case/kangas-v-illumina-inc

BACKGROUND

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Illumina, Inc.'s (“Defendant” or “Illumina”) securities. ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1. Illumina is a “genetic and genomic analysis company with a portfolio of integrated sequencing and microarray systems, consumables, and analysis tools designed to accelerate and simplify genetic analysis.” Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Illumina's business, operations, and prospects during the class period. Id. ¶ 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of the Company's insiders had personal financial motives for acquiring GRAIL; (2) that, contrary to Illumina's attempts to discount Icahn's criticism, Icahn had accurately concluded that insiders' interests did not align with the Company's best interests; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.” Id.

https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/illumina-inc
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”) (NASDAQ: ILMN) securities between September 21, 2020 and November 9, 2023, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

That doesn’t involve you.

[old salt]

Great. Any chance you could stop whining about this, blow your nose, and take your lamentations to a thread devoted to your whiny racism. “Old Salt’s 1954, Now”? “Randy’s White Men Only Times”? Enough with your bullsh@t.

Not a chance. Time to change you diaper.

Based on my posts, forum readers learned about ILMN, GRAL, their coming MCED test, Lina Khan & Biden's FTC actions.
afan learned that Biden did not actually fatten everyone's stock portfolio, as he claimed.
TLD even bought some GRAL. You're Welcome.

Readers also learned how not to manage a portfolio.

Right. My remaining > 2000% long term gain on ILMN is really poor portfolio management.
+ I'm in on the ground floor of GRAL, at no cost.

Then perhaps you should STFU already

I thought he said he lost money?

On paper. Diminished unrealized gain. Still haven't sold any.

So you haven’t shown a loss. Who told you not to take some money off the table? A lot of investors took their money off the Illumina table. You could have bought it back cheaper. People do it everyday. Stop whining about it. You decided to accept the risk. Nobody forced you. You could have realized some profit in your Illumina position but YOU chose not to. Why don’t you talk to counsel about a class action lawsuit agitation Jihad Jane and the other DEI folks that caused you to hold on to your stock.

I've been inundated by unsolicited emails from vulture plaintiff's attorneys. I purchased my ILMN shares long before the class action acquisition window. I'm holding on because ILMN still retains 80% market share & I expect it to regain some, or much, of it's lost value. I don't have any better prospects & I want to hold off paying cap gains tax. I don't churn - you have to wait 90 days before reacquiring. I don't need any more cash to invest. I don't need any more new stocks at this point. The rest of my long term buy & hold portfolio is doing quite well, but not as well as ILMN was, before Biden & Khan F-ed with it. I don't think they have a target on any of my other holdings...yet.

Seems like the math is as better to pay Long Term Capital Gain tax of 15% on your profit, than riding the stock down from $500 to $100. But that was your choice. You are mad at DEI Jihad Jane because you didn’t want to pay long term capital gains tax. And rebalancing a portfolio isn’t “churning”.

I expected ILMN to get a favorable ruling from the 5th Circuit. By then, the damage had been done.

The investors that were selling probably had a different set of expectations. They were right. YOU were wrong. You haven’t lost any money whereas your co-investors realized some profit.

...that depends on when they bought & when they sold.

Un huh. Given your basis, you stood to make more than the vast majority of them but YOU chose not to earn any money off of your position.

I still stand to make more than the vast majority of them. I can afford to wait. I think ILMN has bottomed out & will claw it's way back up.
...& I can continue to defer the Cap Gains tax until I bequeath the stock or until I need the revenue, which if that happens, I'll likely have more deductions to offset the cap gains tax liability.

Stop whining then.

Not whining. Just responding.

For example = https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/givi ... ck&adgroup

[old salt]

https://casetext.com/case/kangas-v-illumina-inc

BACKGROUND

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Illumina, Inc.'s (“Defendant” or “Illumina”) securities. ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1. Illumina is a “genetic and genomic analysis company with a portfolio of integrated sequencing and microarray systems, consumables, and analysis tools designed to accelerate and simplify genetic analysis.” Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Illumina's business, operations, and prospects during the class period. Id. ¶ 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of the Company's insiders had personal financial motives for acquiring GRAIL; (2) that, contrary to Illumina's attempts to discount Icahn's criticism, Icahn had accurately concluded that insiders' interests did not align with the Company's best interests; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.” Id.

https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/illumina-inc
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”) (NASDAQ: ILMN) securities between September 21, 2020 and November 9, 2023, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

That doesn’t involve you.

I purchased the stock before the class period.
Because I still hold a gain, I can't claim that I have damages.

then there's this - https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigatio ... 024-01-24/

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/opin ... ticleShare

“ Not long ago, one of us was having lunch with someone who manages a multibillion-dollar fund when the subject turned to the prospect of a second Trump term.

This person was disturbed by many of Donald Trump’s actions and concerned about what the November presidential election could mean. But when it came to one issue — the economy — he was untroubled. “We didn’t do so badly last time,” he said. “There are some things I don’t agree with, but I don’t think it will matter that much.”

