Gyroscopic Investing

Agreed, classy he is not.

I guess I'm not classy either, though. I love it when he does things like the Pocahontas or Fauxcahontas shtick. Trust me, most of those smug, hypocritical leftists deserve any mocking that comes their way. And I'm not even a voter. I'm sure a lot of the people who vote for Trump like that stuff even more. That's why he does it. Classy, no. But maybe effective. Definitely entertaining for people like me who see most/all of politics as Kabuki theater anyway.

stuper1 wrote:Agreed, classy he is not.

I guess I'm not classy either, though. I love it when he does things like the Pocahontas or Fauxcahontas shtick. Trust me, most of those smug, hypocritical leftists deserve any mocking that comes their way. And I'm not even a voter. I'm sure a lot of the people who vote for Trump like that stuff even more. That's why he does it. Classy, no. But maybe effective. Definitely entertaining for people like me who see most/all of politics as Kabuki theater anyway.

I guess I'd "love it" if it was at all witty and not towards a group of NA's. I love dark, inappropriate humor. But 1) the key is HUMOR, and 2) he's the head of the largest killing machine in the history of the world. His instability is ours...

Did you see his speech to the Boy Scouts by chance? Did you love that one too? That's got to be hands-down one of the slimiest, creepiest things I've seen out of a President.

No, I heard little about the Boy Scout speech. Was it really that bad? Did he brag in front of these poor impressionable youngsters about being able to grab women in unmentionable places?

I'm a bit surprised by your pearl clutching on this one. I would have thought you'd be a lot more concerned about terrible things done by our military in far off countries, which by the way seem truly awful to me as well. To me, the speeches and tweets and all that garbage is unimportant. It's the laws and regulations and actual military actions that matter.

I don't think the Fauxcahontas comments were against real native Americans. They were against a white woman claiming to be a NA for political advantage.

stuper1 wrote:No, I heard little about the Boy Scout speech. Was it really that bad? Did he brag in front of these poor impressionable youngsters about being able to grab women in unmentionable places?

I'm a bit surprised by your pearl clutching on this one. I would have thought you'd be a lot more concerned about terrible things done by our military in far off countries, which by the way seem truly awful to me as well. To me, the speeches and tweets and all that garbage is unimportant. It's the laws and regulations and actual military actions that matter.

I don't think the Fauxcahontas comments were against real native Americans. They were against a white woman claiming to be a NA for political advantage.

You said you "loved" those comments and are surprised that I'm "pearl clutching?" I didn't actually think that much of them, but you wanted to make a point to say how much you love his bombastic offending of liberals.

And overall I could usually care less what a President says in terms of the upside (fancy speeches and such), but the downside it may indicate quite a bit, so a president that can barely string together a rational thought or express ideas clearly certainly is a problem... but in that case I care even more about actions.

Such as the slime he's nominated for several key top spots in his cabinet, one of the clearest expression of a president's "actions," as he's mostly in the driver's seat.

Look, are we talking about Trump's style here, or his "actions?" If we're talking about his style, it's utterly clear that he's pure garbage. If it's his actions, well it's almost as clear, as his cabinet is even worse than Bush II, and the one area he has the most control (foreign policy), he's expanded mass murder. I'll make one possible exception for the N/S Korea deal, where if enough evidence is presented that he played a positive roll in those dealings I'll acknowledge it, or at least the possibility of it, given our lack of knowledge of all the details and multiple points of view that may all seem plausible.

I don't see that he has expanded mass murder. Maybe stayed the course set for a long time, but I don't see expanded. I do wish Bolton weren't there, but time will tell if our foreign involvement stays as bad as it had been with Bush II and Obama.

He has helped to tighten our border a bit, which is a good thing in my view. A nation with a laughable border is in my view a laughable nation.

Desert wrote:I find it amusing when regular folks carry Trump's little memes out into the world. The "swamp" is one such source of humor for me. Here's a humorous Cavuto video on related topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwPsFgplIj8

I think the "swamp" is loosely defined as anyone in the GOP that dares to oppose Trump's madness. If that's the case, I'm a swamp-supporter (though not officially a member of the swamp, since I'm not a Republican). I wish Trump supporters would dare to use their brains rather than parroting his idiocy. Come on, please. This guy is just a ridiculous celebrity, of the Kanye and Kardashian type ... don't parrot his nonsense; it just makes you look foolish to anyone with a brain.

