- Democrat Strategist on CNN Said ‘We Don’t Need White People Leading Democrats Now’
When asked by two CNN shills who she thought should be the next Chair of the DNC, democrat statagist, and former Bernie Sanders spokeswoman, Symone Sanders said ‘we don’t need white people leading the democrats now.’ Instead, she felt someone of a darker persuasion should lead them, in order to best represent ‘diversity.’ Apparently, diversity doesn’t include all races — just the ones that aren’t white — according to Symone. If you recall, Symone mocked the Trump supporter that was viciously beaten by thugs — saying ‘oh my god poor white people,’ when asked about the harrowing event. The problem isn’t Symone. There are lots of racists pigs like her, traversing the globe spreading their demented version of hatred. The issue that I take with these comments is the platform from which she’s allotted to make them, the global network of CNN. Notice how the two cucks next to her didn’t even bother to call out her bullshit, with the flaccid male sitting there just nodding his head? The good news is, these people are weak. Their ideas and schemes crumble very easily; because at the heart of progressive ideologies is a sickness whose columns and tenets fall one by one after just a very small amount of inspection. Populism is on the rise and the culture wars will be won by people wholly interested in freedom — rejecting the superstate and all of its trimmings. The perversion and the lies will not last the test of time and history will remember them as fleeting symbols that result when corruption intermingles with zeal — the deadliest of concoctions, which stands at the precipice, right now, of erasing the democratic party from existence.
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com
- Redneck Investin Part 4 – Free on the Fringe
Seems yall didn’t quite get the gist of our series – and why it should even be bothered to appear. Well, a few reasons. One, not everyone has the means of investing in ‘decent’ strategies that may only be eligible for accredited investors or QEPs. Two, those who don’t have the means to invest in $1 M minimum programs also don’t have the means of educating themselves to the level that they can do it themselves successfully. Three, this analysis can shift your thinking and help improve your existing investing strategy. Rednecks survive on inspiration as well as perspiration (although, most don’t shower daily).
Soros has backed the blacks; they now have a voice, and they have funding. Who speaks for bubba? Let’s Git-R-Dun! WARNING- IF THESE SUGGESTIONS BORDER ON THE QUASI LEGAL, POTENTIALLY UNETHICAL- NOTE THAT THEY ARE FOR ENTERTAINMENT PUPOSES ONLY. KIDS, DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME. PARENTS, DON’T TRY THIS AT WORK!
1) Free Money Claims
The class action industry produces thousands of settlements each year. Many of them are consumer settlements. And many consumers don’t even know about claims they may be entitled to. Every case is different, but in almost all cases only a small fraction of potential claimants register with the settlement administrator. Legally, once a settlement is reached, funds must be distributed to injured consumers by a certain date. If all claimants do not complete the paperwork by the deadline, funds will be distributed on a pro rata basis to the claimants that do. Here’s one site that lists consumer claims: http://www.freemoneyclaims.com
2) Give plasma, get paid
This is a known goto when you need money for the hobo class and college students. However, many think ‘giving blood’ makes you dizzy, and it’s possible to get diseases. Well, now they need the ‘plasma’ from the blood, which is a little different – and well, what free stuff doesn’t involve a little risk? No it’s probably completely safe, although check the clinic before you go!
3) Start a charity
In most states, 501(c)(3) corporations can be filed without fee, or for a nominal fee such as $25. In many states, there are no annual filing fees, and no annual taxes! Donations made to your charity are tax deductible. Plus – you’re doing a good deed for your chosen cause. Pick a good one, nothing dubious like ‘helping my neighbor’ that won’t fly. Scientific and Technological development is always good. Pay yourself a hefty administration salary (you’ll have to pay taxes on your income, for this) and the charity will have some reasonable expenses. You can literally go door to door and raise money for your charity. Special fundraising rules apply for example you CAN SPAM as long as you follow the CAN SPAM rules, and you can telemarket to people on the DNC (Do Not Call) list so long as you are raising money for your charity and not your business.
4) Go to food banks – get free food
Food banks exist everywhere, at churches, schools, and privately funded too. They’re all over America, and there’s no requirements to get food. Just show up, and provide an ID. If you don’t have ID, that’s ok. They just don’t want people ‘abusing’ the system. Beware that some of the dates of the food may be a little ‘over’ the due date. Don’t let that scare you – it’s good for digestion.
When all else fails – revert to the freeloader in you – checkout www.pleaseorderit.com/free
With Trump in office being a Redneck can be FUN and PROFITABLE don’t let your preconceived notions or visions of trailer parks cloud your path toward Redneck Nirvana.
