1/14/17

Donald Trump has finally released his plans for his business empire. Trump announced that he would turn over complete control to his sons as well as divert any foreign hotel revenue earned into the US Treasury.

Trump was quoted as saying:

Over the weekend I was offered $2 billion to do a deal in Dubai with an amazing developer in the Middle East, I turned it down. I didn't have to turn it down, but as you know I have a conflict situation as president.

The Trump administration would also no longer negotiate foreign deals for his business entities and would appoint an "ethics" adviser to keep track of potential conflicts of interests.

What do you think of this plan? Is it enough of a "blind trust" to be sufficient in dealing with potential conflicts of interest?

Link to Article

Comments (175)

1/11/17

This is not at all what a "blind trust" implies - in a true blind trust, your assets are sold and the proceeds are controlled by an unaffiliated third party. While acknowledging that Trump's situation is a bit more unique than we have seen with previous presidents, I don't think handing off your business assets to your children is removing yourself far enough so as to ensure total removal of possible conflicts of interest, and I'd be having the same sentiment whether we had elected a Democrat or a Republican, for that matter. Just imagine the outrage certain people would have if Hillary had won, and announced she was appointing her daughter to take over all her business interests so as to avoid an obvious "conflict of interest". I believe one of the greatest issues facing our society right now is that a lot of people are willing to give blind faith approval to our leader on a number of issues without taking a step back and trying to view certain actions or statements objectively. We're at a point in time where our leader is refusing to answer questions during press conferences from major media outlets, including the first 24-hour news coverage station (CNN) in favor of Brietbart. All of a sudden it's okay to push the president to release his long-form birth certificate, but releasing tax returns is going way too far and not at all what the American people want. I'd hope that at some point, people start realizing this behavior is not to be tolerated, because you're setting a precedent that any president can act this way - think about how it'd be in 4 years if a Democrat gets elected and starts behaving in a similar manner...this should be a bipartisan issue, for the sake of all of us.

Financial Modeling

Best Response
1/11/17

Re: the CNN thing

CNN put out a story that was first published by Buzz feed about some unchecked, unverified report that countless news agencies passed on about Putin having a video of Trump paying prostitutes pissing on a bed Obama once slept in. I am sorry, but CNN is garbage and below Breibart. I hope he revokes their press credentials.

Obama was pushed like people are pushing Trump. The difference is being a natural born US citizen is a requirement for being President and releasing your taxes is not.

You know what behavior shouldn't be tolerated? A sitting President campaigning against another candidate. Or a sitting First Lady talking shit about the elected new President. Or collusion between major "news" networks and the Democrat candidate.

As for Trump, it is unrealistic to expect him to sell his business or not give it to his family. It is a unique situation for sure. I am worried far less with Trump making money than I am about the economy, fixing Obamacare, new Supreme Court justices, etc.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/11/17

This is astonishing. You disregarded the second half of my statement which was "in favor of Brietbart" and just started knocking on CNN for how much you hate them. This shouldn't be a discussion about CNN, not was it at all intending to be.

Let me rephrase, so you believe that CNN should have press credentials revoked over what they published, and shouldn't have their questions answered by the president elect, but it's completely fair and alright for him to field a question from Brietbart, a "news" organization responsible for pushing #pizzagate. What an interesting viewpoint to hold.

This is glorious. If you're going to hold yourself to believing in certain standards you deem appropriate, they should at least be consistent.

1/11/17
Steam:

This is astonishing. You disregarded the second half of my statement which was "in favor of Brietbart" and just started knocking on CNN for how much you hate them. This shouldn't be a discussion about CNN, not was it at all intending to be.

Let me rephrase, so you believe that CNN should have press credentials revoked over what they published, and shouldn't have their questions answered by the president elect, but it's completely fair and alright for him to field a question from Brietbart, a "news" organization responsible for pushing #pizzagate. What an interesting viewpoint to hold.

This is glorious. If you're going to hold yourself to believing in certain standards you deem appropriate, they should at least be consistent.

CNN hasn't had its press credentials revoked, so not sure what you're arguing. They were warned by the Trump campaign over their behavior during the press conference.

1/11/17

TNA said that CNN should have their press credentials revoked.

TNA:

CNN put out a story that was first published by Buzz feed about some unchecked, unverified report that countless news agencies passed on about Putin having a video of Trump paying prostitutes pissing on a bed Obama once slept in. I am sorry, but CNN is garbage and below Breibart. I hope he revokes their press credentials.

1/12/17
Steam:

TNA said that CNN should have their press credentials revoked.

TNA:CNN put out a story that was first published by Buzz feed about some unchecked, unverified report that countless news agencies passed on about Putin having a video of Trump paying prostitutes pissing on a bed Obama once slept in. I am sorry, but CNN is garbage and below Breibart. I hope he revokes their press credentials.

To be clear, there's a very fair reason to revoke CNN's press credentials and a very unfair reason to revoke them.

The unfair reason is that they reported a fake document as potentially being fact. They have a first amendment right to do that, but they lost a lot of credibility with swing voters like me when they did. Trump has a right to refuse CNN's questions, although one would hope he'd be less petty than that.

The fair reason to revoke Jim Acosta's press credentials is that he kept interrupting the president and wasn't being fair to the other journalists or viewers of the press conference. Air time isn't cheap-- a superbowl ad costs seven figures, and while a presidential press conference doesn't have quite that level of viewership, we can't let some bozo spend a minute or two interrupting another reporter's question. We don't tolerate this from protesters at congressional hearings; Obama didn't tolerate it from The Daily Caller-- as a balanced moderate who got angry when Neil Munro interrupted Obama, I don't expect Trump to tolerate it from CNN, either.

Political bias is kind of like white privilege. Liberals claim liberal bias doesn't exist. Conservatives claim conservative bias doesn't exist. White conservatives claim white privilege doesn't exist. Well, all of them do exist, and the New York and DC media lean a little more to the left than the right-- we can argue about the extent of it, but the fact that Neil Munro was a deranged heckler while Acosta is the victim of a vindictive president is probably an example of it.

To be sure, we saw stuff like this in the Bush Administration too, and I remember being a liberal back then. So there's a way to proceed with this:

1.) There needs to be a clear set of rules and guidelines for a press conference that every reporter gets.
2.) There needs to be a set of procedures for reporters who violate these rules.
2a.) To be sure, reporters who violate these rules will probably be a lot more combative with the administration-- you're not interrupting the president or press secretary because you agree with something he's saying.
3.) The Press Secretary needs to explain #1 and #2 to the public, and his reasoning for his actions, when press members get kicked out.

1/12/17

Didn't all they do was report that Trump had received a 2-page summary of the allegations, and this was later confirmed by Obama and Biden that it was in fact the case he had been briefed on it? They reported something completely different from what BuzzFeed did

1/11/17

Love how you just change the argument mid stream. We are talking about CNN. They publish an unverified document the morning of the press conference, interrupt Trump repeatedly and he called them fake, which they are.

Breitbart is a right wing news organization, very slanted and biased towards Trump. I am sure MSNBC was at the event as well. CNN was not removed. I personally think the are a joke, fake news and trash.

Pizzagate is different from this. This is a document that is being pushed as legitimate from intelligence offices making outlandish claims against the President elect. Garbage I'd expect from Buzzfeed, not CNN.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

I didn't change anything - you took my words out of context and decided to reply to only half of my original quote. The full quote was "We're at a point in time where our leader is refusing to answer questions during press conferences from major media outlets, including the first 24-hour news coverage station (CNN) in favor of Brietbart."

Again, the point was that he was blatantly calling CNN "fake news" - which you may full well believe as well, that's your opinion - but then he turns and takes a question from Brietbart? Is that not giving tacit approval of the organization or implying that they themselves aren't fake news? Call CNN what you want, but in no way, shape, or form can you honestly tell me you believe CNN to be fake news while Brietbart is upstanding journalism. My issue was with him condemning CNN and then allowing Brietbart to ask.

Brietbart has pushed Pizzagate as being fact, which was related to my outrage earlier that they are somehow placed above CNN. Get real, dude.

1/12/17

Ok, I am going out for the evening so I will rant more in the morning. But two things.

1) Breibart didn't break or start Pizzagate. It reported about it, yes. So did other major outlets. Yes, Breitbart reported on it in an indulging way whereas the other outlets mocked it, but all the same.

2) CNN posted an unsubstantiated report from Buzzfeed the day of the press conference with Trump.

Trump = President
Podesta and the Pizza dude, private citizens.

Do I think Breitbart is gospel or "reputable" no. It is right wing news blog. It isn't InfoWars, but it is something between that and say Fox News.

CNN on the other hand is supposed to be main stream. Their burden of proof is higher. And they attacked Trump. How many interviews with Fox did Obama give? Presidents can pick favorites to an extent.

CNN fucked up and fucked up big. They led the call on this "Fake News" bullshit and then they post this crap, the day of the President Elect conference and did they not expect blow back?

So in conclusion, both Brietbart and CNN are trash. BB was also a conservative blog whereas CNN had 20 years of reputation thrown out the window.

Now you get real.

God of WOKE - out

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/13/17

1) CNN broke the story or published a modified version from BuzzFeed?
2) Didn't everything which they reported on - simply that Trump had been briefed on the matter - just get confirmed to be true by Biden and McCain? What part of what CNN reported was "fake news"?

So you're saying that garbage news outlets should be able to ask Trump questions, however since CNN reported on a story that turned out to be true (at least as far as you want to believe Biden, I guess), they should not be able to speak whereas Brietbart, who has a history of actually pushing "fake news" should still get to ask questions because they're not mainstream.

The mental gymnastics here is great.

1/13/17

It's unconfirmed. McCain handed the report to the intelligence community. The "report" has been passed around since the election and no one ran with it because it's just slanderous.

Before you talk about mental gymnastics I suggest you read up on the facts. Even huffpo passed on this story. Buzzfeed put it out and CNN ran with it. No one else. That drew Trumps ire.

And the fact you cannot see the reputational difference between breitbart and CNN is silly. CNN is supposed to be respected.

Do not pass go. Do not collect 200.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/13/17

But all CNN did was report that Trump had been briefed on it - they didn't go to the level that BuzzFeed did and release the actual report. They literally only reported on facts, which was later confirmed by Biden. I could missing something here, so definitely open to hearing your side but as far as I can tell, from what I've read - it looks like they reported on strictly the facts and what they knew, and this turned out to be true as told by Biden and confirmed by Comey?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/3...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biden-confirms-t...

My point re: CNN / Brietbart was that you said CNN should not be allowed to ask questions but implied Brietbart should continue doing so - in your eyes, both outlets pushed "fake news", but only one should be punished. I'm not even trying to touch on the point that CNN should be allowed to ask questions (surprise: I do), but rather if you want CNN's press credentials revoked, at least follow up with Brietbart should not have their questions answered in addition to that.

1/15/17

Listen son, you fucked up, you thought TNA or any other avid Trump supporter or anyone committing the mental gymnastics to give a free pass for their candidate (now we're back to the contention of your main post) would ever actually read for themselves what CNN published and thought about it....nope, they regurgitate the hate they're fed, you can read back during the campaign on this site and see key lines and contentions from Pundits stream out of his posts.

The whole point is, they don't think, they don't want to think, they want to be told. There's no consistency in their convictions...just read any post from him or anyone like him in the past 6 months, the consistency is buying into that bullshit.

You're wasting your time. I hope they get everything they want (or are told they want?).

1/15/17

2/10.

Wonderful post.

Steam - "all CNN did was report that Trump had been briefed on it"

Here is the same day article from CNN that kicked off the storm:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-...

Includes a link to Buzzfeeds report. Links to Mother Jones (what a source!). So no, they didn't JUST report that a 2 page document with potential damaging information on Trump was reviewed.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/how-the-media-di...

Ahhhh, look at this.

1) NBC News undermined a key part of CNN's bombshell report in its own coverage: Trump was not briefed on the allegations Russia had compromising material on him. Furthermore, the American intelligence community considers the wild report on Trump's links to Russia "unvetted disinformation."

2)Then came the thorough discrediting of damning portions of the dossier that tied Trump to Russia. One such claim included the report that Trump adviser Michael Cohen had met with Russian officials in Prague last August. It turned out Cohen was in the U.S. that whole time and it was a different Michael Cohen who visited the Czech Republic.

Listen son, you fucked up, you thought ArcherVice or any other avid HIllary supporter or anyone committing the mental gymnastics to give a free pass for their candidate (now we're back to the contention of your main post) would ever actually read for themselves what CNN published and thought about it....nope, they regurgitate the hate they're fed, you can read back during the campaign on this site and see key lines and contentions from Pundits stream out of his posts.

Get Woke Bro. And next time you snarkily shit on someone for not reading something, I suggest you read it yourself. CNN leapt at the chance to report on this. They didn't do basic fact checking. The "report" was circulating during the election and it was only released on the eve of Trumps press conference. It's unverifiable, its ludicrous, and key elements of the story were disproven almost immediately. CNN was beyond sloppy in reporting this and their timing is obviously suspect.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/15/17

So they reported:

He was briefed
That there was a 2 page report release by buzzfeed
Who the report was compiled by
That it was still unverified
That the FBI has yet to confirm many essential details to substantiate it
They also included the rationale behind why he was briefed and why the intel communities felt this met that threshold

Call me crazy....it sounds like they reported facts. Ohhh shit, they reported news on a newsworthy item because it was blowing up through other outlets...but they insisted on the facts not hyperbole. You call them pushing fake news... lol

Why don't you start paying attention to what you're reading and maybe, maybe think for yourself.

1/15/17

Yawn. They included a link to the Buzzfeed report. Stop being obtuse. They didn't verify basics of the story either (Trump wasn't briefed, wrong Cohen, Intelligence Agencies said it was unverifiable).

Please. CNN has been completely anti Trump. They saw blood with Buzzfeed posting this trash that has been circulating around for months. They used that as cover to "report" on what Buzzfeed said while still trying to be "objective". They did it the morning of the Trump press conference.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/15/17

You're projecting. They presented facts, and you got called out on going off on a partisan screed that had nothing to do with the post, then you got called on equating Breitbart to not pushing fake news or OK since MSNBC was there too (do they push conspiracies and racially charged bullshit?) and now you got called on not thinking for yourself. You just showcased that you don't, oh no a news outlet reported news!!! The fact they mentioned anything that could hurt Trump set off all your defensive frothing at the mouth since you took it as an attack on you.

Grow the fuck up.

1/15/17

Sorry, but they lost all benefit of the doubt when they linked to the report, reported on it because Buzzfeed broke it and then did no homework of their own.

CNN > Breitbart. The fact you'd try and equate them is comical. CNN should do even the smallest amount of fact checking, which they did not. Then they were upset for being called out as fake news - which they are.

I get it. You hate Trump. Cool. But you are wrong and it is apparent. CNN was in the wrong here.

Try again.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/15/17

Was the President and president-elect briefed on the dossier by the intel community, yes or no?

Yes. End of story. That's what they reported. Show me where they stated, vouched for or implied the veracity of the report as being verified as true? Same with BuzzFeed.

There isn't room for interpretation. You're just projecting Trumpers insecurities onto anything that appears like dissent, which you've lowered the bar to anything not actively pro trump.

1/15/17

Trump wasn't briefed. So that's false. They linked to the buzzfeed article where the full report was featured. Done.

It was irresponsible for CNN to do zero fact checking. Furthermore, they've know about this report for months. It's been shopped for a while. They used buzzfeed as a cover to report on it.

Only one projecting in this thread is you. It's hilarious either way. CNN did itself a disservice by doing what they did and rightfully got called out.

You Hillary freaks need to chill.

EDIT
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a82309544e9e465fa2a...

Circulated for months, so CNN obviously knew about this, but did not report it, along with other news agencies, because of its unverifiable nature.

  • Mother Jones reviewed the "political opposition research" in October
  • WSJ identified Christopher Steele as the author, who denied the opportunity to confirm the report
  • Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the intelligence community has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/16/17

So perhaps CNN knew about it for months, and reported on it once they became aware that Trump had been briefed on the matter? Multiples sources are claiming that he was indeed briefed, so I'm not sure what the basis of you claiming to know with certainty that this is "false" (unless you actually are Eric?).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...

