Harris apparently very pleasing to Wall Street

[Craig234]

Those two scenarios are not at all equivalent. At least for the foreseeable future, money is going to be in politics and the bigger the political stakes the more money. Dems have tried numerous times to keep big money whether individual, corporate or dark out of politics but Republicans aren't having it. And the SC has blessed the process by decreeing that there can be no limits set on how much certain groups can pump in. So, to expect Dems not to play the game the way the opposition does would be ridiculous not to mention suicidal.

There's one of those delicious ironies at work here as well and Republicans have perfected it: they accuse her of being a radical socialist out of one side of their crooked mouths and then a Wall St. darling out of the other. Don't fall for this garbage.

First, I'd add to your comment, "the DC *the Republicans appointed for that very purpose* has blessed the process..." Second, I'm not asking the Dems not to play the game and lose, but I'd like ones who play the game and want to change it, not ones who play the game and embrace it.

 

[Craig234]

Well, she's a "Marxist" one minute or a Wall St. tool the next. Republicans have no problem talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

They do, and that point is settled, but then each point can be considered itself. Marxist? Talk about tulips more. Dismiss that garbage. Wall Street tool? The jury is out for me. She did take on Wall Street in a different role, but they aren't happy to have her for no reason, I suspect.

 

[digitusmedius]

First, I'd add to your comment, "the DC *the Republicans appointed for that very purpose* has blessed the process..." Second, I'm not asking the Dems not to play the game and lose, but I'd like ones who play the game and want to change it, not ones who play the game and embrace it.

They have to get into office to change it. And I'm aware that there are Dems who're OK (or "whore"--get it) with it. But the Republicans are uniformly and adamantly for the way we do it so the likelihood of it being changed is next to none.

 

[Craig234]

That is fair. People should vote Biden-Harris to stop Trump but.....*long and irritated sigh*

This really is the last roll of the dice to preserve democracy and the democrats have nominated candidates who won’t address any of the major problems facing the American people and will probably perpetuate them with their “centrist” don’t upset wall street BS. So even if they win at this point, it is only a temporary breathing space until Republicans win the next election. They will only deal with the symptom of the problem (Trump and the Republicans) but not the problems feeding in to it.

what really bothers me is that this is essentially the last election to really get to grips with climate change and protect ourselves and future generations. You really needed someone who would take on wall street and the vested interests to deal with the problem and cut emissions to protect people from that. Christ- that might even protect the future of capitalism from social and political instability but you can’t even get the ruling class to think that long term.

Its just beyond god dam frustrating at this point and people are getting killed from COVID because the GOPs obsession with “non-intervention” rejects facts and the value of saving lives and democrats don’t have the backbone to do what is right.

It feels more like a “now or never situation” and the best we can do is Biden. We really need a giant who could pull off a “new deal”, but I am really doubting whether the progressive talk coming out of camp Biden is worth the paper its written on.

I don’t know. Its just very frustrating.

It is, and you're mostly right. I will say, a number of elections have been 'very important' for quite a while.

The election of Reagan is the worst turning point in our country's history, on the road to plutocracy and crippling democracy.

We could have used Gary Hart instead of George HW Bush to return the country to FDR government.

We could have used Al Gore with his great talents to continue the return to surpluses and fiscal sanity, and not have a terrible Iraq War, a new Security State bureaucracy, trillions redistributed to the rich in a tax cut for them, corrupt regulation, etc.

We needed, after Bush 43, a new FDR to undo the harm and get Wall Street under control. We got Obama, who did not.

In 2016, we needed Bernie, not Hillary or trump. Quite critical.

And yes, this is a critical election. The country would be crushed by another 4 years of trump.

The Supreme Court and the climate are what I said trump's biggest harms would likely be in 2016, and the same applies in 2020.

 

[Craig234]

They have to get into office to change it. And I'm aware that there are Dems who're OK with it. But the Republicans are uniformly and adamantly for the way we do it so the likelihood of it being changed is next to none.

What are you disagreeing with in my post? I said, play the game to win, but fight to change the game, and Republicans are why the game is corrupt.

 

[digitusmedius]

What are you disagreeing with in my post? I said, play the game to win, but fight to change the game, and Republicans are why the game is corrupt.

I'm not disagreeing so much as arguing for not passing judgement on how the B/H government would or would not handle things before they get into office. For one thing, addressing the massive covid-19 mess they'll inherit is going to require every bit of political skill and support they can muster before all of the other ills are dealt with. Thus my "like" for #29.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not disagreeing so much as arguing for not passing judgement on how the B/H government would or would not handle things before they get into office. For one thing, addressing the massive covid-19 mess they'll inherit is going to require every bit of political skill and support they can muster before all of the other ills are dealt with. Thus my "like" for #29.

