rkbabang

And this is how you describe Clinton's likely outcomes: So McCain was worse than this, and you seem pretty confident with each election cycle that we're teetering on the edge of a nuclear apocalypse. It makes sense to me now why you're a such a devout libertarian, viewing government as nothing but a problem, if you assess the probabilities of the end of civilization this way. Have you ever considered that you're particular sensitive on this war issue, and might not be so good at estimating the odds of an apocalypse? It sounds really stressful living in your head. It is stressful. I can't imagine what the inside of someone who doesn't care about war's head is like. We may be evolved from apes, but that doesn't mean we have to behave like them. We supposedly have rational faculties which can override our primal instincts. I listen to the "support-the-military-conservatives" sometimes and it just makes me almost sick to my stomach. If you look at the industry that has sprung up around death and destruction and you realize that most of the politicians are bought and paid for by it, it is overwhelming to think about. It baffles me that most people just don't care. Is it tribalism? Racism? Xenophobia? Or just plain old lack of empathy? We've come a long way as far as cultural evolution goes, but we still have a long, long, way to go.

Some friends from SciFi club/writing group talked about scenario where you get transported to human-uninhabited Earth (pick your own scenario why there are plants/animals, but no people: maybe it's prehistoric, maybe there was apocalypse, etc.). It's spring, you have clothes, maybe a knife (maybe not - depending on scenario). What would you do? I'd just die. Well, maybe with knife I wouldn't. For couple days. It depends, do I have books to read? If not, yeah I just die.

Ever heard the phrase "Better to be roughly right than precisely wrong" . I suspect its the latter in your case. I could be, maybe Hillary will surprise me. I've been wrong before. I was certainly wrong about Obama. I thought he was going to end all of Bush's wars. I was silly enough to believe he actually meant what he said, but so did the Nobel Peace Prize committee, so I wasn't the only one. I was actually thrilled when he was elected in 2008 as I thought McCain was a warmongering lunatic. As it turns out Obama was worse than Bush, but still probably not as bad as McCain would have been. McCain scared me even more than Hillary does now.

Great juxtaposition. You couldn't make this stuff up. I do hate Hillary, but I hate Trump as well. Looking on this election without a horse in the race I see much more hate directed at Trump, by the very people who feel morally superior to Trump supporters and accuse them of being filled with hate. It is a wonderful display of hypocrisy to sit back and watch. Yes, Trump supporters are a pretty ignorant lot, but they have nothing on the left when it comes to hate.

Not really. Like some people predict, he will likely start TV station/show/whatever for the following that he has. It's likely generate tons of money too, since people love this crap. I agree. I am one of the people who thinks he started this run for president as a publicity stunt and never dreamed he'd win the primaries. He'll never admit that, so we will never know for sure, but even if/when he loses the election his little stunt worked out much better than he could ever have imagined. He'll write a book, do more reality shows, etc. He'll make out nicely.

But will you feel any accountability for spreading doom and gloom if it doesn't happen? I don't exactly have a large enough following to move the needle. Considering what is going on with this election (the press spreading Trump=Hitler fears, the hate a lot of people other than me have for Hillary, etc), me spreading doom and gloom is like a drop of water in an ocean. Also, I do hope I'm wrong.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Do you have any compunctions in investing in oil? No, none at all. I just doubt my ability to do so successfully. If you mean directly in the commodity, definitely no, I've never considered commodities to be within my circle of competence. I have been thinking about looking into some of the larger players like XOM as a relatively safe way to park some money in oil with a fair amount of downside protection. Again, I think this will play out over years so there is some time. I actually expect a post election rally after she wins, people are afraid of Trump and will be celebrating his defeat. That is when I plan to raise some more cash.

Is there any evidence that he has that much humility? If only he had Hillary's sense of humility, empathy, and selflessness. Her kindness and love of peace and humanity.