Also Trump's cabinet is full of corporate insiders; full on Swamp Creatures. Talk about foxes guarding the henhouse.

The height of hypocrisy and misdirection. That anyone falls for it is hard to believe.

Desert wrote:I find it amusing when regular folks carry Trump's little memes out into the world. The "swamp" is one such source of humor for me. Here's a humorous Cavuto video on related topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwPsFgplIj8

I think the "swamp" is loosely defined as anyone in the GOP that dares to oppose Trump's madness. If that's the case, I'm a swamp-supporter (though not officially a member of the swamp, since I'm not a Republican). I wish Trump supporters would dare to use their brains rather than parroting his idiocy. Come on, please. This guy is just a ridiculous celebrity, of the Kanye and Kardashian type ... don't parrot his nonsense; it just makes you look foolish to anyone with a brain.

Bigly is my favorite. Hands down. You sprinkle a 'bigly' into regular conversation and you will see some double takes, and possibly headsplosions.

I think Trump should pardon all the U.S. citizens that have already been indicted by Mueller's team (Manafort, Flynn) in this so-called "Russian Collusion" investigation. As for the Russians who were indicted, everybody, left and right, seems to understand that was a toothless joke any way. He should also announce that since he knows that this is nothing more than a "witch hunt" any future U.S. citizens indicted in this proble will be immediately pardoned.

If he were to do this, you would hear screams from the left and the MSM (I repeat myself) that we are headed for a "constitutional crisis" of epic proportions.

Well, that is exactly what those on the left are looking for any way. So Trump might as well read the handwriting on the wall and join the battle (and unless I have misjudged him I think something like this will eventually come to pass - seems inevitable).

For the record, I cast my first presidential vote for Trump in a long time but have been very disappointed in a lot of things he has done. So what's new with that?

Desert wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 9:44 pm

hardlawjockey wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 6:09 pm I think Trump should pardon all the U.S. citizens that have already been indicted by Mueller's team (Manafort, Flynn) in this so-called "Russian Collusion" investigation. As for the Russians who were indicted, everybody, left and right, seems to understand that was a toothless joke any way. He should also announce that since he knows that this is nothing more than a "witch hunt" any future U.S. citizens indicted in this proble will be immediately pardoned.

If he were to do this, you would hear screams from the left and the MSM (I repeat myself) that we are headed for a "constitutional crisis" of epic proportions.

Well, that is exactly what those on the left are looking for any way. So Trump might as well read the handwriting on the wall and join the battle (and unless I have misjudged him I think something like this will eventually come to pass - seems inevitable).

For the record, I cast my first presidential vote for Trump in a long time but have been very disappointed in a lot of things he has done. So what's new with that?

Sorry to hear that you voted for Trump. While I'll never understand how anyone could do that, I do hope that better candidates emerge in the future. We're at an all-time low right now, so I have hope that choices will be better in the next round. Meanwhile, go Mueller.

Never is a long time. I'll bet you could really understand how people could vote for Trump if you gave it enough thought.

I hope for better candidates in the future too but it may well turn out that Trump is the best we can hope for.

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.

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

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

What politicians (in terms of personality) do you "like?" To me, Hillary and Trump are both awful in completely opposite ways. Hillary is just the epitome of "calculating politician." Though I don't see her as materially different from Jeb, Marco, or Cruz in that regard. I mostly like Obama from a personality standpoint. To conflate him with Hillary or Trump is ridiculous to me, but of course this is mostly subjective.

Wow, I don't even know what to say. The FBI has sunk to a new low. Zero credibility. They planted a spy in the Trump campaign.

Weaponized politics should be scary for both sides, since either one can use it....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-that ... 1525992611

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 3d7c2a55c1

moda0306 wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 8:48 am

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

What politicians (in terms of personality) do you "like?" To me, Hillary and Trump are both awful in completely opposite ways. Hillary is just the epitome of "calculating politician." Though I don't see her as materially different from Jeb, Marco, or Cruz in that regard. I mostly like Obama from a personality standpoint. To conflate him with Hillary or Trump is ridiculous to me, but of course this is mostly subjective.

