Trump's Final 100 days
Quote: rsactuaryMeanwhile, our righties are kind of :crickets: today.
I noticed that too.
Once they listen to Rush today and he gives them their marching orders they'll be back.
Quote: ams288I noticed that too.
Once they listen to Rush today and he gives them their marching orders they'll be back.
No need to Listen to Rush. Trump is looking extremely foolish in the Stormy story. His lawyer is ruing the day he took Trump's money to be his lackey. But Trump has said and done many things more silly and stupid than this stuff. He is still the President, and will be so until the next election. The Democrats can't really want two plus years of a President Pence giving him the incumbent edge in 2020. Even if Pence does a mediocre job he will look like a star compared to the last decade with BHO and DJT. The Dems HAVE to realize that their progressive agenda is squashed more firmly by Pence than Trump. Pence, although more right wing loony than Trump, at least can act Presidential.
A good article explaining the limits of lawyer-client privilege and why it doesn't apply here. Debunking Trump and those that have already floated that here.
Quote: SOOPOONo need to Listen to Rush. Trump is looking extremely foolish in the Stormy story. His lawyer is ruing the day he took Trump's money to be his lackey. But Trump has said and done many things more silly and stupid than this stuff. He is still the President, and will be so until the next election. The Democrats can't really want two plus years of a President Pence giving him the incumbent edge in 2020. Even if Pence does a mediocre job he will look like a star compared to the last decade with BHO and DJT. The Dems HAVE to realize that their progressive agenda is squashed more firmly by Pence than Trump. Pence, although more right wing loony than Trump, at least can act Presidential.
I agree with most of what you say here. I do not want a President Pence. I think that would be horrible for the country. I'm happy for the Democrats to win seats in November and to effectively block everything Trump tries to do for the next two years. Ineffective is about the best approach here.
Quote: SOOPOOEven if Pence does a mediocre job he will look like a star compared to the last decade with BHO and DJT.
I'll take BHO's record any day. My 401k and home value would too.
Quote: SteverinosI'll take BHO's record any day. My 401k and home value would too.
If you are just rating a president by 401k I'll take Trump. Over any Democrat. I don't know what to say about home value. Are you saying home prices going up is good? Just sounds inflationary to me.
The long run historical average of nominal return on US stocks is 9.5%, from 1900 to 2016.
First year of Trump administration:
US delivered roughly 24.6% return, more than doubled the 9.5% long run average. However, international stocks turned in a 29.8% return. U.S. stocks lagged behind international by 5.2% vs. the historical average of besting international stocks by 2.2%. (America first?). U.S. stocks under Trump performed roughly 7.4 percentage points LOWER than the long-run historical average.
First year of Obama administration: U.S. up 47.2% but lagged international by 14.4 points.
First term of Obama administration: U.S. up 19.9% annually and bested international by 3.4 points.
Both terms of Obama administration: U.S. up 16.5% annually and bested international by 7.2 points.
Point being, taking Trump "over any democrat" in regards to the stock market doesn't really add up. Especially when you consider when Trump actually started passing financial legislation (tax reform), the market hasn't exactly reacted positively. And yes, you could argue that stock gains were easier to come by when Obama took over because the economy was on the brink of collapse. But he had to make tough decisions to get it going again, while Trump took over a strong market and economy and basically just had to not f**k it up.
Here's the source:
https://www.financial-planning.com/news/trump-vs-obama-who-had-best-1st-year-stock-market-gains
The other real difference between the two is Obama didn't go around brag tweeting about it.
Dude is a douche.
Quote: SOOPOOIf you are just rating a president by 401k I'll take Trump. Over any Democrat.
Given your profession, I would think that you have the ability to look at numbers and data with complete impartiality. So this makes no sense to me.
How was your 401k doing towards the end of the GWB administration?
Quote: TigerWuTRUMP HIMSELF said the economy does better under Democrats.
And throughout the last 100 years of history, in just about every measurement, it most definitely does do better under Democrats. In some cases, it's not even close.
In the 135 days since Trump appointed chief took over, the CFPB has filed ZERO new charges and started ZERO new investigations. They did, however, secure nice raises for several Trump appointees to it. More money for no work. Who doesn't love that?
When my Mother passed away in 2015, Cap One pretty much refused to close several of her accounts, in spite of me having all the required legal documentation.
She died in November 2015. Capital just kept denying me access to the accounts. In October of 2016, I finally contacted the CFPB. A week later, a new representative from CapOne contacted me by phone, agreed to Fed Ex a check for everything owed, and tried to blame a software error.
