Gyroscopic Investing

That thumbnail image of Trump... LOL

Dan Bongino: Sources Say Joe Biden Is Reaching the Point of No Return, Democrats Will Have a Decision to Make

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/0 ... n-to-make/

vnatale wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:32 pm Dan Bongino: Sources Say Joe Biden Is Reaching the Point of No Return, Democrats Will Have a Decision to Make

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/0 ... n-to-make/

The decision has already been made: Hillary.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:05 am

vnatale wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:32 pm Dan Bongino: Sources Say Joe Biden Is Reaching the Point of No Return, Democrats Will Have a Decision to Make

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/0 ... n-to-make/

The decision has already been made: Hillary.

I'm thinking Michelle. Lord have mercy!

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:12 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:05 am

vnatale wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:32 pm Dan Bongino: Sources Say Joe Biden Is Reaching the Point of No Return, Democrats Will Have a Decision to Make

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/0 ... n-to-make/

The decision has already been made: Hillary.

I'm thinking Michelle. Lord have mercy!

I was talking about the Presidential candidate, not VP.

I'm surprised Michelle Obama isn't on the list of VP hopefuls. I thought the main qualification was a warm body with XX chromosomes only and majority African descent. If I were the Democrats I'd look at high profile black females outside of politics, preferably in business, to counter Trump's strength which is in the economy and also avoid the political baggage carried by all the current VP candidates. The Democrats can't possibly lose the racial-justice-crazy vote, so why pander to them?

The polls are truly irrelevant right now. This is going to be the shortest Presidential campaign in a century, since the convention is going to be little more than a Zoom meeting with a brief Biden cameo, and the first debate isn't until September 29. Kind of refreshing to have a 1.25 month, focused campaign actually. It's probably why Trump is holding up his ads & rallies...he's effectively campaigning against a portrait of an imaginary, idealized candidate right now, and that's always going to look better than someone who is out there making difficult decisions and getting criticized for them. There's nothing to criticize about Biden right now, because he is neither doing or saying anything of substance.

sophie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:44 am I'm surprised Michelle Obama isn't on the list of VP hopefuls.

But Biden promised to pick a woman...

One word: Beyoncé!

sophie wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:44 am If I were the Democrats I'd look at high profile black females outside of politics, preferably in business, to counter Trump's strength which is in the economy and also avoid the political baggage carried by all the current VP candidates.

You basically narrowed it down to Oprah

vnatale wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:03 pm https://projects.economist.com/us-2020- ... /president

If the Kremlin releases a forecast, I would take that one to the bank.

I searched a bit and found a list of black women in high profile executive positions. Rather interesting that all of you thought that "outside politics" meant entertainers. Turns out there are black women executives on Wall Street and in Forbes 500 companies.

If I were a moderate looking to vote Democratic, I'd be way happier with a Wall Street exec in the VP position than with someone like Kamala Harris. In fact, if the party went in that direction I'd give that vote some serious consideration.

sophie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:22 pm I searched a bit and found a list of black women in high profile executive positions. Rather interesting that all of you thought that "outside politics" meant entertainers. Turns out there are black women executives on Wall Street and in Forbes 500 companies.

If I were a moderate looking to vote Democratic, I'd be way happier with a Wall Street exec in the VP position than with someone like Kamala Harris. In fact, if the party went in that direction I'd give that vote some serious consideration.

What about the former Orlando police chief? Val Demings. Definitely "in politics", but maybe would give ol' Joe some anti-rioting cred?

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:43 pm

sophie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:22 pm I searched a bit and found a list of black women in high profile executive positions. Rather interesting that all of you thought that "outside politics" meant entertainers. Turns out there are black women executives on Wall Street and in Forbes 500 companies.

If I were a moderate looking to vote Democratic, I'd be way happier with a Wall Street exec in the VP position than with someone like Kamala Harris. In fact, if the party went in that direction I'd give that vote some serious consideration.

What about the former Orlando police chief? Val Demings. Definitely "in politics", but maybe would give ol' Joe some anti-rioting cred?

She's been many times mentioned as a possibility.

VInny

Polls from the last seven days...

General Election: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 43, Trump 40 Biden +3
General Election: Trump vs. Biden IPSOS Biden 56, Trump 44 Biden +12
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
General Election: Trump vs. Biden IBD/TIPP Biden 48, Trump 41 Biden +7
General Election: Trump vs. Biden MC Biden 51, Trump 42 Biden +9


Arizon: Trump vs. Biden DFP Trump 44, Biden 47 Biden +3
California: Trump vs. Biden Berkeley IGS Biden 67, Trump 28 Biden +39
Florida: Trump vs. Biden Mason-Dixon Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Trump 45, Biden 46 Biden +1
Hawaii: Trump vs. Biden HNN/Civil Beat Biden 56, Trump 29 Biden +27
Iowa: Trump vs. Biden Monmouth Trump 48, Biden 46 Trump +2
Iowa: Trump vs. Biden DBR Biden 49, Trump 43 Biden +6
Kansas: Trump vs. Biden PPP* Trump 43, Biden 50 Trump +7
Kentucky: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Trump 50, Biden 41 Trump +9
Maine: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Biden 52, Trump 37 Biden +15
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden EPIC-MRA Biden 51, Trump 40 Biden +11
Minnesota: Trump vs. Biden DBR Biden 54, Trump 36 Biden +18
Montana: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Trump 53, Biden 42 Trump +11
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 48, Trump 44 Biden +4
Ohio: Trump vs. Biden Ohio Media Collaborative Biden 46, Trump 42 Biden +4
South Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Quinnipiac Trump 47, Biden 42 Trump +5
Texas: Trump vs. Biden Research Co Trump 38, Biden 48 Biden +10*
Texas: Trump vs. Biden MC Trump 46, Biden 47 Biden +1
Utah: Trump vs. Biden Deseret News/Hinckley Inst.* Trump 50, Biden 31 Trump +19
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden DBR Biden 53, Trump 42 Biden +11


# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error

*The Research Co. poll for Texas is way out of line with all other polling that I have seen and I am inclined to dismiss it as an outlier.

Seriously, out of all the questions I have about Trump, his tax return is probably the one I'm least interested in. Besides it's pretty obvious why the Democrats want it: they'll search through it and try to find something along the lines of tax fraud/irregularities to nail him on. If he is re-elected I fully expect further impeachment attempts.

Does it Matter?

Joe Biden Listed As Criminal Suspect By Ukrainian Court...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH5qSycwdrk

sophie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:44 am Seriously, out of all the questions I have about Trump, his tax return is probably the one I'm least interested in. Besides it's pretty obvious why the Democrats want it: they'll search through it and try to find something along the lines of tax fraud/irregularities to nail him on. If he is re-elected I fully expect further impeachment attempts.

They know that they don’t need to find actual fraud or irregularities, they just need a little something to create the narrative that there is fraud and irregularities. If that narrative is later proven false, there will be no consequences.

It seriously bogles my mind that most people don't realize :
A) Tax returns don't tell you anything about net worth.
B) Rich people don't do their own taxes. They are filed by highly reputable firms.
C) Accountants are paid to find every legal loophole they can find, questionable or not. That is what they are paid for. And expensive accountants are good at it.

Seriously, does anyone expect anything different?

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:57 pm It seriously bogles my mind that most people don't realize :
A) Tax returns don't tell you anything about net worth.
B) Rich people don't do their own taxes. They are filed by highly reputable firms.
C) Accountants are paid to find every legal loophole they can find, questionable or not. That is what they are paid for. And expensive accountants are good at it.

Seriously, does anyone expect anything different?

Yes, I'm sure many people (cough, CNN, cough) expect to find that he has been cheating... by taking legal deductions for depreciation.

Bernie's tax returns revealed a lot to me.

Revealed that he is not all that generous on charitable deductions, which I find hypocritical given how he wants everything free for everyone.

Also, I'd not want him coming anywhere near managing my finances. Someone his age having so much mortgage interest?

There were several other items I noted from looking at his tax return but it's been several years since I looked at them so no longer top of mind.

Vinny

Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:12 am I think tax returns for important national office is entirely legit and a good thing. I also think it should be extended to all House and Senate Committee members or at least the committee chairs. Even if there is nothing technically illegal, I think exposure to potential conflicts of interest is in all of our best interests. Who cares if they came to office rich beforehand, irrelevant. Just because someone is rich does not mean they aren't willing to nudge things their way.

I could totally get behind that if it were mandatory across the board. I'd also like to see the politicians' protections against insider trading removed.

From what I can discern, the interest in Trump's taxes is not so much a suspicion that he is evading or not paying his fair share, or a clue as to his net worth for that matter. I have heard the main interest is to evaluate the extent of his business dealings abroad, particularly with Russia and Russian oligarchs.
Whether that's good or bad, I couldn't really say, but I think his Russian financial dealings are the main item of interest. Especially since he says he doesn't know anyone in Russia, doesn't have anything in Russia.

For people over a certain age, the idea of any US politician with financial connections to Russia (and the USSR before it), would've been heresy. Think of the McCarthy era.
But maybe these days no one cares. Just shows how much the world has changed.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:29 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:05 pm From what I can discern, the interest in Trump's taxes is not so much a suspicion that he is evading or not paying his fair share, or a clue as to his net worth for that matter. I have heard the main interest is to evaluate the extent of his business dealings abroad, particularly with Russia and Russian oligarchs.
Whether that's good or bad, I couldn't really say, but I think his Russian financial dealings are the main item of interest. Especially since he says he doesn't know anyone in Russia, doesn't have anything in Russia.

For people over a certain age, the idea of any US politician with financial connections to Russia (and the USSR before it), would've been heresy. Think of the McCarthy era.
But maybe these days no one cares. Just shows how much the world has changed.

The interest in Trump's taxes is to find something, anything, with which he can be attacked.
That's it.

If his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:54 pmIf his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.

Maybe he just wants his personal business to remain his personal business. Releasing tax forms has always been voluntary. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's a good idea, or even right or wrong.

But there are probably 100 things in there which are perfectly legal but which would be spun as something nefarious. He has every right (as do we all) to organize his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax burden. But there are plenty of low-information people who would point to these things and say "what a scumbag".