In terms of personality, these come to mind: Reagan, Eisenhower, Truman, John Kennedy (Ted - yuck), Ryan, Manchin, Jim Webb, George H W Bush, Roberts. After a quick scan of current Senators, Reps, SC Justices, and Presidents I've come to the conclusion that almost all high level Federal politicians are not my cup of tea from a personality perspective. I guess I'll just have to keep voting based on policies and platforms all the while realizing they are likely just hot air.

I read the WSJ piece. That is indeed troubling.

clacy wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 8:58 am Wow, I don't even know what to say. The FBI has sunk to a new low. Zero credibility. They planted a spy in the Trump campaign.

Weaponized politics should be scary for both sides, since either one can use it....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-that ... 1525992611

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 3d7c2a55c1

It's becoming all too clear today that

1. The dems were so absolutely sure that they would win the election that they took the staggering, and obviously illegal, step of placing an informant inside the Trump campaign.

2. So confident, they were, that they got incredibly sloppy.

3. Trump's surprise win left them with a very big problem, and raised the specter of serious prison time for all the usual suspects, including Obama himself.

4. So in a desperate attempt to cover their tracks, they concocted the Russian conspiracy, which would allow them to claim, pretextually, that the illegal, politically-motivated investigation that had been going on for some time had some other purpose than to flat-out spy on the Trump campaign.

There's no doubt in my mind, at this point, that this is exactly what occurred.

Maddy wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 10:38 pm It's becoming all too clear today that

1. The dems were so absolutely sure that they would win the election that they took the staggering, and obviously illegal, step of placing an informant inside the Trump campaign.

2. So confident, they were, that they got incredibly sloppy.

3. Trump's surprise win left them with a very big problem, and raised the specter of serious prison time for all the usual suspects, including Obama himself.

4. So in a desperate attempt to cover their tracks, they concocted the Russian conspiracy, which would allow them to claim, pretextually, that the illegal, politically-motivated investigation that had been going on for some time had some other purpose than to flat-out spy on the Trump campaign.

There's no doubt in my mind, at this point, that this is exactly what occurred.

+1

Are Tricky Dick Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover looking better in light of the current shenanigans?

Obama, Mueller, Comey, Trump, ...... Bent politicians voted into office by bent people ..... same song, different verse. There is no salvation in bent people, bent promises, or bent government. We are all a bag of pretzels.

Desert, I'm surprised to hear you say that about the media, but needless to say I agree!

Good for the House committee for doggedly uncovering the facts, but it's the media response that's going to be the issue. Watergate was widely considered to be a true scandal and even a constitutional crisis at the time, and the media reported it that way (as they should). Even though this sounds like it is at least on that level, I have every expectation that the media will spin it into oblivion, and that consequently the public will fail to recognize the gravity of the situation. For example, the Chicago Tribune says that the informant was there to protect the Trump campaign (!), and the NY Times says it wasn't "spying".

I might be surprised, but I predict nothing will come of this and the investigation will be allowed to fizzle out after the upcoming midterms. However, the message is loud and clear: if you're not an approved Washington insider, keep your grubby hands out of our government.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 7:56 am Desert, I'm surprised to hear you say that about the media, but needless to say I agree!

Good for the House committee for doggedly uncovering the facts, but it's the media response that's going to be the issue. Watergate was widely considered to be a true scandal and even a constitutional crisis at the time, and the media reported it that way (as they should). Even though this sounds like it is at least on that level, I have every expectation that the media will spin it into oblivion, and that consequently the public will fail to recognize the gravity of the situation. For example, the Chicago Tribune says that the informant was there to protect the Trump campaign (!), and the NY Times says it wasn't "spying".

I might be surprised, but I predict nothing will come of this and the investigation will be allowed to fizzle out after the upcoming midterms. However, the message is loud and clear: if you're not an approved Washington insider, keep your grubby hands out of our government.