There are unknowns and hopes for what they'll do, but it's not too bad a thing to talk about what seems like and what we'd like. Of course we support their doing well on things like the virus.

 

[bluesmoke]

They tend to get a 'better share' I think under Republicans. They've always been short-sighted at caring about wanting a bigger share of a smaller pie, even if it's smaller than a smaller share of a bigger pie. And Republicans are the ones who give them lower taxes on the rich, and don't regulate them in the public interests, and put them in charge of regulatory agencies.

Yeah. The wealthy individuals do better. "Wall Street", the stock market, does about the same.

 

[VySky]

I have mixed feelings about Harris. I was recently reminded of her perhaps most important action as CA Attorney General, soon after taking office, refusing the deal states made with Wall Street, taking a lot of criticism for it - and winning, with Wall Street giving all states a better deal. Good going.

A concern is that she has no issues with money in politics, and 'plays the game' well and shamelessly. This article discusses her as being a very good fundraiser who will help Biden with that. When I see politicians seeming to be on a 'fast track' by the party, it raises some questions. She's a first term Senator, just like Obama who was fast-tracked, and Wall Street's favorite candidate.



Joe Biden VP pick: Wall Street executives are happy about Kamala Harris

Harris a moderate :lamo

 

[bongsaway]

Ah right, so it was all about keeping the donors happy and getting more money...

You literally couldn't have said anything that would make me despise a Biden-Harris ticket more...

You had better get your mail in ballot done soon. We only have two plus months till the election and the mail over here is going to take two of those months. Hope the royal mail is better.

In america, it's all about money. Politicians no more control our government than I do.

 

[Craig234]

Harris a moderate :lamo

Good argument, as usual from the right-wing.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah. The wealthy individuals do better. "Wall Street", the stock market, does about the same.

Actually, the stock market consistently does significantly better under Democrats.

 

[Kyle Phoenix]

You had better get your mail in ballot done soon. We only have two plus months till the election and the mail over here is going to take two of those months. Hope the royal mail is better.

In america, it's all about money. Politicians no more control our government than I do.

I'm not a U.S. citizen so I can't vote. I'm saved from the agony of choice, but I still can't help watch things unfold as an interested party. America's screw ups affect all of us in the end.

 

[bluesmoke]

Actually, the stock market consistently does significantly better under Democrats.

I agree. But it's not that big a diff to me The mkt did great under Reps until the Great Depression. FDR took it up before levelling off then and during Truman. Eisenhower took it way up. Kennedy and Johnson held steady until Nixon took it down which continued down under Carter. Reagan, Bush1 then Clinton took the mkt way up until Bush2 flattened then led us into the Great Recession. Obama took it way up from there which Trump continued until the coronavirus debacle. It's a mixed bag, except the worst performance were from Rep caused economic disasters of the Great Depression, the Great Recession, and now the virus econ debacle. The rich and large corps, the mkt, does best rebounding from such huge setbacks, taking advantage of them, while the avg American suffers. Hence the Fed pouring trillions into the system to support the mkt. The Dems do better with the econ, repair it, to keep the avg American's head above water. Still, the wealth gap widens and real wages/income barely budge.

 

[Craig234]

I agree.

It's very simple and clear, to quote Forbes: "From 1952 through June 2020, annualized real stock market returns under Democrats have been 10.6% compared with 4.8% for Republicans. "

 

[bluesmoke]

It's very simple and clear, to quote Forbes: "From 1952 through June 2020, annualized real stock market returns under Democrats have been 10.6% compared with 4.8% for Republicans. "

Thanks. Was that DJIA, or?

 

[Craig234]

Thanks. Was that DJIA, or?

Sure. It looks like they used the S&P 500.

 

[bluesmoke]

Sure. It looks like they used the S&P 500.

Annualized DJIA 1921 - 2019, 98 yrs, 9.8%. Republican president 50 yrs 6.9%, Dem 48 yrs 8.3% for a 20.3% diff Dem vs Rep whereas it was 120.8% diff Dem vs Rep S&P 1952 – 2020 YTD. Of course, not many of us were invested in the market before 1952. One thing is, though, the richest make the most money immediately following the biggest loses, like after the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Meaning, they do better as a result of Rep admin. They get out early into/before recession and get back in early/before recovery. The avg American doesn’t invest much at all in the mkt and don’t share in that wealth of such a false economy, which is why I don’t use the mkt as much a measure of anything meaningful to Americans.