“Everyone has a Redneck cousin” -Jimmy Buffet (redneck paraphrase “everybody has a cousin in Miami”)
- Tomorrow's Vote In Italy Will Be A "Wide-Ranging F**k Off", And It's Just The Start…
Submitted by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,
Tomorrow, December 4, Italy is holding a referendum that will determine the fate of the entire European Union.
Donald Trump’s victory—which shocked Europe’s political and media elite—gives the populists backing the “No” side of Italy’s referendum the political rocket fuel they need for a virtually guaranteed win.
That momentum will be all but impossible to reverse. Anti-elite sentiment is rising on both sides of the Atlantic. And I bet the global populist revolution will continue.
If Italians buck the establishment—and it looks like they will—it will clear a path for a populist party to take power and for Italy to exit the euro.
If that happens, the fallout will be catastrophic for global markets. The Financial Times recently put it this way:
An Italian exit from the single currency would trigger the total collapse of the eurozone within a very short period.
It would probably lead to the most violent economic shock in history, dwarfing the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008 and the 1929 Wall Street crash.
If the FT is even partially right, we’re looking at a possible stock market crash of historic proportions. This is why we’re watching the December 4 referendum so closely.
The referendum is meant to concentrate more power in Italy’s central government. On that point alone, everyone should oppose it. The centralization of power never leads to good things.
A “Yes” vote is effectively a vote of confidence in the current pro-EU Italian establishment. This is what the global elite wants.
A “No” vote is how the average Italian can give the finger to the faceless EU bureaucrats in Brussels, whom many blame—quite correctly—for their problems.
Trump’s win has been a double whammy for Italy’s pro-EU establishment.
First, it emboldens the populist forces fighting the referendum.
Second, it humiliates and politically castrates Matteo Renzi, the current Italian prime minister. Renzi took a rare step when he openly endorsed Hillary Clinton. He was the only European leader to do so.
As one of Renzi’s rivals said after Trump’s victory, “Matteo Renzi is politically finished from today, he’s a dead man walking.”
Other Italian politicians are furious that he weakened Italy’s standing with the new Trump administration.
It’s hard to see how Renzi could get himself out of the hole he’s dug.
It Started as a Joke
In 2007, Beppe Grillo, an Italian actor and comedian, launched Vaffanculo Day. “Vaffanculo” is Italian for “f*** off.”
Grillo and his followers used V-Day to bluntly express their displeasure with Italian establishment politicians, using imagery from the movie V for Vendetta.
Now, what started out as a joke has become Italy’s most popular political party…
V-Day helped organize Italians frustrated with their political system. It gave birth to the Five Star Movement, Italy’s new populist political party.
Grillo’s Five Star Movement—or M5S, its Italian acronym—is anti-globalist, anti-euro, and anti-establishment. It doesn’t neatly fall into the left–right political paradigm.
According to the latest polls, M5S is now the most popular party in Italy. It won mayoral elections in Rome and Turin earlier this year.
M5S is riding a wave of populist anger at entrenched political elites over economic stagnation. Italy has had virtually no productive growth since joining the eurozone in 1999.
M5S blames Italy’s chronic lack of growth on the euro. A large plurality of Italians agrees.
M5S has promised to hold a vote to leave the euro and return to Italy’s old currency, the lira, as soon as it’s in power. Under the current circumstances, it would probably pass.
After the Brexit vote and Trump’s win, M5S has joyfully predicted that Renzi will be the next casualty in the global populist revolution.
Grillo recently wrote:
It's crazy. This is the explosion of an era. It's the apocalypse of the media, TV, the big newspapers, the intellectuals, the journalists… This is a wide-ranging F*** off. Trump has pulled off an incredible V-Day… There are similarities between this American story and the Movement.
A “No” vote in the December 4 referendum means M5S could come to power in a matter of months.
Melting Like a Gelato in the August Sun
A populist tsunami is about to wash through Europe. It will drastically change the Continent’s political landscape in a way not seen since before World War II.
This wave will flush away traditional “mainstream” parties and usher in anti-establishment populists who want to leave the European Union.
It’s already hit the UK in the form of Brexit, killing David Cameron’s pro-EU government in the process.
Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, and Greece already have populist, Eurosceptic—or “non-mainstream”—parties in power.
Italy is the next flashpoint.
A “No” vote in Italy is virtually assured at this point.
But it won’t be the end of the anti-elite surge. Voters in Europe’s biggest countries could soon throw out their “mainstream” parties in favor of populist and Eurosceptic alternatives.
Here’s the rundown…
Austria
Austria is holding a presidential election, also on December 4. It’s actually a redo of an election held in May, where a populist candidate, Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party, barely lost.