We fear this is an increasingly common view. We’ve spoken to many leaders in business and finance who, when it comes to economic policy, are open to the premise that Mr. Trump is a normal presidential candidate.

We strongly disagree. The two of us have been involved in business, government and policy for many years — more than a century of experience between us. We’ve worked with elected officials and business leaders across the ideological spectrum. And we believe a straightforward assessment of Mr. Trump’s economic policy agenda — based on his public statements and on-the-record interviews, such as the one he recently conducted with Time magazine — leads to a clear conclusion.

When it comes to economic policy, Mr. Trump is not a remotely normal candidate. A second Trump term would pose enormous risks to our economy.

At a time when our country was already on an increasingly risky debt trajectory, President Trump’s first-term tax initiatives added an estimated $3.9 trillion to the national debt, according to Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute. Mainstream analyses concluded that the result — increasing demand in an already full employment economy while having a negligible effect on business investment — added very little benefit in the shorter term and virtually nothing in the longer term.

And Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would further harm our fiscal picture. A Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget report said that extending the 2017 tax cuts alone would add another $3.9 trillion to the federal debt and increase our debt-to-G.D.P. ratio by approximately 10 percent. This would likely lead to higher interest rates and greater inflation while undermining business confidence, and could reduce our resilience in the face of future national-security or economic crises.

Mr. Trump would also reduce legal immigration at a time when our economy needs additional workers at all skill levels. Companies are already moving some operations outside of the United States in order to find needed staff. Ordering the military to deport millions, as he has threatened to do, would not only lead to widespread social instability but also fail to approach the issue of undocumented workers in a way that meets our economic needs.

On trade, raising tariffs across the board — as Mr. Trump has promised repeatedly to do — would increase prices for American producers and consumers, reduce our global competitiveness and likely lead other countries to retaliate against our exporters.

On regulation, while many business leaders have differences of opinion with President Biden, a second Trump term poses considerable risks. Mr. Trump has made clear that his regulatory approach will not be driven by cost-benefit analysis, in which potential social and economic benefits are weighed against potential concerns. Instead, he says he will use regulation to reward loyalists and punish perceived enemies.

In his first term, Mr. Trump personally directed the Justice Department to block a merger between AT&T and Time Warner because he was reportedly unhappy with the coverage of him on CNN, which was owned by Time Warner. In a second term he’s promised to take this approach further, for example, by pledging to reward political allies in the oil and gas industry by throttling renewable energy, one of the world’s fastest growing industries, and one where we are in fierce competition with China.

Trump would also take unprecedented action to diminish the independence of the Federal Reserve, pressuring it to set interest rates for his short-term political gain rather than the long-term health of the economy. A top Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro predicts that Mr. Trump would fire the Federal Reserve chairman in the first 100 days of his second administration. Other allies have said that Fed decisions should be subject to consultation with or even approval by the administration. Such actions could do great damage to our markets and to our economy by politicizing Federal Reserve Board interest rate decisions and undermining the broader credibility of the Fed.

Mr. Trump has said he would like to withdraw from NATO obligations and has threatened to abandon our allies in Europe if they are attacked. Such threats would immediately shake confidence in America’s defense commitments and could embolden our adversaries to act in hostile ways, increasing global instability that threatens our supply chains and our markets and increasing the risk of armed conflict. Of course, if Mr. Trump were actually to follow through on these threats, the damage would be far worse.

The rule of law is an essential underpinning of our economy. Mr. Trump’s proposed plans would undermine the rule of law in multiple ways, including using the F.B.I. and the Justice Department to target his adversaries, likely doing the same with the I.R.S., firing United States attorneys if they refuse his order to prosecute a political enemy, using his pardon power to immunize political allies from the consequences of lawbreaking and continuing to reject the fairness and freedom of our elections.

Mr. Trump would also fill his cabinet and senior staff with people whose primary qualification is loyalty to him. In such a scenario, the White House and federal agencies would be expected to make decisions not on the policy merits but in order to satisfy Mr. Trump’s ego, angers, whims, personal business interests and political vendettas.

Nor would Mr. Trump and his allies stop there. They plan to replace up to 50,000 civil servants — nonpartisan professionals such as safety inspectors, researchers and procurement experts — with political loyalists. This may even include requiring people who are currently federal employees to take a loyalty test.

When it comes to managing crises — an essential component of any president’s economic stewardship — Mr. Trump’s first term paints a troubling picture. As the pandemic spread across the United States, Trump bungled the response with indecision, a focus on politics over the public well-being and erratic behavior. Economic damage from the pandemic was inevitable. But a more effective leader could have substantially limited that harm.

Even the Trump administration’s greatest success in combating Covid, Operation Warp Speed, is now barely mentioned by him because of political pressures. There will inevitably be economic, geopolitical or other crises in future years, and Mr. Trump’s reactions to Covid provide a deeply troubling view of how he would deal with them.

