I don't know if there's a way to quantify it, but with all of the available outlets, it seems as though young people are very interested in politics and social activism relative to the 80s and 90s. Or at least, their voice is louder. Voting just isn't a major part of that.

Yeah not like the Voting Rights Act was gutted in 2013 or anything. Not like a bunch of black people just got out to vote in Alabama when the candidates were a Democrat who still votes with Trump 80% of the time and a lunatic child molestor. The smarmy guy who lives in Idaho definitely has his finger on the pulse of this issue.

Wait, what? So anyone on party lines is now 'rammed' through? That's ridiculous. That's not what that means.

Sigh, everything is always about race even when it's not. From my experience here Molson is one of the most level headed non-race baiting guys. You on the other hand...

Conservatives want fewer young people and conservatives to vote. And in some places, there's particularly aggressive and concerted efforts to discourage that voting or make it more difficult. That should tell you exactly why it's so important for young people and minorities to vote. So I'm not even sure what your point is. That they should just give up because it's too hard? That I'm wrong for wanting them to vote more?

I don't think I have the "pulse" of everything - all we can do in a discussion is bring our own viewpoints. I can come from a different perspective from you and still have a valid opinion. And you don't know my background or where my perspective really comes from - though I feel like you've made up a narrative in your head over the years that was rooted in some shit I don't even remember.

Wait... did you just say a comment regarding Kaepernick not voting doesn't have to do with race? nol is right, a lot of young black folk feel disillusioned due to voter suppression. To ignore that is foolish. You may not agree with his last sentence, but the first two are right on.

A Colts LB being killed by an drunk Guatemalan national who was twice deported should give Trump meat to throw at his dogs.

As opposed to nothing ever being about race?

Not meant a shot at you, it still amazes me that race is still an all or nothing conversation in our country outside of racism as a theory.

My post was about voter apathy and Kaepernick's statements about voting not mattering. Obviously race has to do with voting on many other levels and I didn't deny or ignore any of that. So while the statements were correct, they weren't responsive to anything I posted and I'm still not sure what the point is. Because race-based voter suppression exists, we're not allowed to criticize young people who don't bother to vote? I think that's maybe what panerd was getting at.

Edit: If it helps, I'll limit my criticism to young white apathetic voters who aren't aggressively suppressed but who still don't bother to vote. And I'll include my girlfriend in that. I have to drag her every time and it really annoys me. She's in the "it doesn't make any difference in Idaho" camp - and even if that's literally true in terms of the presidential election, it's also literally true in every state because 1 vote isn't going to change a presidential election even in a swing state. But there's a lot of things on a ballot, a lot of contested local and state races, liberal and moderate candidates who do win even in red states when young people show up, and in my state at least, big differences between the Republicans on the primary ballots. And more than all that, it's a rare opportunity for actual participation in the process.

Not sure you understand the Voting Rights Act. What you are referring to only applies to, mostly, southern states. None of which were part of this current discussion on turn out in "Blue Wall" states.

Cool, in which case your criticism is limited to a pool of voters dwarfed by those who vote Trump because they believe Obama wasn’t born in America or is some shape-shifting reptile creature.

The main takeaway here is that when thinking about the average person in like Wisconsin who voted Obama in ‘12 and did not vote in ‘16, it is not someone like your girlfriend or some random college student quoted in a New York Times article you disagreed with, but someone whose vote was actually suppressed.

Nol, you're done. You seem to be incapable of participating in these discussions without name calling.

Blame for Trump...

Trump
People who helped Trump get elected
People who voted for Trump



People who didn't vote/voted third party










People who fully opposed Trump from beginning to end

Wait, I thought you were in favor of the VRA being gutted? I remember debating that with you after the SCOTUS ruling was handed down.

To be clear, I 100% realize that appears to be an extremely short leash, but a short leash is what he earned. He has had multiple suspensions for name-calling and the last time I specifically put in the suspension note that any more name-calling, and he's done for good. My take is that he's simply incapable of participating in contentious discussions without publicly putting down the person with whom he disagrees.