Austrian courts found irregularities in the results and ordered a prompt new election. But when opinion polls showed the populist candidate in the lead, the government delayed the vote until December 4, giving a lame excuse about faulty adhesive on absentee ballots. Despite the foot-dragging, Mr. Hofer looks set to win the December 4 vote.
France
France has a presidential election next spring. There’s a chance that Marine Le Pen, leader of the Eurosceptic National Front party, will do better than many expect. After more than a decade of disappointment under presidents François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, French voters are clamoring for something different.
Spain
Spain recently re-elected incumbent Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. However, Spanish voters fled traditional political parties en masse for new populist upstarts Podemos and Ciudadanos. So Rajoy was unable to form a majority government.
Rajoy now leads a severely weak minority government. The political power of the Spanish populist parties is only expected to grow.
Germany
Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, embodies the European establishment more than any other politician. Her party suffered a series of stinging defeats in regional elections this year, mostly because of her signature lax immigration policies, which have flooded Germany with migrants.
Merkel’s troubles have only helped the Alternative for Germany, a new populist party surging in popularity. The party could pose a real problem for Merkel in the 2017 federal elections.
The Netherlands
As the Netherlands approaches elections in March, Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom, which advocates leaving the EU, is basically tied in opinion polls with the establishment parties.
How to Profit from the Tsunami…
As populist, Eurosceptic parties surge, the entire European Union is looking shakier by the day.
One Italian politician correctly put it this way: “The euro is melting away like a gelato left out in the August sun.”
Our thesis for the collapse of the EU not only stands… it’s getting stronger and stronger.
There are potentially severe consequences in the currency and stock markets. We are approaching a global financial meltdown of historical proportions. It could strike America on December 4, 2016, as Italian voters decide the fate of the European Union itself.
It could either wipe out a big part of your savings… or be the fortune-building opportunity of a lifetime.
New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and I just released an urgent video with all the details. Click here to watch it now.
- A Very Concise Explanation Of Why The Democrats Lost (And Will Keep Losing)
Via Jesse's Cafe Americain blog,
"This whole 'red scare' thing has become so thoroughly ridiculous, so blatantly propagandist and overblown, so pervasively passed around by mainstream media outlets without serious investigation, so obviously picked up off a shelf in ad hoc convenience, and so completely hypocritical by the professional elite, that I am tempted to write it off and forget about it. But I should probably be deeply troubled for other reasons.
It is a sign of the establishment going further off the deep end, and further dropping its pretenses. It is a sign of a desperate elite that will say anything, do anything, and risk everything to control the narrative and protect itself.
We are descending into farce. Deeply dangerous farce."
Reader M. M.
This is a short video from Thomas Frank. (I have included two more short videos that are optional.)
Every pundit who is grinding their axes about the various forces that unjustly took the election from Hillary needs to listen to this.
Thomas Frank is absolutely right. Everyone who had their eyes open could see this loss by the Democrats coming, or at the least a much closer race than expected. Donald Trump certainly saw it, and used it for his advantage.
And even now, the core political and entertainment establishment clearly is not accepting this, does not care in their cozy complacency.
A good part of this is because of the credibility trap, and their sense of entitled superiority.
If you don't believe this, watch the Democratic establishment mouthpiece channels like MSNBC almost any evening.
I hate to bother you with yet another posting on this subject, but the context of the situation shows that the message needs to be repeated, and driven home in order to penetrate the echo chamber of the Beltway Bubble.
The widely accepted attitude of the Wall Street Democrats was that the working middle class had 'no where else to go,' and so their interests could be sacrificed, time and again. They chose consciously to spend their energy in the pursuit of specialized big money interests.
And they were richly rewarded with huge sums of campaign donations, personal speaking 'repayments,' and sinecures during the out-of-office periods that the big money donors could provide.
The courtiers in the media and big money donors around the world are very put out that their claim checks for the spoils of a Hillary victory were invalidated. Their outrage and disappointment is remarkable, as if they have somehow been cheated of their due, their turn at the pig sty of public looting.
They blame racism, the Russians, sexism, Bernie bros, hackers, the 'deplorables' in a bit of an ironic twist on the Romney moment, the electoral college, and even the roots of democratic process itself.
They and their strategy failed. Spectacularly.
But they cannot fail, because they are so exceptional. And there is the work to return to the real world for them, in overcoming themselves and their selfish disappointment and cognitive dissonance.
I have been very clear that I was no supporter of Trump, and could not vote for him in good conscience under almost any circumstances I could imagine.
