Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Kirk Gallaway]

It's the 3B's now:  Bernie who will landslide in California and should eek out a victory over Biden in Texas. Probably even beats Warren in her home state. Even if hes close, its an ideological win anyway.                             Biden, with Tennessee, Arkansas,  North Carolina, Virginia going for a flyover strategy and saying the blue states are already in the Dems pocket and only he can stave off Trumps only chance of holding gains in Middle America.                                                                                                                                                              Bloomberg, I'm sorry not to play the general paranoia, (actually I'm not) but it is hard for me to see how he becomes  the go to choice in a brokered convention without alienating the party ideologically even more.                                                                

Edited March 1, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway

[Dennis Berube]

40 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

The Palmetto State was the locus of the Nullification Crisis during Andrew Jackson's presidency-- when John C. Calhoun and the slave-owning planter aristocracy threatened to break with the Union over tariffs.  (They quickly backed down when Jackson threatened to send in U.S. troops.)

     Charleston was the main slave port on the East coast, and slaves comprised 60% of South Carolina's population by 1860, if I recall correctly.

     No accident that Wade Hampton and the slave-owning aristocracy of South Carolina launched the Secession and the Civil War.

The Jackson closure of the 2nd Bank of the US in 1837 after vetoing the charter in 1832, was the final straw that set up the Civil War, as I see it. If the south had any chance of a growing non-slave based manufacturing economy to reduce their import reliance, it died with that last semi-public central bank. They should have listened to/elected Henry Clay.

[Douglas Caddy]

NYSE could close trading floor in coronavirus contingency

 

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyse-could-close-trading-floor-in-coronavirus-contingency

[W. Niederhut]

21 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

The Jackson closure of the 2nd Bank of the US in 1837 after vetoing the charter in 1832, was the final straw that set up the Civil War, as I see it. If the south had any chance of a growing non-slave based manufacturing economy to reduce their import reliance, it died with that last semi-public central bank. They should have listened to/elected Henry Clay.

    But don't forget that the planter aristocracy of the South was immensely wealthy in the mid-19th century, when "Cotton was King."  (And much of their wealth was comprised of slaves-- an enormous "investment.")

     The best social/economic history of the era that I ever read was McPherson's Pulitzer Prize winning "Battle Cry of Freedom."  In fact, that's probably the best book I've read in the past decade.  Period.  (And I read a lot of books.)

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Here is an interview from the other day (Feb. 27) with Doug Valentine.

He discusses a Pentagon Mission to photograph and obtain evidence that the CIA was running heroin out of the Golden Triangle in 1967/1968.

It is relevant to current events.

 

One of those things you don't want to be true.

 

[James DiEugenio]

This is amazing

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-february-fundraising-2020-democratic-primary_n_5e5b9f80c5b6beedb4ecb7ae

[James DiEugenio]

This is what I don't get.

If Bernie is such a drag on the Democratic Party then 1.) Why does he poll well against Trump, and 2.) Why does he have such a broad base of financial support?

And third, how the heck did he almost beat HRC in 2016?

PS I voted for Bernie today.  California is going to a new system of four day voting centers and some of them 11 days.  I think its because of the huge surplus we have.  IMO, its a good idea that should be installed everywhere.  On the downside, I had to show some form of ID.  I am really against this because it plays into the hands of the GOP.  I guess the Democrats feel they can do it since this state is so blue.

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is what I don't get.

If Bernie is such a drag on the Democratic Party then 1.) Why does he poll well against Trump, and 2.) Why does he have such a broad base of financial support?

And third, how the heck did he almost beat HRC in 2016?

PS I voted for Bernie today.  California is going to a new system of four day voting centers and some of them 11 days.  I think its because of the huge surplus we have.  IMO, its a good idea that should be installed everywhere.  On the downside, I had to show some form of ID.  I am really against this because it plays into the hands of the GOP.  I guess the Democrats feel they can do it since this state is so blue.

 

I'm voting for Bernie in Colorado's primary on Tuesday.

As I see it, the Democratic race is down to Bernie vs. Biden.

I don't dislike Joe Biden, but he voted for the Iraq War and, like Hillary, will most likely go along with the Neocon/CIA war agenda in the Middle East.

Not enough has been said in the Democratic debates about that important subject.

[James DiEugenio]

Its worse than that William.