I found something that tried to quantify it.

Why don’t millennials vote? - The Washington Post

Millennials, in 2016, were less likely to vote or to encourage others to vote than young people in the 80s, but they had the same level of political interest (and one college survey found that their college freshman in 2016 were much more interested in politics than previous generations). And, today's youth are generally more likely to get involved in protests or other political confrontations than youth of previous generations.

So in other words, younger people are less interested in voting not because they don't care, voting just isn't as big a part of the political expression and participation. The numbers aren't as dramatic as I expected, but I still think there's a growing cultural idea that voting is pointless.

It's worth pointing out that, while local elections and clearly important and more people should pay attention to them, the people (like Kaepernick) who didn't vote in states that Clinton won would've had zero effect on the Presidential election.

I want to highlight this one, because while it's something I agree with on the surface (that they feel disillusioned,) I cannot *fathom* the response to "I think there is voter suppression of people like me" being..."therefore I will not vote."

What. On. Earth.

The only reaction I can ever imagine to something like that (and I moved to a state where voter suppression of black folks IS a thing that they got nailed for,) is...to, you know, VOTE. "Eff you, here I am, and although I've voted R more often than D in my lifetime, I'm showing up to vote against YOU for participating in this crap."

We'll also see what happens in 2018 and 2020. Virginia 18-29 turnout almost doubled in 2017 vs. 2009. There's a theory 2016 could have been a wake up call.

Kaepernick's California ballot included initiates related to criminal justice reform, including sentencing alternatives non-violent offenders, the death penalty, and the status of marijuana. And there was also the local candidate races you mentioned.

But I think it goes way beyond the literal things you can vote for. Even if you're in a swing state, your single vote doesn't make a difference in the presidential election. So why bother? I think it's important to be a part of the process. Especially considering voter suppression, and all of the battles that have been fought over decades about mere access to the voting boots. I think it was incredibly irresponsible for a hugely influential and relevant person, in this climate, to announce that voting doesn't matter. And many people way, way more liberal than me have criticized him for this.

And I would be one of those liberal people. This was my post back when it was first reported he didn't vote...


I'm simply pointing out, for the context of this discussion about responsibility for Trump, that people like Kaepernick who didn't vote in states that Hillary carried had zero effect on the outcome of this Presidential election. And that's because of our stupid winner take all system.

If, and it's still a very big if at the moment, the market continues to correct and has an extended bear run; is there a point the Republicans in Congress start to unhitch their Trump wagons? Or do they?

This is clearly one of his big talking points when it comes to "his accomplishments" along with tax cuts and jobs which can all be bundled together under the economy.

Just curious to hear thoughts on how that could possibly play out should it go south.

I doubt it. They've hung with him on everything. They switched their stance on law enforcement, Russia, trade, and much more. Not sure why they'd stop now since he is still popular among Republicans.

I was told this tax cut was going to be great for business.

Hurts to see my 401K take a hit after a year of great increases but let's get to that 10% correction (and no more!) and get it over with.

I think it's going to go down even more... rates are likely going to go up with the Fed Chair and the immense borrowing they are going to have to do with the tax cut.

Trump will just blame Yellen tomorrow and say he was right all along about firing her.

Yup booming economy.:lol:

Nol, Im curious how your vote was suppressed? Could you explain.

I'm not Nol but some of the things I see beyond voter ID include making it harder to register, limit early voting, cut staff in higher population centers leading to longer lines.

In my little corner of bum fuck Wisconsin, I can walk in and walk out of my precinct in about five minutes. Voting is not a hassle at all. Why do we try to make it more of a hassle for my fellow citizens in areas with higher population?

Now I know some people like JIMGA want to limit voting as much as possible (at least he's open about his intentions), but let's not use budgets and money as excuses to make voting harder. Let's try and make voting less time consuming. Nobody should have to decide whether voting is worth losing out on a day's income when I can spend five minutes on my lunch break exercising the same right.

Also, restrictive registration deadlines are silly. Same day registration should be available everywhere.

That is how most people I know take it. And yes, doing it without a lot of discussion can fall into this as well.