Some argue that many dire predictions raised at the start of Mr. Trump’s first term did not come to pass. But Mr. Trump himself has expressed regret that his first term was less radical than he would have liked it to be — and has promised that his second term would be nothing like the first. From 2017 to 2021, Mr. Trump, while extreme in many respects, was constrained by key appointees who came from the traditional conservative establishment, and by the need to appeal to the business community as he sought re-election. If he wins this November, he’s made clear that he’ll choose appointees who will be submissive to him — and he will have no looming re-election campaign providing an incentive to curb his most extreme impulses.

Nearly every element of Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would create great risk of economic harm. In aggregate, there is a high likelihood that his agenda would lead to chaos and unpredictability, including global instability, in that way reducing investment and business activity. Meanwhile, inflation would be increased by tariffs, immigration restrictions and larger fiscal deficits.

Some may feel that we made it through one Trump term and are thus likely to make it through another. But a more apt analogy is that after surviving one round of economic Russian roulette, Donald Trump is asking us to take another spin — only this time with many more bullets in the chamber.

That would be a very dangerous game.“

[CU88a]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/opin ... ticleShare

“ Not long ago, one of us was having lunch with someone who manages a multibillion-dollar fund when the subject turned to the prospect of a second Trump term.

This person was disturbed by many of Donald Trump’s actions and concerned about what the November presidential election could mean. But when it came to one issue — the economy — he was untroubled. “We didn’t do so badly last time,” he said. “There are some things I don’t agree with, but I don’t think it will matter that much.”

We fear this is an increasingly common view. We’ve spoken to many leaders in business and finance who, when it comes to economic policy, are open to the premise that Mr. Trump is a normal presidential candidate.

We strongly disagree. The two of us have been involved in business, government and policy for many years — more than a century of experience between us. We’ve worked with elected officials and business leaders across the ideological spectrum. And we believe a straightforward assessment of Mr. Trump’s economic policy agenda — based on his public statements and on-the-record interviews, such as the one he recently conducted with Time magazine — leads to a clear conclusion.

When it comes to economic policy, Mr. Trump is not a remotely normal candidate. A second Trump term would pose enormous risks to our economy.

At a time when our country was already on an increasingly risky debt trajectory, President Trump’s first-term tax initiatives added an estimated $3.9 trillion to the national debt, according to Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute. Mainstream analyses concluded that the result — increasing demand in an already full employment economy while having a negligible effect on business investment — added very little benefit in the shorter term and virtually nothing in the longer term.

And Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would further harm our fiscal picture. A Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget report said that extending the 2017 tax cuts alone would add another $3.9 trillion to the federal debt and increase our debt-to-G.D.P. ratio by approximately 10 percent. This would likely lead to higher interest rates and greater inflation while undermining business confidence, and could reduce our resilience in the face of future national-security or economic crises.

Mr. Trump would also reduce legal immigration at a time when our economy needs additional workers at all skill levels. Companies are already moving some operations outside of the United States in order to find needed staff. Ordering the military to deport millions, as he has threatened to do, would not only lead to widespread social instability but also fail to approach the issue of undocumented workers in a way that meets our economic needs.

On trade, raising tariffs across the board — as Mr. Trump has promised repeatedly to do — would increase prices for American producers and consumers, reduce our global competitiveness and likely lead other countries to retaliate against our exporters.

On regulation, while many business leaders have differences of opinion with President Biden, a second Trump term poses considerable risks. Mr. Trump has made clear that his regulatory approach will not be driven by cost-benefit analysis, in which potential social and economic benefits are weighed against potential concerns. Instead, he says he will use regulation to reward loyalists and punish perceived enemies.

In his first term, Mr. Trump personally directed the Justice Department to block a merger between AT&T and Time Warner because he was reportedly unhappy with the coverage of him on CNN, which was owned by Time Warner. In a second term he’s promised to take this approach further, for example, by pledging to reward political allies in the oil and gas industry by throttling renewable energy, one of the world’s fastest growing industries, and one where we are in fierce competition with China.

Trump would also take unprecedented action to diminish the independence of the Federal Reserve, pressuring it to set interest rates for his short-term political gain rather than the long-term health of the economy. A top Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro predicts that Mr. Trump would fire the Federal Reserve chairman in the first 100 days of his second administration. Other allies have said that Fed decisions should be subject to consultation with or even approval by the administration. Such actions could do great damage to our markets and to our economy by politicizing Federal Reserve Board interest rate decisions and undermining the broader credibility of the Fed.

Mr. Trump has said he would like to withdraw from NATO obligations and has threatened to abandon our allies in Europe if they are attacked. Such threats would immediately shake confidence in America’s defense commitments and could embolden our adversaries to act in hostile ways, increasing global instability that threatens our supply chains and our markets and increasing the risk of armed conflict. Of course, if Mr. Trump were actually to follow through on these threats, the damage would be far worse.