Mr Brennan told Fox News Sunday that Mr Trump had indeed been briefed about the allegations before they were reported by CNN, despite the President-elect's advisers saying he was not aware of them.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biden-confirms-t...

The intelligence leaders responded by saying, "Well, we feel obliged to tell you, Mr. President, because you may hear about it. We're going to tell (Trump)," Biden said.

That's our current Vice President as well as the director of the CIA telling us he was indeed briefed.

I'm really not sure what exactly is causing you to turn a blind eye to this and arrive at the conclusion that you're going to automatically trust the guy who told the public that climate change is a Chinese fabricated hoax.

He called CNN fake news, dude. I don't know why you keep diverting from my original assertions and keep trashing on CNN. You can't even focus on the initial statement I made and keep going off track - my point was that he decided to publicly shame CNN for (what he says) is reporting on fake news (which is NOT TRUE, as evidenced above - another lie), and in turn answers a question from Brietbart. I've shown you numerous examples so far of their upstanding journalism and how we can all pretty much agree it's a fake news mill and is as unfair and balanced as they come. Yet, if Trump has an issue with journalistic integrity and decided not to take a question from CNN, calling their entire organization unfair and trash, he takes a question from Brietbart? It sounds very much like he has no interest in how moral and ethical the news organization is, but rather simply will just shame anyone who reports on fakes that aren't to his liking.

I take it you have no interest in the journalistic integrity of the organization either, as it seems like you're entire stance on CNN having their press credentials revoked hinges upon the time that they released an article that was 100% factual in nature. I'm raising issue with your view that you absolutely loathe CNN for what they did to your knight in shining armor, but can't even follow through with a universal set of standards that you'd like all news outlets to uphold - like I said, it shouldn't be this hard for you to reach the conclusion that if CNN can't ask questions, neither can Brietbart. You just have an issue with them releasing an article that wasn't in favor of your candidate, you can't go and say "press credentials" should be revoked over that and let Brietbart still ask questions. It's illogical and 100% goes against the standards you just outlined should be followed.

1/16/17

Yawn. Dude, I know your argument. You've repeated it 15 times. Plain fact is this "report" was known for months and no one, including HRC, touched it because it is ludicrous and unverifiable. CNN reported on it the day of Trumps press conference to slam him. They used Buzzfeed as their cover because no one was going to report on this trash first. Buzzfeed (what a joke) posted the entire, leaked document (our wonderful intelligence agencies at work) and CNN went right to town.

1) Yes, CNN is fake news. They knew this "report" was garbage, so much so that Huffpo didn't post it, yet ran a story, linking to the entire report on Buzzfeed, the day of Trumps speech (interesting timing).

2) I hold CNN to a higher standard than Breitbart and Buzzfeed.

3) Pizzagate is a similar outlandish concept. You used that as your evidence that Trump keeping Breitbart around while condemning Buzzfeed and CNN is hypocritical. Breitbart reported on Pizzagate once someone shot a gun inside the shop. The shooting was the story and the insane Pizzas shit was the background.

So not the same.

4) I honestly do not trust the intelligence community blindly. I think the CIA,NSA, etc are warmongering. I think they are looking for conflict, I think Trump is a challenge to them. CIA lost credibility with me during Iraq. They lost credibility with me for not taking the information the Russians gave them to strop the Boston Bombers.

5) Trumps stance on climate change and me trusting him are not the same.

6) This election has shown that the mainstream news is a) damaging to this country, b) completely pro establishment, and c) anti-Trump.

I want all of their press privileges revoked. I honestly read very little mainstream news, preferring to read books or journal articles on important subjects. I blame mainstream media for the racial issues we have now. I believe it was CNN that perpetuated the "hands up, don't shoot" myth that has been a rallying cry against cops. I believe mainstream media continually misrepresents facts. It is yellow journalism.

One last thing. Suppose it is true. Suppose Trump flew to Moscow, rented out the Presidential suite and paid hookers to piss on the mattress Obama slept on. Suppose Putin has all this dirt on Trump.

And then what? Is Putin going to blackmail Trump to allow an invasion force to land and take over the USA? What exactly is this supposed leverage over Trump going to do?

Unless you truly believe Putin is preparing to invade Europe and nuke the USA, this means nothing.

See, this is the CIA, NSA, military industrial complex talking. We're always at war with Russia. USSR breaks up and NATO expands. It is sickening. Russia has far more important things to deal with than invading the Ukraine. It is just comical this forever Russian boogyman. God damn. I hope you're the first to sign up for the draft when we go to war with Russia. Fucking A. NeoCon central up in here.

Conclusion.

I am done responding to you on this subject. Frankly, what Trump wants he will do. I never watch or read CNN, nor does anyone I personally know. It isn't news, it isn't informative and at best it is junk, at worst it is damaging to this country. I also don't read or give a shit about Breitbart, Huffpo, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, MSNBC, or any of those partisan trash sites.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/16/17
TNA:

2/10.

Wonderful post.

Steam - "all CNN did was report that Trump had been briefed on it"

Here is the same day article from CNN that kicked off the storm:http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-...

Includes a link to Buzzfeeds report. Links to Mother Jones (what a source!). So no, they didn't JUST report that a 2 page document with potential damaging information on Trump was reviewed.http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/how-the-media-di...

Ahhhh, look at this.

1) NBC News undermined a key part of CNN's bombshell report in its own coverage: Trump was not briefed on the allegations Russia had compromising material on him. Furthermore, the American intelligence community considers the wild report on Trump's links to Russia "unvetted disinformation."

2)Then came the thorough discrediting of damning portions of the dossier that tied Trump to Russia. One such claim included the report that Trump adviser Michael Cohen had met with Russian officials in Prague last August. It turned out Cohen was in the U.S. that whole time and it was a different Michael Cohen who visited the Czech Republic.

Listen son, you fucked up, you thought ArcherVice or any other avid HIllary supporter or anyone committing the mental gymnastics to give a free pass for their candidate (now we're back to the contention of your main post) would ever actually read for themselves what CNN published and thought about it....nope, they regurgitate the hate they're fed, you can read back during the campaign on this site and see key lines and contentions from Pundits stream out of his posts.

Get Woke Bro. And next time you snarkily shit on someone for not reading something, I suggest you read it yourself. CNN leapt at the chance to report on this. They didn't do basic fact checking. The "report" was circulating during the election and it was only released on the eve of Trumps press conference. It's unverifiable, its ludicrous, and key elements of the story were disproven almost immediately. CNN was beyond sloppy in reporting this and their timing is obviously suspect.

You aren't even following your own advice. They did not link to the BuzzFeed article at all. I just clicked your link and it takes me to another CNN article.
https://youtu.be/ugR24uivqw8?t=27m32s

Here's where you got your fake news - https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/81933763...

So far, you claimed CNN put out fake information, linked to a BuzzFeed article, among other things - none of which are true.

1/11/17
Steam:

Just imagine the outrage certain people would have if Hillary had won, and announced she was appointing her daughter to take over all her business interests so as to avoid an obvious "conflict of interest".

This difference is, liberal Democrat politicians don't earn their money in business; they are given their money through lucrative, unprofitable (for the publisher) book deals, speeches, and for putting their name on a law firm's resume.

1/11/17

I don't know what this is refuting. My use of the word business? I was wrapping up non-profit initiatives within that scope as well; replace it with Chelsea Clinton running anything and everything she ever put her name on, for that matter, if it makes you feel better.

1/11/17
Steam:

I don't know what this is refuting. My use of the word business? I was wrapping up non-profit initiatives within that scope as well; replace it with Chelsea Clinton running anything and everything she ever put her name on, for that matter, if it makes you feel better.

Pretty sure the Clinton Foundation was live and well while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In fact, its donations were bigger than ever from foreign countries. Ya know, how the Saudis were giving money for women's rights issues...

1/11/17

And it produced expansive talking points on the matter for how much "corruption" she was involved with - did it not? Would putting Chelsea's name on them have relieved any concern from people who were outspoken about it?

1/11/17
Steam:

And it produced expansive talking points on the matter for how much "corruption" she was involved with - did it not? Would putting Chelsea's name on them have relieved any concern from people who were outspoken about it?

There's a fundamental difference--Trump is already a billionaire. The Clintons, by their own admission, were "poor" coming out of the White House. Donations to their "foundation" and giving them $500,000 to appear for a 30-minute speech created their wealth. Being someone's financial kingmaker could have a lot more influence than offering what amounts to offering a millionaire a $20 bribe.

EDIT: So let's put this into perspective. A $20,000 stay (net profit) at a Trump hotel, assuming he is a 100% owner, to a guy worth $4 billion, is the equivalent to offering a person worth $1 million a $5 bribe. Think about that.

1/11/17

Yes, but telling the head of the IRS to avoid auditing your businesses, or the AG to not pursue any investigations into your businesses, or pursuing trade deals or economic policies because they benefit the businesses you own? That's far worse than anything mentioned, and far more lucrative for Mr. Trump if he were to do it. (How much cash do you think The Trump Organization has stashed overseas? I'm sure that Trump would love to repatriate some of that for his personal benefit.)

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/11/17
N0DuckingWay:

Yes, but telling the head of the IRS to avoid auditing your businesses, or the AG to not pursue any investigations into your businesses, or pursuing trade deals or economic policies because they benefit the businesses you own? That's far worse than anything mentioned, and far more lucrative for Mr. Trump if he were to do it. (How much cash do you think The Trump Organization has stashed overseas? I'm sure that Trump would love to repatriate some of that for his personal benefit.)

When was a sitting president ever audited by the IRS? Good lord, talk about setting up straw men to tear them down. So in your mind the only way for a businessman to be president is to liquidate 100% of assets? What you're saying doesn't even make sense. If Trump kept $4 billion in dollar denominated cash or in US T-bills he could still affect those investments through policy!

1/12/17

Not as much, if he puts it in a bind trust. And even then, there are many more Americans that are invested in the markets than own businesses

And btw, the IRS and multiple former IRS commissioners have stated that an audit does not prevent him from releasing his taxes, so he doesn't even have that excuse. (Not a fan of USA Today, but here's the story: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpoli... )

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/12/17
N0DuckingWay:

Not as much, if he puts it in a bind trust. And even then, there are many more Americans that are invested in the markets than own businesses

And btw, the IRS and multiple former IRS commissioners have stated that an audit does not prevent him from releasing his taxes, so he doesn't even have that excuse. (Not a fan of USA Today, but here's the story: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpoli... )

Again, try to process this basic fact--Trump, as President, would have more direct impact on a portfolio of cash and T-bills than he would on a portfolio of real estate. It would take Trump his entire first term to sell off ~$10 billion of real estate assets, so no matter what you think (even if Trump agreed with your asinine position and sold), Trump would have a huge business empire of properties that he knows about for at least 1 presidential term.

BTW, I'm not sure the relevance of your USA Today article since I never argued that an audit prevented Trump from releasing his tax returns. I argued that your position that Trump could order his IRS commissioner not to audit his business basically means that no President--ever--could own a business while President, regardless of size. That just defies commonsense and is an invitation to the least qualified people in America to run for president.

Just admit this basic fact that we all know--you hate Trump personally and oppose him politically. You care about his business not for ethics reasons but because you hate Trump and you think it's an effective attack on him. Just admit that. We all know that's the case.

1/12/17

A: he could probably sell the Trump Organization, which holds all his real estate assets, in 1-2 years. Larger and more complex sales have been completed in less time.

B. Yes he has a more direct impact on the value of t-bills, but do you think he'd really concern himself with the couple of basis points he could earn by trying to manipulate them? And again, that's not anywhere near as bad of a conflict of interest, considering that the majority of Americans hold T bills in their retirement accounts and that most large corporations hold them as cash equivalents.

C. You said "when was a sitting audited by the IRS". I assumed that you were referring to the fact that he claims he is currently being audited by the IRS, and has been using that as an excuse to not release his tax returns. That being said, the IRS examines the POTUS's tax returns every year: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-1...

D. I fully admit to hating Trump. He's the most offensive, least qualified candidate that the country has seen in decades (with the possible exception of Ben Carson on that second point), he's proven that he has absolutely no regard for facts or transparency, and he lied throughout his campaign. I personally believe that this country is worse off with him as president, and will be demonstrably worse off in four years when his term is up.

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/12/17
N0DuckingWay:

A: he could probably sell the Trump Organization, which holds all his real estate assets, in 1-2 years. Larger and more complex sales have been completed in less time.

Really? Trump could sell off his entire $10+ billion of disparate, international real estate assets that are in various phases of development in 1-2 years? Wow. As a real estate pro I can tell you that simple development deals can take 6+ months just to negotiate the operating agreement between LP and GP. I'm in month 9 on a vanilla, $15 million self-storage deal. I'm in month 24 on the contract for a sale of a $12 million piece of land. Trump's assets would probably be the single hardest assets in real estate to value since a disproportionate amount of value is in the name. How do you value a Trump property when the Trump name may or may not be attached to the property in 10 years? The "market" for the property without the Trump name could easily be some large % discount, making it impossible to come to terms.

N0DuckingWay:

B. Yes he has a more direct impact on the value of t-bills, but do you think he'd really concern himself with the couple of basis points he could earn by trying to manipulate them? And again, that's not anywhere near as bad of a conflict of interest, considering that the majority of Americans hold T bills in their retirement accounts and that most large corporations hold them as cash equivalents.>

Wow, this position is truly amazing on a finance board. A few basis points on billions of dollars can create huge absolute fluctuations in the underlying value of the assets. What you're saying is demonstrably false, that a person with a portfolio of $4 billion of T-bills would not have incentive to manipulate markets. That's just...wrong, and mathematically easy to show.

Again, what you're saying is that anyone who owns a business should not be allowed to be President because there could be some generic, unknowable, undetermined conflict-of-interest. This position only makes sense if you're a liberal Democrat and you are a lifelong loser who is only good at politics, and your wealth is accrued after public service, as a direct result of your public service. Makes sense why you oppose businessmen being public servants.

N0DuckingWay:

C. You said "when was a sitting audited by the IRS". I assumed that you were referring to the fact that he claims he is currently being audited by the IRS, and has been using that as an excuse to not release his tax returns. That being said, the IRS examines the POTUS's tax returns every year: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-1...

Your criticism doesn't even make sense. This defies logic. What difference does it make if Trump owns a business or not? Trump could direct the IRS away from his personal, non-business finances the same as he could his business. In what way would liquidating his assets prevent Trump from preventing the IRS from doing its job? That makes no sense at all. Think about what you're saying before you say something. Jesus Christ.

This is such a bullshit criticism and speaks to line D. below. You know as well as I do that if Trump publicly directed the IRS away from his finances in contention with the law and/or precedent that the entire news media, liberal and conservative, would be all over it. The media and the public are a check on the power of the presidency.

N0DuckingWay:

D. I fully admit to hating Trump. He's the most offensive, least qualified candidate that the country has seen in decades (with the possible exception of Ben Carson on that second point), he's proven that he has absolutely no regard for facts or transparency, and he lied throughout his campaign. I personally believe that this country is worse off with him as president, and will be demonstrably worse off in four years when his term is up.

How can you say that you personally believe the country is worse off with Trump as President when he hasn't even been inaugurated? Your unhinged bias is so transparent and irrational that it doesn't even make sense.

1/13/17

A: like I've said a couple times now, I'm not talking about selling off his assets piecemeal, I'm talking about selling the entire company as one. There are much larger companies that I've dealt with that have gone in less time than I'm talking about.

B. Really? Are you actually implying that his ability to nudge Treasury yields up or down by a percent or two is at all comparable to the returns he could earn by changing laws to benefit hisbusinesses?

C. You clearly didn't even read what I wrote, or what you wrote, for that matter. I never mentioned his business in the context of his audit. You said "when has a sitting president been audited by the IRS." As I said above, I originally misinterpreted what you said, and then responded with a link that says the president is audited by the IRS every year.

