Gyroscopic Investing

I'm putting the odds at about 100:1 in favor of Ms. Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained to the Women in the World summit in New York today that the clock is turning back for women in America.

Clinton praised her own mother for helping empower her to success and marveled at the opportunities that her own daughter Chelsea has pursued.

But Clinton warned that there is still so much to do to promote women's rights in America.

"As I look at all these young women that I am privileged to work with, or know through Chelsea, and its hard to imagine turning the clock on them," Clinton said. “But in places around America, large and small, the clock is turning back,”? she said, noting that women in America live “shorter lives”? than any other industrialized country.

Clinton called for "equal pay" for working women as well as paid family and medical leave benefits.

"f America is going to lead the way we expect ourselves to lead, we need to empower women here at home to participate fully in our economy and our society," she said.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2526373

(P.S. - It's too bad markets aren't as predicable as politics.)

And for the record on another thread last year when I had a different user name I predicted early on  that Mitt Romney would win the Republican nomination and lose to Barack Obama in the general election.

So you can take this to the bank. Unless she has some health or other issues we don't know about she WILL be the next president of the United States. Plan accordingly.

notsheigetz wrote: And for the record on another thread last year when I had a different user name I predicted early on  that Mitt Romney would win the Republican nomination and lose to Barack Obama in the general election.

So you can take this to the bank. Unless she has some health or other issues we don't know about she WILL be the next president of the United States. Plan accordingly.

I think you're right.

She's going to be a smarter, tougher, better seasoned, more competent, more experienced version of Obama. I suspect that the people who like Obama will like her even better, and the people who don't should be terrified because the inevitable Clinton II presidency will be much more effective than Obama's has been. Unlike Obama, she knows how stuff gets done in Congress. She's not going to barge through the front door demanding action like our current ham-handed prez. She'll sneak through the unlocked back door and cut your throat and take your money while you're sleeping er I mean, get meaningful legislation enacted that will benefit the middle-class and make government smarter and more responsive to the changing needs of a diverse nation.

There's a very good reason why she makes Republican strategists shit their pants.

The future is unpredictable. That applies as much in politics as in finance. The next election is more than 3 years away. In politics that's a lifetime.

Don't forget the third party influence will be making a play.

Hopeless  and Clueless ver 2 ? She could possibly win (never underestimate the stupidity of the sheeple in the US)  but after the utter destruction this country will be left behind by Buck Ofama and congress, not sure any sane person would want the job of the next POTUS. 

notsheigetz wrote:I'm putting the odds at about 100:1 in favor of Ms. Clinton.

Of course those were the odds two presidential election cycles ago...

China Bull wrote: Hopeless  and Clueless ver 2 ? She could possibly win (never underestimate the stupidity of the sheeple in the US)  but after the utter destruction this country will be left behind by Buck Ofama and congress, not sure any sane person would want the job of the next POTUS. 

Utter destruction....thats a little hyperbolic dont you think? Is there another country in the world that is better off presently? And besides, can you expound how (outside of these vivid nightmare scenarios that you let run wild in your mind) things have gotten so much worse over the last 5 years. You are aware that we are facing a massive private deleveraging that hasnst happened since the great depression. What is your solution to that....austerity? I think any country in Europe makes for a pretty good example of how well that would work. The problems we face are much larger than one man. Frankly, I think a progressive agenda is preferable to one that would have us heading back into the stone age which is what the other side of the political aisle presently is offering us.

notsheigetz wrote: And for the record on another thread last year when I had a different user name I predicted early on  that Mitt Romney would win the Republican nomination and lose to Barack Obama in the general election.

So you can take this to the bank. Unless she has some health or other issues we don't know about she WILL be the next president of the United States. Plan accordingly.

So what was your previous name?

I will still take my current long shot pick of Rand Paul. 

Reub wrote:

notsheigetz wrote: And for the record on another thread last year when I had a different user name I predicted early on  that Mitt Romney would win the Republican nomination and lose to Barack Obama in the general election.

