Red Mosquito

B wrote:

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.

Holy shit how long are straight white males living now? Maybe we really are vampires.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

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.

I don't buy that a reason she lost is that she didn't do enough outreach to young, male voters.

She didn't do Rogen -- not as a slight, btw, or because she dismissed him, but because of timing and scheduling (and his inflexible demands).

She did All The Smoke. She did Stem. She did Charlamagne tha God. It's not fair to pretend like no effort was made.

She certainly made more of an effort than her opponent did to court his unlikely demographics. Maybe if Trump had lost, people would be arguing he should have done The View or Call Her Daddy?

All I'm saying is, she had 107 (or something like that) days. And what she accomplished in that time was admirable. Especially because the majority of the people you think she should have spent more time on were never going to vote for her.

There are a lot of reasons she lost. Misogyny is a far bigger one than she didn't do Rogen.

epilogue wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

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.

I don't buy that a reason she lost is that she didn't do enough outreach to young, male voters.

She didn't do Rogen -- not as a slight, btw, or because she dismissed him, but because of timing and scheduling (and his inflexible demands).

She did All The Smoke. She did Stem. She did Charlamagne tha God. It's not fair to pretend like no effort was made.

She certainly made more of an effort than her opponent did to court his unlikely demographics. Maybe if Trump had lost, people would be arguing he should have done The View or Call Her Daddy?

All I'm saying is, she had 107 (or something like that) days. And what she accomplished in that time was admirable. Especially because the majority of the people you think she should have spent more time on were never going to vote for her.

There are a lot of reasons she lost. Misogyny is a far bigger one than she didn't do Rogen.

She didn't do Rogen because she wanted special treatment, and wanted control over what was talked about.

Did her and Charlemagne the God spend a lot of time talking about the pro-rape squad vote? I'm confused.

epilogue wrote:I don't buy that a reason she lost is that she didn't do enough outreach to young, male voters.

She didn't do Rogen -- not as a slight, btw, or because she dismissed him, but because of timing and scheduling (and his inflexible demands).

She did All The Smoke. She did Stem. She did Charlamagne tha God. It's not fair to pretend like no effort was made.

She certainly made more of an effort than her opponent did to court his unlikely demographics. Maybe if Trump had lost, people would be arguing he should have done The View or Call Her Daddy?

The last three presidential elections have been razor thin, and there have been very little margins for error. White male voters, and in particular white, male working voters, have been trending toward the Republicans. The data show what the data show, regardless of whether people want to give credence to them or not. Trump doesn't have to go out of way to appeal to them because he's not losing them. But he also understands that they are his ticket to victory (it turns out that latino and black men also broke for him).

Again, her not making more of an outreach in messaging is not the reason she lost. But it didn't help.

epilogue wrote:There are a lot of reasons she lost. Misogyny is a far bigger one than she didn't do Rogen.

honestly, this is why you're so difficult to have a dialogue with on issues on which you're very emotional. no one said this. i certainly didn't. but you keep arguing extremes that were never mentioned, and it's super frustrating.

tragabigzanda wrote:

B wrote:

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.

The pure existence of opportunities, and the visible model and compelling reason to pursue opportunities, aren't the same thing, though. And houses are unattainable no matter how you slice it.

And the young men of today didn't steal shit; they're the inheriting benefactors of their ancestors theft. Huge difference, and trying to guilt an entire demographic into voting for societal equity when they themselves have earned nothing, nor see a reason to try to earn anything, has proven to be one heck of a bad political strategy.

I'm not trying to guilt anyone. I don't feel guilty.

tragabigzanda wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

wease wrote:

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!

To clarify: you’re thinking about this wrong

absent good insights, I don't think I am. Treasure notes function as the baseline "risk-free rate" against which all other investments are compared, yeah?

Doubling down, if increased borrowing from the private sector does follow, then T-yields will go up as bond investors seek higher returns for increased debt supplies.

For banks the "risk-free rate" is the interest rate the Fed pays on reserves. That's more or less the federal funds rate (which we still talk about but hasn't necessarily mattered since 2008). And yeah, that rate along with treasuries and in turn most short-term interest rates move in relative lock step with fairly predictable spreads.

The part I'm not sure about is "treasury bond yields adjust to reflect these shifts, then the Fed responds accordingly." Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but The Fed's "response" would only be meaningful if it offsets the fiscal impacts on the interest rate, IE, basically all of Trump's likely actions (tariffs, reduced imports, increased deficit spending, etc.) will put upward pressure on interest rates. The Fed could take actions to lower interest rates, or more likely to keep them from rising to try to keep those policies from crumbling under the pressure of the rate increases. I guess if that's what you mean I agree. If you mean when treasuries rise the Fed's rates follow, I'm not so sure about that.

Mostly it sounds like you're just describing increased demand for loanable funds, which would indeed lead to higher interest rates absent some offsetting expansionary monetary policy from The Fed (or capital inflows that we receive when running a trade deficit!). Of course such policy would very likely be inflationary but that won't stop Trump from blaming The Fed for high interest rates caused by his policies.

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

B wrote:

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.

The pure existence of opportunities, and the visible model and compelling reason to pursue opportunities, aren't the same thing, though. And houses are unattainable no matter how you slice it.

And the young men of today didn't steal shit; they're the inheriting benefactors of their ancestors theft. Huge difference, and trying to guilt an entire demographic into voting for societal equity when they themselves have earned nothing, nor see a reason to try to earn anything, has proven to be one heck of a bad political strategy.

I'm not trying to guilt anyone. I don't feel guilty.

If you believe that white people are morally bound to sacrifice for equality, then how can you not feel guilty about refusing to sacrifice? If you believe that white men should not expect anything in return for their vote and they should only vote based on the best interests of other identity groups, then how can you refuse this duty and not be immoral? This is about guilt.

Burt wrote:If you believe that white people are morally bound to sacrifice for equality,

I do not.

tragabigzanda wrote:And for the record, I do feel guilty — very guilty as a matter of fact — about the quality of life I possess but much of which I didn’t earn. To the extent that jr directly motivates actions and professions.

I'm begging you - FUCKING begging you - to read Nietzsche. Genealogy of Morals (first essay) at least.

Lay down your burden!

tragabigzanda wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

wease wrote:

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!

To clarify: you’re thinking about this wrong

absent good insights, I don't think I am. Treasure notes function as the baseline "risk-free rate" against which all other investments are compared, yeah?

Doubling down, if increased borrowing from the private sector does follow, then T-yields will go up as bond investors seek higher returns for increased debt supplies.

Yeah, I was just yanking your chain. I don’t understand 95% of what you’re saying here.

trag, our little exchange gave me the idea to have pho for lunch today.

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:And for the record, I do feel guilty — very guilty as a matter of fact — about the quality of life I possess but much of which I didn’t earn. To the extent that jr directly motivates actions and professions.

I'm begging you - FUCKING begging you - to read Nietzsche. Genealogy of Morals at least.

Lay down your burden!

I'm quite content living my life from a place of service

The people you serve hate you for it

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:And for the record, I do feel guilty — very guilty as a matter of fact — about the quality of life I possess but much of which I didn’t earn. To the extent that jr directly motivates actions and professions.

I'm begging you - FUCKING begging you - to read Nietzsche. Genealogy of Morals at least.

Lay down your burden!

I'm quite content living my life from a place of service

The people you serve hate you for it