D. Because I've had over a year since here announced his candidacy to listen to him in debates, hear his speeches, read about his policy proposals, and make an informed vote. His thoughts on the economy (read: tax policies for cash repatriation and encouraging the repatriation of manufacturing jobs) might work out well for us. His thoughts on nuclear proliferation, international relations, race relations, and a whole host of other issues scare the crap out of me.

And while we're on the topic of biases, I find it very ironic that you're complaining about my bias. I've supported my opinions with facts, articles, etc., and completely avoided using ad-hominems or attacking you personally. You've done none of those tthings.

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/13/17
N0DuckingWay:

A: like I've said a couple times now, I'm not talking about selling off his assets piecemeal, I'm talking about selling the entire company as one. There are much larger companies that I've dealt with that have gone in less time than I'm talking about.

Serious question--do you know the first thing about Trump's businesses? He has over 500 separate businesses and at least $5+ billion in disparate, international real estate. Who exactly would be the target buyer for a portfolio that includes golf courses in Florida, a Virginia winery, Argentine hotels, and steaks? What you're saying defies logic and commonsense. You would never find a buyer for Trump's business portfolio who would pay him the market value that he would get piecemeal, and to sell a portfolio like that piecemeal would take at least an entire presidential term.

N0DuckingWay:

B. Really? Are you actually implying that his ability to nudge Treasury yields up or down by a percent or two is at all comparable to the returns he could earn by changing laws to benefit hisbusinesses?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying and I'll show you the basic math (and it's basic math, ignoring bond duration):

Your bond value is $100. Your coupon is 2.5% or $2.50. The market yield falls 50 bps to 2.0% but the coupon remains 2.5%. For the bond to yield 2.00% in the secondary market with a $2.50 coupon, the bond price would rise to $122.31 (2.5 / 122.31 = 2.00%). On $4 billion that's a profit of $890 million, which is more than likely more money than Trump has ever made in a single year in his entire life.

You can see that a guy at the lever of power could easily use his position to manipulate his bond-denominated wealth.

N0DuckingWay:

C. You clearly didn't even read what I wrote, or what you wrote, for that matter. I never mentioned his business in the context of his audit. You said "when has a sitting president been audited by the IRS." As I said above, I originally misinterpreted what you said, and then responded with a link that says the president is audited by the IRS every year.

No, I read exactly what you said and your argument is specious. You're saying that a president that owns a business could direct the IRS to NOT audit his business. That's a specious argument because a president inclined to direct the IRS not to audit his business could direct the IRS not to audit his own personal finances, so what difference does it make if he has a business or not?

N0DuckingWay:

D. Because I've had over a year since here announced his candidacy to listen to him in debates, hear his speeches, read about his policy proposals, and make an informed vote. His thoughts on the economy (read: tax policies for cash repatriation and encouraging the repatriation of manufacturing jobs) might work out well for us. His thoughts on nuclear proliferation, international relations, race relations, and a whole host of other issues scare the crap out of me.

<

p>And while we're on the topic of biases, I find it very ironic that you're complaining about my bias. I've supported my opinions with facts, articles, etc., and completely avoided using ad-hominems or attacking you personally. You've done none of those tthings.

You have posted links to articles that don't back up your positions. Congratulations. I don't need to post links to show you that your arguments are invalid and not based in logic or reason.

1/13/17

A. You're right, it would be hard to sell, I'll give you that. He'd probably also have to sell at a steep discount. I also don't really care about that point. The President's job is to act in the country's best interests, and that means getting rid of any conflicts of interest. If Donald Trump isn't willing to do that or can't do that, then he shouldn't have run for president. On a more general level, at some point, there will be another businessman who will run for president, and this is almost certainly a conflict of interest that we as a country will want to have taken care of by then.

B. It's basic bond math, which you also got wrong. The correct answer (assuming you're talking about 30 yr Treasuries) is $449m of return, a 10% return, roughly, much less than he could earn on his business in one year. And as I've said multiple times before and you've ignored multiple times, most Americans (at least, the ones that are older than millennials) hold Treasuries in their retirement accounts. at least any corruption that benefits Treasuries also benefits most Americans to some degree. Besides, if he were to put his assets in a blind trust, he likely wouldn't know enough about his assets to manipulate them through policy.

C. It was one example, but you're right. Happily, though, that problem is also solved (partially) by putting all his assets in a blind trust, so that he doesn't have control over his sources of income outside of the salary he receives as president.

D. A "logical" and "reasonable" argument doesn't involve ad-hominems. You're disproving your own poitems

E. It's obvious that neither of us is going to be convinced that we're wrong about what Trump should do with his business. We both seem to have forgotten the key rule of political debates on the internet: they're a waste of time. That being said, I'm done with this one. Have a good weekend.

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/15/17

To your point, there's no point in going back and forth with you, but I will point out two things:

1) The bond math isn't wrong. As I pointed out, it's not a 30-year, 30-day, etc. bond or t-bill. I SPECIFICALLY stated that I'm ignoring duration, so how you could come to the conclusion that you assume I'm talking about a 30-year bond is literally mind-blowing. It's just a basic experiment in the numbers. The math isn't wrong. Regardless, if you assume a 30-year T-bond one can simply Google the calculator and get a 10-11% return. That's actually a huge number. I really don't think you know much about real estate because a $4 billion (net equity) portfolio of mature real estate assets would not be expected to throw off a 10% annual return; it would be expected to throw off less than 5% (leveraged real estate developments on class A NYC property would throw off, at best, 6 or 7% YOC).

And your comment about interest rate manipulation at least helping the larger market is also specious. For every bondholder who benefits from a rate increase/decrease there is a bondholder or bond-buyer that is on the losing side.

2) I haven't used any ad-hominem on you at all. You're literally making stuff up. Show me. What name have I called you? I've pointed out--correctly--that your bias has left you completely unhinged. I haven't called you any names at all.

1/16/17

We were talking explicitly about Treasuries, so I assumed your example was talking about them. And I misread what you were saying, so I apologize for that. I assumed you were talking about duration as in "change in the value of the bond for a given change in yield", not "life of bond" (meaning, I assumed you were saying you didn't compute returns based on duration). either way, I think we both agree that the returns in your example benefitted significantly from the assumption that there was no maturity date, which is an assumption you can't really make for a normal bond.

B. There's the time you said that I was "unhinged".

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/13/17
Steam:

All of a sudden it's okay to push the president to release his long-form birth certificate, but releasing tax returns is going way too far and not at all what the American people want. I'd hope that at some point, people start realizing this behavior is not to be tolerated, because you're setting a precedent that any president can act this way - think about how it'd be in 4 years if a Democrat gets elected and starts behaving in a similar manner...this should be a bipartisan issue, for the sake of all of us.

"They're under audit by the IRS"

1/11/17

1.) his plan is a joke
2.) congress should extend all conflict of interest laws to both the president and the vp, no clue why they're exempt
3.) congress should pass a law that requires confirmed presidential candidates to release their tax returns, idk why he hasn't released them but it is getting shadier and shadier.
4.) check out this hilarious quote from his clown show: "I will be the greatest jobs producer that God ever created". How humble & realistic.

p.s. edited the quote for accuracy

1/11/17

Number 4) seems right out of Kim Jong-un's mouth, honestly can't believe this is the type of stuff coming from our president

1/11/17

I agree with the spirit of your argument that POTUS from the private sector should have no involvement in their empires while in office.

out of curiosity, and not because I'm a fanboy, what do you hope to glean from trump's tax returns? from a practical standpoint, what would it prove? if they show his businesses aren't that profitable, so what? if it shows he doesn't pay a lot in taxes, so what? if he's doing something illegal, that's another story, but I doubt that'd show up on his tax returns.

are you trying to catch him in hypocrisy? like if he demonizes wall street but then has all his money with goldman, what does that tell you?

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, because I don't particularly care about the personal finances of POTUS, so long as there aren't conflicts of interest while in office

"The four most dangerous words in investing are: 'this time it's different.'" - Sir John Templeton

"The investor's chief problem - and even his worst enemy - is likely to be himself." - Benjamin Graham

1/11/17

No clue what is in his returns. I think if it were a simple "his effective tax rate is close to zero" he'd have released them by now. I am genuinely concerned that he isn't releasing them for some unsavory reason or another. No idea what. Never cared about it before but it used to just be ho-hum. Release and examine, maybe in the news cycle for a few days if something pops. The idea that he has extended the tax return story for months now with no foreseeable benefit to doing so makes me think there is more to worry about than the ho-hum. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but my speculation only exists because he allows it to.

1/11/17
BobTheBaker:

No clue what is in his returns. I think if it were a simple "his effective tax rate is close to zero" he'd have released them by now. I am genuinely concerned that he isn't releasing them for some unsavory reason or another.

If whatever Trump is doing is illegal the DOJ and IRS have had the subpoena and audit power for decades over Trump, so why isn't Trump in jail?

1/11/17

Find the word "illegal" anywhere in what you just quoted then I'll muster a response.

1/11/17
BobTheBaker:

Find the word "illegal" anywhere in what you just quoted then I'll muster a response.

What are you implying with the word "unsavory"? There is no such thing as "unsavory" taxes--you're either obeying the law or you're evading taxes, which is illegal.

1/11/17

It's endless. We both know that Trump's taxes are going to be used to demean and mock him. This is how it works. Trump was a Presidential candidate. I am sure his taxes were vetted for any criminality prior to the election.

Remember when a couple pages of his taxes were "leaked" to the NYTimes? No criminal issues. Showed he had a loss. The press went nuts mocking his business prowess because of the loss. That is just a taste of what they want to do. They treated Obama and Hillary with kid gloves, but Trump needs the screws put to him endlessly. Hillary and all her misgivings were just brushed under the rug. Mainstream news gave approximately zero coverage to the Wikileaks emails.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/11/17

Or you're doing something that isn't illegal but would look bad to the American public.

Plus, his public persona is probably the most imporant reason for his success. A large part of his persona involves his success as a businessman. If it turns out that he's not nearly as successful as the average American thinks he is, and that he's been lying to the American public, then I'd say that's pretty important. Remember, lies were a large part of what cost Hillary her candidacy.

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/11/17
N0DuckingWay:

Or you're doing something that isn't illegal but would look bad to the American public.

Plus, his public persona is probably the most imporant reason for his success. A large part of his persona involves his success as a businessman. If it turns out that he's not nearly as successful as the average American thinks he is, and that he's been lying to the American public, then I'd say that's pretty important. Remember, lies were a large part of what cost Hillary her candidacy.

To TNA's point, you partisan hacks will tear his tax returns apart no matter what they say, so what's the point in even releasing them if you're Trump? The polls say the average American wants Trump to release his tax returns, but the average American ultimately doesn't really care (if they did care then he wouldn't have gotten elected). It serves no purpose for Trump.

1/12/17

You're talking about whether it made sense from a strategic point of view, but frankly, WHO CARES ABOUT THAT?!? The thing that's amusing about this conversation (with you and TNA) is that neither of you are even attempting to argue that him hiding his tax returns was anything but an attempt to hide something from the American public. Conservatives dragged Hillary through the mud over who donated to her charity, and then largely turned around and says that they don't care about whether they get the same kind of information about Trump's businesses and personal finances.

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/12/17

You are twisting words. I do not think there is anything illegal or shady in his taxes. I think they show a revenue figure that isn't in the billions. Trump is an asset billionaire and probably a most revenue millionaire.

He isn't hiding anything from the people. The taxes could be released and a PDF sent to every American and no one would care. What the issue is the lying press wants to see these taxes and pick every single line item apart and make it into a news story.

Just look at this Russian shit. Months of endless "Trump & Putin" propaganda. It never ends. The press is being blatantly biased and their drum beat to release the taxes is just wolves begging for more red meat.

Hillary Clinton's charity and Trumps taxes are not the same. Hillary has been in the public light her entire life. The issue was her selling influence during her time as the Sec. of State. Trump was a private citizen his whole life. Unless you believe the Russians are alien geniuses and predicted Trump winning years ago and started bankrolling him back then, you'll find nothing in his taxes but private business dealings.

You're not being honest in your statements. You know full well that his taxes will show some line item with a Russian entity and the press with jump on it for months about proven ties to Russia. They are looking for anything to run on their news cycle. This isn't about transparency for the American people. This is about giving weapons to your enemy.

If the news was fair to Trump I would support you, but at this point I think CNN and MSNBC should be shut out of the new White House. There is absolutely no reason to have a fictional, left wing "news" source coming to the Presidential press conference, being rude and looking for anything to damage this administration. Yellow journalism is dangerous and needs to be stopped.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/16/17

Are you really making the argument that we shouldn't release information that might potentially be scrutinized? The "average American" - according to polls, does care (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/314483-...). Also - he lost the popular vote, so I think your stance that if they did, he wouldn't have gotten elected holds no merit. More Americans voted for Hillary than they did Trump.

1/11/17

Trump is successful because he was a developer first and then a brand. The guys successful. He's had success and failure, like any good business person. His tax returns will show income, not his asset value. I'd imagine tax returns like his would be massive and complex. If there are issues, the IRS will address them. He's been a controversial public figure for a while now and his tax bracket is where the IRS focuses. Considering Obama hasn't had a good opinion of Trump and it's been shown that the IRS has an issue with conservatives, I have no doubt Trump got a good looking at.

The American public got angry about tax inversion. They don't know their head from their ass. Trumps taxes will be twisted by the Press to attack him. The Press is biased towards the left and they have no interest in moving forward and reporting the news.

Additionally, it is not required by law to release your taxes. He theoretically doesn't have to do it. Also, his taxes are on a complexity level far and away higher than just about every other candidate. This is a massive, multi national business.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17
TNA:

Additionally, it is not required by law to release your taxes.

The favorite line of butthurt conservatives everywhere. The fact is that whether or not he actually has to release them is irrelevant (unfortunately). And who cares about the fact that they could be complicated?! That honestly doesn't change a thing. The fact is that anyone who cares about government transparency and corruption should be up in arms about the fact that we don't know anything about Trump's financial position.
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/07/27/why-is-t...

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/12/17

Not sure why conservatives would be butt hurt, a Republican won. But I digress.

The fact is he is not required. It is a practice that began in the 70's and has continued. Just like the practice of a sitting President not campaigning against a Presidential candidate. Sometimes tradition is broken.

Lets just assume the worst. Trump isn't as rich as he says, his businesses lost money, he pays a lower tax rate than most people and he gives nothing to charity. Cool. Still got my vote.

Government transparency? So knowing what Trump paid in taxes is what you care about? Not what government agencies do with your tax money? Do you know Trumps blood type? Or is he not being transparent about that?

Trump ran on being rich and paying as little in tax as possible. He's either in the middle of an audit or, more likely, realizes his taxes will just be used as a weapon against him in the media. I can far more about repealing Obamacare, cutting corporate taxes, bringing real jobs back to the US, having actual infrastructure projects and less foreign intervention and wars.

That's just the opinion of a butt hurt populist.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

Butt hurt because the Dems haven't let go of the tax return issue yet. And if that's all there is in his tax returns, then he'd be no worse off than Romney or Bush Jr., who both were very wealthy and had significant business experience (though on both accounts less than Trump).

And if the media does use it against him, so what? The American people deserve to know where his potential conflicts of interest lie. And if he releases them and people do get upset about something that's in them, there's one very quick way to get over it: promise to sell the business.

Also, if, as you said above, most Americans don't care about what's in his tax returns, then why not release them? At most, the controversy would've likely taken a few days or weeks of the campaign (especially if he countered it by selling his business). Instead, it's been a slow burn over the past few months that will probably hang over his presidency.

"There's nothing you can do if you're too scared to try." - Nickel Creek

1/17/17

Republicans aren't conservatives. And haven't been in your lifetime.

TNA:

Not sure why conservatives would be butt hurt, a Republican won the electoral college.

Fixed that for you.

1/17/17

Socially conservative or however they describe themselves.

You know, it took me a second to see what you did and when I figured it out I let out a groan.Trump won. Full stop. That little snark about the electoral college is bullshit and you know it.

This election has always been about getting to 270. Only when Hillary lost did this outcry over the popular vote start.

Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida on his path to 270. This is far more impressive than Hillary racking up the votes in liberal California and New York. In order to win the Presidency you need to be President for the whole country, not just densely packed cities and a few states. Imagine if we have a purely populistic election. Democrats would never waste their time anywhere other than liberal cities and a few states. Sorry, but that isn't what the founding fathers wanted.