But like so many others I could not in good conscience comfortably pick the 'lesser of two evils' in this case, especially after the serial betrayals of the reforms, the reforms he promised and for which he was elected, that we had at the hands of Obama and his party. The nomination of Hillary was an 'in your face' gesture to the people by the worst of the embedded and outdated elements of a inwardly focused party in its decline.
The same and worse could be said of the Republicans, but that is another story. They just were not able to ruthlessly suppress their insurgents as had the DNC. And if you do not realize that they did so, then you are blinded by your ambitions and should step aside.
If anything, the antics of the DNC during these primaries showed that their callous disregard for the broader economic interests the people, and the hypocrisy which their self interests enabled, knew no bounds.
Think of the arrogance of their mindset— vote for our candidate because she is not good, but less bad than the other fellow, and once again you really have no other choice.
And they wonder why they were so soundly rejected.
The final refuge of the exceptionally arrogant is to dismiss those who have rejected them, and expect them to come crawling back, asking for another chance.
This is certainly preferable to admitting that they had the choice of the people and the winning candidate in their own ranks, and defeated him because they could, because it felt good to exercise power and influence once again, especially when it served their own selfish ambitions.
And in doing so, they defeated themselves.
But perhaps the people will not submit again, and choose whatever is offered, the less worse of a bad deal.
Perhaps the political class will have to eventually let go of their delusory arrogance, and face the work, and the pain, of remaking themselves into what they and their party had once represented: a real constructive and progressive choice, and not just another flavor of less abusive but equally audacious oligarchy.
For in truth, it is still just another form of arrogant oligarchy that serves itself, albeit under the fig leaf of a rationale of 'public service' in constructing a false moral high ground, that is an inch above the swamp.
And if they have the time for it, here are two more short videos that need to penetrate the collective consciousness of the party in order for meaningful progress to occur.
- "Meanwhile In Europe…" – The Big Day Arrives
Less than a month after the “shocking” election of Donald Trump as US president, the world prepares for another day of political shockwaves, this time out of Europe, when on Sunday all eyes will be on Italy and, to a slightly lesser extent, Austria.
Or, as Bank of America puts it “Meanwhile in Europe…”
As we have previewed on various occasions (most recently in Friday’s extensive “Everything You Need To Know About The Italian Referendum & Should Be Afraid To Ask“), in a few short hours, Italy will vote on a constitutional reform referendum. While we urge readers to skim the in depth “walk thru“, here is a simplified version of what happens after the likely “No” vote tomorrow.
The main concern in the markets – which has manifested itself in both the European currency, its vol structure, as well as Italian bond yields – is that a strong “No” vote will cause Prime Minister Renzi to resign, leading to political instability in Italy. Furthermore, a “No” vote is expected to kill a long-running attempt to rescue Italy’s third largest and oldest bank, Monte dei Paschi, which has been desperate for a private sector bailout ever since it failed this summer’s ECB stress test to avoid broader banking sector contagion; a failure of Monte Paschi will likely spark a fresh eurozone banking crisis, and prompt the ECB to get involved again (as it warned it would do), in a redux of what happened after the Brexit vote.
Also on Sunday, there is also a presidential election in Austria. A victory by the right-wing candidate, Norbert Hofer, would raise concerns about EU fragmentation because his party has advocated a referendum on EU membership. His victory would also raise concerns about a similar outcome in the French elections in May, and many other upcoming European elections as shown in the calendar at the bottom of this page:
However, while the Austrian vote will again be down to the wire – and since this time there won’t be any Brussels-endorsed “widespread voting fraud“, Norbert Hofer is assured to win – the key event will be the Italian vote. Here is what to expect in terms of timing:
- Provisional turnout results from 7pm GMT (2pm ET)
- Exit polls then expected around 10pm GMT on Sunday night (5pm ET)
- First projections by Italian pollsters based on counted votes at around 10.45pm GMT (5:45pm ET)
- Final result will come in around 2am on Monday (9:00pm ET)
In the highly improbably event the “Yes” vote wins, Deutsche Bank analysts write that a rebound in the Italian equity market should be largely restricted to financial stocks. Although the FTSE MIB is trading at a 15% discount relative to its 10-year average vs. Europe, valuations look substantially less attractive once banks are excluded from the index. The relative P/E of the FTSE MIB ex banks is trading in line with its long-term average vs. Europe ex banks. Several Italian sectors are even trading at a premium vs. their European peers, showing no signs yet of a spillover of banking sector risks.
That may change in just a few hours.
The biggest question from tomorrow’s vote, is what happens to Italian PM Renzi should he lose the vote, and as France 24 reports, if voters reject Renzi’s plan to streamline parliament, the centre-left leader has said he will step down.
