US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Megaterio Llamas]

Got some red meat for the anti Trumpers in the crowd. Nima Alkhorshid of the Dialogue Works webcast interviews John Helmer of the escellent Dances With Bears blog. John has crunched the numbers and I must admit I am surprised by his findings.

Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/live/RGlZ4AlAOt ... 5Jv7l1IpO7

[rikster]

Got some red meat for the anti Trumpers in the crowd. Nima Alkhorshid of the Dialogue Works webcast interviews John Helmer of the escellent Dances With Bears blog. John has crunched the numbers and I must admit I am surprised by his findings.

Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/live/RGlZ4AlAOt ... 5Jv7l1IpO7

Good find...

For me, you can think of the cost of fighting a war almost as a Government Grant given to stimulate the economy..

The defence industry which in the US is nearly 15% of their total budget from time to time suffers from an oversupply and aging problem with its inventory of war ammunitions...

Typically companies try things like discounting prices as a way to move stale inventories, but in the case of the defence industry a way to clear out its stockpiles is to fight a war whether its involved or not...

And if you can get another country to repay you when its you fighting the war, that's a major win....

Meanwhile over in Europe the markets have taken a significant upswing with record climbs almost weekly led by defence and construction stocks...

European stocks have been among the best performers in the world this year with 9 of the top 10 performers on the MSCI World Index and the euro has seen a strong recovery...

One defence stock has seen a nearly 200% gain...

Always big winners in the game of war...

And after you've blown everything up the second wave of commerce sweeps in and begins the rebuilding process...

[Topper]

Got some red meat for the anti Trumpers in the crowd. Nima Alkhorshid of the Dialogue Works webcast interviews John Helmer of the escellent Dances With Bears blog. John has crunched the numbers and I must admit I am surprised by his findings.

Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/live/RGlZ4AlAOt ... 5Jv7l1IpO7

I noted this in a post over a month ago in relation to the way CIDA spends it's foreign aid. As much as possible of each project's budget is spent firstly in Canada and secondly from Canadian suppliers.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Got some red meat for the anti Trumpers in the crowd. Nima Alkhorshid of the Dialogue Works webcast interviews John Helmer of the escellent Dances With Bears blog. John has crunched the numbers and I must admit I am surprised by his findings.

Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/live/RGlZ4AlAOt ... 5Jv7l1IpO7

I noted this in a post over a month ago in relation to the way CIDA spends it's foreign aid. As much as possible of each project's budget is spent firstly in Canada and secondly from Canadian suppliers.

Helmer's 187/87 numbers are the ones I had been going with all along. The polling numbers on Trump though, those surprise me this early in the game.

And yes @Rikster, the lion's share goes straight back into the pockets of the US MIC. I hate the game, not too crazy about the players either.

[Cornuck]

More from the clownshow, who's defining 'illegal' ?

'Tis the law of the land that is defining 'illegal'.

Have you already forgotten that your orange hero pardoned all J6er's - including the violent ones?

[rikster]

The polling numbers on Trump though, those surprise me this early in the game.

I'll have to watch the video a bit longer, I didn't get to the part where they discussed his poll numbers...

My understanding is that his poll numbers dealing with his popularity are historically the worst of any President other than his first term, at this stage of his Presidency...

He polls in the mid 30% on things like his handling of the economy...

I do wonder who they are polling? If he received votes from just 30% of those elegible to vote and only 62% of Americans took the time to vote, should they be considering opinions from those who didn't vote?

[Tciso]

The polling numbers on Trump though, those surprise me this early in the game.

I'll have to watch the video a bit longer, I didn't get to the part where they discussed his poll numbers...

My understanding is that his poll numbers dealing with his popularity are historically the worst of any President other than his first term, at this stage of his Presidency...

He polls in the mid 30% on things like his handling of the economy...

I do wonder who they are polling? If he received votes from just 30% of those elegible to vote and only 62% of Americans took the time to vote, should they be considering opinions from those who didn't vote?

Whether his actions turn out to be good for the USA/world, or end up being a dumpster fire, he is dfinitely the worst guy at setting a clear agenda with clear goals that the rest of us understand. He still seems to negotiate like he is trying to screw a develpoper that is in a cash crunch. Maybe good tactics for real estate, but damned awkward for international negotiations.

[UWSaint]

The polling numbers on Trump though, those surprise me this early in the game.

I'll have to watch the video a bit longer, I didn't get to the part where they discussed his poll numbers...

My understanding is that his poll numbers dealing with his popularity are historically the worst of any President other than his first term, at this stage of his Presidency...

He polls in the mid 30% on things like his handling of the economy...

I do wonder who they are polling? If he received votes from just 30% of those elegible to vote and only 62% of Americans took the time to vote, should they be considering opinions from those who didn't vote?