Trump won. It is done. Hillary ran a shitty campaign. I'd respect Democrats more if they just owned up to the fact that they pushed a candidate that was equally as unliked as Trump and that person ran a campaign that ignored traditional Democrats and made gaffe after gaffe. Hillary refused to do press conferences, called tens of millions "deplorable" (that trumps Romney's gaffe), couldn't match Trumps energy level and lost even though the press was entirely in her pocket and she outraised and outspent Trump by epic proportions.

Naaaaa. Instead Democrats push this trash "Russia Hacked Us" and push that Trump is an illegitimate President. It is delicious watching Democrats twist even though they crucified Trump for not saying he'd respect the election results.

Oh, and Obama. Campaigned against Trump in unprecedented fashion. Now working to undermine the transition. I am sure as a private citizen he will do what Bush did and fade from public life (hope you got the sarcasm). You know, I was happy Trump was consolatory towards Hillary when he won. I was happy he was respectful when he first met Obama. Now? I want him to destroy Obama's legacy and put Hillary in jail for life. Just like with snakes, the second you show mercy and let your boot off their throat, they bite you.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

BTW, looked at your link. The author, Melissa Yeager, has a hard on for Trump. Checked out her Twitter as well. Hardly unbiased. She has an agenda and it isn't "transparency".

Edit - Oh man, her Twitter is great. She'll be working for Huffpo shortly. What a joke.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/14/17

Giving $0 to charity when you're worth billions is "unsavory" and in no way illegal.

1/12/17

didn't he say he is not releasing his tax returns because they are under audit? Here is the logic behind why it would be a pain to release them

"That said, as a tax attorney, I don't know that I'd be so quick to advise that he should release the returns to the public. Once the returns are made public, they'll be picked apart - by Cruz, by Rubio, by the media, by Clinton, by Sanders, by the very public he's currently wooing. And even though there might not be anything remarkable on those returns, having any potential flaws highlighted during an audit makes the returns a little more difficult to defend. While the audit - which Trump calls "routine" - might be focused on, say, dividends or related entities, it can't help to have the public asking questions about foreign accounts or charitable contributions (which I fully expect to happen). In that regard, while Trump could release those returns, if I were his tax advisor, I wouldn't want him to."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/...

1/11/17

Heard that quote live, straight from the horse's mouth. Can confirm it's not fake news.

1/11/17

Want some cheese with that whine? Fucking baby.

Trumps business plan is great and right out of the Republican hand book. Lower taxes, lower regulation, pro business administration with a focus on bringing real jobs back the to US.

He's putting his real estate business into a blind trust and he's focusing on being president. Dudes 70, very wealthy and this is the apex of his legacy. How exactly is he supposed to do more than he is? Liquidate his business? Get real.

All this carping about conflict of interest is just belly aching from the left. Hillary had no problem with her foundation and getting paid to speak at big banks. It was a "witch hunt" when Republicans made a fuss about foreign donations to the foundation.

Congress should do that stuff, but they haven't. So move on. Trumps taxes are complex and will show him to be poorer than he says. The taxes were used against Romney to show his wealth and were to be used against trump to make him look poor.

Trumps already creating jobs, something clownbama couldn't do.

I'll let you get back to finding racism in your bowl of cheerios.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/11/17

A respected member of this site has gone full troll, truly dumbfounding.

1/11/17

You literally bitch on every trump thread. The guys entire administration is pro business focused. Companies are already building plants because they are afraid of trump. He's talking about cutting corporate taxes and getting billions of overseas money repatriated. Trump ran on immigration and jobs. His tweet about being the best job president or whatever is hyperbole, but he's going to be completely focused on jobs.

As for his taxes, you know the only reason people want to see it is to tear him apart as not being as rich as he says.

Sorry if you think disagreeing with your obviously biased posts as being a troll. I consider someone who posts without being informed and injects racism into every conversation a troll. To each their own.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/11/17
TNA:

You literally bitch on every trump thread. The guys entire administration is pro business focused. Companies are already building plants because they are afraid of trump. He's talking about cutting corporate taxes and getting billions of overseas money repatriated. Trump ran on immigration and jobs. His tweet about being the best job president or whatever is hyperbole, but he's going to be completely focused on jobs.

As for his taxes, you know the only reason people want to see it is to tear him apart as not being as rich as he says.

Sorry if you think disagreeing with your obviously biased posts as being a troll. I consider someone who posts without being informed and injects racism into every conversation a troll. To each their own.

You claim to knock everyone else who "isn't informed" so please cite us some sources that we should be reading where you're getting the claims in your previous posts that:

1) "Clownbama" created no jobs
2) Trump's taxes can't show anything of interest to anyone
3) Which companies are building plants in the US 100% because they are afraid of Trump

The dude straight up said, verbatim "I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!" while his son claimed "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," that they "see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." and that he had traveled to Russia six times in 18 months.

Transparency is good for all of us. What benefit do you even get out of making this behavior the new standard. If you have some qualms and concerns about the next President after Trump, would you want them to behave the same way? You see it as a personal attack on your candidate, but people are concerned for much further down the road than you are viewing their criticism from - this affects all of us, not just Democrats.

1/11/17

Deals with Russia (the Country) =/= investments from Russian citizens/banks. How is this difficult to comprehend.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17
BobTheBaker:

A respected member of this site has gone full troll, truly dumbfounding.

Hold on a sec. TNA has been this way for the better part of a decade, and I'm not sure his political views are more extreme than yours'. The fact that he is well-respected in spite of how he deals with people he disagrees with speaks volumes about the quality of his posts.

And while we're throwing critiques around... our country has had Bush Derangement Syndrome, Obama Derangement Syndrome (birtherism), and now Trump Derangement Syndrome. I suspect you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome just like I suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome when I was in undergrad.

It sucks to be a liberal and have a conservative in power. It certainly feels more oppressive than being a conservative with a liberal in power. Especially if everyone is telling you the current political situation is unprecedented. (It always is, but CNN and MSNBC which lean a bit to the left tend to call it more unprecedented when a Republican is in power) But while Trump can fiddle around with your food stamps or maybe even illegal immigrants, there's very little that Trump or any president can do to harm your everyday deontological rights. Congress needs to win the next election, and voters get angry when you take away their rights.

1/12/17

what exactly is "extreme" about my views?

1/11/17

Eric "TNA" Trump with yet another insightful post. Dude def rolls around with a "NOBama" and a "Hillary 4 Prison!" bumper sticker on his Volkswagen.

1/11/17

Cool post. We should have elected Hillary. I'm sure her antagonize and demonizing Russia would have been great. New taxes and regulations, as well as keeping Obamacare would have been amazing for the economy and job front.

Market seems to be optimistic about Trump. Considering a rate hike didn't slow the market down business seems optimistic about our new President.

Ahhh, I forgot. Trumps literally Hitler. Literally the devil. My bad.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/11/17

Cmon man. I don't agree with a lot of what Trump does, but I'm at the level where I've graduated from college - I come on this site to learn and give advice to incoming students and share in some debate back and forth - honestly to open my eyes and learn something myself.

You're a mid-20s/30s working professional calling people "fucking babies" on the internet and dismissing every criticism anyone holds to the candidate you voted for. Grow up.

1/11/17

It's called having a discussion. People disagree. I'm mobile, but when I have time I'll post the job stats. Plain fact is Trump got elected and there has been an endless stream of topics that just boil down to shitting on trump and brining up minutia.

Should he release his taxes? Sure. Do I expect the left to shut up once they are released? Absolutely not.

As for this Russia shit, I am so over it. It was a created story to deflect from the damaging content of the DNC and Podesta emails. There has been zero proof and I've read through both reports.

Jobs created under Obama have been part time or low paying service jobs. This is a structural shift, but also indicative of him not focusing on the economy. His stimulus was largely ineffective and we have one of the lowest labor force participation in recent history. If you look at the components of GDP, our growth has been fueled through govt spending and consumer debt. Not healthy GDP.

There's a reason why Sanders and trump did as well as they did and it's because people are hurting.

Furthermore, I've had similar discussions with the same people over the course of this election. I shut my mouth in the beginning, but they trump trashing got too much. This discussion is not in a vacuum. People are making Trump threads every other day and the same misinformation is repeated day in and day out.

Data -
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/jobs-...

11MM jobs were created during Obama. 47% were "high paying". Almost all were in the service industry, with about half being in retail, restaurant services and admin.

Labor Force Participation
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

I went back to 1980. Lowest levels in 36 years. It declined steadily while Obama was in office. This is why the unemployment rate declined.

Disability
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibGraphs.html#2

Significant and sustained increase in people filing for disability. The definition was loosened and this is reflective of a depressed labor market.

National Debt - Doubled.

Stock market has rebounded through QE, not real growth.

So this is my data and issue with Obama.

As for Trumps business plan, I am fine with what he is doing. He has a family and a business. This is the issues that happen when you elect a business man. Hillary was fine with her foundation and Bill getting huge speaker fees. The outcry is hypocritical.

As far as Trump being the best jobs President, he saved the jobs at Carrier, Ford is building a new plant, SoftBank has announcing large investments, Alibaba is talking about large investments. Trump isn't even in office.

I think Obama could have done everything Trump is doing. The difference is Obama didn't focus on creating jobs, cutting taxes, reducing regulation or strong arming American companies to hire Americans. He focused on Obamacare (which is a disaster) and raising taxes. He's added endless regulation and selected a cabinet that works against business.

IMO, I should have to post this information as people should know this. This is the basic workings of the US economy. Talking about the unemployment rate and new jobs without knowing what kind of jobs is the shit you read on CNN or some trash local paper. All this information is on the BLS and other government sites for everyone to look at. But here it is now.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/11/17

You can have a discussion without getting to the point where you're calling people "fucking babies".

First you tell us, verbatim, Obama - rather, "Clownbama" - wasn't able to create jobs. That's the statement you left to us with no background, no backstory, no specifics other than that. Then you now clarify here that wait a second - there were jobs created by Obama, just that they were part time or low paying service jobs. So your entire first statement was blatantly false - and you acknowledged it in the follow up post.

"Trumps already creating jobs - something Clownbama couldn't do" vs. "11MM jobs were created during Obama" - both statements made by you.

Yet you're against the spread of misinformation? Cmon dude...do I even have to point out how absurd that is?

On the Russia stuff - there's no proof for what exactly? That he has business dealings with Russia? Were the words from his son not enough for you? I'm confused.

1/11/17

1) I didn't call "people", I called Bob, someone I've discussed with before

2) Clownbama is what people get when they call Trump "clown show"

3) I've edited my post with source information. This should illuminate my point.

a. Obama doesn't create shit. At best he provides an environment for jobs to be created. His environment has created service jobs. If you look at the number of people employed it is actually still negative 1MM so technically he hasn't created any jobs when you look at where we were.

4) I am done talking about Russia. Trumps stated he has no business with Russia. This Russia thing was created as a diversion during the campaign and the fake news does nothing but continue with it.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/11/17

wtf does this have to do with his conflicts of interest? Your ability to hijack and derail a thread is amazing.

1/11/17

I am replying to another post. He's done what he is obligated to do. This is the issue that electing a business person causes. Obama had no conflict of interest because he didn't do anything. Everyone know about the potential issues with Trump. Hillary had the same issues and it took forever for her to state that she would make changes to her foundation to comply.

If you are pissed at the level of separation that Trump is doing, take it up with Congress. This isn't Trump being a dick, it is the laws being vague.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17
TNA:

I am replying to another post. He's done what he is obligated to do. This is the issue that electing a business person causes. Obama had no conflict of interest because he didn't do anything. Everyone know about the potential issues with Trump. Hillary had the same issues and it took forever for her to state that she would make changes to her foundation to comply.

If you are pissed at the level of separation that Trump is doing, take it up with Congress. This isn't Trump being a dick, it is the laws being vague.

I agree that having Trump liquidate all of his assets is not feasible. That said though, having his sons run the business is laughable at best. Do you honestly think he won't talk once with his sons about business over the next 4 years? This is a man who scammed Americans for millions through his fake university.

Finally, it is simply not true that business people cannot avoid conflicts of interest. Last time I checked, Romney was going to put all of his assets into a blind trust. It truly is a shame that Trump will be the defining candidate of the republican party when they had such a competent nominee only 4 years ago.

1/12/17

Romney is a little different. He wasn't running a company and to my knowledge his family wasn't part of his business.

And while I liked Romney, he was too standard of a Republican. He didn't connect with blue collar ppl which voted dem and gave them Michigan, PA, etc. Trump connected with these people who only voted dem because of union support.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/11/17

The amount of disconnect to see how your own statements are contradicting each other is utterly astounding. I do not want to get into all of this back and forth when the topic is obviously going off course. This is literally all I'm going to touch on for right now.

1) Jobs

TNA:

Trumps already creating jobs, something clownbama couldn't do.

TNA:

Jobs created under Obama have been part time or low paying service jobs.

TNA:

11MM jobs were created during Obama. 47% were "high paying".

We went from "no jobs" to "part time or low paying" to "11MM..47% were "high paying" all in three posts. Do you think "service" jobs means McDonald's and fast food? Who is spreading the Misinformation here?

TNA:

Obama doesn't create shit. At best he provides an environment for jobs to be created.

He doesn't create shit, but somehow at the same time he "provides an environment for jobs to be created". How else would you define the president creating jobs other than providing an environment for them to be created? Use the magic job wand? Do you want his job creation rate to reflect how many people's paychecks he personally signs himself? How is what Trump doing any different than "providing an environment for jobs to be created"?

2) Labor Force Participation
- Isn't the LFP supposed to fall for at least the next decade, according to BLS? They say this is because of the higher frequency of younger people attending college and baby boomers retiring. They signaled this happening since back in 2006 (https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/11/art3full.pdf) Doesn't really prove a shitty economy, as far as I'm reading, and why most don't seem as concerned? U6 is at where we were in the 90s.

3) National Debt
- Cut deficits by ~3/4, but should be taken up with Congress and not Obama himself. If $19 trillion is bad, why did $29 trillion just get authorized by Republicans? https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HEN170...

4) Russia
- I don't know why you keep saying there's no proof and that you're not speaking about this. You won't even acknowledge what there is no proof of. It should bother you a bit that your President elect is saying he has 100% no connections there while his son says otherwise. I'd be concerned if Hillary did the same thing, rightfully so.

1/11/17

Yawn.

When the economy loses 12MM jobs and 11MM come back, I don't consider that to be creating anything. Furthermore, of those 11MM jobs, over half were not high paying. The majority were service jobs, of which retail, food services and admin were more than half. This is included in the links I published.

Presidents create the atmosphere. Trump is creating a pro business atmosphere. Are you saying Trumps statements and entire cabinet isn't decidedly pro business? He isn't even in office and he is helping to create jobs.

Labor Force Participation - We are at the lowest level going back 36 years. Not where we were in the 90's. Some of this is explained through retirement or staying in college (both things are a symptom of a bad job market). I find it interesting that this "long term trend" took effect exactly as the economy collapsed and continued during Obama.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-cong...

And here is your counter. Half of the decline can be explained through those shifts you discuss. Other half, economic weakness.

Budget - Hmmm. Obama doubled the Deficit in 8 years. Republicans authorized a budget. Depending on where tax revenue comes in this could be a small increase or a large increase. Either way, using your numbers it would be a 50% increase, not 100% increase.

Russia - Russia didn't hack our elections. Putin doesn't own Trump. Trump has no investments in Russia. Maybe Russian citizens have invested in his projects, but I find it hard to fault an international real estate developer for taking Russian money. Up until recently there were no sanctions on Russia and their citizens investing in outside ventures was fine.

It blows my mind. Trump is building a tower in India. He has golf courses around the world. Building in a number of different countries. How many Russian citizens own condos in NYC and LA? Why is this indicative of influence but Hillary getting donations from ME nations isn't?

This is leftist scaremongering. How about this. I'll accept your stance that Trump has Russian business connections. WHO CARES? You know who doesn't have Russian business connections? Obama. Why? Because Obama didn't do a damn thing.