Jimmy Carter wasn't a Washington insider. And while he got a certain amount of ire from dems, are you saying he was pounced on by the deep state?

I have a feeling if a true anti-establishment candidate got elected, you'd be right. Problem is, The Don is not really anti-establishment. He just wears his obnoxious attitude on his sleeve. He's been filling the swamp dutifully since he's been in office, just as if not moreso than Hillary would have.

Desert wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 7:09 am While I agree that the "bent" people are similar to previous generations, I think the media, particularly guys like Hannity, are worse than ever.

Saw this the other day.

I wouldn't regard Hannity as "media." (I'm using the term here in the sense of "news media," which is the meaning that everybody else seems to be ascribing to the term in this thread.) He's a political commentator whose show has a theme and an acknowledged political bent. His job is not to be neutral, or to report the news in a dispassionate or objective manner, in contrast to the true media giants who purport to be neutral and objective but are anything but.

moda0306 wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 8:22 am Problem is, The Don is not really anti-establishment. He just wears his obnoxious attitude on his sleeve. He's been filling the swamp dutifully since he's been in office, just as if not moreso than Hillary would have.

I worked with a lot of guys that came out of the same mold as Donald Trump, and I wouldn't ever regard them as "establishment"--at least not in the "deep state establishment" sense. They're small-time players in the global scheme of things--"nobodies" in the world of the oligarchs who really run things, and typically quite apolitical. They get a charge out of the game of business, but their only connection to politics is the big check they write--typically to both candidates--every election cycle.

I agree that Trump has been filling the swamp dutifully from the time he entered office, but let me ask you this: If you were suddenly thrust into the role of president, with no prior political experience; if you had virtually no establishment allies and were surrounded by an entire government full of holdovers bent on undermining you at every turn; and if you were required to rely upon the information and advice of beltway insiders with undisclosed agendas and loyalties for every decision you made, can you seriously assert that by this time you would have done any better? While receiving criticism for his appointments, he's at least had the nuggies to undo his mistakes in many cases--which has resulted in criticism for his "erraticism." But again, look at what he's dealing with. He's a guppy swimming in a pool of pirhanas and, to his credit, he's not only still swimming, he's accomplished a formidable amount in spite of it.

Since well before Trump took office, Craig Hulet was one of several political analysts who were expressly predicting that whomever assumed office would, within the first 48 hours, be taken aside by the beltway insiders and told, in no uncertain terms, how it was going to be. I think this is probably a fairly accurate portrayal of what has occurred. I think it probably goes a long way toward explaining why Jeff Sessions still exists.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like to nominate another item for Libertarian666's list of Trump's accomplishments to date:

8. Strengthening our border significantly already.


I have an acquaintance who works for ICE, and he told me that ICE enforcement on the ground is much stronger than it was under Obama.

ICE

ya’think? It’s a daily news item.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 9:33 pm

stuper1 wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 8:12 pm At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like to nominate another item for Libertarian666's list of Trump's accomplishments to date:

8. Strengthening our border significantly already.


I have an acquaintance who works for ICE, and he told me that ICE enforcement on the ground is much stronger than it was under Obama.

That is true, but as a libertarian I'm not as impressed with border issues as with his other accomplishments. I really don't consider illegal immigrants, in the absence of other criminal behavior on their part, as a big problem, whereas I consider rigorous enforcement of immigration law quite hazardous to our liberties.

And although this is slightly off-topic, the same goes for the notion that the non-existent "epidemic of school shootings" should be used as an excuse to turn public schools into even more prison-like environments. Far more children die from swimming pool drownings than from such shootings, but no one is calling for requiring armed guards around swimming pools.

Surely you'd prefer rigorous enforcement of all laws, and then scaling back the laws to exactly the right levels, right? Relying on lax enforcement is pretty poor from many perspectives.

You're right about the school shootings. The Texas Attorney General recently said that one problem was "too many ways in and out" of our schools. My neighborhood elementary school growing up was an open campus, with many small buildings, and it's now been entirely fenced in. My high school was open and now looks like a fortress. Pretty much every time I pass a public school I comment on how it's indistinguishable from a prison.