Gyroscopic Investing

MangoMan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:33 pm

Maddy wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

jhogue wrote:Pointedstick,

Is Trump really the “de facto leader of conservative America”?

Half of it, at least.

What's been revealed is that the Peggy Noonans of the USA are the elites of a very different tribe of conservatives than the one that elected Donald Trump.

It's very hard to pigeonhole the tribe of conservatives that elected Donald Trump. For so many, the choice was about the lesser of two evils.

The basic problem, as I see it, is that there are only 2 parties, and probably more than half the country if not more don't completely like either one. You may agree with a few things from each side, but think the rest of the platform sucks. I am one of these people, so yeah, it often comes down to who I dislike less. A change to government with many parties could only be a good thing. One can dream...

moda0306 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:18 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kriegsspiel wrote:Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?

Sounds like a politician to me.

So we should at the very least treat him no-better than one, right?

Sure. No better, no worse.

Certainly worse applies here. But even so, I'd be happy if I'd see conservatives treat Trump with the same disdain that they show "librul" politicians. It's obviously not about being a politician. Nor about lying or hyperbole. It's about virtue-signalling. It always has been with most folks.

So I'll feel free to treat him modestly worse if he's materially worse in said traits. Just like I would treat Kanye West or Kathy Griffin with disdain if liberals were dumb enough to put them in charge of the decision of how we wage war.

Conversely, if Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Jon Huntsman or Bernie Sanders were president (better than the average politician in those traits), I would probably treat them with more respect, even if I heavily criticize them.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:18 pm

Maddy wrote: If the FBI appeared on your doorstep, announced that you were under federal criminal investigation, and asked you when your last bowel movement was, I do believe most people would lie.

Not me. I'd be so explicit, I'd make the FBI uncomfortable. I'd even throw a little tax law into it.

"Yes sir, lentils, and lot's of em. I call them LLCs, because they're a pass-through entity."

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:40 pm

Simonjester wrote:

Maddy wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

That's just the surface. Underneath they are frightened that he is going to dismantle the deep state.

I agree. If you go back through the last half-century of history, a clear pattern emerges. In one form or another, some boogy-man gets trotted out on cue (N Korea) with the purpose of distracting the masses and of instilling such fear, uncertainty, and/or disdain for the manufactured enemy that the people will line up in support of whatever course of action the oligarchy is proposing to protect them--whether it be war, martial law, bank bail-outs, or something else.

the trump hawkishness toward N Korea gives me reason to doubt the MIC deep state is really worried about trump. the regulatory deep state and the political establishment corruption/pervert deep state seem to have more to worry about... and thats a good thing even if it doesn't strike at the heart of this countries deep state problems..

North Korea seems to be a special case.

In general, I don't believe anything that the government tells me about other countries threatening us.

But this seems to be the real deal.

dualstow wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:39 am

kriegsspiel wrote:LOL, yes. They wouldn't charge into our teeth like retards. Russia is not capable of invading and occupying the US like they did with Crimea

So no Red Dawn?

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:36 pm

Maddy wrote:

moda0306 wrote:Trump has no problem with the CIA, permanent war, gangster global capitalism, etc, as long as it's doing what he sees as being "in our interests" as they murder, torture, lie, steal, and secretly manipulate the public. He just wants to use these tools for less globalist aims. He's no enemy of the deep state. He just wants to use its power somewhat differently.

I'd be surprised if Trump fully understands, at this point, what the deep state is and what its objectives are. No doubt his learning curve has been steep, but he's had neither the time nor the experience to know what's really at stake, who's really running the show, and little information or control he has over anything. It may be that the oligarchy will, in the end, play him like a fiddle (as they have every president in recent history), but I think it's too early to brand him one way or another.

I think he understands exactly what the deep state is and what its objectives are.

If he can stay alive and avoid being railroaded out of office I believe he will go down as a great President.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:27 am In context |legal| the difference between pardon and commutation is that pardon is (legal) an order that releases a convicted criminal without further punishment, prevents future punishment, or (in some jurisdictions) removes an offense from a person's criminal record, as if it had never been committed while commutation is (legal) the change to a lesser penalty or punishment by the state.