Some of Trump's cabinet members have Russian connections - AKA Tillerson, former Exxon CEO. Hmmm, massive oil executive having connections with Russia, a massive oil producing nation. News at 11.

This Russia boogyman is so 1950's. I am glad we are going to have closer relations with Putin. They saved our ass in Syria.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/15/17

Your view on the Obama presidency is easily insufficient due to your skewing of realities due to your highly republican lean. I don't have any unction for the simplistic assumption that 'the US is the reserve currency, so a deficit doesn't affect us'. But, I do think you're oversimplifying the narrative.

Like, for example, you are underestimating the severity of the Great Recession. It is considered to have had the potential to be as bad as the Great Depression when real GDP per person fell by 20%. This is way uglier than just 'a mess'. Even if you call it that, what is the realistic solution? Your bag of tools includes simply cutting taxes and 'focusing on jobs', which I assume means enact every textbook business friendly policy. None of that sounds realistic in the scenario Obama inherited because the deficit would've ballooned with lower tax rates and the steep fall in output. Not to mention that the entire world could've stopped, therefore there were no jobs to even bring to America by enacting business friendly policies.

And can we just acknowledge that, in hindsight, GDP per cap did not fall by 20%? Obama added to the debt through fiscal stimulus, which contributed to high deficits, but keep in mind that's after trying to keep the economy afloat. If you want to look at job creation, he didn't do a superb job there because we even saw a net negative amount in new business creations in 2014. But he was efficient. His economy was very steady--consistent monthly job numbers, without a fall to negative since 2010. He'll certainly get the record for smoothest and most outstanding streak in economic performance, especially given the circumstances. Not to mention, one of the highest monthly averages of job gains. My view, he kicked ass because he actually had tons of resistance, which I would imagine is much harder than having the wind to your back.

Also, you sound like you're looking for a gun slinger. Obama was a finesse artist. Overall, let's just say he was perfect for the nature of that period. Obama's stimulus plan wasn't even as crazy as $1t, even as a democrat, so it was less than what Trump proposes (not saying he can't fund it). He had a hole to dig out of, from much lower employment, to less tax receipts, and just general belt-tightening.

EDIT: Also, this was to review your argument based on the merits of Obama's recovery. More deliberately, Trump is inheriting more favorable conditions than Trump supporters care to admit. The fact is, China is seeing rising wages, and has been looking to actually move its economy to be more open and reduce its reliance on investment for higher domestic consumption. These conditions, coupled with the realization that other countries are not as stable politically and economically, started bringing jobs back to the US before Trump even won the nomination. In fact, Trump is just capitalizing on these shifts with policies such as the tax holiday, which is why I think that he will more easily be able to achieve a high 3%+ GDP growth rate for at least a short while.

1/15/17

Facts don't support this. All the economic metrics should have been much higher coming from a rebound from lows as bad as we had in 2008.

The recovery has been a function of unprecedented fed action. Businesses have been slow to invest, Obama has done nothing but increase regulation and appoint cabinet members who slow of block business. We are still about a million jobs short of where we were.

All for the price of $10T and 8 years.

I don't fault Obama for deficit spending in 2008. I fault him for poor use of money and for the need to continue to spend at such high levels. He's doubled the debt for a weak recovery.

The unemployment rate is junk which is his main accomplishment.

As for Trump, he's walking into a worse environment. Obamas doubled the debt in a rising interest environment. The Fed is out of dry powder. The fake market recovery is peaked. International relations are trashed. We've been at war every day of his presidency. Trump needs to create real growth for this country to see an impact vs the fake growth Obama relied on.

You see finese, I see inexperience.

Carter Level President.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/15/17

There hasn't been fake growth. What you see is how the financial crisis amplified many factors that were occurring before Bams even took office. Incomes were already falling, peaking in 1999; jobs were moving overseas anyway. Foreign policy was weak and asset price support led to inequality, but foreign policy before made us the boogeyman thanks to Bush. And assets prices are expected to continue growing on higher earnings, despite 2007 leverage levels where a lot of them should have failed. I think incomes actually started rising again last year, and so Trump inheriting a horrible economy is really just a joke.

Like I said, the trend in moving jobs back to the US started happening before Trump. I suspect Trump decided to run as a republican to capitalize on this. Countries like China are too risky, given slowing growth. And the labor market actually seems to be the worse part of the Obama legacy, as old people have seen some growing earnings while younger folks have seen incomes dip substantially. So yah, Trump only needs to focus on driving up incomes. That's the current benchmark on which I will judge his presidency, relative to the crap Obama picked up. Plus Obama maintaining allowed us to ramp up over 6-7 years. Trump's gunslinging with the rest of the world will be negative to output.

Financial Modeling

1/11/17

The liberals would have much preferred coronationing Hillary. Trump was a billionaire before he ran for President. The Clintons were working on becoming billionaires through peddling influence through all of the various stints in high political office they've had.

Is Trump politically correct? No. He was the best realistic option we had.

1/12/17

Honestly, does any of this REALLY matter? Once you become POTUS, you are going to have a very very good life. You will be protected, you will make great money, and you will always be seen as someone who had a tremendous career (albeit, that viewpoint will fluctuate depending on an individual's political line).

Probably 90% of the stuff the public / media argues about is fluff. It is completely irrelevant no matter how morally and ethically correct or incorrect the processes are. The reality is that we will never see or maybe never fully understand the true personal outcomes (positive or negative) the workings of the POTUS has for the office and cabinet.

That being said, I wouldn't want someone diabolical and purely self interested as POTUS. I agree with TNA when he says that Trump is more so doing this for his legacy, but I don't doubt for a second that he is also doing this to further enrich the lives of his children. I am a fan of the basic philosophy of Trump's 4 years in office, which is pro-business.

Steam, what is your biggest concern about Russia? You really think Russia is the biggest problem (sorry if I read some of your responses wrong)? You'd be blown away if you saw some of the capabilities we are selling to certain mid-east countries. It's a joke. I'm sure we all agree the country is shady and does things that are flat out not ok. Trump more than likely has business there, but if you take the words of any politician to heart I would say you are a dumb dumb :P . Trump speaks out of his ass more than half of Hollywood so I always find it enjoyable when die-hard liberals have a full blown anxiety attack over something he says (not saying this is you by any means). End of the day, you will never get a 100% truthful statement from the Donald, but you can sure as hell bet that 27% of what he says he really believes.... no matter how bat shit crazy it is.

...

1/12/17

Back on the topic: the director of the federal office of government ethics has (predictably) blasted Trump's conflict-of-interest plan. As an aside, General Mattis disagreed with Trump's stated views on pretty much every foreign policy topic during his confirmation hearing.

1/12/17

I bet you're tittering with glee.

He disagreed with Trump on Russia and Iran. Hardly everything. Mattis is a hammer and sees nothing but nails. NATO should be disbanded or the US should leave it. It served its purpose and now it's done with.
As for Iran, we have every right to reevaluate their behavior. Once they go nuclear it will cause a Domino effect.

Good think is Mattis takes orders from Trump. Remove the sanctions, thank Putin for Syria and normalize relations. Cold war is over, time to move on.

This is what happens when an empire falls from grace. We throw tantrums as if we still run the world. We condemn Russia for Syria while we fight an endless war on terror, drone striking innocent people. The hypocrisy is ripe.

Alliances cause world wars, they don't prevent them. History 101.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

Cool story bro. I am going to go ahead and defer to the experienced general rather than the real estate developer when it comes to matters of international politics and war.

p.s. I don't think, at any point in U.S. history, I'd refer to our republic as an "empire"

1/12/17

Do you feel the same way about an inexperienced community organizer?

Sorry, but this is why we have civilian control of the military.

Gotta love how I'm the right wing nut advocating against military drum beating.

IMO, we should reduce the size of the military and invest in infrastructure and cutting taxes. These military guys are just dying for the next conflict to justify troop levels and defense spending.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

Dude, you're hurting my bonus with those words. :)

...

1/12/17

Obama seems to listen to his advisers. Trump seems to not. One seems to have perspective as to how difficult it is to run this country, one seems to not (I will be the greatest jobs producer that God ever created). Quotes like this tell me all that I need to know regarding perspective & humility, which I think are extremely important traits when you are inexperienced and need to listen to advisers who have experience.

p.s. nice community organizer troll, didn't realize he skipped the part where he was a state senator and U.S. senator and went straight from community organizer to president.

1/12/17

LOL Obama got a Noble Peace Prize for doing nothing and you say he is humble? Trump saying he is going to be the best jobs President ever is a good thing. Shows he is focused on creating jobs.

Would you rather him say "I am going to be a mad decent jobs creator" ?? Rightttt

1) Ignoring Advice - First, that is the job of the President. He is a leader, not a mouth piece for others. Second, Obama has done the same as Trump. Maybe Trump ignoring advice will turn out badly, but until it does, Obama takes the lead. See below.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/ob...

Ignoring troop level advice in Iraq
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/17/former-secdef-ob...

Ignored Gates on advice for Egypt (thank god of Sisi)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2775047/Re...

Obama skipping intelligence briefings - oh the hypocrisy
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/06/w...

Ignored warnings about ISIS
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/0...

Obama ignoring public opinion on Iran

I rest my case. BTW, do a little homework before you slam Trump for ignoring war mongering advice (thank god) when Obama has plenty of precedent for ignoring advice (as all Presidents should, although I think Obama ignored to the detriment in many cases).

2) Experience - My bad. 3 years as a Senator and 7 years in the Illinois House. Wow. He was elected with nearly no real government experience so lets no oversell Obama. Once he lost his majority he was crippled.

I get it. Obama is oodles of experience and Trump is a drooling moron. Trump not listing to advisors = bad. Obama not listening = good. Trump has no humility, Obama is humble as fuck.

Try again.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

Wtf does him winning a Peace prize have to do with his humility? Did he award himself that prize? Complete strawman. No one said Trump should blindly follow, but Trump doesn't seem to listen to anyone about anything (other than his family) despite having no political experience. Say what you want about Obama's political experience but at least it existed. Then u go and talk about genius vs moron? Again, strawman. I can't do much more of this. Your method of discussion is juvenile to say the least. Understand that he won't get his way with Russia, a former KGB authoritarian runs that country and is constantly hostile towards us, even to the point of hacking political organizations, I hope they toughen the sanctions.

1/12/17

Dude, you won't do more of it because I just lit you up.

Obama is far from humble. I mean this is a joke, right? Obama was heralded as the second coming of Christ. His wife was telling Oprah that the nation now knows what it feels like to not have hope.

Listen, no President is without ego. I don't even blame Obama. He's President. I wouldn't be humble either. But for you to criticize Trump when you know for a fact Obama isn't an angle is just insulting.
http://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-to-gop...

"President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation."

This is just one instance.

Now you are moving the goal posts. I provide ample evidence of Obama, a single term US Senator, not listening to military advisors on a number of issues, all with very real consequences.

You paint the picture that Trump is a fool, a clown, doesn't know what he is doing. Are you not saying he is a moron? Yet you give Obama a pass on the same thing. Not being honest in your argument.

Yawn. Russia has a right to govern as they please. We have no qualms with befriending monarchs or trading with Communist China. We were friends with Saddam as he attached Iran. We've meddled in countless countries. We invaded Panama to grab Ortega for some bullshit drug war.

1) The US is being dishonest in condemning Russia for stuff we do as well.
2) The US works with authoritarian countries around the world
3) Putin being in the KGB is irrelevant
4) Russia is not our enemy. That is 1980's thinking.
5) Russia saved our ass in Syria.
6) Russia provided intelligence to the US that could have prevented the Boston Bombing (thought we were mortal enemies)

You are wrong and incorrect, as usual. You do not back up your statements and you perpetuate antiquated political concepts.

We've always been at war with eastasia

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

Confidence is not the same as arrogance, Trump consistently displays the latter, haven't seen as much from Obama. Are you surprised I think Trump might be a moron, here is a real tweet from the dude: ""The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive". Are you surprised people question his intelligence? No idea why you would be. I did not bring up his intelligence though, or say Obama is a genius. You brought it into the discussion because you enjoy strawman arguments and red herrings (look at your initial response to me and bringing up race when that had nothing to do with my post or the subject of this thread). It is very relevant Putin is a former KGB officer, that means he was indoctrinated in thinking the Soviet way, a method of thought that opposes ours. Not only that, but his ACTIONS have consistently been in opposition to the U.S, with the latest hack being the obvious example. It appears Russia purposefully bombed innocent civilians in Syria, Russia is propping up a despot in Syria. Yea, it's nice that Syria won't be embroiled in civil war for much longer, but don't frame it as some great outcome.

1/12/17

Oh god. Again.

Telling the GOP "I won" isn't confidence, it is arrogance and snobbery.

Saying you are going to be the best jobs President is pretty confident. Saying you all are going to kiss my ass when the history book shows I was gods gift to the USA. That is arrogance.

Now, Trump can be confident, an asshole and arrogant at all different times. My stance isn't he is humble. My stance is that you are duplicitous. You fault Trump when Obama is guilty of the same thing. IMO, Hillary is as well.

So now were are in a "Trump said this" battle. Ok, awesome. So believing or disbelieving one thing is the test of who is a moron or not? Good to know.

You've implied Trump lacks intelligence throughout this post. You are lying if you say otherwise. I am not making any strawman arguments. You fault Trumps experience, his not listening to advisors, you chide his real estate experience, you bring up past tweets on global warming and then you say "I never said he was a moron". C'mon.

KGB is a spy organization. Is being in the CIA mean you are brought up in the Democratic way? No. They are two different things. I mean fuck. Putin worked for the Russia intelligence. Bush 1 did as well. That makes Putin smart, not a Communist.

Communism only opposes the USA when it is expansionary. Is Sweden opposing the US because they are more socialistic? Is Kuwait opposing the USA because they are a Monarchy? I mean fucking A.

America bombed innocent civilians. America is propping up illegitimate monarchies. America hacks elections and helps overthrow governments (aka Ukraine).

You do realize that the Syrian civil war was exasperated because of the US, right? We funded rebels. We supported financial and with training these rebels. You know that. Had we supported Assad or just left him alone it would have resulted in far less loss of life.
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/04/a_year_of_war_10_d...
http://www.alternet.org/world/america-has-fueled-b...

I specifically picked leftist sites so support this.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17
BobTheBaker:

Back on the topic: the director of the federal office of government ethics has (predictably) blasted Trump's conflict-of-interest plan. As an aside, General Mattis disagreed with Trump's stated views on pretty much every foreign policy topic during his confirmation hearing.

The director is a partisan liberal Democrat who donated money to the Obama campaign. He may or may not be correct, but you have to give context to who he is.

1/12/17

At what point can a guy have a political view and still do his job? Donald Trump just gave his company over to his sons and essentially said "I won't ask them what is going on with it so I won't know anything about it" and we are supposed to be like: yeah dude I totally believe you. I am not that gullible and I would venture to guess that almost no one who uses this website is that gullible. Next, you'll tell me to believe Randall Stephenson (CEO of AT&T) when he said that the time warner merger was not discussed when he met with Trump today. You can say he had no other option, you can say he's already rich thus the obvious conflicts of interest will not affect him, but please don't try to convince me that this plan will actually be effective at preventing conflicts of interest. Framing everything into liberals vs. conservatives is part of the issue in this country.

1/12/17
BobTheBaker:

<

p>At what point can a guy have a political view and still do his job?

That's actually kind of the point. With about 2 seconds of research you can find that this guy has a track record of hyper-partisanship, and the Republicans do NOT believe he's done his job.

1/12/17

See, that's two seconds too long for simple research. It's just a thread with people who hate trump bitching about trump.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

so do you disagree with anything else I said? This isn't a conversation about Shaub's partisanship. What it is about is Trump's conflict of interest plan. Do you disagree that Trump's plan basically comes down to "I will hand the business over to my sons and not ask them about it so I won't know anything about it"? If you disagree, why? If you agree, why do you think this is a sufficient method of avoiding conflicts of interest?