Biden has continually misrepresented what he said and did:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/fact-check-biden-iraq-war-repeat-iowa/index.html

What really bothers me about this is that Biden always tried to come off as some kind of foreign policy guru with loads of experience and insight.  Yet, any idiot could have seen that 1.) The neocons were lying their heads off about both the yellowcake and the link to terrorism 2.)   It was going to be incredibly expensive and 3.) You ran the risk of unleashing Islamic fundamentalism.

So why did Biden vote for it and why is he trying to cover it up?  

PS Mayor Pete is gone

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/01/buttigieg-dropping-out-of-presidential-race-118489

Edited March 2, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

In just a short 3 month time period, Michael Bloomberg has committed to and carried out an unprecedented, mind boggling 1/2 BILLION dollar "all out war" spending/running effort to defeat the progressive Democratic candidates ... not Donald Trump.

"The gentleman doth 'spends' too much, me thinks."

And if Bloomberg ends up running against Trump and loses the election to Trump, Bloomberg wins regardless.

Because his greatest fear is not Trump and his 1% priority policies which benefit Bloomberg. It is his stated fear of progressives winning the White House.

We see this truth clearly printed in black and white in a previous post link of Bloomberg speaking to his Wall Street bank buddies Goldman Sachs at Yankee Stadium.

And now, (Hello!) late comer Bloomberg is already featured on the nationally broadcast CBS interview show "60 Minutes" tonight.  Just two days before "Super Tuesday?"

I just watched the interview on the internet. It's softball questions through out.

Talk about a perfectly timed, free advertising, huge audience exposure, poll boosting coup!

How in the heck did Bloomberg score this prized huge exposure bonus gig "just before" the Super Tuesday voting over all the other Dem candidates? 

A coincidence? Oh, please!

Liz Warren has been in the primary campaign since Feb 19th, 2019.

She's been in the cross country travel , press scrutiny and crowd greeting grind, fighting the battles and facing the heat through every debate for one solid year since. For most of this time she was considered a leading candidate. In that entire year CBS never once considered her worthy of their national audience interest?

Yet, Bloomberg avoids all that work, personal scrutiny and heat, saunters in 9 months later than Warren, and after only 3 months of campaigning, scores the perfectly timed extra national exposure effect 60 Minute gig?

I really wonder about what is going on with CBS and 60 Minutes with this Bloomberg exposure gift at the perfect time to help his Johnny Come Lately campaign over the entire rest of the much longer running, greater sacrificing Dem candidate field.

Seems too easy fishy to me.

Bloomberg has now spent 1/2 BILLION to defeat the Dem field in his brief 3 month long run? How obscene. How un-American.

If Bloomberg wins the Dem candidacy, we'll have to tell our kids... Yes Sammy and Susie, in our country, if you're rich enough, you really can buy the presidency.

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

I also understand Joe that Bloomberg has bought a three minute commercial in the Super Tuesday states for Monday night.

If that is true then he is saturating the air waves in  preparation for the big one.

And i agree with your view of why he got in this.  Its more to stop Sanders and Warren than it is to beat Trump.

[Ron Bulman]

I guess I wasted my vote by doing so early last week here in Texas for Warren.  Of course it was from the start here, this state is not ready for a liberal Woman.  Molly Ivins and Ann Richards are long gone.  But Liz still seemed to have a chance nationally when I voted and I thought she was best qualified, still do.  But it seems reality looms.

Steyer dropped too.  One less billionaire. I guess his supporters will go to Bloomburg or Biden.   Pete's to Biden as he's moderate.  Read tonight "insiders" are urging Liz and Amy to stay through Tuesday to (hopefully) deny Sanders Minnesota and Massachusetts.  For now I'm hoping enough people see through Bloombergs media blitz to make him reconsider though that could take quite a blow given the money he's spent.

I've read speculation that without daddy's money JFK wouldn't have won.  No SuperPac's back then.  Maye Liz should have let hers come on board earlier and advertised more then.  

Edited March 2, 2020 by Ron Bulman

[James DiEugenio]

What Kennedy spent in the 1960 primary was literally a drop in the  bucket compared to what Bloomberg is doing.

To give you one example: by far the most expensive primary Bobby Kennedy planned and executed was West Virginia.  The best estimates on that are that RFK spent between 250-350 K.  Today that would be about 2.5 to 3.5 million.

Absolute chicken feed to what Bloomberg is doing.  This is really unprecedented.  By the time the primary season is over, he will have spent more than what HRC did in her entire 2016 campaign. What makes that so surreal is that in the general election, you buy a lot of national ads which are quite naturally more expensive than state or regional buys. 