Perhaps Trump believes that people can repent not only in the religious sense, but also in the civil sense.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:20 am

Desert wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:In context |legal| the difference between pardon and commutation is that pardon is (legal) an order that releases a convicted criminal without further punishment, prevents future punishment, or (in some jurisdictions) removes an offense from a person's criminal record, as if it had never been committed while commutation is (legal) the change to a lesser penalty or punishment by the state.

Perhaps Trump believes that people can repent not only in the religious sense, but also in the civil sense.

I suppose that's possible, but I see no evidence of any religious belief on the part of Trump. I think in this case he's merely pandering to the neocon wing of the GOP. Remember, Trump himself stated that he's never needed to repent of anything.

Trump does not have to have any religious belief in order to pardon Scooter, nor does Trump need to believe that he, Trump, needs to repent - he needed to believe that Scooter had repented of his crimes in order for the pardon. None of this is necessarily true, just a possible reason for his action, just as pandering to the neocons is a possible reason.

However, I do believe that everyone, including Trump has a religion - Trump's is likely a religion with the gods of self, power and wealth at center stage. My hope is that Trump's actions align with the actions that are best for the United States - I could care less whether he believes in the stated gods or the real God (from his vocation as president perspective, not because he is a fellow child of God due all the care and respect all of us should give each other). From my perspective one cannot analyze the heart or motivation of another (that's God's role), only the actions taken, and I'll give Trump a pass on the petty stuff, it's the really important country preservation and growing stuff that I hope he acts appropriately upon. Also, I keep wondering whether Congress' obstruction of Trump, his nominees, and his agenda is a good thing or not; I tend to think Congress as a whole are lap dogs of the powerful far more so than Trump, but perhaps in this case obstruction and inaction could be the better course.

Further, as Mountaineer says while perched on his soapbox, I think the most important issue with long term very bad consequences that is facing our country is the divisiveness that has plagued us for the past couple of decades - in my mind it began with Clinton, gathered steam with GW, really got going with Obama, and is now even worse. I'm now climbing down from my soapbox and getting on with a cup of coffee knowing where my real hope comes from and what sustains me in times of gloom; current events are merely a bump in the road on the path to everlasting joy.

ochotona wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 5:00 pm

clacy wrote:

ochotona wrote:

clacy wrote:Trump freed North Korea and defeated Isis in his first 18 month. I’m excited to see what the next two years bring.

Hopefully better spelling.

Is this what the anti-Trump argument has come to?

In a way, this is what the anti-Trump argument has been about all along. As you know, the election represented a clash between, on the one hand, those Whites and Asians who have tended to go to college (allied with Blacks, Native Americans, and most Hispanics, many of whom did not go to college), and on the other hand a cohort of less well educated Whites.

Those of us who consider ourselves better educated are appalled at how knowledge and learning have been thrown under the bus by this Administration across a broad range of fields, and since this is an investment board, I'll stick to finance topics. This Administration has been willfully ignorant or is just plain ignorant about the National Debt, and what the new Tax Law will do to our future, and most members of the so-called Party of Fiscal Responsibility have ripped off their clothes and have gleefully lept into the oily orgy with His Orangeness.

So yes, I do hope for a government which is not so ignorant, supported by an electorate which cares more about knowledge, learning and even spelling. Sorry if your typo was innocent. I've actually seen a lot of atrocious spelling emerging from Trump supporters on Twitter, and your error just set me off. There seem to be problems using the apostrophe. I see a lot of confusions between yours and your's, and your and you're.

By the way, before the 2016 election cycle, I was a consistently Republican voter, but I did not vote for Trump.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 6:53 pm Sadly, spelling does not come with education. I also lurk on a message board for dentists, where the spelling and grammar is often atrocious.