There are multiple methodologies to all polls; some polls have Trump under water, some have him above 50. Some use people who voted last time; others are of all adults. Some polls had the Harris/Trump election as neck and neck, one even had Harris winning Iowa. All polls have Trump more popular than Biden during Biden's presidency, but most have him below where Biden was a month into his Presidency.

Polls are both unreliable (or at least present an assertive view of public opinion while in actuality having low confidence value) and pretty meaningless when trying to assess job performance. Because public policy, the economy, these things don't operate on a pitch by pitch basis, or even an inning by inning basis, yet that's what these polls are assessing. New job approval polls every day.... Shows what?

Take for example the meeting with Zelensky -- and we are still in the same inning on it. One might try to evaluate job approval on the pitch -- that day, after showing that meeting, and say, well, it was uncomfortable and didn't result in the rare earth's deal, FAIL! But a few days later, and the deal is there. So, not fail?

More generally, factored into today's approval is fear and speculation. About a European alliance falling apart, about a positive feedback loop on tariffs with close North American allies, etc. That fear -- not an assessment of performance, but people's projections of future consequences, plays heavily into good job/bad job, particularly early in a Presidency. But the more important thing to evaluate is not one one's own projections, but on the assessment of the consequences, and for that, consequences have to play out. The first move influences how things will play out, but rarely is it dispositive. Its the difference between assessing performance as a pundit in real time vs. as a historian. What happens in the future is the fear of a breakdown in the strength of the USA-Canada-Europe alliance doesn't come to pass? Or it passes, and you know what, like many anxieties, the occurrence isn't as bad as the fear of the occurrence.

And maybe that's the best way to put it. Polls of new President performance are driven by (1) partisanship (the 35% on each side that are wired to approve or disapprove regardless) and (2) anxiety and I suppose its yang -- hope.

[UWSaint]

Whether his actions turn out to be good for the USA/world, or end up being a dumpster fire, he is dfinitely the worst guy at setting a clear agenda with clear goals that the rest of us understand. He still seems to negotiate like he is trying to screw a develpoper that is in a cash crunch. Maybe good tactics for real estate, but damned awkward for international negotiations.

Here's the goal, and its clear: America first. And the lens is clear, too. It is realism -- all countries operate in their self-interest, its just that some pretend that's not what they are doing.

Now, there's a lot of strategies that could further the US's self interest (and Trump is willing to use them all or make others believe he is willing to use them all), and there is a huge potential to calculate incorrectly what's actually in the US's interest. But so it is -- that potential exists whether one's a realist or an idealist.

Is there a part of this that is like screwing a contractor in a development deal? Yes, I think there is a potential for that. On the other hand, not using the leverage you have puts a super power in the very strange place of accepting a disproportionate responsibility for protecting common interests without a commensurate return. If you think the proportions are off, you try to change them. (That's the reciprocity idea in Trump's speech last night; its also behind the moves to increase defense spending by allies). If the proportions are off because what's "common" is less stable, you might also shore up the commonality so that the disproportionate expenditures are at least securing something with a greater return.

[Cornuck]

Just need to drop this here....

“eight million dollars for making mice transgender. this is real.”

[Megaterio Llamas]

The polling numbers on Trump though, those surprise me this early in the game.

I'll have to watch the video a bit longer, I didn't get to the part where they discussed his poll numbers...

My understanding is that his poll numbers dealing with his popularity are historically the worst of any President other than his first term, at this stage of his Presidency...

He polls in the mid 30% on things like his handling of the economy...

I do wonder who they are polling? If he received votes from just 30% of those elegible to vote and only 62% of Americans took the time to vote, should they be considering opinions from those who didn't vote?

Jump to the 7:35 mark to get to the polls. BTW I have followed Helmer for years and it wasn't obvious to me where he would come down om Trump. He is a Russia follower based in Moscow and his bias is anti war. He is pessimistic that Trump can get us to peace.

[Meds]

Whether his actions turn out to be good for the USA/world, or end up being a dumpster fire, he is dfinitely the worst guy at setting a clear agenda with clear goals that the rest of us understand. He still seems to negotiate like he is trying to screw a develpoper that is in a cash crunch. Maybe good tactics for real estate, but damned awkward for international negotiations.

Here's the goal, and its clear: America first. And the lens is clear, too. It is realism -- all countries operate in their self-interest, its just that some pretend that's not what they are doing.

Now, there's a lot of strategies that could further the US's self interest (and Trump is willing to use them all or make others believe he is willing to use them all), and there is a huge potential to calculate incorrectly what's actually in the US's interest. But so it is -- that potential exists whether one's a realist or an idealist.