The self-styled outsider in a hurry to shake up Italy finds himself on the inside, a target for those who say he has not been quick enough in fixing long-standing problems. For those unfamiliar, here is a brief snapshot of Renzi’s approach, and political options:
After rapid rise, Italy’s Renzi braced for fall
Renzi was just 39 when he came to power via an internal party coup in February 2014. With his penchant for retro sunglasses, open-necked shirts and jeans, the former mayor of Florence was hailed at the time as a premier for the smartphone generation. But the breath of fresh air is now in danger of being blown away by rival young Turks from populist and far right opposition parties trying to force him out.
After 1,000 days in office, Renzi, now 41, boasted last month of having steered the economy out of recession, got Italians spending again and improved public finances. He has also had significant political victories: a controversial Jobs Act passed, election rules rewritten and his candidate, Sergio Mattarella, installed as president.
As his Twitter follower numbers rose, so too did his international profile. Renzi was feted for his reform efforts by US President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “Matteo has the right approach and it is beginning to show results,” Obama said just before treating Renzi and his school teacher wife Agnese to the last official White House dinner of his administration in October.
But many Italian voters do not share Obama’s optimism. As the recovery has struggled to gain traction — leaving unemployment stubbornly high, particularly among young people — Renzi’s ratings have slipped.
The Jobs Act, which eased hiring and firing, made him business friends but alienated trade unions and the left. A bullish style that was once seen as energetic has come to be viewed by some as high-handed, including by some grandees of his own party. Former Prime Minister Massimo d’Alema, a fervent critic of Renzi’s constitutional proposals, described his successor to the New York Times as a Twitter-obsessed “oaf”. The decline in Renzi’s popularity is relative however. Polls suggest the Democratic Party, under his leadership, would top an election held tomorrow, albeit only just.
Born on January 11, 1975 in Florence, Renzi studied law and took his first steps in politics as a teenage campaign volunteer for future prime minister and European Commission chief Romano Prodi. By 26 he was a full-time organiser for La Margherita (The Daisy), a short-lived centre-left party.
He was only 29 when he became the leader of the province of Florence in 2004, establishing a power base that enabled him to go on to become mayor in 2009 and prime minister five years later. But for a brief spell in his early 20s working for the family advertising business, politics is all he has done and friends say he would be loath to give it up, despite his protestations to the contrary.
Even if has to make way as premier, he is not expected to give up the party leadership.
In short, Renzi is still very young, and a failure tomorrow followed by a resignation, means merely a detour for the career politican, not an end. The bigger question, however, is whether Italy is stable enough and its banks solid enough to survive a politidal vacuum wthout a “technocratic” government ready to step in and fill the void. The answer may be revealed as soon as Sunday night when the Euro opens for trading.
* * *
There is more to come.
As Bank of America notes, the common thread in all of these stories is that politics is driving economic outcomes. This dynamic will not change anytime soon, and BofA notes that it is “particularly concerned about the drift toward protectionism.” The bank notes that the number of trade restrictions globally has already picked up. Data from Global Trade Alert, a group of academic economists, shows an increase in the number of protectionist measures starting in 2012 and accelerating sharply in 2015. These include not just tariffs and quotas, but a range of policies that give preference to domestic over foreign products.
An Italian “No” vote simply accelerate the global backlash against globalization, and lead to even more trade protectionist measures. But what is the most likely outcome, is that when the “No” vote wins (despite the endorsement of The Economist, which has gotten the outcome of every major political event this year wrong), it will only push the case for the anti-establishment vote in more European countries, until eventually Europe’s populist forces stretch the European experiment so thin, that the Eurozone itself – an experiment which from day one catered to corporate interests and an established political oligarchy – will collapse under the weight of its own discontents.
For now, we await the surge in volatility that will emerge tomorrow afternoon, only to mysteriously disappear as every central bank around the globe engages in another BTFD orgy, sending risk assets higher even as the rapidly “isolating” world teeters on the verge of globalized collapse.
- Provisional turnout results from 7pm GMT (2pm ET)
- Trump's Appointments – What Do They Mean?
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,
Before I give an explanation, let’s be sure we all know what an explanation is. An explanation is not a justification. The collapse of education in the US is so severe that many Americans, especially younger ones, cannot tell the difference between an explanation and a defense, justification, or apology for what they regard as a guilty person or party. If an explanation is not damning or sufficiently damning of what they want damned, the explanation is interpreted as an excuse for the object of their scorn. In America, reason and objective analysis have taken a backseat to emotion.