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:57 pm Gary has some "interesting" libertarian positions. Like that the baker should be forced to bake the homosexual cake. Audible gasps from the audience during the LP debate when he dropped that bombshell. Don't know how he still got the nomination. Says something about how crazy the other candidates were, I suppose. John McAfee was one.

stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 8:20 pm And yet the talk of impeachment continues unabated. The nation's so-called elite just can't get over the fact that somebody like Trump won the election. Frankly, I can't believe it either. It seems utterly surreal. And I'm one to believe he's not a monster, just another run-of-the-mill egomaniac, as I'm convinced anyone who would want to be president must be.

I was looking at an acquaintance's Facebook feed the other day. He's a very successful local businessman and apparently not a Trump hater. He has a big family and is not at all deranged. Back around the election time in 2016, he posted something which I found very interesting and read along these lines:

"To all the people out there who supported Obama and hate Trump, I have one question: what it is in Obama's life experience compared to Trump's life experience that makes you think that Obama was so much better qualified to be president than Trump?"

stuper1 wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 12:31 pm I've mentioned it before, but I'll do it again, because I thought it was striking. I came across some sort of thread on the internet (maybe Reddit) where it asked whether anyone had ever had any personal interactions with Trump. This thread was not on some right-wing website. If anything, I would have expected the people on that place to lean left.

Anywho, there were something like 100+ responses on that thread of people who had interacted somehow with the guy or knew someone who had been his housekeeper, etc. And something like 80% of the responses portrayed the guy to actually be relatively likable in person, and nothing I read made him seem to be a monster. Just because the media portrays someone as a monster doesn't mean that he actually is a monster. There is this thing called "spin".

For me, I don't really care about whether the president is likable or not (both for say Obama or Trump). All I care about is what their policies and actions are. So far, I haven't seen anything from Trump that seems unhinged.

The only position I've heard Trump take that I strongly disagree with is on torture of enemy combatants. That was my biggest complaint with Bush, although I really disagreed with most anything Bush did. I only hope that Trump's comments are just bluster. I certainly haven't seen any news reports that we've been torturing people lately.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 8:38 am

stuper1 wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 2:29 pm People always say to vote on policies not personalities. But then they often seem to do the opposite, or they can't see things from the other point of view because they are blinded by someone's charm or lack thereof.

I agree that we should vote on policies and not personalities. I must say that Trump does come across as sleazy to me (I'm not sure what the right word is for Trump - Sleazy? Crude? Used car salesman? Info-commercial actor? Obama makes me want to barf every time I hear him speak. Hillary makes me shudder. It is hard to describe that gut feeling that is evoked in me re. Trump, Obama, and Hillary to name a few) but Trump's accomplishments to date are better than I expected.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/davi ... irrational

MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:50 am There is currently a lawsuit by the Attorneys General of 12(?) states to eliminate the pre-existing conditions clause of the ACA. Personally, while I think the ACA was a big, expensive lie and added thousands of needless regulations to healthcare, the elimination of pre-existing conditions was the one good thing to come out of it. But there is no doubt that this drives up the cost for everyone else. Socialism at its finest, and I hate Socialism, but it was a necessary evil.

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:43 am I've found that insurance other than catastrophic is largely a joke. They claim to save you a lot of money, but when you go self-pay, you save that money anyway, often more.

A family member told me recently that his son needed an elbow popped back in. He paid the hospital some $350 at the time of service while they figured out what the bill would be. The bill was $3200 or so (highway robbery), but their policy is that self-pay patients get 90% off. NINETY PERCENT. So the hospital now owes him $30.

Insurance is useful in case we get cancer or something and rack up millions of dollars in bills. Other than that, self-pay is much better all the way around. I really don't know why they killed catastrophic insurance: it's the only useful kind.

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:51 am

MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:49 am

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:43 am

Insurance is useful in case we get cancer or something and rack up millions of dollars in bills. Other than that, self-pay is much better all the way around. I really don't know why they killed catastrophic insurance: it's the only useful kind.

Probably because most people aren't members of this forum or MMM or whatever. You and I could self-insure a minor hospital surgical procedure or colonoscopy, but none of my employees, their friends, or family members could.