The whole purpose of the CFPB is to give consumers an advocate when dealing with large, indifferent , institutions. trump appears to have turned it into a patronage zone for his underlings and lackeys.
Quote: SteverinosOf course that's not the only measurement. But if it were, let's look at the numbers:
The long run historical average of nominal return on US stocks is 9.5%, from 1900 to 2016.
First year of Trump administration:
US delivered roughly 24.6% return, more than doubled the 9.5% long run average. However, international stocks turned in a 29.8% return. U.S. stocks lagged behind international by 5.2% vs. the historical average of besting international stocks by 2.2%. (America first?). U.S. stocks under Trump performed roughly 7.4 percentage points LOWER than the long-run historical average.
First year of Obama administration: U.S. up 47.2% but lagged international by 14.4 points.
First term of Obama administration: U.S. up 19.9% annually and bested international by 3.4 points.
Both terms of Obama administration: U.S. up 16.5% annually and bested international by 7.2 points.
Point being, taking Trump "over any democrat" in regards to the stock market doesn't really add up. Especially when you consider when Trump actually started passing financial legislation (tax reform), the market hasn't exactly reacted positively. And yes, you could argue that stock gains were easier to come by when Obama took over because the economy was on the brink of collapse. But he had to make tough decisions to get it going again, while Trump took over a strong market and economy and basically just had to not f**k it up.
Here's the source:
https://www.financial-planning.com/news/trump-vs-obama-who-had-best-1st-year-stock-market-gains
The other real difference between the two is Obama didn't go around brag tweeting about it.
Comparing relative performance of US stocks to foreign stocks is not relevant at all. You know that international stocks are extremely correlated to US news, just like US stocks? And I happen to own many foreign stocks through ADRs or ETFs, so saying foreign stocks have done well during Trump's reign is a positive, not a negative! Causality can never be proven (or disproven), but the overall economy/stock market has improved during Trump's reign. I think the two positives are the business friendly concepts a Republican has over a Democrat, and these were born out just during the time from when Trump was elected until he actually was President, and the business friendly tax laws he passed. These have overridden the many negatives (fear of him starting a war, fear of Russian influence, fear of his next tweet, alienating the Muslim world) that are associated with Trump.
Your argument to me smells of someone who just won't acknowledge that good things have happened during the Trump first year,(not even including the election to inauguration time), trying to spin that his 25% gain is not good. As I have stated many times, the anti-Trumpers would not give him credit for ANYTHING, thereby limiting the value of their claims. More biased than CNN, or Fox News.....
Quote: SOOPOObusiness friendly
The definition of Republican's "business friendly" Just an example.
The Trump administration rolled back offshore drilling rules put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Quote: rxwineThe definition of Republican's "business friendly" Just an example.
The Trump administration rolled back offshore drilling rules put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
As I've posted many times before, "business friendly" does not always mean good for the country. A law which would prevent you from suing a drilling company if it spills oil is "business friendly" towards Halliburton. But likely not good for the country. Nonetheless, if such a law was passed, Halliburton shares would rise.
But I have a friend who is (was, he just sold to a major national company) a small business owner. He says the layer and layer of silly rules he is hamstrung by limited his ability to run his business, unreasonably so. Most of which were local City of Buffalo regulations (Democrat run) which do not exist in the suburbs (Republican run). When it came time for him to expand, where do you think he went? Many of the rules were just excuses for the government to have its hands in his pockets, no more, no less.
Quote: SOOPOOComparing relative performance of US stocks to foreign stocks is not relevant at all. You know that international stocks are extremely correlated to US news, just like US stocks? And I happen to own many foreign stocks through ADRs or ETFs, so saying foreign stocks have done well during Trump's reign is a positive, not a negative! Causality can never be proven (or disproven), but the overall economy/stock market has improved during Trump's reign. I think the two positives are the business friendly concepts a Republican has over a Democrat, and these were born out just during the time from when Trump was elected until he actually was President, and the business friendly tax laws he passed. These have overridden the many negatives (fear of him starting a war, fear of Russian influence, fear of his next tweet, alienating the Muslim world) that are associated with Trump.
Your argument to me smells of someone who just won't acknowledge that good things have happened during the Trump first year,(not even including the election to inauguration time), trying to spin that his 25% gain is not good. As I have stated many times, the anti-Trumpers would not give him credit for ANYTHING, thereby limiting the value of their claims. More biased than CNN, or Fox News.....
All I did was lay out the facts, the numbers, and the sourcing. You decide for yourself how YOU want to spin those numbers.