We do not know what the appointments mean except, as Trump discovered once he confronted the task of forming a government, that there is no one but insiders to appoint. For the most part that is correct. Outsiders are a poor match for insiders who tend to eat them alive. Ronald Reagan’s California crew were a poor match for George H.W. Bush’s insiders. The Reagan part of the government had a hell of a time delivering results that Reagan wanted.
Another limit on a president’s ability to form a government is Senate confirmation of presidential appointees. Whereas Congress is in Republican hands, Congress remains in the hands of special interests who will protect their agendas from hostile potential appointees. Therefore, although Trump does not face partisan opposition from Congress, he faces the power of special interests that fund congressional political campaigns.
When the White House announced my appointment as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Republican Senator Bob Dole put a hold on my appointment. Why? Dole had presidential ambitions, and he saw the rising star of Republican Representative Jack Kemp as a potential obstacle. As I had written the Kemp-Roth bill that had become Reagan’s economic policy, Dole regarded me in the Treasury as a one-up for Kemp. So, you see, all sorts of motives can plague a president’s ability to form a government.
With Trump under heavy attack prior to his inauguration, he cannot afford drawn out confirmation fights and defeats.
Does Trump’s choice of Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary mean that Goldman Sachs will again be in charge of US economic policy? Possibly, but we do not know. We will have to wait and see. Mnuchin left Goldman Sachs 14 years ago. He has been making movies in Hollywood and started his own investment firm. Many people have worked for Goldman Sachs and the New York Banks who have become devastating critics of the banks. Read Nomi Prins’ books and visit Pam Martens website, Wall Street on Parade. My sometimes coauthor Dave Kranzler is a former Wall Streeter.
Commentators are jumping to conclusions based on appointees past associations. Mnuchin was an early Trump supporter and chairman of Trump’s finance campaign. He has Wall Street and investment experience. He should be an easy confirmation. For a president-elect under attack this is important.
Will Mnuchin suppport Trump’s goal of bringing middle class jobs back to America? Is Trump himself sincere? We do not know.
What we do know is that Trump attacked the fake “free trade” agreements that have stripped America of middle class jobs just as did Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. We know that the Clintons made their fortune as agents of the One Percent, the only ones who have profited from the offshoring of American jobs. Trump’s fortune is not based on jobs offshoring.
Not every billionaire is an oligarch. Trump’s relation to the financial sector is one as a debtor. No doubt Trump and the banks have had unsatisfactory relationships. And Trump says he is a person who enjoys revenge.
What about the hot-headed generals announced as National Security Advisor and Secretary of Defense? Both seem to be death on Iran, which is stupid and unfortunate. However, keep in mind that Gen. Flynn is the one who blew the whistle on the Obama regime for rejecting the advice of the DIA and sending ISIS to overthrow Assad. Flynn said that ISIS was a “willful decision” of the Obama administration, not some unexpected event.
And keep in mind that Gen. Mattis is the one who told Trump that torture does not work, which caused Trump to back off his endorsement of torture.
So both of these generals, as bad as they may be, are an improvement on what came before. Both have shown independence from the neoconservative line that supports ISIS and torture.
Keep in mind also that there are two kinds of insiders. Some represent the agendas of special interests; others go with the flow because they enjoy participating in the affairs of the nation. Those who don’t go with the flow are eliminated from participating.
Goldman Sachs is a good place to get rich. That Mnuchin left 14 years ago could mean that he was not a good match for Goldman Sachs, that they did not like him or he did not like them. That Flynn and Mattis have taken independent positions on ISIS and torture suggests that they are mavericks. All three of these appointees seem to be strong and confident individuals who know the terrain, which is the kind of people a president needs if he is to accomplish anything.
The problem with beating up on an administration before it exists and has a record is that the result can be that the administration becomes deaf to all criticism. It is much better to give the new president a chance and to hold his feet to the fire on the main issues.
Trump alone among all the presidential candidates said that he saw no point in fomenting conflict with Russia. Trump alone questioned NATO’s continued existence 25 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Trump alone said that he would work to bring middle class jobs back to America.
And Trump said that he would enforce immigration laws. Is this racism or is this a defense of citizenship? How is the US a country if there is no difference between illegal aliens and citizens?
Commentators of all stripes are making a mistake to damn in advance the only government that campaigned on peace with Russia, restoring middle class jobs, and respect for the country’s borders. We should seize on these promises and hold the Trump administration to them. We should also work to make Trump aware of the serious adverse consequences of environmental degradation.
Who is blowing these opportunities? Trump? Mnuchin? Flynn? Mattis?
Or us?
