muscleman

agreed, but dont forget, perry isnt the only game in town. if there is remand in perry, there likely will be much in the opinion that may be helpful for plaintiffs in hines/jacobs; that court would not be obliged to follow perry opinion, but it would be influential. Talking about the DE case, it is moving extremely slowly. Nearly two months after lift, not even a date came out. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124643674

Was there supplemental briefing? We got supplemental briefing back and forth that ended in late July, so I'd say starting from late July, expect another 5 months, which is next Feb.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment. Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us. See, I'm not sure of that. Most commentary on the intent of the amendment seems to be that it was some combination of maintaining a strong standing militia (similar to what Switzerland has) and preventing government tyranny. That would imply to me that it was written to allow for military-grade weapons. I think there's a good argument that military-grade weapons have progressed to the point where we no longer wish for people to have them (or at the very least be able to easily obtain them), but I think that's a change of direction from how it was intended and should be enacted through an amendment. I'd vote for that amendment, but I wouldn't want it done a different way. The problem is once we start allowing loose interpretations the whole document basically just becomes symbolic. That's where I really diverge from Hillary/Obama though. My biggest issue with Obama's presidency is the use of military force without a declaration of war as I think is required by the constitution. Part of the benefit of that is it requires the president to come to congress, say "hey here's my rationale and my plan", and then thoroughly debate both parts. Hillary rushed Obama off to war (at least in Libya) without taking the time to go through Congress and now we're suffering the consequences (see tail risks post above re EU disintegration). The Germans took their time, thoroughly debated the question of "what happens when Gaddafi is gone", and decided to abstain from the bombing. Obviously congress isn't always right either, but it helps. I agree. The whole ISIS mess stems from the US intervention into Libya, so Trump's claim that Obama and Hillary are the founders of ISIS aren't that exaggerated, though I know he is definitely joking. But the media picks this up as another sign that Trump is unfit and immature.

I'll use that as my shameless introduction of Gary Johnson to this two party discussion. Only candidate who recognizes the war on drugs doesn't work. I like him mainly because of economic track record. He started a construction company in NM, grew it to 1000 employees, sold it, and became Republican governor of New Mexico (a mainly blue state). As governor he used the veto ~750 times, cut taxes 14 times and left office with a budget surplus. His running mate, Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts, has a similar track record. They've promised a balanced budget within 100 days and are the only candidates willing to discuss entitlements (they suggest raising the social security age and having a means test). They want to eliminate all income taxes (corp and personal) and replace them with a sales tax, with the main benefit being it would make the US a much more competitive place to have a global company. They recognize that small businesses are really what drives job growth (especially as small businesses become big businesses) and want to make it as easy as possible to start a company. Also the only candidates who support free trade. Main concern with them so far has been that they "can't win" but with the two main candidates as polarizing and scandal-ridden as they are, it seems a bit early to make that call. Anyways, that's the end of my plug. Here's Patrick Byrne (Overstock CEO) with the rest: Well, if this is true, I think Gary Johnson is solid. Does he believe in separation of power or does he think a president can do whatever he wanted to do, like Obama/Hillary? He used veto 750 times so I am worried if he is more like Obama who believes he can do whatever he wanted to do. Libertarians in general believe in limited gov't. Basically, the approach is less is more when it comes to gov't. Keep the Republicans out of your bedroom and the Democrats out of your wallet, maximize personal liberties while doing no harm to others. Basically the Libertarian mantra at the moment. I also tend to like them because they appear to have some integrity and stick to their policies/guiding principles as opposed to flip-flopping and pandering to the electorate just to get votes to do whatever the hell they want. Yeah I totally feel like Clinton is doing whatever she can to get votes. Totally untrustworthy. Trump is being honest. He is consistent in his style to attract one group of voters. Just like value investing, you stick with one style and you attract one investor base LOL. So I like him. Gary seems to be good too. :)

I'll use that as my shameless introduction of Gary Johnson to this two party discussion. Only candidate who recognizes the war on drugs doesn't work. I like him mainly because of economic track record. He started a construction company in NM, grew it to 1000 employees, sold it, and became Republican governor of New Mexico (a mainly blue state). As governor he used the veto ~750 times, cut taxes 14 times and left office with a budget surplus. His running mate, Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts, has a similar track record. They've promised a balanced budget within 100 days and are the only candidates willing to discuss entitlements (they suggest raising the social security age and having a means test). They want to eliminate all income taxes (corp and personal) and replace them with a sales tax, with the main benefit being it would make the US a much more competitive place to have a global company. They recognize that small businesses are really what drives job growth (especially as small businesses become big businesses) and want to make it as easy as possible to start a company. Also the only candidates who support free trade. Main concern with them so far has been that they "can't win" but with the two main candidates as polarizing and scandal-ridden as they are, it seems a bit early to make that call. Anyways, that's the end of my plug. Here's Patrick Byrne (Overstock CEO) with the rest: Well, if this is true, I think Gary Johnson is solid. Does he believe in separation of power or does he think a president can do whatever he wanted to do, like Obama/Hillary? He used veto 750 times so I am worried if he is more like Obama who believes he can do whatever he wanted to do.