1/12/17

Trumps Plan:

  • Trump's sons, Donald, Jr. and Eric, will run the company.
  • Trump and his daughter Ivanka will relinquish their roles in the company, and Trump will never receive any information about the company that's not public.
  • Trump's ownership stake in the company will be placed in a trust, with no involvement by Trump.
  • The company will be allowed to make domestic deals while Trump is president, but will make no new foreign deals.
  • An independent ethics adviser will review those domestic deals to make sure there's nothing fishy.
  • When representatives of foreign governments stay at Trump-controlled hotels in the United States, the proceeds will go straight to the US Treasury.

I am 100% ok with this. No foreign deals so you don't worry about foreign influence. Anything in the US will be easily monitored. Trump and Ivanka will no longer be involved and his ownership stake will be placed in a trust. An independent ethics advisor will review the deals.

Listen, I get it, you want Trump to liquidate the business or put it in the hands of complete strangers. I doubt even that would suffice with the critics because Trump could theoretically do things which benefit these strangers, knowing that when he steps down he could resume control or something like that.

1) American people knew about these issues and the complexity electing this person would involve

2) Before Trump won the left was gleefully basking in the fact that loser Trump ruined his brand

3) Now the fear is his brand is going to be soooo much better. Lets not forget people protesting out in front of Trump DC, or the fact his name has been removed off a number of NYC properties or the fact that half this country irrationally hates Trump.

The guy built a family legacy and is passing it to his kids. This is no surprise. A lot of his stances make him incredibly unpopular in areas where he was seeking to grow.

So I am fine with his plan. I think it works the best it can. I want to see who this advisor is and I think they should have quarterly or annual reports available. I think Trump is going to be under such a microscope that the lying press would just love for him to fuck up. His business will succeed and do well. This whole campaign hurt his brand and he ran for President for ego and to top off a pretty successful life and career.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

1.) your first bullet begins the worries, his sons running the business is ridiculous from a conflict of interest perspective
2.) Idc about Ivanka and don't believe his bullshit about all information he'll receive being public info, especially because of (1)
3.) I don't believe he won't be involved, because his sons will be running the company and he can easily direct them
4.) They shouldn't be making deals at all
5.) Will the Trump team be hiring this "independent" adviser? very interested in this.
6.) Representatives should be completely barred from staying at his hotels

again, his plan is a joke. Nice try attempting to convince otherwise though.

1/12/17

So your argument is you don't believe. Cool.

I mean dude, your argument holds no water. The press and every Democrat is watching him like a hawk. That is the ultimate check and balance. There will be an independent reviewer for this. His ownership stake is going into a trust. There will be no foreign dealings which is the big worry with influence. His hotels are all over and he doesn't control who stays. The donation was a political ploy, but in reality those who book at his hotel should decide not to come, not his issue.

You saying his plan is a joke doesn't make it a joke. Liquidating a complex, asset intensive, family business is not reasonable. It is not required by law. His plan is best that can be done right now, under the circumstances.

We all get it. You don't like it. You don't like anything Trump. Cool. But he has a plan, is doing more than required by law and that is that. Nothing he would do would make you happy, but who cares, you'd never be happy.

Also, lets remember how much everyone was "concerned" about Trump profiting from this election lol
http://fortune.com/2016/09/30/mark-cuban-donald-tr...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/presidential-electi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/1...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election-season-hur...
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/21/has-donald-trump-d...

Reality is if people wanted to buy influence with Trump they could just pay his sons HUGE speaking fees. Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton. My bad.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

Your constant need to make this about Trump v Clinton is indicative of your entire perspective. I was never a fan of Clinton, just didn't believe she was a murdering corrupt thief. Moving on. Yes, I do not believe that Donald Trump will not get any information from his sons regarding his company or remove himself from the company, it's that simple and not at all a hard perspective to understand. Which do you think is more likely, in four years in office Trump does not get any private information from his sons nor does he interfere in how they run his business or the opposite? The law is garbage, which is why I suggest all conflict of interest laws be extended to the president and vp. That is the cost of public service. I wouldn't necessarily be happy but if he'd hired an independent CEO (say a higher up at a top RE family office/ REIT/ REPE shop) I would at least understand the perspective of "it is difficult to sell and he wants to keep his legacy". What he did do was pretty much say fuck off, I mean, other than the "independent" ethics adviser and the foreign deals what concession did he make?

1/12/17

I just fundamentally disagree with a law that states that the President can't own a business/must liquidate a business he or she has spent a lifetime building. That would discourage the best of the best in American business from ever pursuing the presidency, which is exactly why such a law doesn't exist.

1/13/17

while I understand that notion, how do you explain the fact that he did the bare minimum, to say the least. If he were serious about keeping his business and running the country while avoiding conflicts he'd have hired an independent CEO and an independent board to oversee the company. Additionally, he could've entered no new deals. He could've also released personal and corporate records in order for forensic people to examine then and determine where his interests are so the American public and the media can be aware in case of any potential misdeeds. He did none of this. Instead, he handed the company over to his sons and claimed "they won't tell me anything". Ridiculous.

1/13/17
BobTheBaker:

He could've also released personal and corporate records in order for forensic people to examine then and determine where his interests are so the American public and the media can be aware in case of any potential misdeeds. He did none of this. Instead, he handed the company over to his sons and claimed "they won't tell me anything". Ridiculous.

He wouldn't do those things because people like you in the media would make all kinds of dishonest implications. For example, bankruptcies of single-asset entities are very common in real estate, even among the best, but Trump's six (?) bankruptcies were construed as examples of personal incompetence. Imagine a bunch of business illiterates trying to explain to the American public the intricacies of American real estate.

1/13/17

At the end of the day you're perfectly fine with his plan basically being "my sons won't tell me anything". Just say that so we can move on. The media can say what they want, he isn't campaigning anymore so idk why he would care, he's going to be judged on his actions as president now. I love how you ignored the first part of my post. Did the dishonest media implications prevent him from hiring an independent CEO rather than his sons? what about the media and new deals? The rush to excuse his joke of a plan is hilarious.

1/13/17

TNA's right--it doesn't matter if he hired an independent CEO. You would find reasons to criticize the plan. Just say it--the only reason you care is because you hate Trump. You're as dishonest as CNN--you are so transparently bias yet you act as if you're just a fair-minded independent.

1/13/17

Let's not deflect here. Even if I hate the guy (I don't), even those who are ambivalent about him should be worried because the plan is questionable to say the least. It is the bare minimum and there is no spin or accusation of me being partisan that will change that. I'll tell you one thing, if he'd taken my suggested steps in his plan there would be far less criticism and those who did criticize would have far less ammunition to do so. The reality is, his current plan amounts to doing almost nothing, and idk how you can dispute this.

1/13/17

How about this. I agree with you that there is a risk for conflict. This is an unprecedented situation and things have to be worked out.

I'll be right with you condemning trump if this independent advisor is a sham or we have no transparency.

Personally, I see both sides, I just think it's unfair to expect someone who built a family business to unwind their legacy. Trumps rich and this election hasn't been good for him. Maybe he's a massive criminal, maybe he is just sick of where this country is going.

We should give him the assumption of altruism just as we give everyone else the assumption.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

I don't think that forcing anyone to take on billions in losses as a requirement of running for office is a good policy. Given the highly hostile disposition of the press, I think it's really unlikely Trump's able to sneak something past us where he clearly prioritizes the Trump Organization over the interest of the public.

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

1/12/17

Bingo. Common sense rules the day. I cannot believe people think Trump could sneeze without someone reporting on it.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

The next four years will not be boring. carry on

1/12/17

The right-wing Liberty Caucus just announced that yesterday's budget passed by the Senate Republicans "may be the worst budget ever seriously considered by Congress". This from the party who has decried the deficit under Obama over the last 8 years. All so they could strip healthcare from the citizens of the richest country on Earth.

Certain well-regarded long-standing members of this website are absolutely embarrassing themselves with their Trump fandom. The guy is absolutely unfit for office, full stop. I voted Bush, McCain, Romney and am the biggest anti-Trump guy of anyone I know. Country over party.

1/12/17

Shitting on trump while voting for war mongers. Cool. How about that trillion Bush spent and all the people that died for a lie. How about military industry complex McCain and his always war mongering. Gotta love Romney and his religion conservative fuck working class ppl over.

Democrats make me sick, but at least the try and represent the people.

Might as well vote for the Koch Bros.

Lol country over party. Go tell all the limbless vests that joke.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

Your daddy-elect named John Bolton as Deputy SOS who STILL thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq, and Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor who is on the record saying the entire religion of Islam is a cancer inside the souls of 2 billion people. I don't buy his isolationist language for a second - Trump is just begging to start a war and MAGA the shit out of flyover country by sending their underemployed boys overseas into another endless war.

You can be snarkier, older, angrier than other posters here. Doesn't make you right.

1/12/17

If trump does that I'll condemn him. He's stated repeatedly that he's against this kind of stuff.

But Bush, McCain and Romney are all standard Republicans and war mongers. That's party before country. Fact.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/12/17

I finally woke up and broke the Republicans-are-God's-creation culture that I was raised in. And at this point, McCain is one of about five sane GOP congressmen left - I wonder if he feels a bit of guilt for starting this party extremism with the nomination of Palin.

1/13/17
onemanwolfpack:

I finally woke up and broke the Republicans-are-God's-creation culture that I was raised in. And at this point, McCain is one of about five sane GOP congressmen left - I wonder if he feels a bit of guilt for starting this party extremism with the nomination of Palin.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have voted GOP since I turned 18 and I simply cannot stomach it anymore. This is a man who LITERALLY claimed Obama was a muslim from Kenya, mocked a disabled person, claimed most mexican immigrants are rapists/drug dealers, advocated banning muslims from entering the US, stated a black protester should be knocked and dragged out on a stretcher during one of his rallies and claimed he can grab women by the pussy because he is famous. On top of that, through countless interviews and rallies he has shown himself to be an incessant liar and utterly clueless on domestic and foreign policy.

I agree Clinton was a terrible candidate and for that reason I can understand if some conservatives voted for Trump in spite of his flaws. However, I am absolutely shocked how many Trump apologists there are on this board that actually think he will be a good president.

1/13/17

The problem is, you're mixing truth with lies, or truth with out-of-context truth, or truth with dubious claims.

Just a few examples:

1) Trump (probably) didn't mock a disabled reporter for being disabled. There are videos from a half dozen other Trump speeches where he mocked non-disabled people (including Ted Cruz) in the same (or very similar) way.

2) Trump didn't claim MOST Mexican immigrants are rapists/drug dealers. He said of Mexico: "They're sending us their rapists, drug dealers..." This comment, by the way, happens to be demonstrably true--they are sending rapists and drug dealers to the U.S. Trump went on later to clarify that he didn't mean it as a general broadside against all Mexican immigrants--that he was talking about the criminal element.

3) Trump didn't suggest banning Muslims from immigrating to the U.S. If you want to get technical, he did say there should be a ban on Muslim immigration, although he clarified that it should be temporary until we know that our entrance procedures are safe. Since then, he's gone further to clarify that heavier entrance requirements should be used with immigrants from countries with a recent history of terrorism activity.

I was a strong Rubio supporter until the day he dropped out of the GOP primary and I didn't make up my mind to vote for Trump, as the lesser of two evils, until a week or so before the election. But with all of the legitimate things one could criticize Trump for, these intellectually dishonest criticisms are counterproductive.

1/13/17

It's pointless. Everything you said it true and easily verifiable. People just read the headlines and run with it. I've downloaded the verbatim transcripts of that "Mexicans are rapists" speech and you can clearly see where he didn't say all, he said they aren't sending their best ppl.

This concept has historical context as well. Castro emptied out his jails and sent them to America.

Sadly, people have no interest in history or facts.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/13/17

why the fuck is a presidential candidate mocking ANYONE in that manner? His statements on them sending drug dealers provided no nuance, he didn't say some of them, the implication is that MOST, if not ALL, illegal immigrants are rapists and drug dealers. A ban, however temporary, of people based on their religion is fundamentally un-American. Anyway, I don't care to judge the guy by his campaigning because you pander to who you can to win votes, but let's not justify his actions either. Unfortunately, his behavior since winning the election has been the same as his campaign behavior, which is sad. When you have our President getting into a shouting match with a media member yelling "you're fake news!" I think we all need to step back and shake our heads.

1/13/17

That's not what he said, and there have been numerous instances of illegal immigrants raping and killing. Guess you have a threshold for caring for preventable events.

Presidents and candidates have mocked, fought with and battled with advisories throughout time. NBD.

A ban has historic precedence and is legal. What's un-American is allowing muh feelz to endanger Americans.

Sorry, but no one has a right to come here. We had a ban on people with HIV up until recently. Protecting citizens is job #1.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/13/17

He knew the implication of what he said. Evidence suggests immigrants have a lower crime rate than the American average due to wanting to avoid deportation, but don't let the facts stop you from bringing up random anecdotes like that matters. Pull up a video of any president since 1990 behaving the way Donald Trump did towards that reporter, I'll be waiting. Banning people with a disease is the same as banning people due to their religion now? cool story. I am curious as to your historic precedence for that ban btw.

1/13/17
TNA:

That's not what he said, and there have been numerous instances of illegal immigrants raping and killing. Guess you have a threshold for caring for preventable events.

Immigrants as a whole are statistically less likely to commit violent crimes vs natives as a whole (you can quote WSJ on that). Numerous studies support that this trend extends to the illegal immigrant population as well, perhaps not enough to be 100% conclusive but based on the evidence it seems far less likely that violent crime rates would be significantly higher than the national average. There are certainly fair reasons for why we should further restrict illegal immigration, but characterizing it as a threat to our physical safety is not one of those reasons, and painting the demographic with that sort of brush is just pandering.

1/13/17
MiserlyGrandpa:

TNA:That's not what he said, and there have been numerous instances of illegal immigrants raping and killing. Guess you have a threshold for caring for preventable events.

Immigrants as a whole are statistically less likely to commit violent crimes vs natives as a whole (you can quote WSJ on that). Numerous studies support that this trend extends to the illegal immigrant population as well, perhaps not enough to be 100% conclusive but based on the evidence it seems far less likely that violent crime rates would be significantly higher than the national average. There are certainly fair reasons for why we should further restrict illegal immigration, but characterizing it as a threat to our physical safety is not one of those reasons, and painting the demographic with that sort of brush is just pandering.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. What you're saying is both true and obviously wrong. Illegal aliens very well may be less likely to commit violent crimes; however, ANY violent crime from an illegal alien against a U.S. citizen is PREVENTABLE through immigration enforcement. If a person is killed in a DUI by an illegal Salvadorian drunk driver, would that victim not be alive if not for proper immigration enforcement? Is the victim not equally dead regardless of the statistical likelihood an illegal Salvadorian would DUI?

In an ideal world, there would be ZERO crime from illegal aliens because they would not be in the U.S. Their actual crime rate compared to U.S. citizens' is a red herring.

1/13/17

That just makes it an issue of general population control. Nothing to do with legal status or targeting a specific demographic. If it's easier to target immigrants for legal reasons then go ahead, but more effective to have a one child policy.

1/13/17
MiserlyGrandpa:

That just makes it an issue of general population control. Nothing to do with legal status or targeting a specific demographic. If it's easier to target immigrants for legal reasons then go ahead, but more effective to have a one child policy.

This is insane! So instead of enforcing immigration laws, your alternative is to open borders in conjunction with Mao-style forced abortions? I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

1/14/17
Virginia Tech 4ever:

MiserlyGrandpa:That just makes it an issue of general population control. Nothing to do with legal status or targeting a specific demographic. If it's easier to target immigrants for legal reasons then go ahead, but more effective to have a one child policy.

This is insane! So instead of enforcing immigration laws, your alternative is to open borders in conjunction with Mao-style forced abortions? I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Of course I don't believe it, but I'm using it as a example to demonstrate the extension of your logic, which as you pointed out sounds crazy.

Edit: To clarify, by suggesting we focus on total numbers rather than crime rates, and removing individuals with no difference in crime rates as a solution, you're basically saying reducing the population is the solution to preventing crime. Not so different from that Will Smith movie where the droids try to imprison humans to "save us from ourselves" or whatever. iRobot I think it was called.