So you can take this to the bank. Unless she has some health or other issues we don't know about she WILL be the next president of the United States. Plan accordingly.

So what was your previous name?

I wondered the same thing.

MediumTex wrote:

Reub wrote:

notsheigetz wrote: And for the record on another thread last year when I had a different user name I predicted early on  that Mitt Romney would win the Republican nomination and lose to Barack Obama in the general election.

So you can take this to the bank. Unless she has some health or other issues we don't know about she WILL be the next president of the United States. Plan accordingly.

So what was your previous name?

I wondered the same thing.

Possible?

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... 0#msg25990

Timely article:

Why Hillary is less ‘inevitable’ than you think
http://freebeacon.com/paper-tigress/

I've read that she ran an awful campaign last time.
Showed up with an old Bill team and expected to be crowned.

Hillary is a HUGE name, but she is not personable/likable i.e. the more one sees/hears her, the less likely I think she is to win.  Certainly her competence will do well in comparison to the present amateurs, but how long does everyone thing the sheeple will vote for more of the same assuming the economy does not significantly improve?  Also Obamacare will be well in force.

Of course if the republicans continue with more of same, Biden could probably beat them.

Benko wrote: Of course if the republicans continue with more of same, Biden could probably beat them.

For serious. The Republican party has to stop running terrible candidates like Romney and McCain. There are a lot of promising up-and comers like Rand Paul, Bobby Jindall, Susanna Martinez, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and maybe John Thune, but IMHO most of them are too green around the ears to successfully run for president. Then again Obama won with no military experience, no executive experience, and less than four years in the senate, so what do I know?

Benko wrote: Hillary is a HUGE name, but she is not personable/likable i.e. the more one sees/hears her, the less likely I think she is to win.  Certainly her competence will do well in comparison to the present amateurs, but how long does everyone thing the sheeple will vote for more of the same assuming the economy does not significantly improve?  Also Obamacare will be well in force.

Of course if the republicans continue with more of same, Biden could probably beat them.

Listening to Hillary Clinton speak is like listening to someone run their fingernails across a chalk board.  By 2016, Hillary will be 70ish.  I believe 2008 was "her time" to run and win but she was out maneuvered by Obama.  In 2016, Hillary won't be able to run against the current administration in the same way that Obama could run against the Bush Administration in 2008.  If she starts campaigning in the next year or so, even if not in an official way, people will tire of her.  I realize she is very popular right now but as someone on this board mentioned in a previous post, 2016 is a long time from now.  Lots of things will happen between now and then.  I suppose she could win but I do not see her as the inevitable winner as some in media currently do.  It will also be interesting to see who emerges as the Republican candidate.  Just my two cents worth. 

The next Dem will have 8 years of Obama's brilliant economic leadership and Obamacare hanging around their neck like a millstone. I'm not saying they won't still beat whatever random GOP dope manages to avoid racist and/or mysoginist comments long enough to make it to the general election, but it won't be a cake walk.  Even for Liberal royalty like a Clinton.

In case I offended anyone, I understand all GOP aren't racist/mysoginist but if one more of those losers starts talking about "legitimate rape" and hands an election to a Dem, I'll lose it.

On a separate note, Rand Paul is far too honest to win a primary for the presidency. I think he'd fair better in the general election.

Rand Paul is the only Pubby that even remotely interests me. Unfortunately he can't win for all the reasons that I like him. He believes in true limited gov't to which the GOP pays lip service but few actually mean it. He is a defender of civil liberties in a party that gave us the Patriot Act. And he is an anti-imperialist in a party that has become synonymous with aggressive war.

doodle wrote:

China Bull wrote: Hopeless  and Clueless ver 2 ? She could possibly win (never underestimate the stupidity of the sheeple in the US)  but after the utter destruction this country will be left behind by Buck Ofama and congress, not sure any sane person would want the job of the next POTUS. 