The rule of law is an essential underpinning of our economy. Mr. Trump’s proposed plans would undermine the rule of law in multiple ways, including using the F.B.I. and the Justice Department to target his adversaries, likely doing the same with the I.R.S., firing United States attorneys if they refuse his order to prosecute a political enemy, using his pardon power to immunize political allies from the consequences of lawbreaking and continuing to reject the fairness and freedom of our elections.

Mr. Trump would also fill his cabinet and senior staff with people whose primary qualification is loyalty to him. In such a scenario, the White House and federal agencies would be expected to make decisions not on the policy merits but in order to satisfy Mr. Trump’s ego, angers, whims, personal business interests and political vendettas.

Nor would Mr. Trump and his allies stop there. They plan to replace up to 50,000 civil servants — nonpartisan professionals such as safety inspectors, researchers and procurement experts — with political loyalists. This may even include requiring people who are currently federal employees to take a loyalty test.

When it comes to managing crises — an essential component of any president’s economic stewardship — Mr. Trump’s first term paints a troubling picture. As the pandemic spread across the United States, Trump bungled the response with indecision, a focus on politics over the public well-being and erratic behavior. Economic damage from the pandemic was inevitable. But a more effective leader could have substantially limited that harm.

Even the Trump administration’s greatest success in combating Covid, Operation Warp Speed, is now barely mentioned by him because of political pressures. There will inevitably be economic, geopolitical or other crises in future years, and Mr. Trump’s reactions to Covid provide a deeply troubling view of how he would deal with them.

Some argue that many dire predictions raised at the start of Mr. Trump’s first term did not come to pass. But Mr. Trump himself has expressed regret that his first term was less radical than he would have liked it to be — and has promised that his second term would be nothing like the first. From 2017 to 2021, Mr. Trump, while extreme in many respects, was constrained by key appointees who came from the traditional conservative establishment, and by the need to appeal to the business community as he sought re-election. If he wins this November, he’s made clear that he’ll choose appointees who will be submissive to him — and he will have no looming re-election campaign providing an incentive to curb his most extreme impulses.

Nearly every element of Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would create great risk of economic harm. In aggregate, there is a high likelihood that his agenda would lead to chaos and unpredictability, including global instability, in that way reducing investment and business activity. Meanwhile, inflation would be increased by tariffs, immigration restrictions and larger fiscal deficits.

Some may feel that we made it through one Trump term and are thus likely to make it through another. But a more apt analogy is that after surviving one round of economic Russian roulette, Donald Trump is asking us to take another spin — only this time with many more bullets in the chamber.

That would be a very dangerous game.“

Saw this recently:

"Trump supporters don't measure his success by what he does for them, they measure by what he does against the people they don't like, that's why they see him as successful, this is why they will never abandon him, tormenting of the 'others' sustains them'

DEPLORABLE

[OCanada]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/opin ... ticleShare

“ Not long ago, one of us was having lunch with someone who manages a multibillion-dollar fund when the subject turned to the prospect of a second Trump term.

This person was disturbed by many of Donald Trump’s actions and concerned about what the November presidential election could mean. But when it came to one issue — the economy — he was untroubled. “We didn’t do so badly last time,” he said. “There are some things I don’t agree with, but I don’t think it will matter that much.”

We fear this is an increasingly common view. We’ve spoken to many leaders in business and finance who, when it comes to economic policy, are open to the premise that Mr. Trump is a normal presidential candidate.

We strongly disagree. The two of us have been involved in business, government and policy for many years — more than a century of experience between us. We’ve worked with elected officials and business leaders across the ideological spectrum. And we believe a straightforward assessment of Mr. Trump’s economic policy agenda — based on his public statements and on-the-record interviews, such as the one he recently conducted with Time magazine — leads to a clear conclusion.

When it comes to economic policy, Mr. Trump is not a remotely normal candidate. A second Trump term would pose enormous risks to our economy.

At a time when our country was already on an increasingly risky debt trajectory, President Trump’s first-term tax initiatives added an estimated $3.9 trillion to the national debt, according to Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute. Mainstream analyses concluded that the result — increasing demand in an already full employment economy while having a negligible effect on business investment — added very little benefit in the shorter term and virtually nothing in the longer term.

And Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would further harm our fiscal picture. A Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget report said that extending the 2017 tax cuts alone would add another $3.9 trillion to the federal debt and increase our debt-to-G.D.P. ratio by approximately 10 percent. This would likely lead to higher interest rates and greater inflation while undermining business confidence, and could reduce our resilience in the face of future national-security or economic crises.

Mr. Trump would also reduce legal immigration at a time when our economy needs additional workers at all skill levels. Companies are already moving some operations outside of the United States in order to find needed staff. Ordering the military to deport millions, as he has threatened to do, would not only lead to widespread social instability but also fail to approach the issue of undocumented workers in a way that meets our economic needs.

On trade, raising tariffs across the board — as Mr. Trump has promised repeatedly to do — would increase prices for American producers and consumers, reduce our global competitiveness and likely lead other countries to retaliate against our exporters.