1/14/17

delete

1/13/17

I agree with you. Rape is statistically very rare (unless you're a white guys, they are super predators).

My point and the point trump is making is we have no way of knowing who is coming to the US. There have been plenty of illegal immigrant rapists and murderers. While we cannot prevent people from doing bad things we could have prevented this.

All countries have a border and we have every right to decide who comes into this country. This isn't even a political issue. It boggles my mind how Democrats can be against normal immigration law enforcement.

But let's be real. The media and left twists trumps words in an effort to defame him and cause division. He never said All, fact is some do cause these crimes and if you can prevent one murder and one rape through enforcing laws on the books you should.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/14/17
TNA:

He never said All

No but he implied most, while "some" are good people as though that were the exception to the rule.

1/14/17

Regardless. Everyone else seems able to go through the normal process of applying for citizenship or a Visa. Not everyone coming into this country is upstanding. Numerous instances of illegal immigrants committing heinous crimes, all of which can be stopped by enforcing the laws.

He never said all mexicans are rapists, which is what is pushed in the media. Factually incorrect. His statement might have been a generalization about the quality of the people coming in, but hyperbole =/= racist condemnations.

Furthermore, Trump has since clarified and expanded upon what he has said by laying praise on the Mexican people and immigrants. Taking one statement, out of context, and without the benefit of further clarification is unfair and dishonest.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/14/17
Virginia Tech 4ever:

MiserlyGrandpa: TNA:That's not what he said, and there have been numerous instances of illegal immigrants raping and killing. Guess you have a threshold for caring for preventable events.Immigrants as a whole are statistically less likely to commit violent crimes vs natives as a whole (you can quote WSJ on that). Numerous studies support that this trend extends to the illegal immigrant population as well, perhaps not enough to be 100% conclusive but based on the evidence it seems far less likely that violent crime rates would be significantly higher than the national average. There are certainly fair reasons for why we should further restrict illegal immigration, but characterizing it as a threat to our physical safety is not one of those reasons, and painting the demographic with that sort of brush is just pandering.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. What you're saying is both true and obviously wrong. Illegal aliens very well may be less likely to commit violent crimes; however, ANY violent crime from an illegal alien against a U.S. citizen is PREVENTABLE through immigration enforcement. If a person is killed in a DUI by an illegal Salvadorian drunk driver, would that victim not be alive if not for proper immigration enforcement? Is the victim not equally dead regardless of the statistical likelihood an illegal Salvadorian would DUI?

In an ideal world, there would be ZERO crime from illegal aliens because they would not be in the U.S. Their actual crime rate compared to U.S. citizens' is a red herring.

Couldn't you use the same argument to ban firearms? Or drinking a single drop and driving? Clearly as a nation we have determined acceptable levels of risk.

For what it's worth, you claimed BS then totally left out the part where he said "they're not sending us their best".

1/14/17

Incorrect.

Illegal immigration is against the law. We have the means to enforce the law, but we do not. By simply enforcing the laws on the books we could have prevented these crimes.

We have laws against drunk driving and do a good job enforcing them. We have laws and rules when it comes to gun purchases.

This isn't about violating American rights or acting in a totalitarian fashion.

As for "they're not sending us their best", ok, and what? Are nuclear scientists and Carlos Slim illegally immigrating to the US? What is the educational make up of the majority of illegal immigrants? If you had to classify educationally and economically, the bulk of illegal immigrants, would you say they are in the top or bottom quartile of their respective countries?

Exactly. So that quote of Trump is factually correct and still does not mean "All Mexicans are rapists" like the media pushes.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/13/17
BobTheBaker:

why the fuck is a presidential candidate mocking ANYONE in that manner? His statements on them sending drug dealers provided no nuance, he didn't say some of them, the implication is that MOST, if not ALL, illegal immigrants are rapists and drug dealers. A ban, however temporary, of people based on their religion is fundamentally un-American. Anyway, I don't care to judge the guy by his campaigning because you pander to who you can to win votes, but let's not justify his actions either. Unfortunately, his behavior since winning the election has been the same as his campaign behavior, which is sad. When you have our President getting into a shouting match with a media member yelling "you're fake news!" I think we all need to step back and shake our heads.

1) Why mock anyone in that manner? Because Trump isn't a polished politician like Rubio, Cruz, Obama, et al. That's his schtick. The fact is, he wasn't mocking a disabled reporter. Are you and Meryl Streep really concerned that Ted Cruz was mocked? Cruz is an Ivy-league educated debate champion; he's a big boy.

2) Only people who hate Trump interpreted his comments as meaning "most" or "all". Intellectually honest people knew what he was saying.

3) A large portion of America--myself included--support a permanent Muslim immigration ban. I don't see why a temporary ban on a group of people is fundamentally un-American. Please explain. Because we definitely banned communists during the Cold War.

1/13/17

I find it hilarious that you think being a "polished politician" is the only way one can have common public decency. So first TNA brings up banning for disease and then you bring up banning for political views. Again, these instances are simply not the same as barring people from a certain religion, it's that simple in my opinion.

1/13/17
BobTheBaker:

I find it hilarious that you think being a "polished politician" is the only way one can have common public decency. So first TNA brings up banning for disease and then you bring up banning for political views. Again, these instances are simply not the same as barring people from a certain religion, it's that simple in my opinion.

It is that simple. Problem is, you're willfully ignorant of the Islamic religion. Its ideology is equally as totalitarian as communism is. Islam, as practiced by many tens of millions of people, is a political ideology the same as neo-liberalism is, neo-conservatism is, American liberalism is, etc. The difference is, for many millions who subscribe to political Islam, America is not compatible with their faith.

1/13/17

Your hate for Islam and (possibly) Muslims is well documented. When I shoot the shit with my Kurdish friend and we drink beers together you think he is pushing his totalitarian ideology on me? Lol bro. The fact of the matter is, there is much nuance among the 1.5 or billion or so who practice the religion, a blanket ban based on their religion is bullshit. Not only is it bullshit, but it's bullshit that he knew would never happen but he was pandering to his islamaphobe base.

1/13/17
BobTheBaker:

Your hate for Islam and (possibly) Muslims is well documented. When I shoot the shit with my Kurdish friend and we drink beers together you think he is pushing his totalitarian ideology on me? Lol bro. The fact of the matter is, there is much nuance among the billion or so who practice the religion, a blanket ban based on their religion is bullshit. Not only is it bullshit, but it's bullshit that he knew would never happen but he was pandering to his islamaphobe base.

What I find funny is that your position more closely mirrors Trump than you know. Trump's position is that Muslims should be vetted for those who potentially hold totalitarian beliefs and those who don't should be given the opportunity to immigrate. What's also funny is that you'd be OK with your Kurdish friend being banned from immigrating to the U.S. if he were a member of the Kurdish communist party (which is a U.S. ally right now, ironically).

1/13/17

No issue with vetting, we already do that with refugees and will continue to. My problem is his demonization of 1.5 billion people and his suggestion for an all encompassing ban. Look at that Khan situation where he implied the wife couldn't speak because she is Muslim and thus her husband told her to stfu and she listened. Defend his policies but defending his character sickens me. The guy implied John McCain isn't a war hero because he got caught in Vietnam while it is on record that he actively dodged the draft. I mean, how can anyone defend his character with a straight face?

1/13/17
BobTheBaker:

<

p>No issue with vetting, we already do that with refugees and will continue to. My problem is his demonization of 1.5 billion people and his suggestion for an all encompassing ban.

This is what's insane--this was clarified a billion times by Trump. If the suggestion was originally an all-encompassing ban it was CLARIFIED for those who don't get it. You repeating your lie time and again doesn't make it true.

I--me--I support an all-encompassing ban because Muslims have proven in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Eurasia, etc. that they cannot live in peace with each other or their non-Muslim neighbors. Islam was founded by a warlord who, with his followers, described exactly how to structure government and everyday life. For those who practice Islam, it is nearly impossible to separate their religion from government when they hold a majority.

1/13/17

lol, you call it "clarifying" and I call it changing his stance because the American public found his idea unpalatable. The fact he would even suggest it in the first place appalls me, same with his muslim registry smh.

1/13/17

Radical Islam is a problem, one we created. That being said, we can control who we let in. We have a shit vetting process and trump advocated a temporary ban until we get our shit straight.

You're continued twisting of his words only takes away from your arguments.

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/13/17
Virginia Tech 4ever:

BobTheBaker:why the fuck is a presidential candidate mocking ANYONE in that manner? His statements on them sending drug dealers provided no nuance, he didn't say some of them, the implication is that MOST, if not ALL, illegal immigrants are rapists and drug dealers. A ban, however temporary, of people based on their religion is fundamentally un-American. Anyway, I don't care to judge the guy by his campaigning because you pander to who you can to win votes, but let's not justify his actions either. Unfortunately, his behavior since winning the election has been the same as his campaign behavior, which is sad. When you have our President getting into a shouting match with a media member yelling "you're fake news!" I think we all need to step back and shake our heads.

1) Why mock anyone in that manner? Because Trump isn't a polished politician like Rubio, Cruz, Obama, et al. That's his schtick. The fact is, he wasn't mocking a disabled reporter. Are you and Meryl Streep really concerned that Ted Cruz was mocked? Cruz is an Ivy-league educated debate champion; he's a big boy.

2) Only people who hate Trump interpreted his comments as meaning "most" or "all". Intellectually honest people knew what he was saying.

3) A large portion of America--myself included--support a permanent Muslim immigration ban. I don't see why a temporary ban on a group of people is fundamentally un-American. Please explain. Because we definitely banned communists during the Cold War.

1) Ridiculous. Being polished has nothing to do with having character and being a decent individual. What happened to treating others the way you want to be treated? I am not a politician and I have NEVER treated anyone as poorly as Trump treated countless people during the election (or his life). Frankly, it doesn't matter WHO he was treating in this manner (crippled or not), it is woefully inappropriate in all instances.

2) If you take into context who Trump was speaking to and his rhetoric throughout the campaign it was obvious what he was implying. He was implying that the majority of illegal immigrants are bad people like drug dealers and murderers. In reality, they constitute a very small % of illegal immigrants.

3) Supporting a blanket ban on Muslim immigration is most certainly contrary to American values. Last time I checked, we have freedom of religion and we are supposed to judge people by their character and not their race/religion/nationality. Further, I know many Muslim immigrants who have been tremendously successful on Wall Street and add more value to our economy than the vast majority of Trump voters.

1/13/17
NYMonkey371:

1) Ridiculous. Being polished has nothing to do with having character and being a decent individual. What happened to treating others the way you want to be treated? I am not a politician and I have NEVER treated anyone as poorly as Trump treated countless people during the election (or his life). Frankly, it doesn't matter WHO he was treating in this manner (crippled or not), it is woefully inappropriate in all instances.

I would bet, dollars to donuts, that you don't even know what we're talking about or the context. The context, in each case, was that Trump had gotten ripped by a journalist or by a competing politician, and Trump was on stage talking to the audience about these guys, mocking their positions. The guy is an entertainer and consistently uses hand motions while speaking.

This has nothing to do with the "golden rule." This is a man competing with others to become the most powerful person on the face of the Earth. Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton a racist; Trump shook when mocking Ted Cruz.

NYMonkey371:

2) If you take into context who Trump was speaking to and his rhetoric throughout the campaign it was OBVIOUS what he was implying. He was implying that the majority of illegal immigrants are bad people like drug dealers and murderers. In reality, they constitute a very small % of illegal immigrants.

No it wasn't "obvious" what he was implying. Please explain how what he said could "imply" a numerical majority. I'm genuinely curious about this. Do tell. I'm waiting with bated breath.

NYMonkey371:

3) Supporting a blanket ban on Muslim immigration is most certainly contrary to American values. Last time I checked, we have freedom of religion and we are supposed to judge people by their character and not their race/religion/nationality. Further, I know many Muslim immigrants who have been tremendously successful on Wall Street and add more value to our economy than the vast majority of Trump voters.

During the Cold War the U.S. banned communists from immigrating to the U.S. There is a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. So tell me how this is different?

1/13/17
Virginia Tech 4ever:

NYMonkey371:1) Ridiculous. Being polished has nothing to do with having character and being a decent individual. What happened to treating others the way you want to be treated? I am not a politician and I have NEVER treated anyone as poorly as Trump treated countless people during the election (or his life). Frankly, it doesn't matter WHO he was treating in this manner (crippled or not), it is woefully inappropriate in all instances.

I would bet, dollars to donuts, that you don't even know what we're talking about or the context. The context, in each case, was that Trump had gotten ripped by a journalist or by a competing politician, and Trump was on stage talking to the audience about these guys, mocking their positions. The guy is an entertainer and consistently uses hand motions while speaking.

This has nothing to do with the "golden rule." This is a man competing with others to become the most powerful person on the face of the Earth. Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton a racist; Trump shook when mocking Ted Cruz.

NYMonkey371:2) If you take into context who Trump was speaking to and his rhetoric throughout the campaign it was OBVIOUS what he was implying. He was implying that the majority of illegal immigrants are bad people like drug dealers and murderers. In reality, they constitute a very small % of illegal immigrants.

No it wasn't "obvious" what he was implying. Please explain how what he said could "imply" a numerical majority. I'm genuinely curious about this. Do tell. I'm waiting with bated breath.

NYMonkey371: 3) Supporting a blanket ban on Muslim immigration is most certainly contrary to American values. Last time I checked, we have freedom of religion and we are supposed to judge people by their character and not their race/religion/nationality. Further, I know many Muslim immigrants who have been tremendously successful on Wall Street and add more value to our economy than the vast majority of Trump voters.

During the Cold War the U.S. banned communists from immigrating to the U.S. There is a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. So tell me how this is different?

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I think it is pretty clear he is implying a significant % of mexican immigrants are bringing drugs, crime and rape. Perhaps we just interpret it differently.

Just because something was done historically does not make it right. Banning communists during the cold war was wrong, just like banning Muslims is wrong today. Historically blacks didn't have the right to vote and we also forced Japanese into internment camps. Do you think those policy decisions were in-line with American values? I don't.

1/13/17
NYMonkey371:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I think it is pretty clear he is implying a significant % of mexican immigrants are bringing drugs, crime and rape. Perhaps we just interpret it differently.

Just because something was done historically does not make it right. Banning communists during the cold war was wrong, just like banning Muslims is wrong today. 60 years ago blacks didn't have the right to vote and 80 years ago we forced Japanese into internment camps. Do you think those policy decisions were in-line with American values? I don't.

Here's the problem with you leftists--you willfully ignore context (this entire thread is an example of ignored context). With the additional context of Trump's clarifications, it's quite obvious--since Trump specifically said so--what he meant. You know as well as anyone that that is the case.

Regarding the ban on communists, if you think it was wrong to ban communists during the Cold War then that speaks more to your character and to your personal radicalization than to anything else. As an American value, I'd bet the vast majority of Americans would support a ban on communist immigration. I'm genuinely curious, do you believe the 1st Amendment is a protected right given to non-resident, non-citizens living overseas? If so, think about the greater implications of what you're actually saying.

1/13/17
Virginia Tech 4ever:

NYMonkey371:"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."I think it is pretty clear he is implying a significant % of mexican immigrants are bringing drugs, crime and rape. Perhaps we just interpret it differently.Just because something was done historically does not make it right. Banning communists during the cold war was wrong, just like banning Muslims is wrong today. 60 years ago blacks didn't have the right to vote and 80 years ago we forced Japanese into internment camps. Do you think those policy decisions were in-line with American values? I don't.

Here's the problem with you leftists--you willfully ignore context (this entire thread is an example of ignored context). With the additional context of Trump's clarifications, it's quite obvious--since Trump specifically said so--what he meant. You know as well as anyone that that is the case.

Regarding the ban on communists, if you think it was wrong to ban communists during the Cold War then that speaks more to your character and to your personal radicalization than to anything else. As an American value, I'd bet the vast majority of Americans would support a ban on communist immigration. I'm genuinely curious, do you believe the 1st Amendment is a protected right given to non-resident, non-citizens living overseas? If so, think about the greater implications of what you're actually saying.