Let me put it this way, when was the last time you heard something was rammed through with broad support?

Yes, the tax cuts were rammed through as well. While I agree with them, the way they were passed are indicative of the times we are in.

The hard core guys, they will stick with him. Others that realize he did not cause it (or cause the run up to this point), will stick with him. Most moderates will probably dump him if they have not already.

I am surprised by it, I thought this was over due at least a year ago. Business activity in my sector has been booming. My old sales territory, sales grew by 150% in an established industry.

EDIT: Plus, demand has up in most territories across the country.

I would say the Patriot Act was definitely "rammed through" and it had broad support (vote of 357-66 in the House and 98-1 in the Senate).

"Rammed through" refers to the time from the introduction of a bill to when it is signed into law, not the level of bipartisanship. Six months is a pretty long time to be considered "rammed through".

If that's how you define it, doesn't that give incredible power to the minority? What if they all decide to vote against everything no matter what?

And again, does the tax cut bill count since no Dems voted for it?

You'll be waiting a long time for an answer.

Check the word under the user name.

And that is where we have gone off the rails in my opinion.

Yes, it gives power to the minority. However, there is a large difference between a minority of 25% and one of 45%. If something goes through that the 45% feel strongly about, don't be surprised when they get riled up. When that minority is 25%, they may get riled up, but they will not have as much power.

That said, I come from the mindset that just because you have the power or capability to do something, it does not mean that you should do it. Likewise, just because you might not have the ability to do something, does not mean you should not attempt to do it (you may learn something valuable along the way). Just because something is lawful does not mean it is ethical, and because something is ethical, does not mean it is lawful.

Apparently I am in the minority in looking at getting something rammed through is akin to getting rammed up the ass or shoving/ramming something down your throat. Its not necessarily a fast process, but it is one with significant resistance. As opposed to something that glided or flew through. Which was passed quickly with little opposition, such as the Patriot Act.

So then why doesn't this apply to the tax cuts that didn't even get 60 votes?

Oh my this is a bad idea:

Well I'm sure Trump will now be tweeting about his latest "win" right? He now owns the biggest drop in the Dow in its history. Yay Trump?

WH already came out with an answer today saying trump was only interested in long term financials which are are amazeballz.

He's finally draining the swamp

Put on your seatbelts.

Ugh.

I think everyone knew that a correction was coming. But it still sucks.

I think everyone is being thrown off by the large numbers as well. I mean 5% sucks but the Dow isn’t even down for the month right now. I do find it interesting that everyone is coming out the woodwork now and placing this all at Trumps feet while denying the growth for the past year. Man talk about turning on a dime of having your cake and eating it too. Partisan politics, not surprising but still funny. Go back a few pages and reread Quiksand’s level headed take on the economy.

I think it's just making fun of him. He assumed every time the DOW went up it was because of him. So when it goes down, it has to be on him too.

I personally don't think the President has much control over the day-to-day ups and downs but he sure does.

Lurker more then poster, but yea. This is just another example where if Trump didn't talk so much I absolutely agree that this is just part of the cycle, the ups and the downs, but if the man wants to take full responsibility when its up then he better be damn sure he gets the responsibility when its down.

He only thinks he is responsible for the ups.

Not even down for the month? It's down around 2000 for the month.

It's also down from the start of the year so where are you getting this not down for the month idea?

The Dow Jones finished at 24,345.75 today (Feb 5th), that's the lowest since Dec 8th (2 months ago) when it closed at 24,329.19.

The S&P 500 closed at 2648.94, the lowest since Dec 7th (2 months ago) at 2636.98.

Yeah I do this a lot I guess but I was talking more general and less just about specifically FOFC. There are a lot on my social media feed and at work that are I think enjoying this and would probably not even mind a real crash. Don't get me wrong there were just as many (more?) on the other side that would have loved to see "Obama's market" crash as well. Which is what is so fucking stupid about partisan politics. I mean unless you have your money in gold or diamonds who doesn't have something in their lives tied to the success of the stock market?

