When reading posts, there are yellow stars against the names of the most respected Shrewds. The number of points in the star, starting at 3, represents the Shrewd'm-Star rating. This number is the average recommendation that the author received over the last 12 months.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 13
Trump Removes Lisa Cook From Federal Reserve Board
President Trump took the extraordinary step of removing Lisa Cook from the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, in a legally dubious maneuver that could undermine the independence of the nation’s central bank.
...in a legally dubious maneuver that could undermine the independence of the nation’s central bank. Mr. Trump pointed to allegations that Ms. Cook had committed mortgage fraud, but he has made no secret of his anger at the Fed for refusing to lower interest rates, and Ms. Cook had voted consistently with the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell.
"Mortgage fraud", eh? And a perhaps dubious accusation at that?
Come on, that is nothing compared to Trump's multifarious criminal actions.
Ah, but she's a black woman. That really triggers Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Ah, but she's a black woman. That really triggers Trump.
Consistent with my racism (supplemented with a touch of misogyny) theory.
Any time Trump shows his racism, MAGA cheers.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ah, but she's a black woman. That really triggers Trump.
In this case, it’s more a case of Trump taking a first step toward controlling the FED.
No. of Recommendations: 23
ges: President Trump took the extraordinary step of removing Lisa Cook from the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, in a legally dubious maneuver...
Well, let's see now.
1. Trump purged the military of independent leaders and installed loyalists.
2. Trump purged the intelligence community and installed loyalists.
3. Trump raided a prominent critic and threatens to investigate several other critics.
4. Trump is covering up his role in the Epstein scandal.
5. Trump nationalized Intel and his top economic advisers said the government will do the same with other corporations.
6. Trump is extorting universities and media companies.
7. Trump is rewriting history at the Smithsonian and other national museums.
8. Trump ordered redistricting in Texas in order to maintain control of the House.
9. Trump is disappearing and deporting individuals without providing them with their day in court.
10. Trump had taken control of law enforcement in the nation's capital and promises to invade other American cities.
11. Trump will allow 600,000 students from China to displace American students and Lutnick said the Trump administration was intentionally forcing those American students to attend lower quality educational institutions to help them financially.
But, republicans continue to insist we are not in a constitutional crisis and there's nothing to see in this march toward dictatorship.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Ah, but she's a black woman. That really triggers Trump.
In this case, it’s more a case of Trump taking a first step toward controlling the FED.
For Trump, it's a two-fer.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But, republicans continue to insist we are not in a constitutional crisis and there's nothing to see in this march toward dictatorship.
On the whole, the GOP is benefitting from all this. And they have made it clear, they truly want one party rule. Very communistic.
No. of Recommendations: 4
But, republicans continue to insist we are not in a constitutional crisis and there's nothing to see in this march toward dictatorship.
On the whole, the GOP is benefiting from all this. And they have made it clear, they truly want one party rule. Very communistic.
This is how the soft part of a takeover feels methinks. By the time we get to the rough part, it might be over.
AI Overview
"How Democracies Die," by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, explores how democracies can erode and collapse, not just through violent coups but also through the gradual subversion of institutions and norms by elected leaders. The book uses historical examples, including the rise of authoritarian leaders in 20th-century Europe, as well as contemporary cases like Turkey and Venezuela, to illustrate how democracies can be undermined from within. It emphasizes the importance of political norms, such as mutual tolerance and forbearance, and the need for strong guardrails in institutions to prevent democratic backsliding.
Key arguments and themes in the book include:
Democracies die slowly:
The book argues that democracies are not always overthrown by military coups, but can be gradually eroded through the actions of elected leaders who exploit existing institutions and norms.
The importance of norms:
The authors highlight the crucial role of unwritten rules and norms, such as mutual tolerance and respect for political opponents, in maintaining a healthy democracy.
The dangers of political polarization:
Increased polarization and the demonization of political opponents can weaken democratic institutions and create an environment where authoritarianism can flourish.
The role of political parties:
The book emphasizes the responsibility of political parties to act as gatekeepers against undemocratic forces, but notes that this function has been weakened in many contemporary democracies.
