• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What would Mitch do?

What would Mitch do?

  • Recognize that precedent requires that the decision be left to the next President.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Realize that bringing a new justice to a vote at this time would be inappropriate.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Understand that trying to push through a confirmation would make him look like a hypocrite.

    Votes: 3 4.2%

  • Ha, all the above are planet X! He'll push through a confirmation ASAP!

    Votes: 66 93.0%
  • Total voters
    71
The Great Zaganza said:
I predict that China will use its share of US bonds as leverage, should Trump in his next term persist with his anti-China trade policies, yes.
Click to expand...

This seems like an entirely reasonable and predictable use of negotiating power. It also seems much less drastic than:

The Great Zaganza said:
I don't think US creditors would accept another four years of Mitch &Trump.
Click to expand...

In fact it seems very much like accepting another four years of Mitch & Trump, and working within that scenario to get the best deals they can using the resources at their disposal.
 
I think it boils down to the same thing: China re3fusing to take US bonds would raise interst rates no matter how much QE the Fed tries to do. It would be a serious test to the USD as a reserve currency.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
will threaten to. That is what using its debt as leverage means.

So what prediction will you make?
Click to expand...

I'm content with the null hypothesis to your prediction:

The Great Zaganza said:
I don't think US creditors would accept another four years of Mitch &Trump.
Click to expand...

I.e., "US creditors will accept another four years of Mitch & Trump."

What I'm asking is, what would it take to falsify the null and fulfill your prediction?

"China threatens to stop taking US bonds if Trump continues his anti-China trade policies" doesn't seem to me to be the same as US creditors flatly not accepting another four years of Trump. Which is what I understood your prediction to be.

Is that the kind of thing you had in mind when you predicted that US creditors would not accept Trump's re-election?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
will threaten to. That is what using its debt as leverage means.

So what prediction will you make?
Click to expand...

Giving this a bit more thought, I will make the following prediction:

If Trump is re-elected and continues his anti-China trade policies, China will use their US debt instruments as leverage in trade negotiations.

I do *not* predict that US creditors will simply not accept a second Trump term. And apparently neither do you.
 
Creditors will keep on lending to the US - it will just become more expensive than it would under Biden (which, I know, is a non-testable counterfactual).
 
theprestige said:
What happened to this prediction?
Click to expand...

IF Creditors accepted the Trump 2nd term, interest rates would stay the same.
If not, they will demand more ROI.
I thought that was obviouos.


you really want to score a cheap point here, right?
Have one of my Internet Points if you need them so desperately.
 
Returning to the OP:

Mitch will continue to confirm judges without vetting as fast as possible, because he has to fill up his quota or forfeit his soul because of the deal with the devil he made.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Returning to the OP:

Mitch will continue to confirm judges without vetting as fast as possible, because he has to fill up his quota or forfeit his soul because of the deal with the devil he made.
Click to expand...

Vetting or considering whether the candidate is qualified is apparently unnecessary :mad:

In a recent interview, Lindsey Graham said that the Republicans had the votes to secure the appointment of the candidate - without actually knowing who the candidate is.

Does this mean that President Trump could, for example, nominate Eric Trump and at least 50 members of the senate (plus Mike Pence if it comes down to a tie) would vote to appoint ?
 
The Don said:
Vetting or considering whether the candidate is qualified is apparently unnecessary :mad:

In a recent interview, Lindsey Graham said that the Republicans had the votes to secure the appointment of the candidate - without actually knowing who the candidate is.

Does this mean that President Trump could, for example, nominate Eric Trump and at least 50 members of the senate (plus Mike Pence if it comes down to a tie) would vote to appoint ?
Click to expand...

of course not.

Ivanka would look far more sexy in Judge's robes.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
of course not.

Ivanka would look far more sexy in Judge's robes.
Click to expand...

I don't think he'd nominate Ivanka for SCOTUS, he's grooming her for POTUS.

Eric's at least third in line so 40 or so years on SCOTUS would be the best way he could serve the family.
 
On Jimmy Kimmel's show they interviewed people on the street asking what they thought of Trump's announcement that he's nominating Ivanka to replace RBG in the SC:|

 
The Don said:
I don't think he'd nominate Ivanka for SCOTUS, he's grooming her for POTUS.

Eric's at least third in line so 40 or so years on SCOTUS would be the best way he could serve the family.
Click to expand...

Where does it say in the Constitution that you can't be Chief Justice and POTUS simultaneously?

Let's ask Chief Justice Ivanka what she thinks.
 
What would Mitch do? Anything and everything as long as it keeps him in the position of Senate Majority Leader. And I mean anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom