Gyroscopic Investing

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:17 am You know, when you announce that your entire family is on Medicaid while simultaneously posting about the joys of early retirement and the creative ways in which your considerable assets and talents are being invested, you sort of disqualify yourself from the soapbox when it comes to the question of how illegal border-crossing should be managed.

Ummm what? There is nothing illegal about using the tools for government gives us to be financial secure, safe, mobile, etc. Perhaps there is something immoral about using those tools, but I'm quite sure a glass house/stones analogy would probably be pertinent here.

PS is a pillar of what this place became at its best, and he could be leading a communist revolution with a trainload of illegal immigrants and still have more clout on this forum than you and your meandering, factless tirades against "The Left."

moda0306 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:40 am

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:17 am You know, when you announce that your entire family is on Medicaid while simultaneously posting about the joys of early retirement and the creative ways in which your considerable assets and talents are being invested, you sort of disqualify yourself from the soapbox when it comes to the question of how illegal border-crossing should be managed.

Ummm what? There is nothing illegal about using the tools for government gives us to be financial secure, safe, mobile, etc. Perhaps there is something immoral about using those tools, but I'm quite sure a glass house/stones analogy would probably be pertinent here.

PS is a pillar of what this place became at its best, and he could be leading a communist revolution with a trainload of illegal immigrants and still have more clout on this forum than you and your meandering, factless tirades against "The Left."

Moda, that’s rather harsh. I think we all benefit from others points of view, whether we agree with them or not. We all need ears to hear each other or we will become worse than those we oppose. My half cent.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:20 pm I don't have anything to add, but I would like to cast my vote.

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:53 pm Shouldn't the anger be directed at the multinational monopolist corporations who, aided and abetted by the U.S. military, a host of NGOs, and approximately 235 whores, have been harvesting these countries for decades? These aren't climate refugees; they are the victims of the proverbial Economic Hitman. It's not terribly hard to understand the political imperative to move these people somewhere else or why the Elites--who have squeezed every dollar they can out of the financial system and who have now set their sights on cornering the world's natural resources (as trustees of the planet, dontcha know)--are so hell bent on perpetuating the narrative of climate change.

Great post, Maddy.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:14 am PointedStick, I sympathize with many of the things you said, but you lost me when you started picking political sides. If anything, it's the Democrats who have pushed open-border policies, and the reason is simple: it benefits them and it's their equivalent of Republican gerrymandering. The Democrats could care less about the impact of uncontrolled, unskilled immigration on the native lower class. They are doing this because it's is an easy way to ensure greater numbers of future Democratic voters. I also consider the Democrats to be master media manipulators, especially since the media are practically in their pocket. Republicans do the same yes, but not nearly to the same extent. I'm also not sure your claim is true that it's mainly Republicans who are guilty of ethics violations. It's just that Democrats are less likely to get nailed for it because of said media manipulation - or it's simply not reported widely even if it does happen. I don't get how you're giving all this a free pass.

Also very well stated and I also wonder what PS's Kool-aid got spiked with.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:41 am Moda, that’s rather harsh. I think we all benefit from others points of view, whether we agree with them or not. We all need ears to hear each other or we will become worse than those we oppose.

+1. Jeez Moda, you're clearly a smart guy, but you sound like all the others that maintain if you don't agree with their view 100% you are a moron.

I've never agreed with PS 100%, nor anyone here probably. There's a reason I end up coming to blows with only a handful of folks. I have no problem disagreeing with folks based purely on their opinion. Anarchists... libertarians... conservatives like Xan... Monarchists like Ad... liberal-leaning centrists... hard leftists.

Yes I was harsh. So was Maddy's insulting post to PS. Maddy isn't a shadow of what PS or half of the original posters on this forum are/were, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise while Maddy insults people who've practically got their names etched into the foundation of this place... even if I, yes, have to get insulting myself.

And I'm not really that smart. I think I've developed an ability to sniff out b*llshit and bad-faith arguments, and that's about it.

Ugg, and there you have it. What passes for political discussion in America these days.

We should try something really hard...start with facts. If we can't agree on the facts then sides have to state why "their" facts and sources are credible and the other side can rebut. (CNN/FOX/whatever sucks and is never truthful is not a rebuttal...proof of error pertaining to thing being discussed required.)

Then, have a discussion.

Anyone who goes ad hominem on anyone get's all their posts in the thread deleted by the moderator.

I am beyond sick of start with a world view and then fit/reject facts within that view

ugg, ugg, ugg

Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:57 pm I am beyond sick of start with a world view and then fit/reject facts within that view

I almost don't know where to find reliable facts anymore. My tentative assumption whenever I see "facts" presented anywhere that relate even the tiniest bit to politics is that the entity presenting those "facts" might be distorting what they're presenting, omitting other important and relevant facts, etc.

In other words, I don't think it's necessarily simple to "stick to the facts" in this Information Age. We can't even agree 100% on what the facts are.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:38 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:57 pm I am beyond sick of start with a world view and then fit/reject facts within that view

I almost don't know where to find reliable facts anymore. My tentative assumption whenever I see "facts" presented anywhere that relate even the tiniest bit to politics is that the entity presenting those "facts" might be distorting what they're presenting, omitting other important and relevant facts, etc.

In other words, I don't think it's necessarily simple to "stick to the facts" in this Information Age. We can't even agree 100% on what the facts are.

I've recently been impressed by the Bipartisan Policy Center but I don't really know much about them.

What we refer to as “facts” are actually:

data + interpretation + persuasion

So attempting to base a discussion on “facts” is unlikely to be fruitful, and basing a discussion on raw data is highly impractical.

Facts remain discernible, they really do you just have to know how to look for them.

Let’s run this real quick

Trump made a call to Ukraine

A whistleblower made a complaint about that call

Trump inquired about a Biden investigation during the phone call

These are facts. Both political parties acknowledge the above, there is no dispute about the above.

In this super basic outline this is where we depart from facts and begin the journey into spin.

If we had the time or inclination we could review public testimony and find where there are probable facts...the normal standard here is 2 or more people say the same thing about what happened in terms of what happened not their interpretations of what happened.

For example

The meeting started at 2pm

The meeting started at 215pm...fact the meeting started around 2pm

The president sounded ticked off

The president had a cordial conversation

Fact...the president had a conversation/tone of conversation unknown or disputed

Not saying the above is easy, but personally I usually don’t come to firm conclusions about anything I don’t feel I have a good handle on the facts.

So do I have a quasi opinion on the above, yes. But I fully believe I am at the end of the day uniformed and relying on mental heuristic shortcuts.

Facts remain discernible, they really do you just have to know how to look for them.

Let’s run this real quick

Trump made a call to Ukraine

A whistleblower made a complaint about that call

Trump inquired about a Biden investigation during the phone call

These are facts. Both political parties acknowledge the above, there is no dispute about the above.

In this super basic outline this is where we depart from facts and begin the journey into spin.

If we had the time or inclination we could review public testimony and find where there are probable facts...the normal standard here is 2 or more people say the same thing about what happened in terms of what happened not their interpretations of what happened.

For example

The meeting started at 2pm

The meeting started at 215pm...fact the meeting started around 2pm

The president sounded ticked off

The president had a cordial conversation

Fact...the president had a conversation/tone of conversation unknown or disputed

Not saying the above is easy, but personally I usually don’t come to firm conclusions about anything I don’t feel I have a good handle on the facts.

So do I have a quasi opinion on the above, yes. But I fully concede I am at the end of the day uninformed and relying on mental heuristic shortcuts.

The biggest problem here and in the US in general is that you all spend too much time and energy worrying about things you have no control over. It’s the opposite of why you like the PP.

You nailed it...as an American I think we don’t have any really serious problems so we spin way too much on really stupid stuff.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:41 am

moda0306 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:40 am

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:17 am You know, when you announce that your entire family is on Medicaid while simultaneously posting about the joys of early retirement and the creative ways in which your considerable assets and talents are being invested, you sort of disqualify yourself from the soapbox when it comes to the question of how illegal border-crossing should be managed.

Ummm what? There is nothing illegal about using the tools for government gives us to be financial secure, safe, mobile, etc. Perhaps there is something immoral about using those tools, but I'm quite sure a glass house/stones analogy would probably be pertinent here.

PS is a pillar of what this place became at its best, and he could be leading a communist revolution with a trainload of illegal immigrants and still have more clout on this forum than you and your meandering, factless tirades against "The Left."

Moda, that’s rather harsh. I think we all benefit from others points of view, whether we agree with them or not. We all need ears to hear each other or we will become worse than those we oppose. My half cent.

I'd like to give a shout-out to Maddy's role as a respected "pillar of this place." Maddy has posted many, many times with thoughtful and well-informed views - and don't forget that unlike you, I, or many others here, she has a legal background and thus a better understanding of many issues than we have. I welcome her contributions to this forum even if I disagree with them sometimes (and I have). I think your attempt to demean her because you don't agree with her views is entirely un-called for and not in the spirit of this forum. Moda, I often disagree with your positions no matter how they're stated. Is this how you view me as well?

I'd seriously like to understand why you went after Maddy like that. Plus, realize that people have been banned from this forum for that type of behavior, so can we assume it won't be repeated?

WiseOne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:01 pm

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:41 am

moda0306 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:40 am

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:17 am You know, when you announce that your entire family is on Medicaid while simultaneously posting about the joys of early retirement and the creative ways in which your considerable assets and talents are being invested, you sort of disqualify yourself from the soapbox when it comes to the question of how illegal border-crossing should be managed.

Ummm what? There is nothing illegal about using the tools for government gives us to be financial secure, safe, mobile, etc. Perhaps there is something immoral about using those tools, but I'm quite sure a glass house/stones analogy would probably be pertinent here.

PS is a pillar of what this place became at its best, and he could be leading a communist revolution with a trainload of illegal immigrants and still have more clout on this forum than you and your meandering, factless tirades against "The Left."

Moda, that’s rather harsh. I think we all benefit from others points of view, whether we agree with them or not. We all need ears to hear each other or we will become worse than those we oppose. My half cent.

I'd like to give a shout-out to Maddy's role as a respected "pillar of this place." Maddy has posted many, many times with thoughtful and well-informed views - and don't forget that unlike you, I, or many others here, she has a legal background and thus a better understanding of many issues than we have. I welcome her contributions to this forum even if I disagree with them sometimes (and I have). I think your attempt to demean her because you don't agree with her views is entirely un-called for and not in the spirit of this forum. Moda, I often disagree with your positions no matter how they're stated. Is this how you view me as well?

I'd seriously like to understand why you went after Maddy like that. Plus, realize that people have been banned from this forum for that type of behavior, so can we assume it won't be repeated?

WiseOne,

I don't view you this way because you're usually polite, but as expected yes I disagree with you quite often, but as I've said that's not a strong source of my critique here. And I didn't "go after Maddy." My comments were purely about the nature of her posts, and not personal in any way, especially in the context of her insulting post to PS about his opinion not being valid because his kids are on Medicaid. There was some hyperbole, yes, but a far cry from what has ever gotten anyone banned here, unless we're including back when some liberal immigration dove poster got banned for when craig didn't like his style, so as I say that, perhaps there is some precedent to that and feel free to ban away if you think that me insulting Maddy's fact-tracking in her posts is more offensive than her making a very personal-related attack to PS, who was a pillar of this place, then do what y'all gotta do.

I guess we just disagree as to whether her posts have much insight at all, but it has nothing to do with "disagreeing" with her. If someone came on here espousing exactly my views in similar nonsensical ways, I'd find nothing positive about their presence.

We're literally in a zone where anyone who thinks Trump is off his rocker gets accused of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome" without a peep... Is that any different than telling someone they are partisan, don't make sense, or are full of it? Not really... and if that slightly more pointed language gets me banned then goodbye, and I dedicate my time here to PS and all the awesome debaters and informed commenters that are no longer present here, and the few that are.

Peace.