I am not a leftist. If I had to classify myself as anything I would say I am a moderate right leaning libertarian. I have never voted for a democratic candidate and I have voted republican twice.

How is it radical to believe that people should be able to do and believe in what they want as long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others? The constitution does not apply to non-citizens living overseas, it is an American document. It is probably even legal to ban non-citizens because of their religion. However, I do believe the ideas the constitution espouses, which include freedom of religion and racial equality, are universal rights we should strive for. Do you think Americans inherently deserve more rights than people from other nations?

1/13/17

I call bullshit. No "right-leaning libertarian" is going to have a moral issue banning communists--during the Cold War! But whatever. That's not something I can "prove", but I'm highly skeptical of your claim.

I believe there are universal rights, yes, but one of the key roles of government is to protect the personal safety (life) of its citizens. I believe that a government that does not protect its citizens' physical safety is a tyrannical government. Can you name a single communist country that has ever respected the rights of non-communist party members? Can you name a single Muslim country on Earth that respects the rights of non-Muslim minorities? Congress has the sole constitutional authority to determine qualifications for entry into the United States. I think it's more than reasonable to set ideological barriers preventing people with totalitarian beliefs from coming to the United States. In almost every instance where Muslims or communists have been in power they have abused individual liberty. Those people have no business being invited into a country with which they fundamentally disagree.

Fuck communists. Fuck Muslims.

1/13/17
Virginia Tech 4ever:

I call bullshit. No "right-leaning libertarian" is going to have a moral issue banning communists--during the Cold War! But whatever. That's not something I can "prove", but I'm highly skeptical of your claim.

I believe there are universal rights, yes, but one of the key roles of government is to protect the personal safety (life) of its citizens. I believe that a government that does not protect its citizens' physical safety is a tyrannical government. Can you name a single communist country that has ever respected the rights of non-communist party members? Can you name a single Muslim country on Earth that respects the rights of non-Muslim minorities? Congress has the sole constitutional authority to determine qualifications for entry into the United States. I think it's more than reasonable to set ideological barriers preventing people with totalitarian beliefs from coming to the United States. In almost every instance where Muslims or communists have been in power they have abused individual liberty. Those people have no business being invited into a country with which they fundamentally disagree.

The view that people should be able to believe in what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others is perfectly consistent with libertarian values. Political freedom and voluntary association are core tenants of Libertarianism. I think the idea that we should ban people from our country based on their religion, race and beliefs is consistent with authoritarianism and totally inconsistent with liberty.

I am not advocating for a communist or Muslim government. If people have totalitarian beliefs and they want to act on them then I think there can be a legitimate discussion on banning their entry into the country. However, putting in a blanket ban on Muslims is not the way to act on it. There are likely some bad apples, but the vast majority are coming here because they want the freedom and prosperity that we offer. Why else would they leave Saudi Arabia if it is so representative of their values? Judging people so harshly because of their religion is dangerous. How many Muslims do you know? I know many Muslims and they are just like us. They work on Wall Street, they party, they drink and they treat other people with respect. The only difference is they go to a mosque and they fast occasionally. Would you say the average worshiper at Westboro Baptist Church is representative of all Christians? Of course not.

1/13/17
NYMonkey371:

The view that people should be able to believe in what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others is perfectly consistent with libertarian values. Political freedom and voluntary association are core tenants of Libertarianism. I think the idea that we should ban people from our country based on their religion, race and beliefs is consistent with authoritarianism and totally inconsistent with liberty.

It's not "libertarian" to invite in despotism. That's the most non-sensical position in this entire thread of really poorly thought out positions. I don't know how else to persuade you other than to say that appeasing communists and other totalitarians to the detriment of your own citizenry is NOT being a friend to liberty; it's being a friend to tyranny.

NYMonkey371:

I am not advocating for a communist or Muslim government.

It doesn't matter what YOU'RE advocating for--it matters what THEY'RE advocating for. Just like the enemy (Russia, Iran, et al) doesn't acknowledge detente just because we lay down our arms, Islamic radicals don't acknowledge detente because we say so.

NYMonkey371:

If people have totalitarian beliefs and they want to act on them then I think there can be a legitimate discussion on banning their entry into the country.

Welcome to Trump's position.

NYMonkey371:

How many Muslims do you know? I know many Muslims and they are just like us. They work on Wall Street, they party, they drink and they treat other people with respect. The only difference is they go to a mosque and they fast occasionally.

This is what you don't get or what you willfully ignore--those aren't Muslims; those are called "Census Bureau Muslims." The United States and Europe are filled with "Census Bureau Christians"--people who, when asked what their religion is, say, "Oh, uh, well, I'm a Christian. Yeah. I mean, I went to church at Christmas when I was growing up and, ya know, we do Easter egg hunts." These Christians are at best nominal Christians--"cultural" Christians. The Muslim community in the United States is replete with Census Bureau Muslims--people who are more or less agnostics who identify with Middle Eastern culture and some aspects of Islam, even though they don't take it seriously. These are NOT the kinds of people we're talking about! Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people using those Census Bureau Muslims as a prop for their left-wing ideology.

The people we're talking about are the practicing Muslims, those who hate Jews (which is basically every practicing Muslim on Earth), who hate gays, who treat women as second class citizens, and those who believe that the United States (and all countries) should ultimately submit to Islamic law. Those are the actual Muslims who are a cancer to every place they reside, not your Muslim friend who owns the brewery and sells you your pot.

1/13/17

I am not a follower of Islam.

I reside in a university campus comprised of an incredibly diverse group of people, including Muslims who seem to be pretty well adjusted to American life - while still adhering closely to their religious practices.

Would it be fair to ostracize such a broad swath of people, simply because other followers of Islamic faith are more radical?

Genuinely curious from a society standpoint. What would be a fair method of discernment?

1/14/17
WBI2994:

Would it be fair to ostracize such a broad swath of people, simply because other followers of Islamic faith are more radical?

<

p>Genuinely curious from a society standpoint. What would be a fair method of discernment?

If you believe your religion condones, justifies, or advocates violent behavior against the federal government or other citizens, especially because of someone else's speech or religious beliefs, it's fair to ostracize you. I think that's my red line.

I don't think most American Muslims feel this way, but a double-digit percentage of foreign Muslims may. In Pakistan, rioting occurred in response to Danish newspapers publishing photographs of Mohammad.

Pick two of the three: public safety, first amendment rights, allowing unfettered no-questions-asked immigration from Pakistan and Syria (Turkey, Jordan, or Morocco are probably OK).

The US has barred immigrants on the basis of ideology in the past. It's constitutional. And if the immigrant's beliefs aren't workable, it's ethical. There is no right to immigrate to a country. Countries should accommodate immigrants, but not at the cost of their own citizens' rights to public safety and exercise of constitutional rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrict...

1/14/17
NYMonkey371:

Just because something was done historically does not make it right. Banning communists during the cold war was wrong, just like banning Muslims is wrong today. Historically blacks didn't have the right to vote and we also forced Japanese into internment camps. Do you think those policy decisions were in-line with American values? I don't.

How about this. We ban anyone whose religious, political, or other beliefs justify or condone armed warfare against the US, socialist revolution in the US, or any other belief that would violate USC 2384 if put into action.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

I'm sorry. I don't have anything against Muslims but I do have something against people who believe violence against Americans or the government is acceptable. Most Muslims don't believe this, but many of the people in the world who do believe this are Muslim, and we need a very careful vetting process to keep out EVERYONE who wishes to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof". And the uncomfortable truth is that a large number of the people we keep out on those grounds, or concerns of those grounds, will be Muslim.

By definition, radical Islam, like traditional Marxism, is a form of violent anarchist beliefs when brought into the US. The Supreme Court requires us to wait until people who believe this stuff actually advocate for a specific course of violent action immediately before we can charge them with a crime, but why should we wait on immigration matters? If America is an oppressive capitalist regime or the Great Satan, why the hell do you want to enter our country (I acknowledge that many, if not most Iranians and middle-easterners think that's hogwash-- but we should never allow someone who feels that way into the country)

If someone says they want to wage war against the United States, maybe let's have them wage war from a place not inside our country.

We have precedent for this, it's constitutional, and while I'm not sure a complete Muslim ban is appropriate, the liberal handwringing about whether this is constitutional is silly.

1/13/17

Edit: my question was answered above

1/12/17

Long time lurker here - figured I finally throw my hat in the ring and make an account.

I am merely a young college student about to enter the workforce after May graduation. Just want to stir the pot and hopefully gain some wisdom from older members of this community.

I believe people are overly concerned about President-Elect Trump's potential conflicts of interest. Has Trump taken steps to reduce these conflicts? Yes. Is the situation/arrangement ideal? Probably not. I believe this post best captures the reality of things.

The Stranger:

I don't think that forcing anyone to take on billions in losses as a requirement of running for office is a good policy. Given the highly hostile disposition of the press, I think it's really unlikely Trump's able to sneak something past us where he clearly prioritizes the Trump Organization over the interest of the public.

Trump's actions and his son's business activities will be so heavily scrutinized that I hardly believe it's something worth losing much sleep over. If seriously egregious conflicts come to light, Trump will face the consequences. In the meantime, perhaps there are other issues more worthy of attention: namely economic and foreign policy.

In terms of economic policy, these seem to be Trump's primary objectives: tax cuts, protectionism to bolster American manufacturing, deregulation, and massive infrastructure spending.

Foreign policy seems a little more difficult to pin down (not much to take away from "we will bomb the shit out of ISIS"), but the gist seems to be: friendlier relations with Russia, demands for greater self-reliance among America's key international allies, and a tougher stance on trade relations with China (and most other trading partners for that matter).

Any chance we can collectively weigh in on the relative merits/faults of these economic and foreign policy details?

1/14/17
WBI2994:

Long time lurker here - figured I finally throw my hat in the ring and make an account.

I am merely a young college student about to enter the workforce after May graduation. Just want to stir the pot and hopefully gain some wisdom from older members of this community.

I believe people are overly concerned about President-Elect Trump's potential conflicts of interest. Has Trump taken steps to reduce these conflicts? Yes. Is the situation/arrangement ideal? Probably not. I believe this post best captures the reality of things.

The Stranger:I don't think that forcing anyone to take on billions in losses as a requirement of running for office is a good policy. Given the highly hostile disposition of the press, I think it's really unlikely Trump's able to sneak something past us where he clearly prioritizes the Trump Organization over the interest of the public.

Trump's actions and his son's business activities will be so heavily scrutinized that I hardly believe it's something worth losing much sleep over. If seriously egregious conflicts come to light, Trump will face the consequences. In the meantime, perhaps there are other issues more worthy of attention: namely economic and foreign policy.

In terms of economic policy, these seem to be Trump's primary objectives: tax cuts, protectionism to bolster American manufacturing, deregulation, and massive infrastructure spending.

Foreign policy seems a little more difficult to pin down (not much to take away from "we will bomb the shit out of ISIS"), but the gist seems to be: friendlier relations with Russia, demands for greater self-reliance among America's key international allies, and a tougher stance on trade relations with China (and most other trading partners for that matter).

Any chance we can collectively weigh in on the relative merits/faults of these economic and foreign policy details?

Lowering the corporate tax rate is a great idea and I think it will pass with significant bipartisan support. All around solid and should have happened long ago. As we've seen in the market reaction, that should be a net positive.

Similarly, the relaxing of regulation will be good for business. I spoke to the CEO of one of the largest mid-steam oil companies in the US the day after the election, their stock was up 5-7% and I asked "what do you do with this information". He noted in this case they expect regulation to ease up and that it should be good for potential new investments and problems with existing assets.

Screwing with trade is going to be a shit-storm with unknown consequences. Messing with China, the largest and fastest growing consumer class (I'm not backing this up with data so anyone feel free to rebut if I'm wrong), is not a solid plan. His protectionist bull crap will not work out well, as anyone who's ever taken an economics class will attest.

Foreign policy? As you noted, I don't know that we really know what it will be other than "I'm strong, respect me, we're the best". A show of strength definitely has it's place, probably more often 50-100 years ago than now but could definitely back down Iran a bit. I firmly believe Putin likes Trump because he believes he can manipulate him and thought this before the recent reports.

I do very much like his "pay us to protect you" stance. I don't like giving Israel billions of dollars every year, even if they do spend it here. If you want to subsidize US defense contractors just do it directly.

1/14/17

Agreed on most of these points, with a few minor additions.

I think a lower corporate tax rate combined with the elimination of loopholes could be effective policy. However, I doubt lower personal income tax rates would spur meaningful growth.
One could tentatively make the same argument against corporations (tax savings being used on stock buybacks and other forms of financial engineering as opposed to R&D, capital expenditures, etc.) This view seems more convincing at the household level, simply because you wouldn't expect a sudden boost in consumption under a more regressive tax regime. (Rich people would probably invest the windfall in financial assets, not consume more)

Deregulation generally greases the wheels of the economy. However, I believe there are 2 exceptions: financial and environmental regulation.
The financial sector seems most rife with potential for instances of fraud and risky behavior; the potential consequences are also the most severe (e.g., financial crises). Dodd-Frank thus falls in the category of "good" regulation, and should be subject to incremental adjustments as opposed to being completely hacked away.
Regarding environmental regulation, I admittedly know very little about EPA measures - particularly in regards to carbon emissions. My instinct is that they are desirable for the most part. Even if one completely disregards the notion of climate change, it still would be favorable to incentivize a movement away from dirtier fossils (coal) and towards cleaner fuels like nat gas or renewables. Eventually (next ~100 years?) , we will run out of fossil fuels. Wouldn't it be smart to ease the transition into a post-fossil fuels world?

No qualms with your views on international trade. Protectionism will serve only to disrupt the global supply chain while bringing back less-desirable manufacturing jobs.
However, I believe we could do a better job of helping out the "losers" of trade. Retraining programs and the like. Alas, I realize that the implementation would be a bitch of a task. Is it realistic to expect the average blue-collar worker to have the intellectual and motivational capacity to continually gain new skills required of more higher value-add, more advanced manufacturing positions? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Foreign policy, in my opinion, requires a soft, pragmatic approach to nurturing alliances and global cooperation while firmly, yet gently chipping away at the power and influence of evil forces (north korea, ISIS). On the world stage, bold and erratic behavior is more likely to sow chaos than bring about desired geopolitical changes. What is most troublesome to me is Trump's antagonistic behavior towards China (on Taiwan, on trade) Is it wise to irritate the second most powerful nation on this planet - one that in many ways has conducted itself as a more responsible world citizen than have other major players (Russia) - only to turn around and demand their support (in controlling North Korea)?

On a related tangent/rant: Better relations with Russia and China shouldn't be mutually exclusive. But prioritizing friendlier ties to Russia while antagonizing China is like drafting Sam Bowie (WHO??) in 1984 instead of Charles Barkley, John Stockton, or Michael Fucking Jordan.

1/13/17

Okay. First of all:
Breibart is trash.
So are CNN, Fox, and Infowars for that matter.
And who in their right mind listens to anything Buzz Feed publishes? I mean seriously?
I mean I get it, people read that stuff but news agencies?
That's like republishing something from the Onion--oh wait, that happened to the New York Times and ESPN.
Yeah--I don't think that highly of media in general--not news media anyway.
Secondly, regarding Trump's plan, I for one think its a doable idea.
It isn't a blind trust but the most important part of the whole plan is that he's not making the decisions.
If his children make decisions based on policy Trump creates that's technically completely legal, as long as it can be proven Trump isn't ordering his kids and basically using them as proxies.

1/13/17

For the record Breitbart did not in fact push the pizzagate story. Please calm down long enough to check for yourself:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abreitbart.c...

I believe I recall Milo Yiannopoulos saying that the site's editorial board had a blackout on the story when he was asked about it after one of his speeches. I'm not a journalist but refusing to cover a story like that (before the shooting incident) seems a reasonable way to handle it. Perhaps they should have actively refuted the story, but they certainly did not feed it.

Other sites did take an active role in combating the story:
https://www.google.com/search?q=pizza+comet+podest...

1/13/17

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/13/17
1/13/17

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/16/17
1/16/17

Master in Finance Website

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

1/13/17
1/14/17

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

1/15/17
1/15/17
Add a Comment