This should surprise no one. I posted this on another site the day he spoke up:
No Fed for you!
Loyalty or else âŚ
The man child has spoken
Besides that He loveees the Jews
Just like he Loooves the dreamers
Cohn and others (see: Ty Cobb, Esq.) keep claiming that they are only doing these jobs because âthere need to be adults in the room.â
Unfortunately, this is no ordinary child:
Itâll lure you in, blast your hopes and ambitions, then spew vomit and feces over you, Gary, before you hand in your resignation (since Schillerâs not there anymore, you wonât get your pink slip via courier nowâŚ). Shoulda seen it coming.
Good. This coward deserves to be disappointed and humiliated. If you are going to stand up for whatâs right, stand up all the way.
You mean, with a 140 character limit, including punctuation?
Honesty is the worst policy with der Furor.
Thereâs a good chance that our next Fed Governor will be a good white christian supremacist or a neo-nazi.
Or another family member.
Cohn is a jew and heâs been enabling a Nazi sympathizer in Trump - can we say âdeplorableâ yet?
Cohnâs words ring hollow - it is action that we need these days to stop Trump from turning us into Nazi Germany or Putinâs Russia.
Governance by grievance. Who could have predicted?
The GOP is all about grievance - has been for years.
I recall seeing Pat Buchanan on one of McLaughlinâs gabfests, talking about his decision to run for President. He described his constituency - âPeople who are tired of this, people who donât like that, people whoâve had enough of seeing this other thing.â When he was finished, Mort Kondracke, IIRC, said, without missing a beat, âOh, you mean The Haters.â Buchanan took on that wonderful freshly-tasered look, and had no response.
Cohnâs self reported almost resignation is a PR exercise that will grease the skids for his ascendance to the Fed chairmanship. Not that he isnât a shoe in already.â Liberalsâ will now view him more favorably and the usual suspects on the right will hate him more for being Jewish and a Goldman Sachs man. The latter a burr under the saddle of Bernie âliberalsâ, but not much of one and now less since Cohen is going to be hated by the hard core of Trumpâs fans.
The Fed is on the cusp of bringing the great 8 year bull market bubble in asset prices to an end when they start their ânormalizationâ. That being the shrinkage of their balance sheet. Only 1 in 1000 have a clue what that means and only 1 in a million know that this is the foundation of the entire political economy. Even Yellen nor the Fed seem to know that.
Cohen knows and Cohen will reverse the upcoming balance sheet shrinkage when the market swoons, at it is destined to do as the liquidity spigot closes and the drain opens. The drain being the destruction of money that Fed balance sheet shrinkage entails.
I suppose I could be wrong but until proven wrong I maintain Cohen is a shoe in for the Fed chair and he will subsequently bring about new endless rounds of Quantitative Easing.
His name is Cohn, and the phrase is âshoo-in.â
Cohn didnât resign because he really, really wantâs that job at the Fed, but Bannon was right, by not resigning he lost his dignity and by his comments and body language he lost any chance for the job. President thinskinhead doesnât take kindly to people disagreeing.
I was going by the thread title spelling and shoe in is an acceptable alternate spelling.
Trump doesnât know much but he surely senses, if not knows, that endless liquidity is an existential necessity for the entire system.
Which is âCohn.â
No, it is not.
"The conventional spelling of the noun meaning a sure winner is shoo-in, not shoe-in. The term uses the verb shoo, which means to urge something in a desired direction, usually by waving oneâs arms. The idea behind the word is that the person being shooedâfor example, into the winnerâs circle, into a job, or into a field of award nomineesâis such a lock that we can shoo him or her in without hesitation.
The term originated in the early 20th century. The earliest instances relate to horse racing, with the shoo-ins being horses that are destined to win through either dominance or race fixing. The earliest instance listed in the OED is from 1928, and we are unable to find any examples from earlier. The word seems to have blown up in the 1930s, though, and historical Google News and Books searches uncover numerous examples from that decade and the 40s. By the 1960s it was in use outside horse racing."
OK thunderclap, have it your way. The revolution will proceed on the back of spelling evidently. Thanks a lot.
First, there is no ârevolution,â and second, you have remarkably thin skin.
If you want to be understood clearly and without error, good spelling, good grammar, and good syntax are essential.