Is there a part of this that is like screwing a contractor in a development deal? Yes, I think there is a potential for that. On the other hand, not using the leverage you have puts a super power in the very strange place of accepting a disproportionate responsibility for protecting common interests without a commensurate return. If you think the proportions are off, you try to change them. (That's the reciprocity idea in Trump's speech last night; its also behind the moves to increase defense spending by allies). If the proportions are off because what's "common" is less stable, you might also shore up the commonality so that the disproportionate expenditures are at least securing something with a greater return.

I think this is pretty clear to all but the woke crowd who think that those who have should always provide for those who have not, including those who have not because they haven't (or won't) tried for themselves.

[rikster]

The polling numbers on Trump though, those surprise me this early in the game.

I'll have to watch the video a bit longer, I didn't get to the part where they discussed his poll numbers...

My understanding is that his poll numbers dealing with his popularity are historically the worst of any President other than his first term, at this stage of his Presidency...

He polls in the mid 30% on things like his handling of the economy...

I do wonder who they are polling? If he received votes from just 30% of those elegible to vote and only 62% of Americans took the time to vote, should they be considering opinions from those who didn't vote?

There are multiple methodologies to all polls; some polls have Trump under water, some have him above 50. Some use people who voted last time; others are of all adults. Some polls had the Harris/Trump election as neck and neck, one even had Harris winning Iowa. All polls have Trump more popular than Biden during Biden's presidency, but most have him below where Biden was a month into his Presidency.

Polls are both unreliable (or at least present an assertive view of public opinion while in actuality having low confidence value) and pretty meaningless when trying to assess job performance. Because public policy, the economy, these things don't operate on a pitch by pitch basis, or even an inning by inning basis, yet that's what these polls are assessing. New job approval polls every day.... Shows what?

Take for example the meeting with Zelensky -- and we are still in the same inning on it. One might try to evaluate job approval on the pitch -- that day, after showing that meeting, and say, well, it was uncomfortable and didn't result in the rare earth's deal, FAIL! But a few days later, and the deal is there. So, not fail?

More generally, factored into today's approval is fear and speculation. About a European alliance falling apart, about a positive feedback loop on tariffs with close North American allies, etc. That fear -- not an assessment of performance, but people's projections of future consequences, plays heavily into good job/bad job, particularly early in a Presidency. But the more important thing to evaluate is not one one's own projections, but on the assessment of the consequences, and for that, consequences have to play out. The first move influences how things will play out, but rarely is it dispositive. Its the difference between assessing performance as a pundit in real time vs. as a historian. What happens in the future is the fear of a breakdown in the strength of the USA-Canada-Europe alliance doesn't come to pass? Or it passes, and you know what, like many anxieties, the occurrence isn't as bad as the fear of the occurrence.

And maybe that's the best way to put it. Polls of new President performance are driven by (1) partisanship (the 35% on each side that are wired to approve or disapprove regardless) and (2) anxiety and I suppose its yang -- hope.

Generally speaking I can go along with much of this if we are dealing with a rational leader but....

In another thread I spoke about character being at the top of what I look for in a leader...

Trumps character is that of a convicted felon and sexual preditor whose business career is filled with failures in large part because he is irrational and makes decisons on emotion ...

A pathelogical liar and someone who doesn't flinch over breaking existing contracts ...

This is not my opinion Doc, this is the reality world leaders and the buisness communities and the markets are facing so who the heck knows what he will do from minute to minute because he changes his mind from minute to minute...

The line the White House is using today regarding tariffs is that Canada and Mexico spent yesterday promising to do better on the border and today he spoke to the Big 3 who informed him of the impact on tariffs so because he is a fair man he gave another 30 day grace on tariffs to the auto industry...

A more competent President would have talked to the auto industry before announcing tariffs and putting citizens and industry on all sides of the border thru the stress of the past few weeks...

I'm not drawn to conspiracy theories by nature, but the more we witness this gong show down south and after following Trump since long before he ran for office in 2015 I think he is purposely manipulating the markets for his personal gain...

We all hope that our leaders are drawn to politics for the better good of citizens, but nobody can convince me that Trump isn't in this for anything but enriching himself and his family and staying out of jail...

[Strangelove]

More from the clownshow, who's defining 'illegal' ?

'Tis the law of the land that is defining 'illegal'.

Have you already forgotten that your orange hero pardoned all J6er's - including the violent ones?

Hey man, I merely answered your question.

Presidential pardons are a whole new ball game.

Perhaps some future Prez will pardon those students Trump has arrested, who knows...

[Cornuck]

Nice attempt at a dodge, Doc - but you know what I'm talking about. I won't bother any further, since you have to stay in character and keep your clown nose on. Amazing how a person can be 100% behind any politician for the sake of hockey board discussion.