Stop looking at anectodal events, the big picture is different: https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low Environment and education are the priorities, if you don't have them, you don't have anything. Well, there are many factors contributing to this result. Just because the homicide rate is lower does not mean Obama should release the drug dealers so they can kill more. The logic is like, well the overall homicide rate is much lower now, so it is ok to release a few drug dealers to kill people. That does not sound logical to me. On the other hand, tax payers spend money to help these guys find jobs. Then there is the not enough resource for education for normal people.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/03/crack-dealer-freed-early-under-obama-plan-murders-woman-2-kids/ The Dem party is willing to do anything to get a vote. Let's stop discussing fossil fuels and environmental problems, guys. These social problems are far more serious than that. If you breath polluted air, your life span may be shortened by 10 years. If your neighborhood is filled with people like this, you may die tomorrow.

My wife who has no understanding of investing or law has been predicting that no decisions will come out from any courts until after the election, and depending on who wins the election, the court will rule accordingly. She comes from China so she applies the way Chinese government and court do things to here. I think the Obama administration is becoming more and more like China and Russia, so it is quite possible that her prediction is true. :( so, the whole reason this investment "may" make sense is because of the separation of powers, rule of law and independence of the judiciary...which is to say that brown and ginsburg, at least, dont give a rip what the obama administration thinks. let's see if theory=practice Chris, that is exactly right. And the core issue. Either the rule of law and separation of powers are real or not. That is, in essence, what we are betting on. Unexpectedly, it has become a less than sure bet. That's true. When I watch how Hillary got out of the email scandal with absolutely zero punishment, I know the system is rigged. Fortunately we still got Judge Brown's fast and furious ruling, and the MDL panel's ruling for plantiffs, so I kept the faith as I see mixed signals.

I suggest focusing on the big picture, rather than basing your votes on one or two matters. This is no different from investing.

My wife who has no understanding of investing or law has been predicting that no decisions will come out from any courts until after the election, and depending on who wins the election, the court will rule accordingly. She comes from China so she applies the way Chinese government and court do things to here. I think the Obama administration is becoming more and more like China and Russia, so it is quite possible that her prediction is true. :(

Just watched Trump's live talk at NAHB. Seems pretty calm and normal to me. I would go with Trump.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-09/icahn-hopeful-trump-wins-presidency-on-economic-stance "He said he talks to Trump and expresses his views, but didn’t join the official advisory group. Icahn said he wants to keep his options open to potentially fund a political action committee addressing his business and economic concerns." So as you guys suggested, Icahn probably rejected the offer to run Treasury because he wanted to avoid conflict of interest. So he wants to be in none of those roles but just talk to Trump as a friend.

Efficient market hypothesis: If a company is so good, then the price would have already gone up to reflect that and you'd see analysts' buy rating coverage of it everywhere. Your mentality seems to be exactly that. Why are you on a value investing board? :D

Are you saying the Lamberth decision might be leaked? I think that's definitely possible.

Definitely, only citizens can vote. But does that law in California allows anyone holding a drivers license to by-pass this restriction and cast the vote?

I hope you're not basing your opinion on one sensationalist article from a very dubious website. Do some basic research on the Motor Voter Act and you'll see that the original version came into effect over 20 years ago. I don't care when it came into effect. I just care if it is true that illegal immigrants can vote in the election? I googled a bit about this act but not totally sure.

http://buzzfeedusa.com/news/california-signs-law-allowing-illegals-to-vote/?from=timeline&isappinstalled=0 As an immigrant I have been a long time Democrat supporter. However I am feeling increasingly concerned that they are crossing the line and they are willing to do whatever to get more votes. If this continues the country will soon become Mexico or China.

And how is Paulson going to handle the conflict of interest? I bet he will just handle it like Senator Bob Corker and will have no problem. ;D

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html Thank you for the article. I was not aware that the media always sides with Democrats. I wasn't in the US until 2007.

Does anyone know the next action for the DE case? Judge Sleet seems to have fallen sleep again since he woke up last month

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8619/sweden-asylum-seekers-violence The daily Svenska Dagbladet reported that 30,000 people whose asylum application had been rejected and were scheduled for deportation, had gone missing. The police say they lack the resources to track down these illegals. Three Somali men in their 20s, who took turns raping a 14-year-old girl, received very lenient sentences -- and all three avoided deportation. On June 7, it was reported that British citizen Grace "Khadija" Dare had brought her 4-year-old son, Isa Dare, to live in Sweden, in order to benefit from free health care. In February, the boy was featured in an ISIS video, blowing up four prisoners in a car. The boy's father, a jihadist with Swedish citizenship, was killed fighting for ISIS. "If you disagree with the establishment, you are immediately called a racist or fascist, which we definitely are not. At times I felt that this was what it must have been like to live in the old Soviet Union." — Karla, on why her family had left Sweden for Mallorca. Hey guys, isn't US becoming like Sweden in all these aspects? If Clinton is elected, will it go more in this direction?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/obama-commutes-sentences-of-more-than-200-people-serving-fed?utm_term=.eij9gY2qK#.yt3A67Waz Let's commute sentences of all prisoners so they can be grateful for the Dem party and vote for Hillary Clinton! Yeah! Win-win! ;D ;D

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8543/iran-nuclear-cheating

YOLO, man! ;D Aren't you supposed to be more careful if you can only live once? ::)

I think Bruce's investments are a bit YOLO, but if Fannie/Freddie work out, he'd get about 4x (or more?) on 20% position, so ~80% return. That would be enough to recompense for underperformance in 1, 3, 5, 10 year windows. Not that I advice to invest in his funds, do your own DD and all that. I find it troubling to think that he put 20% of his mutual fund into Fannie/Freddie. This is clearly a binary outcome.