Even if their insurance premiums were greatly reduced?

Maybe that's the part I'm missing: these people all have insurance provided by their employer, and I never have. Having employers provide insurance is one of the worst all-round parts of this whole mess.

Xan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:35 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:19 pm

ochotona wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:50 pm Not insurance... but we need human life cycle health care financing for women and men coupled with highly competitive reverse auction features! Call it what you want, that is what we need

Like, unlimited financing? Do we keep throwing money at people until the end of their life cycle, or do we need death panels to let us know when to stop throwing good money after bad. How much is a human life worth, anyway, and are they all worth the same?

Also, why do we not have this financing for, say, food? Housing? Why not everything!

MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:52 am

Desert wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:57 am

MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:36 am

Desert wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:22 am I'm not crazy about the ACA either, but it's irresponsible to simply kill it without any substitute in mind. I think it's time to end the private health insurance system in our country and go to single payer. The present system with insurance companies and government both involved brings the worst of both worlds, unfortunately. But as long as insurance companies are raking in the profits, it will be politically difficult to change the system.

You want to give the government more control over health care?! Because they've proven in the past how everything they do becomes less expensive and more efficient? There has to be a better way than the current, but I'm pretty sure making the govt the CEO is not the answer. If you don't believe me, ask one of our Canadian members.

I'm not excited about it, but I think single payer healthcare is the only practical option. I don't like government control of the military budget either, but there isn't another practical way to manage something so massive. If there is some practical private option available, I'd change my mind immediately, however.

Regarding Canada, I think their system is far superior to ours, just looking at outcomes and spending per person.

Outcomes and per capita spending is only one measure. What about the people who are diagnosed with X, and have to wait 2 years to see a specialist. Apparently somewhat common in Canada. So are you willing to have that scenario in the event you or a family member gets X?

Be careful what you wish for.

D1984 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:16 pm

moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:57 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:00 pm

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:19 am Perhaps we should be asking why we allow the health care industry to operate like a giant cartel instead of debating the best way to pay their exorbitant prices.

Besides, I thought this thread was about Trump?

As my earlier anecdote noted, by opting out of the insurance system, you can save 90% off the sticker price, no questions asked. That sounds like a way to get around the exorbitant prices.

I grazed back... where is this anecdote? Are you really saying that you think folks can regularly offer care providers 10% of their insurance-reimbursed rates with cash and they'll accept your offer?

I think I must be misinterpreting.

I think it was back when he talked about having an elbow re-set for around $300 instead of circa $3000.

I would like to add a couple of points, though:

One, you will basically never get 90% off the price an insurer (BCBS, Medicare, etc) would pay...the 90% he got off was likely off the ridiculous "chargemaster" price which is a pie in the sky price that only the uninsured get soaked with.

Two, the plural of anecdote is not data; just because Xan got a good price as a cash-paying patient does not mean most people will; in fact, as per the chargemaster example noted above, the uninsured usually get hit with the WORST prices. The local hospital system in my city has essentially a monopoly and their charges to uninsured patients are as follows: If you make the poverty level or less, free or nominal; if you make from 100% of the FPl to 200% of FPL, prices are based on a sliding scale from almost nothing to roughly what BCBS of Georgia would pay; if you make one cent above that you pay the FULL chargemaster rate, no ifs, ands, or buts (with the singular exception that certain imaging services get 10% or 15% off the chargemaster price). oh, and even if the hospital does discount its prices due to your being poor enough, the doctors who work on you can (and generally do) still charge the full amount.

Three, every other country that has health care prices lower than ours (which is pretty much....all of them) has the government directly or indirectly negotiate prices; this is true whether the system in single provider (UK, Spain, New Zealand, plus Hong Kong as far as hospital care is concerned); single-payer (Canada, Taiwan, South Korea), or some form of private or nonprofit universal coverage (Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Israel, Switzerland, etc) or a hybrid of single-payer and private non-profit (France). Strangely enough, none of them rely on patients acting as cost-control kamikazes and trying to negotiate rates with providers themselves. They all have lower prices (see the IFHP reports if you don't believe me) as a result. Funny how that works.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:53 am I have gone from wanting him to drain the swamp, to voting for him, to cringing at tweets, to yelling at the TV, and finally just wanting him to go back home and let somebody else do this job. This is a non-stop reality show nightmare.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:51 am

Desert wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:27 am On a happier note, I think we'll have much better candidates available to us in the next two elections. Choosing between Hillary and Trump was hopefully a low point in our country's path!

Assuming Trump isn't impeached, you are possibly looking at Trump vs Elizabeth Warren. That's even worse!

stuper1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:49 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:11 pm John McCain had character.

I'm curious to know what evidence you have for this statement? I can find plenty of places on the internet where people claim that McCain was a show-off pilot who never would have crashed in Vietnam if he hadn't been flying inappropriately. And that he then behaved dishonorably and disloyally in prison. That he left his first wife when he found another woman with a lot more money. That he had dishonest dealings related to the savings and loan scandal. That he was only too happy to send America to war whenever possible, thereby enriching the military-industrial complex, but causing many of our young people to come home with limbs missing or worse, not to mention far worse casualty levels among the native inhabitants. And the list goes on.

Now, I don't know whether all that stuff is true. But I also don't know whether the hagiography peddled by the mainstream media is true. I tend to think the latter is just pablum meant to keep the masses happy.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:03 pm I think we are long past the idea that the way Trump operates is all part of a strategy. For whatever reason the way he operates worked in the corporate world, but not so much in the political one.

Would I vote for a pimp and three hookers who could put the country back on track? No. Some level of morality and decency has to be part of the job. I would vote for someone who:

1) makes it clear that the US does not need military bases all over the world and does not need to have a military budget the size of the next 10 (or whatever) countries combined and repurposes that money and talent at home.
2) knows how to make, and live within a real balanced budget
3) figures out the whole medical care/prescription drug fiasco
4) small kids can look up to and feel good about him/her as president
5) does not make decisions based off special interest lobbying but rather what's best for the country.

among some other things. But those are the big five.

Everything has become a conservative/liberal arguing point. Nothing seems to be discussed from a what's best for America standpoint much anymore.

Stuper, your comments about McCain, I tend to echo those. I do not want to disparage the dead, and he seemed to be a decent guy, but at least some of your points are correct, esp. being too hawkish on war.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:28 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:08 pm

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:59 pm No, Moda, as I said before, I'm just not interested in engaging you. You've done this "Show me your sources" routine so many times that by now the script has become predictable. No matter what my source, you'll find some reason for rejecting it, and when confronted with evidence you cannot deny, you'll simply move to a new and different reason for deprecating the thesis. And I'll have wasted precious hours throwing evidence at you that you're predisposed to reject. Yesterday, your comeback was that the connection between Soros and Antifa is solely in the imagination of Alex Jones. If I showed you the 990 from AGJ or OSI, you'd simply come up with some other reason to reject my point. Maybe it would be that the relationship between Soros and AGJ is too attenuated, or that a handful of Republicans have provided funding to similar organizations, or that Antifa is not representative of the Left. I'm just not interested in going through this again. You've simply lost your credibility with me at this point.

LOL! Busted!

This is why I rarely indulge in this stuff (I really have to be bored). There are very few people in today's world (it seems) that care to alter their opinions.

I definitely change my opinions over time!

2008, sick of Bush and war and wanted hope and change, voted for Obama over warmongering McCain.
2014, sick of Quinn as governor, voted Rauner
2016 sick of hope and change and not wanting war mongering Clinton, and the Clinton name, I voted Trump
2018, I regret greatly that I voted for Trump, but the other choice wasn't any better, so I fault the parties for letting these two get to the final round.
2018, hopeful the dems take the house, just to see Trump's head explode.
2018 hopeful Rauner gets destroyed in the election
2015-2017, listened to Rush on my drive home for lunch
2018, listen to Thom Hartmann most drives

About every 4 years or so I flip....!