Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Jerome Powell

federalreserve.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 871 posts

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#841

Post by _DeadFred_ »

skissane wrote: post #673
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ex post facto can be ignored, and a new law of the land passed voiding pardons during 47s term. Because repealing pardons isn't weaponizing the person pardoned's behavior after the fact, it's against Presidential authority, so isn't ex post facto when it comes to the person who's behavior was legally determined to be criminal. Voiding a commutation for cause would be tougher and potential ex post facto, but not a par…

What are the odds the current Supreme Court majority are going to uphold voiding Trump's pardons? Pretty to close to zero. The only way you could do this would be if you changed the SCOTUS composition through court packing or impeachment or constitutional amendment. If you wait for the conservative justices to retire and be replaced through death/resignation – by the time that happens, the issue of voiding pardons wi…

We will see what comes out of this. Might be relevant

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-pipe-bomb-suspect-voted-trump...

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#842

Post by ElectronCharge »

danaris wrote: post #511
fyredge wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a fallacy, simply an opinion you disagree with. But one which I strongly agree with. I'm not American, and though I may not agree completely with the politicians I voted for, I have not been blindsided yet. The second election of Trump is a symptom of Americans either unable or unwilling to look beyond single issues or sports team politics. To then turn around and act surprised is just a way to convenient…

If you're not American, then you may not understand the way the American voting system works. We only have two parties. (Technically, there are some third parties, but they're effectively worse than negligible—voting for them is guaranteed to either do nothing or harm the cause you're interested in, unless the candidate is already a member of a major party and merely cross-endorsed.) This means that if you care about…

… TBC

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#844

Post by [deleted] »

LastTrain wrote: post #610
Aurornis wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the political will of a plurality of American voters. This fallacy gets repeated over and over, but it's obviously false. Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with? It's a quintessential fact of politics that voting for a candidate is not equivalent to an endorsement of everything that candidate does in the future. It's a premise that is obviously false when…

He is the most popular Republican president, among other Republicans, we have had in our lifetime. Anecdotal: I live in a red state with red friends and red family. They might not like this or that but they are unwavering in their support for Trump the man. It is still very uncomfortable to say even the most superficially negative thing about him or his policies. So, maybe there is some internal dialog going on there…

[deleted]

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#845

Post by hvb2 »

throwworhtthrow wrote: post #770
hvb2 wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would envy the person who can live in the US and be unaware a presidential election was yesterday... Like, they start running ads 18 months ahead of it... How do you miss all of those ads

Presidential ads run in swing states. Not in California, whose delegates are a foregone conclusion. Californians are hassled for political donations, not votes.

There are more of them in swing states.

But the internet is full of them for quite some time, I would expect them to see some of those

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#846

Post by watwut »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #821
watwut wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It shouldn't change anything, but Trump yelled it louder, No, he did not. This is simply not true. The thing about Trump being pro peace was just one more pure bad faith lie. And people who voted for Trump did not believed in Trump for peace thing. Maybe we should stop projecting positive motivations on people who were about something else entirely

>The thing about Trump being pro peace was just one more pure bad faith lie. Okay, the reverse logic works as well. People didn't trust either candidate so it came down to all the above, superficial factors or much deeper, unspoken motivations. My main point is more on "people already knew who they wanted" more than whatever their outward facing words say.

> People didn't trust either candidate so it came down to all the above, superficial factors or much deeper, unspoken motivations.

They liked trump, because he promissed to harm trans, liberals, dominate women, dominate international politocs and because he is proper masculine per conservative outlook.

Nothing unspoken about that.

> Okay, the reverse logic works as well.

It does not. You need to ignore what candidates said, what people supporting them said, what poloticians said and what people wrote on social media.

You need to literally ignore what republicans, conservatives and were saying praising and doing, just so you can whitewhash and sanewash their choices and opinions.

> My main point is more on "people already knew who they wanted" more than whatever their outward facing words say.

They wanted to cause harm to people they dislike. They want to liberals others suffer as they watch how "proper manly men" mistreat people.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#847

Post by fzeroracer »

eudamoniac wrote: post #768
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me your phrase "publicly dropped support for abortion" sounds like "neglecting to bring up the topic". If you mean that Democratic leaders should somehow convince their members to support abortion restrictions that they oppose, I'm not sure why you would presume that's possible.

I'm imagining a candidate saying something like, "I want to help America with x y z [blue team related] issues. I want to bridge the aisle with Republicans and voters. To that end, I vow to not support any measures for the expansion of abortion. I believe that right now it's more important to help Americans in other ways. This is a contentious issue, but if we can set it aside for the moment, I believe D and R can co…

> This is a contentious issue, but if we can set it aside for the moment, I believe D and R can come together to solve x y and z

I'm curious: Where does your line of thought actually end? Do you agree that they should perhaps meet Republicans in the center around vaccine issues and dismantle vaccine requirements? What about issues of climate change? Corruption?

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#848

Post by throwawayPlus44 »

kayge wrote: post #707
dredmorbius wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curtis's HyperNormalisation , a BBC documentary, for those unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation > Video, at BBC Online: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b183c >

And for anyone who is nervous about clicking that video link at work: BBC in this context stands for British Broadcasting Corporation, which is a fairly well respected news group.

No one was nervous. That might be just you. You might want to spend a little less time online.

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#849

Post by [deleted] »

kayge wrote: post #707
dredmorbius wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curtis's HyperNormalisation , a BBC documentary, for those unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation > Video, at BBC Online: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b183c >

And for anyone who is nervous about clicking that video link at work: BBC in this context stands for British Broadcasting Corporation, which is a fairly well respected news group.

[deleted]

Re: Statement from Jerome Powell

#850

Post by aebtebeten »

noncoml wrote: post #688
Aurornis wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the political will of a plurality of American voters. This fallacy gets repeated over and over, but it's obviously false. Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with? It's a quintessential fact of politics that voting for a candidate is not equivalent to an endorsement of everything that candidate does in the future. It's a premise that is obviously false when…

Isn’t their approval rating 40% or something? As much as I hate what’s happening, that’s how democracy works. Sometimes the majority chooses to burn the house down and all you can do is sit and watch

That's not how parliamentary democracies work; they have a thing called a "vote of no confidence".
Post reply on HN