The stock markets aren't happy with the election results.

This. Without some serious changes and/or luck along the way.... there are some saying we're all fucked in a few years. Everyone I know in the financial industry insists that we're on the brink of a major crisis that will make the struggles of the last few years look like a minor hiccup.

 

Where you lose me is who are all these people blaming republicans for gridiron and over all mess. Did I miss that in the article?

 

So your argument that the results of the stock market would be different if Romney were elected is based on that it is likely that Bernanke would have quit or someone new in his position AND that the likely outcome was actually trying to stop the QE program which should have hurt the market, in the short term..but kind of mitigated the impending destruction of the US economy.

That is a lot of "likelys" to be assuming. And interesting enough, even if you are right, this title would have fit if Romney was elected President.

Sounds like you got thios all figured out which will soon make you a billionaire as you short the market knowing the bubble is going to burst.

 

Most people were thinking it. And it was probably likely.

http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2012/10/16/how-romney-could-end-quantitative-easing/
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...o-dump-bernanke-sparks-anxiety-on-wall-street

 

Uh, perhaps you don't read this board as closely as I suspected. That's been the general opinion here. Shit, my facebook feed is the same way. The media is the same way.

Oh, and by the way.... The article DC posted, which is the same one you posted in one of your posts...... The stats on the side, where the question "Who is to blame for the current gridiron?" is asked...... 45% of Congressional Republicans vs. 37% Obama. Clearly, everything I see, read, hear about on TV, etc. The majority of everything points the fingers at the Republican Party.

 

Prior to election I started talking politics here, and pulled away after the election. I think this is the first political thread I have posted in recently, and I think it's better that way. Debating which old car we would like to restore, or even the existence of God, is much less cumbersome than politics. EL PRESIDENTE knows he is correct, I know I'm correct, BG and Denny know they are correct. But on most issues the four of us account for five different views. Treaty of Batum, you are the only person on this forum whom I have seen open enough to new ideas in a political thread to actually change his views, I just repped you for that. Most of us are so dogmatic in our views that we do not waiver. I believe I am open to change, but in all honesty I must conclude otherwise because I have never been swayed by political banter on here. So peace, I'll keep reading, and occasionally post. But you are more likely to find me in the funny pages.

 

Honestly, you're completely wrong about me, but I get your overall point. When it comes to politics, I don't think I'm right at all. I'd say I'm more wrong than right. I don't follow politics very closely, so when I ask questions or make my opinions, they come from a place of wanting to learn, wanting to gather information and other opinions. I'm very much a fence-sitter, and that is evident by my "Indepdendent" registration. I don't agree with the two-party system, as I believe it is a bit archaeic/outdated and overly simplistic. But I don't join either party because, one, for the reasons just listed, and two, because I don't consider myself well-enough informed and entrenched in either point of view to join a party, and that given these bits of info, it would be irresponsible for me to join either party.

 

Politics and religion are two things I try to avoid, for the most part. I believe they are two huge things that can keep two people who would otherwise be friends from being friends. They can be that polarizing, that hate-inducing (hate may be a strong word, but you get the point). I try to understand politics so that I can understand what I need to know about what's going on in the world, the economy, etc. But aside from that, I have no interest in politics.

 

Sorry BG for mischaracterizing your openness. I try to be open, but those that argue with me are often so far away that they don't notice that I actually am changing. I assume that is actually the case for others as well.

It is true that politics and religion are far and away the most difficult things to discuss on a forum, but they can also be quite enjoyable and educational. Mags and I have had many discussions on religion, god, science, atheism and our views are often diametrically opposed, but we are both polite and respectful to the others views and simply talk openly on these subjects. And I love those threads and in particular the posts by Mags.

But for some reason, whereas in the religious threads most people try and be respectful of the other side, in the politic threads we often show disdain for the alternate views. I include myself. I think that's too bad, because if we could be less dogmatic in our approach to political threads, then a more rewarding thread might arise. I have tried to start a few threads in the past aimed at doing this, like one where I asked people which politicians they liked on their opposing side. Designed to get people to be magnanimous. But it went quite poorly. Too bad, but I will not assume you are unreachable in the future, that was my mistake.

 

Hey thanks for the kind words and the rep (right back at you). Hopefully you can't take back the rep because if you want to know why I change views . . . it's because I don't much when it comes to politics (don't to take that rep back).

I actually think I'm more democrat and to help me realize that: BG thinks this board is mostly about blaming the Republican Party and I read it as more like attacks on Obama. Maybe if you lean one way or the other, you tend to take more notice of the posters that you disagree with? Like this thread title, it looks like a silly attack on Obama to me, but maybe BG reads the contents and thinks it is more of an attack on the Republican party.

Anyways, I wish I could say I study this stuff and be this open to opinions, but that is not true. I voted for Romney because my gut (don't trust either sides experts) said he would be better for the economy which was far and away my number one concern in this ever changing global economy. That is how simplistic I am on the topic, so I'm here to see what other thoughts are out there.

That takes me to a different thought the reason I'm open to changing views and come here for political talk is I think this board has a lot of knowledgable people. I also think this board has a lot of people who like to debate/banter through posts, but I'm not ashamed to admit I get a lot of knowledge from the posters on this baord in a variety of areas. Good group of people here!

 

As you are against anything progressive, I am against any strict ideology, Libertarian Communist, Anarchist, etc... I believe the best that can can be done is to always walk a balance. This is also the hardest position to take because a balance is always teetering back and forth, trying to do better.

 

I want govt to heavily invest in scientific research. I want govt to encourage and support all levels of education. But I understand my desires in these areas go much further than most. You, I imagine, would like none, or minimal involvement in these areas. Between us there is likely a balance to be struck.

Libertarianism is not a balance, even if you can use it in a sentence.

 

No apologies ever needed. It's a message board. Just don't like being characterized as something I'm not. I'm pro-USA, and my stance is we need to quit pointing fingers and do what's necessary to heal our country as a whole. Unity. We need to work together to grow as one unit. Pointing fingers solves nothing, ultimately.

That's what I believe, anyway. Unrealistic or BS as it may seem.

 

What if? They mostly are, at least from my experience.

 

Does it work like that for public school?