On regulation, while many business leaders have differences of opinion with President Biden, a second Trump term poses considerable risks. Mr. Trump has made clear that his regulatory approach will not be driven by cost-benefit analysis, in which potential social and economic benefits are weighed against potential concerns. Instead, he says he will use regulation to reward loyalists and punish perceived enemies.

In his first term, Mr. Trump personally directed the Justice Department to block a merger between AT&T and Time Warner because he was reportedly unhappy with the coverage of him on CNN, which was owned by Time Warner. In a second term he’s promised to take this approach further, for example, by pledging to reward political allies in the oil and gas industry by throttling renewable energy, one of the world’s fastest growing industries, and one where we are in fierce competition with China.

Trump would also take unprecedented action to diminish the independence of the Federal Reserve, pressuring it to set interest rates for his short-term political gain rather than the long-term health of the economy. A top Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro predicts that Mr. Trump would fire the Federal Reserve chairman in the first 100 days of his second administration. Other allies have said that Fed decisions should be subject to consultation with or even approval by the administration. Such actions could do great damage to our markets and to our economy by politicizing Federal Reserve Board interest rate decisions and undermining the broader credibility of the Fed.

Mr. Trump has said he would like to withdraw from NATO obligations and has threatened to abandon our allies in Europe if they are attacked. Such threats would immediately shake confidence in America’s defense commitments and could embolden our adversaries to act in hostile ways, increasing global instability that threatens our supply chains and our markets and increasing the risk of armed conflict. Of course, if Mr. Trump were actually to follow through on these threats, the damage would be far worse.

The rule of law is an essential underpinning of our economy. Mr. Trump’s proposed plans would undermine the rule of law in multiple ways, including using the F.B.I. and the Justice Department to target his adversaries, likely doing the same with the I.R.S., firing United States attorneys if they refuse his order to prosecute a political enemy, using his pardon power to immunize political allies from the consequences of lawbreaking and continuing to reject the fairness and freedom of our elections.

Mr. Trump would also fill his cabinet and senior staff with people whose primary qualification is loyalty to him. In such a scenario, the White House and federal agencies would be expected to make decisions not on the policy merits but in order to satisfy Mr. Trump’s ego, angers, whims, personal business interests and political vendettas.

Nor would Mr. Trump and his allies stop there. They plan to replace up to 50,000 civil servants — nonpartisan professionals such as safety inspectors, researchers and procurement experts — with political loyalists. This may even include requiring people who are currently federal employees to take a loyalty test.

When it comes to managing crises — an essential component of any president’s economic stewardship — Mr. Trump’s first term paints a troubling picture. As the pandemic spread across the United States, Trump bungled the response with indecision, a focus on politics over the public well-being and erratic behavior. Economic damage from the pandemic was inevitable. But a more effective leader could have substantially limited that harm.

Even the Trump administration’s greatest success in combating Covid, Operation Warp Speed, is now barely mentioned by him because of political pressures. There will inevitably be economic, geopolitical or other crises in future years, and Mr. Trump’s reactions to Covid provide a deeply troubling view of how he would deal with them.

Some argue that many dire predictions raised at the start of Mr. Trump’s first term did not come to pass. But Mr. Trump himself has expressed regret that his first term was less radical than he would have liked it to be — and has promised that his second term would be nothing like the first. From 2017 to 2021, Mr. Trump, while extreme in many respects, was constrained by key appointees who came from the traditional conservative establishment, and by the need to appeal to the business community as he sought re-election. If he wins this November, he’s made clear that he’ll choose appointees who will be submissive to him — and he will have no looming re-election campaign providing an incentive to curb his most extreme impulses.

Nearly every element of Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would create great risk of economic harm. In aggregate, there is a high likelihood that his agenda would lead to chaos and unpredictability, including global instability, in that way reducing investment and business activity. Meanwhile, inflation would be increased by tariffs, immigration restrictions and larger fiscal deficits.

Some may feel that we made it through one Trump term and are thus likely to make it through another. But a more apt analogy is that after surviving one round of economic Russian roulette, Donald Trump is asking us to take another spin — only this time with many more bullets in the chamber.

That would be a very dangerous game.“

Saw this recently:

"Trump supporters don't measure his success by what he does for them, they measure by what he does against the people they don't like, that's why they see him as successful, this is why they will never abandon him, tormenting of the 'others' sustains them'

DEPLORABLE

“It is racism and bigotry, whether acknowledged or unacknowledged, de jure or de facto, an active principle or a lingering vestige of a willfully misunderstood past.”

[a fan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/opin ... ticleShare

“ Not long ago, one of us was having lunch with someone who manages a multibillion-dollar fund when the subject turned to the prospect of a second Trump term.

This person was disturbed by many of Donald Trump’s actions and concerned about what the November presidential election could mean. But when it came to one issue — the economy — he was untroubled. “We didn’t do so badly last time,” he said. “There are some things I don’t agree with, but I don’t think it will matter that much.”

We fear this is an increasingly common view. We’ve spoken to many leaders in business and finance who, when it comes to economic policy, are open to the premise that Mr. Trump is a normal presidential candidate.

We strongly disagree. The two of us have been involved in business, government and policy for many years — more than a century of experience between us. We’ve worked with elected officials and business leaders across the ideological spectrum. And we believe a straightforward assessment of Mr. Trump’s economic policy agenda — based on his public statements and on-the-record interviews, such as the one he recently conducted with Time magazine — leads to a clear conclusion.

When it comes to economic policy, Mr. Trump is not a remotely normal candidate. A second Trump term would pose enormous risks to our economy.

At a time when our country was already on an increasingly risky debt trajectory, President Trump’s first-term tax initiatives added an estimated $3.9 trillion to the national debt, according to Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute. Mainstream analyses concluded that the result — increasing demand in an already full employment economy while having a negligible effect on business investment — added very little benefit in the shorter term and virtually nothing in the longer term.

And Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would further harm our fiscal picture. A Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget report said that extending the 2017 tax cuts alone would add another $3.9 trillion to the federal debt and increase our debt-to-G.D.P. ratio by approximately 10 percent. This would likely lead to higher interest rates and greater inflation while undermining business confidence, and could reduce our resilience in the face of future national-security or economic crises.

Mr. Trump would also reduce legal immigration at a time when our economy needs additional workers at all skill levels. Companies are already moving some operations outside of the United States in order to find needed staff. Ordering the military to deport millions, as he has threatened to do, would not only lead to widespread social instability but also fail to approach the issue of undocumented workers in a way that meets our economic needs.

On trade, raising tariffs across the board — as Mr. Trump has promised repeatedly to do — would increase prices for American producers and consumers, reduce our global competitiveness and likely lead other countries to retaliate against our exporters.

On regulation, while many business leaders have differences of opinion with President Biden, a second Trump term poses considerable risks. Mr. Trump has made clear that his regulatory approach will not be driven by cost-benefit analysis, in which potential social and economic benefits are weighed against potential concerns. Instead, he says he will use regulation to reward loyalists and punish perceived enemies.

In his first term, Mr. Trump personally directed the Justice Department to block a merger between AT&T and Time Warner because he was reportedly unhappy with the coverage of him on CNN, which was owned by Time Warner. In a second term he’s promised to take this approach further, for example, by pledging to reward political allies in the oil and gas industry by throttling renewable energy, one of the world’s fastest growing industries, and one where we are in fierce competition with China.

Trump would also take unprecedented action to diminish the independence of the Federal Reserve, pressuring it to set interest rates for his short-term political gain rather than the long-term health of the economy. A top Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro predicts that Mr. Trump would fire the Federal Reserve chairman in the first 100 days of his second administration. Other allies have said that Fed decisions should be subject to consultation with or even approval by the administration. Such actions could do great damage to our markets and to our economy by politicizing Federal Reserve Board interest rate decisions and undermining the broader credibility of the Fed.

Mr. Trump has said he would like to withdraw from NATO obligations and has threatened to abandon our allies in Europe if they are attacked. Such threats would immediately shake confidence in America’s defense commitments and could embolden our adversaries to act in hostile ways, increasing global instability that threatens our supply chains and our markets and increasing the risk of armed conflict. Of course, if Mr. Trump were actually to follow through on these threats, the damage would be far worse.

The rule of law is an essential underpinning of our economy. Mr. Trump’s proposed plans would undermine the rule of law in multiple ways, including using the F.B.I. and the Justice Department to target his adversaries, likely doing the same with the I.R.S., firing United States attorneys if they refuse his order to prosecute a political enemy, using his pardon power to immunize political allies from the consequences of lawbreaking and continuing to reject the fairness and freedom of our elections.

Mr. Trump would also fill his cabinet and senior staff with people whose primary qualification is loyalty to him. In such a scenario, the White House and federal agencies would be expected to make decisions not on the policy merits but in order to satisfy Mr. Trump’s ego, angers, whims, personal business interests and political vendettas.

Nor would Mr. Trump and his allies stop there. They plan to replace up to 50,000 civil servants — nonpartisan professionals such as safety inspectors, researchers and procurement experts — with political loyalists. This may even include requiring people who are currently federal employees to take a loyalty test.

When it comes to managing crises — an essential component of any president’s economic stewardship — Mr. Trump’s first term paints a troubling picture. As the pandemic spread across the United States, Trump bungled the response with indecision, a focus on politics over the public well-being and erratic behavior. Economic damage from the pandemic was inevitable. But a more effective leader could have substantially limited that harm.

Even the Trump administration’s greatest success in combating Covid, Operation Warp Speed, is now barely mentioned by him because of political pressures. There will inevitably be economic, geopolitical or other crises in future years, and Mr. Trump’s reactions to Covid provide a deeply troubling view of how he would deal with them.