The more Trump is criticized, the easier it is for the neoconservatives to offer their support and enter the administration. To date he has not appointed one, but you can bet your life that Israel is lobbying hard for the neocons. The neocons still reign in the media, the think tanks, university departments of foreign affairs, and the foreign policy community. They are an ever present danger.
Trump’s personality means that he is likely to see more reward in being the president who reverses American decline than in using the presidency to augment his personal fortune. Therefore, there is some hope for change occuring from the top rather than originating in the streets of bloody revolution. By the time Americans reach the revolutionary stage of awareness the police state is likely to be too strong for them.
So let’s give the Trump administration a chance. We can turn on him after he sells us out.
- A Visual History Of Population In America
You’ve likely seen the population density map of the United States in one form or another. A lot of people per square mile reside in big cities, fewer people reside in suburban areas, and a lot fewer people reside in rural areas.
But as FlowingData.com’s Nathan Yau explains, cities weren’t always cities though. Rural wasn’t always rural. If you look at people per square mile over a couple of centuries, you get a better idea of how the country developed.
The animated map above shows population density by decade, going back to 1790 and up to recent estimates for 2015. The time in between each time period represents a smoothed transition. This is approximate, but it gives a better idea of how the distribution of population changed.
As you watch, keep in mind that the map is based on data that was available and that it only represents the United States population.
This is especially notable during the first century. No data shows in much of the country, the estimates are spotty in many territories, and there were people who lived in the blanked out areas before newcomers settled.
- Did The Market Just Flash A Hindenburg Omen Warning?
Amid the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in the stock, bond, and commodity markets this week, a few 'rotten' things began to emerge. With major indices diverging notably, new highs and new lows soaring, and breadth deteriorating, analysts noted the re-awakening of The Hindenburg Omen signal…
As John Hussman previously wrote, when we think of market “internals,” the number of new highs and new lows can contribute useful information. To expand on the vocabulary we use to talk about internals, “leadership” typically refers to the number of stocks achieving new highs and new lows; “breadth” typically refers to the number of stocks advancing versus declining in a given day or week; and “participation” typically refers to the percentage of stocks that are advancing or declining in tandem with the major indices.
The original basis for the Hindenburg signal traces back to the “high-low logic index” that Norm Fosback created in the 1970’s. Jim Miekka introduced the Hindenburg as a daily rather than weekly measure, Kennedy Gammage gave it the ominous name, and Peter Eliades later added several criteria to reduce the noise of one-off signals, requiring additional confirmation that amounts to a requirement that more than one signal must emerge in the context of an advancing market with weakening breadth.
And this week saw renowned technician Tom McClellan declare a Hindenburg Omen had struck…
Dec. 1 was Hindenburg Omen day, a study created by the late Jim Miekka. Some signals matter a whole lot, others not so much. pic.twitter.com/7SBXLXA19Z
— Tom McClellan (@McClellanOsc) December 2, 2016
As we discussed over 6 years ago, the dreaded Hindenburg Omen is easily the most feared technical pattern in all of chartism (for the bullishly inclined). Those who know what it is, tend to have an atavistic reaction to its mere mention. Those who do not, can catch up on its implications courtesy of Wikipedia, but in a nutshell: "The Hindenburg Omen is a technical analysis that attempts to predict a forthcoming stock market crash. It is named after the Hindenburg disaster of May 6th 1937, during which the German zeppelin was destroyed in a sudden conflagration." Granted, the Hindenburg Omen is not a guarantee of a crash, and the five criteria that must be met for a Hindenburg trigger typically need to reoccur within 36 days for reconfirmation. Yet the statistics are startling: "Looking back at historical data, the probability of a move greater than 5% to the downside after a confirmed Hindenburg Omen was 77%, and usually takes place within the next forty-days."
As a reminder, the 5 criteria of the Omen are as follows:
- That the daily number of NYSE new 52 Week Highs and the daily number of new 52 Week Lows must both be greater than 2.2 percent of total NYSE issues traded that day.
- That the smaller of these numbers is greater than or equal to 69 (68.772 is 2.2% of 3126). This is not a rule but more like a checksum. This condition is a function of the 2.2% of the total issues.
- That the NYSE 10 Week moving average is rising.
- That the McClellan Oscillator is negative on that same day.
- That new 52 Week Highs cannot be more than twice the new 52 Week Lows (however it is fine for new 52 Week Lows to be more than double new 52 Week Highs). This condition is absolutely mandatory.
The last Hindenburg Omen occurred as the markets began to roll over in June 2015 (and did not end well) although that had followed a series of false alerts in the 2013 QE-enthused melt-up.
However, while McClellan called the Hindenburg, it appears it may have fallen just short…
Checking the rules:
1: YES – see chart above (red and green lines BOTH above the blue)
2: YES – 74 > 69
3: YES – 10628 to 10631 (rising)
4: YES – McClellan Oscillator -5.85 (below 0)
5: NO – 236 New Highs is more than double the 74 New Lows
And so from the most strict definition, The Hindenburg Omen did not strike this week…
But it's close and as a reminder, while no Hindenburg flashed, Dana Lyons noted both the number of New Highs and New Lows set 3-month highs just over a week ago. If that sounds odd, it is. In fact, it was only the 2nd day ever in which each set a 3-month high. And since 1970, only 18 prior days saw New Highs and New Lows set as much as a 1-month high.
Something which has not boded well in the past…
As the table shows, the return in the S&P 500 has been negative 2 months after all 11 occurrences. And it wasn’t just the 2-month period that was poor. Median returns are negative across nearly all time frames from 1 week to 2 years. The 2-year result is perhaps the most eye-opening after the 2-month. The market is not typically down over a 2-year period so to see 7 of the 8 instances lower is a rare result.
What causes the elevated numbers of New Highs and New Lows? And why would it necessarily be a negative for the stock market? We’re not sure, and we don’t really care. We’re never too concerned with the “why’s” when it comes to the markets. All we care about is what is happening. And for whatever reason, the market has been especially weak – and consistently so – following the occurrence of lots of New Highs and Lows. That is a legitimate red flag currently, in our view.
- Obama TV: Is Obama Planning A "Fake News" Outlet Of His Own?
After spending the past month blaming Hillary’s loss on the rampant spread of “fake news,” because choosing a failed candidate subject to numerous active federal criminal investigations and/or Obama’s failed policies couldn’t possibly be to blame, Mic is reporting that Obama is contemplating starting a propaganda machine media company of his own after leaving the White House.
President Barack Obama has been discussing a post-presidential career in digital media and is considering launching his own media company, according to multiple sources who spoke on background because they were not authorized to speak for the president.
Obama considers media to be a central focus of his next chapter, these sources say, though exactly what form that will take — a show streaming on Netflix, a web series on a comedy site or something else — remains unclear. Obama has gone so far as to discuss launching his own media company, according to one source with knowledge of the matter, although he has reportedly cooled on the idea of late.
According to another source, Obama met privately with Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg in Lima, Peru, on the sidelines of the recent APEC summit to discuss the matter.
While Obama has been on a crusade against “fake news” of late, we’re not exactly sure how adding yet another MSNBC substitute to the media arm of the democratic party will change anything in a meaningful way. While Obama continues to “rethink his storytelling,” he and other democrats simply continue to prove that they’ve learned absolutely nothing from the 2016 election. The entire election was a rejection of “storytelling” in favor of action, it was a rejection of establishment politicians, like Obama, who have proven time and again that, while they’re great at delivering emotional speeches on “Hope and Change,” they are completely void of any substance beyond their rhetoric.
When Rolling Stone asked the president about his future plans, Obama said he would begin “organizing my presidential center,” where a top subject would be, “How do we rethink our storytelling, the messaging and the use of technology and digital media, so that we can make a persuasive case across the country?”
In recent days — even before Trump’s surprising victory — Obama also mused openly about what he views as the dangerous state of media and his desire to play a role in fixing it. According to the New Yorker, Obama apparently obsessed over a BuzzFeed story that documented how more than 100 pro-Trump websites peddling fake news reports had originated in one small Macedonian town. The president worried aloud that the way stories are displayed on various platforms “means everything is true and nothing is true” and that “an explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll.”
Obama has been outspoken in recent days about the faux news phenomenon, arguing that the rise of conspiracy theories and the easy propagation of fake stories has made it difficult to establish basic facts to frame a debate. “And now we just don’t have that,” he told New Yorker editor David Remnick.
Of course, if true an Obama media company would threaten a long-standing tradition of former Presidents withholding criticism of their successors.
Depending on what form it takes, a hard dive into media could also put Obama at odds with presidential precedent. For decades, former presidents have followed a tradition of remaining quiet about their successors in public. During his recent visit to Peru, Obama said he would uphold that convention after leaving office, but also hinted he might speak out when he feels necessary. “If there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle or go to core questions about our values and ideals, and if I think that it’s necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, I’ll examine it when it comes,” Obama told reporters.
Remember when Obama scolded Republicans with his “Elections have consequences. Tough luck, you lost. Get over it” line. We guess that only applies when his team wins.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