Utter destruction....thats a little hyperbolic dont you think? Is there another country in the world that is better off presently? And besides, can you expound how (outside of these vivid nightmare scenarios that you let run wild in your mind) things have gotten so much worse over the last 5 years. You are aware that we are facing a massive private deleveraging that hasnst happened since the great depression. What is your solution to that....austerity? I think any country in Europe makes for a pretty good example of how well that would work. The problems we face are much larger than one man. Frankly, I think a progressive agenda is preferable to one that would have us heading back into the stone age which is what the other side of the political aisle presently is offering us.

in latest polls(for what they are worth) 33% thinks the country is headed in the right direction. Good news is that it was 43% about 8 months ago, just before election, so more people are finally (too late?) waking up up to reality . Bad news is that still 1/3 of the country thinks this mess is the right direction aka "Forward". Private deleveraging ?  nah.. we ain't seen nothing yet. I bet we're talking about a 25% haircut in the standard of living, for a period of a few years, if we choose to accept the pain over a short period. If that is austerity, then hell yeah, bring it on. I only hope this inevitable path of ruin we are on falls on Odumba's watch so we never,ever have to go back to a POTUS(and congress) like this one in my lifetime.  Like Ad Orientem, would love to see a Rand Paul ticket but I agree that it is going to be hard sell to the sheeple. Who coined the term "progressive" ? Is this the new Dems marketing spin ?

ad orientum wrote:

Rand Paul is the only Pubby that even remotely interests me. Unfortunately he can't win for all the reasons that I like him. He believes in true limited gov't to which the GOP pays lip service but few actually mean it. He is a defender of civil liberties in a party that gave us the Patriot Act. And he is an anti-imperialist in a party that has become synonymous with aggressive war.

+1 -    Rand should run in the primaries, but not turn right to appease the god squad and war wing of the Republican party.  When he loses the primary, then go third party.  His message (especially civil liberties and anti neo con) will appeal to many democrats and independents as well as the Republicans that backed him in the primary.   

Imagine seeing this choice in the 2016 Voting Booth -  Hilary Clinton - Democrat,  Jeb Bush (or whatever establishment type wins the primary) - Republican, Rand Paul - Independent.   

IMHO - Right now -The election is Hilary Clinton's to lose, but so was 2008.   

MangoMan wrote: If you paid close attention, there was a clue in a recent thread referencing a review of the book on Amazon, from which the answer could be confirmed. But if you paid really close attention, to the style of writing and opinions, you would have known it was "jack h".

I'll give
100:1 on that prediction 

I can neither confirm nor deny but I do believe Hillary Clinton has begun her campaign running against the Republican Strawman and I am doubtful that any Republican is going to successfully come along and take his place.

As for Rand Paul I give him a 1 percent better chance than his father which means exactly 1 percent.

P.S. : I am truly flattered that some of you fine PPer's  haven taken such an interest in my identity. I will count this as my allotted 15 minutes of fame.

I don't care for Rand Paul. His lamenting about a mosque in Manhattan near the World Trade Center site, as well as framing himself as a slave having to perform medical procedures at gunpoint really left me cold towards him. I much prefer his dad... Even though I disagree with him on a lot I think he's a genuine guy.  I tend to think Rand is a bit of a privileged slimeball.

moda0306 wrote: I tend to think Rand is a bit of a privileged slimeball.

Aren't they all, i.e. the brown noser Paul Ryan?  They have schtick to sell and suckers voters keep believing it.  The audacity of hope is that its a hallucinotion.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I tend to think Rand is a bit of a privileged slimeball.

Aren't they all, i.e. the brown noser Paul Ryan?  They have schtick to sell and suckers voters keep believing it.  The audacity of hope is that its a hallucinotion.

Most congresspeople are millionaire former doctors or lawyers who were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Any appearance otherwise is usually marketing. None of them are "average Americans"; those few who started life that way have had to give it all up to get ahead in Washington D.C.