Some argue that many dire predictions raised at the start of Mr. Trump’s first term did not come to pass. But Mr. Trump himself has expressed regret that his first term was less radical than he would have liked it to be — and has promised that his second term would be nothing like the first. From 2017 to 2021, Mr. Trump, while extreme in many respects, was constrained by key appointees who came from the traditional conservative establishment, and by the need to appeal to the business community as he sought re-election. If he wins this November, he’s made clear that he’ll choose appointees who will be submissive to him — and he will have no looming re-election campaign providing an incentive to curb his most extreme impulses.

Nearly every element of Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would create great risk of economic harm. In aggregate, there is a high likelihood that his agenda would lead to chaos and unpredictability, including global instability, in that way reducing investment and business activity. Meanwhile, inflation would be increased by tariffs, immigration restrictions and larger fiscal deficits.

Some may feel that we made it through one Trump term and are thus likely to make it through another. But a more apt analogy is that after surviving one round of economic Russian roulette, Donald Trump is asking us to take another spin — only this time with many more bullets in the chamber.

That would be a very dangerous game.“

Saw this recently:

"Trump supporters don't measure his success by what he does for them, they measure by what he does against the people they don't like, that's why they see him as successful, this is why they will never abandon him, tormenting of the 'others' sustains them'

DEPLORABLE

That's 100% it. It's why I keep saying...."sticking it to the gays' doesn't put food on the table. TrumpNation is paying ZERO attention to Trump's policies. The policies were, and will continue to be, 1000% immaterial to them.

It's why they don't notice that it's HIS policies that are royally F'ing them, economically speaking.

[RedFromMI]

Someone has done polls where the policies of each candidate (Trump/Biden) are asked about, but without indicating whose policy each belongs to. Overwhelming support for Biden's policies, even within the Trump camp of voters...

[jhu72]

Someone has done polls where the policies of each candidate (Trump/Biden) are asked about, but without indicating whose policy each belongs to. Overwhelming support for Biden's policies, even within the Trump camp of voters...

... not surprising.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/opin ... ticleShare

“ Not long ago, one of us was having lunch with someone who manages a multibillion-dollar fund when the subject turned to the prospect of a second Trump term.

This person was disturbed by many of Donald Trump’s actions and concerned about what the November presidential election could mean. But when it came to one issue — the economy — he was untroubled. “We didn’t do so badly last time,” he said. “There are some things I don’t agree with, but I don’t think it will matter that much.”

We fear this is an increasingly common view. We’ve spoken to many leaders in business and finance who, when it comes to economic policy, are open to the premise that Mr. Trump is a normal presidential candidate.

We strongly disagree. The two of us have been involved in business, government and policy for many years — more than a century of experience between us. We’ve worked with elected officials and business leaders across the ideological spectrum. And we believe a straightforward assessment of Mr. Trump’s economic policy agenda — based on his public statements and on-the-record interviews, such as the one he recently conducted with Time magazine — leads to a clear conclusion.

When it comes to economic policy, Mr. Trump is not a remotely normal candidate. A second Trump term would pose enormous risks to our economy.

At a time when our country was already on an increasingly risky debt trajectory, President Trump’s first-term tax initiatives added an estimated $3.9 trillion to the national debt, according to Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute. Mainstream analyses concluded that the result — increasing demand in an already full employment economy while having a negligible effect on business investment — added very little benefit in the shorter term and virtually nothing in the longer term.

And Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would further harm our fiscal picture. A Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget report said that extending the 2017 tax cuts alone would add another $3.9 trillion to the federal debt and increase our debt-to-G.D.P. ratio by approximately 10 percent. This would likely lead to higher interest rates and greater inflation while undermining business confidence, and could reduce our resilience in the face of future national-security or economic crises.

Mr. Trump would also reduce legal immigration at a time when our economy needs additional workers at all skill levels. Companies are already moving some operations outside of the United States in order to find needed staff. Ordering the military to deport millions, as he has threatened to do, would not only lead to widespread social instability but also fail to approach the issue of undocumented workers in a way that meets our economic needs.

On trade, raising tariffs across the board — as Mr. Trump has promised repeatedly to do — would increase prices for American producers and consumers, reduce our global competitiveness and likely lead other countries to retaliate against our exporters.

On regulation, while many business leaders have differences of opinion with President Biden, a second Trump term poses considerable risks. Mr. Trump has made clear that his regulatory approach will not be driven by cost-benefit analysis, in which potential social and economic benefits are weighed against potential concerns. Instead, he says he will use regulation to reward loyalists and punish perceived enemies.

In his first term, Mr. Trump personally directed the Justice Department to block a merger between AT&T and Time Warner because he was reportedly unhappy with the coverage of him on CNN, which was owned by Time Warner. In a second term he’s promised to take this approach further, for example, by pledging to reward political allies in the oil and gas industry by throttling renewable energy, one of the world’s fastest growing industries, and one where we are in fierce competition with China.

Trump would also take unprecedented action to diminish the independence of the Federal Reserve, pressuring it to set interest rates for his short-term political gain rather than the long-term health of the economy. A top Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro predicts that Mr. Trump would fire the Federal Reserve chairman in the first 100 days of his second administration. Other allies have said that Fed decisions should be subject to consultation with or even approval by the administration. Such actions could do great damage to our markets and to our economy by politicizing Federal Reserve Board interest rate decisions and undermining the broader credibility of the Fed.