I'm not denying that the economy is good right now. But I would definitely argue that the economy has remained on the track set forth by the previous administration. #thanksObama
Why do you think the economy, historically, does better under Democrats? Especially when you think of the "business friendly concepts they have over democrats"? Why do you think Trump said this?
Quote: SOOPOOAs I've posted many times before, "business friendly" does not always mean good for the country. A law which would prevent you from suing a drilling company if it spills oil is "business friendly" towards Halliburton. But likely not good for the country. Nonetheless, if such a law was passed, Halliburton shares would rise.
But I have a friend who is (was, he just sold to a major national company) a small business owner. He says the layer and layer of silly rules he is hamstrung by limited his ability to run his business, unreasonably so. Most of which were local City of Buffalo regulations (Democrat run) which do not exist in the suburbs (Republican run). When it came time for him to expand, where do you think he went? Many of the rules were just excuses for the government to have its hands in his pockets, no more, no less.
Cite specific examples and the history behind those rules and why they were implemented. Only then can you begin to have a "reasonable" discussion on whether or not those rules were "unreasonable".
Quote: SteverinosCite specific examples and the history behind those rules and why they were implemented. Only then can you begin to have a "reasonable" discussion on whether or not those rules were "unreasonable".
I've had that discussion with him. It was reasonable. I believed him. I guess I can tell you about my own business and the plain silly rules I have to follow. (I am not saying mine are Republican or Democrat inspired). I may start a new thread later on silly regulations....
Quote: SteverinosAll I did was lay out the facts, the numbers, and the sourcing. You decide for yourself how YOU want to spin those numbers.
I'm not denying that the economy is good right now. But I would definitely argue that the economy has remained on the track set forth by the previous administration. #thanksObama
Why do you think the economy, historically, does better under Democrats? Especially when you think of the "business friendly concepts they have over democrats"? Why do you think Trump said this?
Because he is a liar? You seem to believe he lies about everything else, why not this?
Quote: SOOPOONo need to Listen to Rush. Trump is looking extremely foolish in the Stormy story. His lawyer is ruing the day he took Trump's money to be his lackey. But Trump has said and done many things more silly and stupid than this stuff. He is still the President, and will be so until the next election. The Democrats can't really want two plus years of a President Pence giving him the incumbent edge in 2020. Even if Pence does a mediocre job he will look like a star compared to the last decade with BHO and DJT. The Dems HAVE to realize that their progressive agenda is squashed more firmly by Pence than Trump. Pence, although more right wing loony than Trump, at least can act Presidential.
IMO, the sane contingent of the rightwing hopes Trump goes and Pence gets at least a year in the hot seat before presidential elections. It's the best of all worlds for continuing more conservative policies other than Trump being wildly successful and popular with the majority of voters, which seems pure fantasy.
I don't know how smart Pence is, but I can't imagine he's been dumb enough to stick his hand in the crazy and ruin his opportunity of taking over.
Quote: rxwineIMO, the sane contingent of the rightwing hopes Trump goes and Pence gets at least a year in the hot seat before presidential elections. It's the best of all worlds for continuing more conservative policies other than Trump being wildly successful and popular with the majority of voters, which seems pure fantasy.
I don't know how smart Pence is, but I can't imagine he's been dumb enough to stick his hand in the crazy and ruin his opportunity of taking over.
Pence headed the transition team. How many people he vetted have plead guilty or are under indictments or investigation?
Quote: billryanPence headed the transition team. How many people he vetted have plead guilty or are under indictments or investigation?
Well, of course all the associations may be enough to sink him, but if nothing adds up to illegality, he may be given a chance on his own. I'm sure the Republicans will favor helping him as much as possible if it comes down to that.
Quote: rxwineWell, of course all the associations may be enough to sink him, but if nothing adds up to illegality, he may be given a chance on his own. I'm sure the Republicans will favor helping him as much as possible if it comes down to that.
There is some dirt on Pence re: Flynn and such. It's been broached, but not pushed in the media. He knowingly lied, and there's some documentation/time line stuff that proves it. There's just been so much other stuff in the headlines, it's down in the details.
Pence's ace in the hole is that a lot of Congress likes him personally. It may work for him at some point.
Quote: beachbumbabsThere is some dirt on Pence re: Flynn and such. It's been broached, but not pushed in the media. He knowingly lied, and there's some documentation/time line stuff that proves it. There's just been so much other stuff in the headlines, it's down in the details.
Pence's ace in the hole is that a lot of Congress likes him personally. It may work for him at some point.
