Based on S&P and Nasdaq futures, feel like bullet point 1 seems like the answer here.
The number of people of clinging to the "there are still adults in the room" mindset is depressing. Although that's perhaps why this "Signal" story took off. One it's hilarious and involves social media so perfect mix to get traction. But the other reaso…
Based on S&P and Nasdaq futures, feel like bullet point 1 seems like the answer here.
The number of people of clinging to the "there are still adults in the room" mindset is depressing. Although that's perhaps why this "Signal" story took off. One it's hilarious and involves social media so perfect mix to get traction. But the other reason is maybe the dawning realization the adults in the room are not actually adults but people way in over their heads. Would have thought a cursory reading of Pete Hesgeth would have convinced enough people this man has no business running DoD, but I continually am astonished at delusional lies people can tell themselves.
Maybe that's the answer. No one, absolutely no one likes to admit they have been conned. Its embarrassing and humiliating. But its also why cons succeed.
I think the market anticipated the tariffs to be much more moderate and targeted to specific countries/sectors. 10% was swirling around, but ended up being the base rate and many more countries were involved for no discernable reason. I think there was also some sentiment that this could be a continued negotiation tactic that would be temporary and removed over the course of the next few months. Now there are more indications that he is very much committed to this "strategy" long term. Israel removing tariffs ahead of the announcement and still be subjected to a 17% penalty is pretty compelling proof that it doesn't really matter what concessions these countries make.
This moment has been kind of clarifying as to the "How could Trump win" conversation. It seems really clear that tons of people internalized the idea that a lot of the warnings about the dangers of Trump was hyperventilating from over zealous libs and never Trumpers.
So as Josh notes, 2016 happens, dire warnings occur, all sorts of lib freakout (including me) occurs, a lot of the worst warnings don't come to pass even though he says and does plenty of crazy stuff so lots of normies conclude that most of the worst stuff is dare I say "fake news".
Think it also kind of speaks highly of various cabinet members and advisors around Trump the first term because it turns out as bad as he was they really were preventing a lot of the worst stuff from happening behind the scenes.
I feel like a north star for me is John Bolton as almost an avatar of too many of his supporters and even maybe swing voters. It seems as though based on the numerous interviews he did on Fox pre 2018 that he totally bought the narrative that all of these warnings about Trump was lib exaggeration and even dare I say, "a witch hunt". And then he gets the White House and discovers it's even worse than Libs and Never Trumpers say it is.
I think to me it speaks to how much of Trump's success is downstream from Fox and right wing media's ability to set the narrative; even if there actual news numbers are low they clearly have an ability to sway public opinion through 2nd and 3rd order effects.
That’s fair, I forgot the precise wording, and I apologize! You did call him “broadly a conservative in good standing” and positively contrasted his nomination with RFK’s, which at the time I interpreted to mean that you thought he might do a better job. (I disagreed then and still do, but maybe you didn’t mean that.)
I said, in November, that he was more likely to be confirmed than RFK, because (unlike RFK) he was not ideologically crosswise with any key GOP constituencies. I was wrong as to RFK’s confirmation, but I never assessed that Hegseth was likely to perform well. In fact, I wrote “I don’t think Hegseth is well-qualified at all.” So, you’re disagreeing with something I never said or believed.
Based on S&P and Nasdaq futures, feel like bullet point 1 seems like the answer here.
The number of people of clinging to the "there are still adults in the room" mindset is depressing. Although that's perhaps why this "Signal" story took off. One it's hilarious and involves social media so perfect mix to get traction. But the other reason is maybe the dawning realization the adults in the room are not actually adults but people way in over their heads. Would have thought a cursory reading of Pete Hesgeth would have convinced enough people this man has no business running DoD, but I continually am astonished at delusional lies people can tell themselves.
Maybe that's the answer. No one, absolutely no one likes to admit they have been conned. Its embarrassing and humiliating. But its also why cons succeed.
I think the market anticipated the tariffs to be much more moderate and targeted to specific countries/sectors. 10% was swirling around, but ended up being the base rate and many more countries were involved for no discernable reason. I think there was also some sentiment that this could be a continued negotiation tactic that would be temporary and removed over the course of the next few months. Now there are more indications that he is very much committed to this "strategy" long term. Israel removing tariffs ahead of the announcement and still be subjected to a 17% penalty is pretty compelling proof that it doesn't really matter what concessions these countries make.
This moment has been kind of clarifying as to the "How could Trump win" conversation. It seems really clear that tons of people internalized the idea that a lot of the warnings about the dangers of Trump was hyperventilating from over zealous libs and never Trumpers.
So as Josh notes, 2016 happens, dire warnings occur, all sorts of lib freakout (including me) occurs, a lot of the worst warnings don't come to pass even though he says and does plenty of crazy stuff so lots of normies conclude that most of the worst stuff is dare I say "fake news".
Think it also kind of speaks highly of various cabinet members and advisors around Trump the first term because it turns out as bad as he was they really were preventing a lot of the worst stuff from happening behind the scenes.
I feel like a north star for me is John Bolton as almost an avatar of too many of his supporters and even maybe swing voters. It seems as though based on the numerous interviews he did on Fox pre 2018 that he totally bought the narrative that all of these warnings about Trump was lib exaggeration and even dare I say, "a witch hunt". And then he gets the White House and discovers it's even worse than Libs and Never Trumpers say it is.
I think to me it speaks to how much of Trump's success is downstream from Fox and right wing media's ability to set the narrative; even if there actual news numbers are low they clearly have an ability to sway public opinion through 2nd and 3rd order effects.
No I didn’t.
That’s fair, I forgot the precise wording, and I apologize! You did call him “broadly a conservative in good standing” and positively contrasted his nomination with RFK’s, which at the time I interpreted to mean that you thought he might do a better job. (I disagreed then and still do, but maybe you didn’t mean that.)
I said, in November, that he was more likely to be confirmed than RFK, because (unlike RFK) he was not ideologically crosswise with any key GOP constituencies. I was wrong as to RFK’s confirmation, but I never assessed that Hegseth was likely to perform well. In fact, I wrote “I don’t think Hegseth is well-qualified at all.” So, you’re disagreeing with something I never said or believed.