This from a guy who was against the minimum wage.

Edited March 2, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Douglas Caddy]

The Coronavirus Has Put the World’s Economy in Survival Mode

There’s little hope for a global economic rebound in 2020.

By Eswar S. Prasad - The New York Times

Mr. Prasad is a professor at Cornell University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

• March 1, 2020
• •  
  •  
  •  

 

A man wearing a protective mask inside the Shanghai Stock Exchange building on Feb. 28.Credit...Aly Song/Reuters

 

Whether or not the coronavirus turns into a global pandemic, the outbreak is already infecting economies and financial markets around the world. While governments try to navigate the fine line between being prepared and setting off panic, the economic costs are growing as countries and communities try to control the spread of the disease.

The hopeful narrative about 2020 heralding a modest rebound in global growth now lies in ruins. Europe stagnated and Japan’s economy shrank in the last quarter of 2019, even as China and India were losing momentum. So this year was already off to a rocky start. Now, the coronavirus has put the world economy in survival mode. The spread of the virus is hurting travel, trade and supply chains worldwide. The Baltic Dry Index, a forward-looking indicator of global trade, has fallen by half and oil prices are down by about a quarter so far this year. U.S. stock markets, after initially taking the epidemic’s fallout in stride, are now experiencing a major sell-off.

Why were stock markets sanguine for weeks after the outbreak began, and why are they now in full-blown panic mode? Financial markets are prone to large, sentiment-driven swings that sometimes seem out of line with economic fundamentals. But the news of the last few days suggests that, rather than coming under control and being confined to China, the outbreak is spreading and could get far worse. Stock markets in the United States and elsewhere are reflecting this reassessment of the epidemic’s future trajectory and the risks it poses.

The notion of this outbreak being a short-lived negative shock to global demand now looks unrealistic. It is not just spending on restaurants and travel that is suffering, but also investment by businesses while they wait for the uncertainty to be resolved. This will have long-term effects on growth even if the outbreak proves short-lived.

 

Stock markets mainly reflect the prospects of medium-size and large firms. Warnings of weaker revenues and profits from giants like Apple and Microsoft have contributed to the declines in major stock indexes. Even though the United States has so far been relatively unscathed by the epidemic, the plunge in stock markets last week reflects the supply chain disruptions faced by U.S. companies and also weaknesses in foreign markets that account for a significant portion of U.S. multinationals’ revenues.

 

The disruption of supply chains, especially those that pass through Asia, is hurting businesses in multiple dimensions. Countries such as China, South Korea and Japan are critical to the supply chains for products ranging from plastic toys to iPhones to high-tech machinery. In these countries, manufacturers can’t get raw materials delivered reliably, are facing worker shortages and are having difficulty shipping out products. Rejiggering supply chains takes months, if not years. If the coronavirus spreads and causes disruptions to other major economies, it could wreak further havoc on supply chains.

Still, big companies are better equipped to cope in difficult times. They tend to have large cushions of cash and can get financing from banks. The picture is bleaker for small companies.

In most countries, including the United States, small private businesses are among the most dynamic in creating jobs. But they usually have slim financial cushions. Banks are often reluctant to lend to small businesses even in the best of times. Moreover, even if their employers stay afloat, employed workers are likely to pare back spending as they face uncertainty about job prospects and shrinking investment accounts.

Another quandary that governments face, especially in China and other countries hit hardest by the coronavirus, is how to balance containing the spread of the epidemic with keeping their economies humming. Every day that factories stay closed and restaurants have no customers makes it harder to get things back up. On the flip side, the very nature of increased economic activity, with more person-to-person contacts, would make it harder to control the spread of the epidemic.

 

There is no easy way out. The Federal Reserve and other central banks could cut interest rates. This might not do much good, as uncertainty will restrain consumer spending and business investment even if cheap loans were available. Government spending might be more potent. Any assistance that reaches small businesses and allows them to stay afloat or goes directly into the hands of low-income consumers will help. But consumers and businesses are as likely to stash away any extra cash as they are to spend it.

Governments cannot eliminate uncertainty, but they can ensure the transparent and accurate flow of information. Even if the news is bad, consumers, businesses and investors need to know that they have a reliable picture of the facts. That, along with knowing that governments are doing all they can, might be the salve that everyone needs.

[Douglas Caddy]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/01/coronavirus-is-significant-threat-to-economy-and-trump-mark-zandi.html