Mr. Trump has said he would like to withdraw from NATO obligations and has threatened to abandon our allies in Europe if they are attacked. Such threats would immediately shake confidence in America’s defense commitments and could embolden our adversaries to act in hostile ways, increasing global instability that threatens our supply chains and our markets and increasing the risk of armed conflict. Of course, if Mr. Trump were actually to follow through on these threats, the damage would be far worse.

The rule of law is an essential underpinning of our economy. Mr. Trump’s proposed plans would undermine the rule of law in multiple ways, including using the F.B.I. and the Justice Department to target his adversaries, likely doing the same with the I.R.S., firing United States attorneys if they refuse his order to prosecute a political enemy, using his pardon power to immunize political allies from the consequences of lawbreaking and continuing to reject the fairness and freedom of our elections.

Mr. Trump would also fill his cabinet and senior staff with people whose primary qualification is loyalty to him. In such a scenario, the White House and federal agencies would be expected to make decisions not on the policy merits but in order to satisfy Mr. Trump’s ego, angers, whims, personal business interests and political vendettas.

Nor would Mr. Trump and his allies stop there. They plan to replace up to 50,000 civil servants — nonpartisan professionals such as safety inspectors, researchers and procurement experts — with political loyalists. This may even include requiring people who are currently federal employees to take a loyalty test.

When it comes to managing crises — an essential component of any president’s economic stewardship — Mr. Trump’s first term paints a troubling picture. As the pandemic spread across the United States, Trump bungled the response with indecision, a focus on politics over the public well-being and erratic behavior. Economic damage from the pandemic was inevitable. But a more effective leader could have substantially limited that harm.

Even the Trump administration’s greatest success in combating Covid, Operation Warp Speed, is now barely mentioned by him because of political pressures. There will inevitably be economic, geopolitical or other crises in future years, and Mr. Trump’s reactions to Covid provide a deeply troubling view of how he would deal with them.

Some argue that many dire predictions raised at the start of Mr. Trump’s first term did not come to pass. But Mr. Trump himself has expressed regret that his first term was less radical than he would have liked it to be — and has promised that his second term would be nothing like the first. From 2017 to 2021, Mr. Trump, while extreme in many respects, was constrained by key appointees who came from the traditional conservative establishment, and by the need to appeal to the business community as he sought re-election. If he wins this November, he’s made clear that he’ll choose appointees who will be submissive to him — and he will have no looming re-election campaign providing an incentive to curb his most extreme impulses.

Nearly every element of Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would create great risk of economic harm. In aggregate, there is a high likelihood that his agenda would lead to chaos and unpredictability, including global instability, in that way reducing investment and business activity. Meanwhile, inflation would be increased by tariffs, immigration restrictions and larger fiscal deficits.

Some may feel that we made it through one Trump term and are thus likely to make it through another. But a more apt analogy is that after surviving one round of economic Russian roulette, Donald Trump is asking us to take another spin — only this time with many more bullets in the chamber.

That would be a very dangerous game.“

Saw this recently:

"Trump supporters don't measure his success by what he does for them, they measure by what he does against the people they don't like, that's why they see him as successful, this is why they will never abandon him, tormenting of the 'others' sustains them'

DEPLORABLE

That's 100% it. It's why I keep saying...."sticking it to the gays' doesn't put food on the table. TrumpNation is paying ZERO attention to Trump's policies. The policies were, and will continue to be, 1000% immaterial to them.

It's why they don't notice that it's HIS policies that are royally F'ing them, economically speaking.

Wash….rinse…repeat

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ory-216200

[jhu72]

Regardless of what the polls say, 538 says today it is a toss up! Polls have done poorly this far out for national elections since 2016. 538's simulations require engaging brain, where polls don't. Trump certainly thinks it is closer than the polls, he is campaigning against his base, 1) abortion issue has him spooked, as he is trying to get right with the majority opinion; 2) 2025 Project has him denying it is his plan, because it is being called what it is.

The biggest thing Trump has going for him, is "rabbit heart" and "chicken sh*t" democrats shooting their own candidate in the back!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Regardless of what the polls say, 538 says today it is a toss up! Polls have done poorly this far out for national elections since 2016. 538's simulations require engaging brain, where polls don't. Trump certainly thinks it is closer than the polls, he is campaigning against his base, 1) abortion issue has him spooked, as he is trying to get right with the majority opinion; 2) 2025 Project has him denying it is his plan, because it is being called what it is.

The biggest thing Trump has going for him, is "rabbit heart" and "chicken sh*t" democrats shooting their own candidate in the back!

Yep

[OCanada]

Where is Trump?

The race is a toss up per the polls. The lines are very clear. I don’t see much actual movement between candidates happening.

I am wondering if Trump is being cloaked as much ss possible. He is deteriorating