Red Mosquito

You've got to stop reading this trash lol. They print the same shit about crazy lefties (or just lefties telling dark jokes on the internet.) It takes no time at all to find lunatics online saying crazy shit. That is hardly representative of anything real. It would take no time to find some LGBTQ nutjob screaming that we should start killing TERFS with sledgehammers. It's cheap nonsense.

And none of this has anything to do with what ChrisH2h was saying. No, saying that democrats should try to appeal to men more and present some plan for dealing with men's issues is not to say that they should appeal to some anonymous rando on the internet calling for all women to be turned into sex slaves.

you do not live in reality.

What "men's issue" went unaddressed by the Harris campaign?

B wrote:What "men's issue" went unaddressed by the Harris campaign?

Do you think there aren't any valid ones? I'm not gonna tell you. You tell me one.

epilogue wrote: The Fed planned to raise rates multiple times and he time he threatened and bullied them until they didn't. It's mobster shit. He may not have the actual power to raise and lower personally (yet -- we'll see if he's able to change that) but he has the power to influence and abuse people.

He definitely threatened and bullied and all that, but the Fed did raise interest rates from 2017 through August 2019 even as he loudly complained that they were against him and tried to fire the chairman (that he appointed). I don't remember thinking at the time that they stopped raising rates because of his bullying but I suppose it's possible. If you have any links that support that I'm definitely interested in reading them.

Here's the FFR over the relevant time range.

I happen to be teaching about Fed independence tomorrow and I've used Trump wanting to fire them as an instructive example for years.

epilogue wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

epilogue wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

epilogue wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

B wrote:you will never convince me that there was a huge proportion of men that couldn't stomach voting for a woman.

you know what didn't help? harris completely refusing to engage them. she took for granted that they fall into one of four camps: (1) republicans who will never vote for her; (2) trump supporters who will never vote for her; (3) democrats that she just assumed would vote for her; and (4) anti-trumpers that she just assumed would vote for her. so there was very little to no outreach. what her campaign seemed to fail to grasp is that there was more nuance to latter two categories rather than a simple, clean, demarcated break from the first two categories.

stuff like refusing the invitation to go on joe rogan's podcast that is majority white dudes just proves that this demographic wasn't prioritized.

No, yeah, shame on her for not prioritizing a group of people crowing "your body, my choice" and thirsting for Handmaid's Tale rape squads! How dare she!

oh for god's sake, stop. there's a big difference between paying attention to someone and prioritizing them.

That's your takeaway?

what should my takeaway be from your condescending post that didn't address the bigger point?

How did it not address your biggest point? I'm not sure how it could have addressed it more graphically.

so i guess my takeaway should be that i should thank god that you're not responsible for setting the democrats' agenda for the next four years. done.

B wrote:What "men's issue" went unaddressed by the Harris campaign?

it's not men's issues, but men. a lot feel alienated by the party, especially by the identity politics. you're losing working class men. as repugnant as it is, you have to try, no?

By all means keep doing what you're doing. The constant shaming and guilt-tripping and claim that we "owe" you our vote is definitely something you should quadruple-down on.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:y'all know that there's a big difference between mortgage rates and the funds rate that the fed sets, right?

I generally think of Treasury rates as the "one ring to rule them all."

Trump's going to drive massive M&A activity, give big tax breaks for R&D, plus spur more luxury real estate construction and purchase of existing investment real estate by the 1%. And I just assume that any Republican administration means an overall increase in defense spending...

So the Treasury bond yields adjust to reflect these shifts, then the Fed responds accordingly.

Or am I thinking about this wrong? Please clarify!

i don't understand to what specifically you're referring when you say he's going to drive massive M&A activity. in what sectors? and with what measures will he affect or offset borrowing costs?

i'm also curious why you specified the real-estate industry in the context of driving market conditions that influence yields. one doesn't necessarily beget the other alone -- it's a part of broader category of things that play a role, and itself is usually influenced by other things.

don't forget, the money to do the things that trump is promising, including the massive tax cuts, has to come from somewhere. i guess all the crappy stuff will push up yields at some point though.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

B wrote:What "men's issue" went unaddressed by the Harris campaign?

it's not men's issues, but men. a lot feel alienated by the party, especially by the identity politics. you're losing working class men. as repugnant as it is, you have to try, no?

Well, that was my original point. No.
In a world built for cis white males, why should anyone feel any need to coddle us?
If the only way for Democrats to win is by snuggling the crybabies who have every advantage on Earth and still whine that the woman running for President isn't rubbing their feet the right way, then I'm sorry. Fuck the world.

B wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

B wrote:What "men's issue" went unaddressed by the Harris campaign?

it's not men's issues, but men. a lot feel alienated by the party, especially by the identity politics. you're losing working class men. as repugnant as it is, you have to try, no?

Well, that was my original point. No.
In a world built for cis white males, why should anyone feel any need to coddle us?
If the only way for Democrats to win is by snuggling the crybabies who have every advantage on Earth and still whine that the woman running for President isn't rubbing their feet the right way, then I'm sorry. Fuck the world.

Are you saying democrats coddle other identity groups?

And again, why are you saying the second sentence? wtf are you talking about?

BurtReynolds wrote:Are you saying democrats coddle other identity groups?

The Cheneys

tragabigzanda wrote:I like how B skipped over my massive post about how young white men are beholden to a society that offers them dwindling models for creation of long-term value, emotional fulfillment, and upward mobility.

But meanwhile all the non-white men are enjoying all that stuff?

tragabigzanda wrote:I like how B skipped over my massive post about how young white men are beholden to a society that offers them dwindling models for creation of long-term value, emotional fulfillment, and upward mobility.

Bullshit.

They still have millions more opportunities for those things any of the marginalized communities from which they spent centuries stealing them.

B is very committed to the idea of original sin, but only for some!