The importance of vigilance:
The book argues that democracies are not self-sustaining and require constant vigilance and active participation from citizens to protect them from threats.
Historical examples:
The book draws on historical examples from various countries, including Chile, Germany, and Argentina, to illustrate the different ways democracies can die.
Warning signs:
The authors identify key warning signs of democratic backsliding, such as the rejection of democratic rules, the denial of political opponents' legitimacy, and the encouragement of violence.
The Trump presidency:
The book uses the presidency of Donald Trump as a case study to analyze how democratic norms can be challenged and eroded in the United States.
Democratizing democracy:
The authors suggest that profound changes in American institutions and a mobilization of civil society are necessary to "democratize democracy" and make it more resilient, according to The CUNY Graduate Center.
WIKI
Synopsis
How Democracies Die cites cases in multiple countries where a breakdown of "mutual toleration" occurred, along with a loss of respect for the political legitimacy of the opposition. Tolerance, as the authors define it, involves accepting the results of a free and fair election when the opposition has won, in contrast with lodging spurious complaints about the election mechanism or even advocating the overthrow of the electoral system. The authors stress the importance of respecting the opinions of people with different political viewpoints, rather than attacking the patriotism of the opposition, or warning that if they come to power they will destroy the country.[3]
The authors claim that in a system with separation of powers, the various branches of government have actions available to them which can undermine the other branches. The authors caution against ramming through a political agenda or accumulating power by playing "constitutional hardball" with tactics like court-packing, stonewalling nominations, or abusing the power of the purse.[4] Instead, the authors recommend "forbearance" and some degree of cooperation to keep government functioning in a balanced fashion.[5] Among the other threats to democratic stability, they list economic inequality and segregation of the political parties by race, religion, and geography.
After applying their theory of how democracies die to Latin American and European countries (especially Venezuela and Russia), the authors devote later chapters to the United States, Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and the 2016 presidential election. The book argues that up until 2016, the U.S. resisted attempts to destabilize its democracy thanks to two norms: mutual toleration and institutional forbearance, the latter phrase defined as "avoiding actions that, while respecting the letter of the law, obviously violate its spirit. Where norms of forbearance are strong, politicians do not use their institutional prerogatives to the hilt, even if it is technically legal to do so, for such action could imperil the existing system."[6] But the authors see those two norms under assault:
The traditions underpinning America's democratic institutions are unraveling, opening up a disconcerting gap between how our political system works and long-standing expectations about how it ought to work. As our soft guardrails have weakened, we have grown increasingly vulnerable to antidemocratic leaders.[7]
The book concludes with three potential scenarios for a post-Trump America.[8]
No. of Recommendations: 2
Come on, that is nothing compared to Trump's multifarious criminal actions.
While true, that is a logical fallacy for this discussion.
It is my understanding that the Felon (or any POTUS) can't fire someone on the Fed. They're independent and non-partisan. If so, Cook can safely ignore him.
Similar with SCOTUS. I'm sure if he thought he could, he'd fire Sotomayor. But he can't, no matter how much bloviating he does.
No. of Recommendations: 8
It is my understanding that the Felon (or any POTUS) can't fire someone on the Fed. They're independent and non-partisan. If so, Cook can safely ignore him.
Similar with SCOTUS. I'm sure if he thought he could, he'd fire Sotomayor. But he can't, no matter how much bloviating he does.
He can’t yet fire Sotomayor, but after just a bit more consolidation of power, he might simply pick her up in an ICE raid and deport her to a prison in Uganda for not being a “Real American”.
We’re entering an era when yesterday’s “impossibility” becomes today’s “routine”. Trump has given us no reason at all to believe that this trajectory will not continue.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Trump has given us no reason at all to believe that this trajectory will not continue.
True. But, if I am correct, Cook isn't fired because the Felon hasn't the authority. No more than you or I could fire her.
Yes?
No. of Recommendations: 2
True. But, if I am correct, Cook isn't fired because the Felon hasn't the authority.
Trump has the authority because he TAKES the authority while everyone waits for the dismantled guardrails to stop him