Can someone start the "Pence Final 100 Days" thread now so we can get ahead of this thing?
Quote: ams288Hannity is handling this week's developments well...
Wait.... Obama's not on his list?? That's surprising.
I wonder what the odds are of Hannity having a stroke on live TV by the end of the Trump administration...
Which makes leverage on cohen so much stronger
Quote: billryanI believe if trump fires Mueller, the NY can fold the case in to this new one, but these are still Federal, not state charges.,
Another example of Mueller being two steps ahead of Trump.
If Mueller and the USAs in NY can turn this into an investigation of NYC construction and real estate developers, Donald J. Trump is jail bound. They can hand him to New York State on a silver platter and he'll have no power to pardon.
Saw that one coming a mile away....
Quote: gamerfreakGiven your profession, I would think that you have the ability to look at numbers and data with complete impartiality. So this makes no sense to me.
How was your 401k doing towards the end of the GWB administration?
Everyone's 401k is different and it is likely that the doctors mix would be more conservative than a 30 year old. More stable bonds and money markets as you get older is the correct approach.
Quote: boymimboEveryone's 401k is different and it is likely that the doctors mix would be more conservative than a 30 year old. More stable bonds and money markets as you get older is the correct approach.
If I'm the doctor you are talking about, my portfolio was basically 100% stocks until my early 50's, and now at 57 its around 85% stocks. I FAR outperformed my income/age cohorts who had a much larger percentage of their savings in bonds. I always chastised my friends who espoused a 'balanced' portfolio. To me the decision was easy..... I didn't need the money for 30 years, and has there ever been a 30 year period where stocks didn't out perform bonds? So what would be the point of putting ANY money in bonds back then? So I guess my decision was not considered 'conservative', but it just seemed right to me. Probably by this time next year I'll be 80/20.
Quote: WatchMeWinPandora's Box about to be opened.... stay tuned!
..... and the box has been opened. Sex filled.
he meets with Kim Kardashian to discuss prison reform
maybe Kimmy would like to be able to meet with prisoners more often and with more privacy (insert smiley faced emoji here)
https://pagesix.com/2018/05/30/kim-kardashian-arrives-at-white-house-to-discuss-prison-reform/
he has a trophy wife 25 years younger than
him. How come nobody ever mentions
George Soros. His trophy wife is 45 years
younger than him. Those pesky billionaires,
they just can't marry for love.. lol
this definitely qualifies him for being:
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐏𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐔.𝐒.
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+salutes+north+korean+general&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY_quas9XbAhVDz1MKHctWBh0Q_AUICigB&biw=1745&bih=863#imgrc=3LycLwG-wOqAxM:
could somebody who is able to (I am not) please embed this pic in another post. thanks
Quote: lilredrooster
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐏𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐔.𝐒.
*****link redacted by moderator : rule 17 *****
could somebody who is able to (I am not) please embed this pic in another post. thanks
DONE!
But I had to correct the link.
[Edit by mod:Oncedear]
There's no rule to say you cannot post mocking images, but AZDuffman deliberately misquoted such that lilredrooster's opinion was seriously misrepresented.
AZDuffman: Please don't do it again or you risk getting a suspension.
[/Edit]
Quote: AZDuffmanDONE!
But I had to correct the link.
[Edit by mod:Oncedear]
There's no rule to say you cannot post mocking images, but AZDuffman deliberately misquoted such that lilredrooster's opinion was seriously misrepresented.
AZDuffman: Please don't do it again or you risk getting a suspension.
[/Edit]
^^^ lol
Because targets like Flynn and Stone are being harassed into what they say is bankruptcy until they can come up with some cockamamie incriminating story.Quote: billryanI don't understand why guys like he and Roger Stone seem to be thrusting themselves into the spotlight instead of seeking even deeper shadows and hoping the storm passes them by.
Quote: SanchoPanzaBecause targets like Flynn and Stone are being harassed into what they say is bankruptcy until they can come up with some cockamamie incriminating story.
I thought many rightwingers think torture works? Even Trump said it. You put the pressure on people and they cough up the truth. So, is said.
That is for enemy non-combatants, for those who do not have access to quite recent memory.Quote: rxwineI thought many rightwingers think torture works? Even Trump said it. You put the pressure on people and they cough up the truth. So, is said.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is for enemy non-combatants, for those who do not have access to quite recent memory.
What?
Enemy non-combatants? Wouldnt someone who is not combating you not be someone you would subject to torture?
And why would someone with no access to quite recent memory(how is that even did they suffer brain damage) be giving any more reliable info because hes being tortured?