I agree Trump is an idiot about most things but I will take him bragging about the market if it brings me gains on my investments.

OK OK. Two things.

1. I think most people understand down for the month to mean past 30 days not literally February but I meant last 30 days obviously.

2. I also admit I misread a chart and read December as January. Point being though its not like the crash of '87 that wiped out an entire year in one day or '08 that wiped out like a decade by the time it was done. It could get there for sure but we have had 4-5% drops before it's just the number 1000 attached to it that seems like we are headed to 1929.

Agree except that I do believe this is (or was) a Trump rally.

I think it was more a rally of what people "believed" Trump could do for taxes, healthcare, small businesses, infrastructure etc.

To be clear, Obama certainly recovered us from the Great Recession and laid the foundation for steady growth, lower unemployment etc. but if Hillary had won, don't think the markets would have rallied so much ... so IMO he gets the majority of credit for stock market boom last year.

Does he own this downswing (possible collapse). May be wrong, I don't think so or at least, not the majority of it. There's nothing he has said or done that I know of that would have cause this sudden collapse. The TV pundits are all talking over themselves, I'm sure there will be a reasonable post-mortem after this is over.

Not to pick, but just to make a point a lot of people miss, about half the country has no money in the market and 85% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population. Now you can argue that the market is a reflection of the general health of the economy, and to some extent it is, but it can go up or down a good amount and have no effect on a lot of the public.

And it can drop for reasons that are contrary to the good of most of the public. The current dive was precipitated by fears of what rising wages might mean for profits.

So if Walmart's stock nosedives they aren't going to have to lay off any employees? John Q. Public who has a government pension isn't counting on stock market gains? Maybe I am that out of touch as teacher with both a pension dependent on the market and private IRA's (wouldn't consider myself part of the "elite") but to say it won't effect 50% of the country seems way off.

Right now Dow is up +1.37% and Nasdaq is down -3.31%

Kinda crazy, don't think I've seen this wide of difference before.

You knew he couldn't stay away from this...

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago




So disgraceful that a person illegally in our country killed @Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson. This is just one of many such preventable tragedies. We must get the Dems to get tough on the Border, and with illegal immigration, FAST!

Eventually yes, but it would take a sizable loss. From Jan 29 to Feb 5 Wal-Mart stock dropped ten percent and there aren't announcements of layoffs.

The stats are clear that about half the country owns no stock, either individually or through funds/pensions.

A tweet for every occasion.

The State Of The Union speech was one of the most boring, rambling and non-substantive I have heard in a long time. New leadership fast!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2016

The stock market affects a lot more than the immediate ownership value. The economic loss doesn't just stop there. It goes on and filters into the economy in general.

I'm interjecting in the middle of your discussion here and I have no real idea what you and anyone else is discussing in a broad sense. Just saying if you think the impact of the stock market losses stop at price valuation, I don't believe that is true.

My general point is that the stock market has far less impact on half the country than would be expected given the media coverage of every high and low.

I think that y'all are both right.

The market affects more people than simply people who have direct investments.

But our day-to-day obsession with the market far outweighs its day-to-day effect on our lives.

So you think you have it bad?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/xi...ney-2018-02-06

TBH, I don't feel bad for the guy but hope he doesn't off himself.

Declare bankruptcy, give up any hope on rebuilding relationships with people whose money he has lost and go overseas (somewhere remote) and teach english.

Trump’s ‘marching orders’ to the Pentagon: Plan a grand military parade - The Washington Post


wtf is this nonsense.

Wow! We still have too many soldiers deployed with sub par gear and he wants a fucking parade that will cost millions. The fucking military isn't your toy ass clown.

Apparently it is. France had a big parade when he was there, so now we have to have a bigger one.

Big waste of money.

Am I the only one picturing the German Army marching in full party dress and Heil Hitlering the Fuhrer as they go by?

Maybe we will burn books at this parade too?

Fixed that for MAGA-ots. (waiting for a certain unnamed poster to say "This, but unironically")

Edit: I'm DEFINITELY not calling Marmel a MAGA. Just to make that clear :)

Hannity and folks would have had a heart attack if Obama did this.

Where is Bill Murray from Stripes when you need him?

THAT'S THE FACTS, JACK!

I'm sure the same far right that was convinced Obama was going to make himself president for life would be perfectly fine with a misuse of our military.

So, what is his point here?

In the “old days,” when good news was reported, the Stock Market would go up. Today, when good news is reported, the Stock Market goes down. Big mistake, and we have so much good (great) news about the economy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 7, 2018

"Hey, all you investors, companies, fears, whims, little angels and devils on peoples' shoulders, and all the other myriad factors that determine whether the market is up or down, ALL OF YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG AND BETTER DO MAH BIDDING!!!"

That he doesn't understand the markets? Or the economy?

The markets fell due to the 'good news' because there was fear of future inflation. Or, worse*, that the Fed Chair would jack up interest rates to stave off inflation.

*depending on your point of view

I actually think he's right if he's saying that the market isn't necessarily a reflection of the health of the overall economy, but it's hard to make that point when you've also been arguing that the market is a reflection of the health of the overall economy.

And that clearly wasn't the point he was making. Dude is just dumb as fuck.

Matthew Dowd‏Verified account @matthewjdowd









A guy with five military draft deferments wanting a military parade to honor himself, is a bit like Cruella De Vil wanting an award from the humane society for her treatment of Dalmatians.

Trump had a nice hair malfunction earlier today.

I think he is trying to compensate for his missile envy.

Trump would look better bald.

https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/qxcrOV1KDtZ...0%2Fimage1.jpg

It's sad enough to be so vain when you're over 70, but to protect THAT head of hair is just, confusing.

He'd have to put up with a week or so of Lex Luthor jokes from the liberals, but then they'd move on.

I agree with you that just accepting baldness would be less embarrassing for him.

He looks way better bald. Like the guy from murder one.

Daddy Warbucks.

Fixed it

Only hiring the best people.

Hope Hicks' boyfriend Rob Porter resigns after abuse claim | Daily Mail Online

The WH knew for months.

So the Senate comes up with some agreement and Pelosi spends 8 hours on the House floor talking about DACA.

Seems as if Schumer knows a losing proposition but Pelosi is doubling down and hoping that Ryan will support some semblance of a DACA deal (for the Wall?).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/polit...own/index.html

I guarantee Schumer and Pelosi worked this out. The bill will pass, unless the Freedom Caucus kills it, and this gives cover.

The current Senate bill does not have any DACA provisions. Are you saying Schumer and Pelosi are okay with this?

I'm saying that Schumer dealing with McConnell while Pelosi protests in the House, where she can't stop anything, is almost certainly planned and agreed to by both of them.

except with the Free-dumb Cow-cuss screaming their head off, they need quite a few Democratic votes.

Just another reason to do this. Pelosi gives the Dems a reason to vote against the bill, Ryan can't deliver the Freedom Caucus, and then the GOP looks like idiots. All while avoiding a filibuster like last time.

Now I think it will pass, but I don't think this is evidence of a Dem split. It's all just theatre.

So Republicans in Wisconsin, PA, and NC are dealing with the fact that the Democrats are winning special elections, gerrymander battles, and "liberal judges" in their own unique and most likely illegal ways:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...he-states.html

Russians penetrated U.S. voter systems, top U.S. official says


First, what constitutes an "exceptionally small number" in this case?

Second, glad we're not enforcing sanctions against a country actively targeting our elections. If Dems gain control, this needs to be a priority.

Third, anyone else a little concerned about Privacy Act info being compromised? I know the focus is on the election, but if hackers are perusing voter roles, they more than likely have access to SSNs, DL#s, and other pertinent info.

Don't know about this case, but with a starting sample of 21, having them successfully penetrate "them", meaning plural, meaning at least 2, means a hit rate of no lower than 9.5%.

In my corporate world, a failure rate that high would be met with the fury of a thousand suns.

With the new spending, the 2019 deficit is projected at 5.6% of GDP.

In a booming economy.

Madness.