Out of curiosity, do you actually live and invest based on this forecast? Considering that Hillary Clinton has a 90% (+/- 10%) chance of winning the election, are you choosing to spend your savings because death is imminent or scoping out for a fallout shelter to survive the post-apocalyptic wasteland? No I don't choose to live in a post nuclear wasteland. I live in the North Eastern United States about 60miles from Boston. I won't survive the first nuclear strike. I'm obviously hoping for the best case scenario, which still isn't good with Hillary, but we all survived the first Cold War. Ok. I think that you would agree that the market isn't currently pricing in "all out war in the middle east." Are you actually positioning your portfolio for that scenario? I have been moving to cash over the last few months. I've been fully invested for 25 years (on average I've held less than 1% cash), I now have about 20% cash and I plan to increase that over the coming months. I've also been increasing my Fairfax position as I think they are well prepared for a down turn. I won't invest in the military industrial complex (defense contractors, etc..). Nothing is going to happen for a while, hell if this poll at the top of this page is any indication, not only are investors not going to panic after election day most of them are voting for her. I expect increased tensions with Russia, especially after she takes office. I expect in her first year she will increase the bombings, and the number of countries being bombed, in the Middle East, more troops on the ground, more violence and death in general. She's going to try to get as much kindling together as she can and pour a bunch of kerosene on it, whether or not someone throws a spark into it and sets it alight is anyone's guess.

Out of curiosity, do you actually live and invest based on this forecast? Considering that Hillary Clinton has a 90% (+/- 10%) chance of winning the election, are you choosing to spend your savings because death is imminent or scoping out for a fallout shelter to survive the post-apocalyptic wasteland? No I don't choose to live in a post nuclear wasteland. I live in the North Eastern United States about 60miles from Boston. I won't survive the first nuclear strike. I'm obviously hoping for the best case scenario, which still isn't good with Hillary, but we all survived the first Cold War.

It is the most open government ever...due to wikileaks, not Obama.

I read this, agree with every single word of it, and then ask myself how the hell is Hillary any better? How does the author not realize that when it comes to human regression, war, and destruction that Hillary will be Trump X 100? In fact you could do a search and replace in that article "Hillary" for "Trump" and not only would it still be a valid article, but much, much, more so. This moral posturing by the left, while ignoring the warmonger in their midst is really unbelievable to see. The cognitive dissonance needed to pull this off in one's mind is astounding.

To be fair he'll likely kill anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands just like his last 4 or 5 predecessors. I don't see him talking about ending the bombings and bringing all of the troops home. I just don't think he is likely to be any worse than his predecessors when it comes to war, but best case he may be slightly better than some of them. Obama has been a huge disappointment to anyone who cares about peace (even a little bit). Hillary on the other hand will be an unmitigated disaster on a global scale. The best we can hope for is all out war in the middle east and a new cold war with Russia (nuclear arms race included). The worst case would be the end of humanity (along with most of the other complex/large lifeforms on the planet). The cockroaches will inherit the Earth.

So what's your feeling about Vice President Biden openly threatening Russia with massive cyber attacks? Good diplomacy? Okay, but only because he's a democrat? I'd like to hear your thoughts. BTW. Biden is a sitting Vice President making an open, immediate, and credible threat to another nation, not just someone running for office spewing nonsense as they all do when campaigning. EDIT: Some background. Since the American press doesn't seem to want to report much on these issues. Biden Threatens Cyberwar With Russia, Kremlin Vows To Protect Itself My post earlier in this thread asking why Hillary and Obama are so keen on provoking a war, even nuclear war, with Russia (still unanswered BTW)

I agree there will always be somethings humans want done which only humans can do. This will be ever shifting though. The times where you can learn a skill and do that for your entire life is quickly coming to an end. In the future humans will be wealthier than we can imagine (just like we are wealthier than someone from 100 years ago could imagine) and they will work a lot less. The point of life isn't to work, the point is to get what you want/need, live well, make a difference, and have fun. All of those things will become easier not harder. If you expect there to always be humans doing difficult repetitive tasks (such as assembly line work or software design) you are going to be disappointed.

I finally deleted my Yahoo account for good. After this revelation (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/04/yahoo-secret-email-program-nsa-fbi) I'm done with Yahoo forever. Talk about a once useful website that just went down the tubes completely. You won't find how to delete your account in settings. You have to first turn off "Account Key" if you have it enabled. (Instructions) Then while signed in to yahoo go to this link: http://edit.yahoo.com/config/delete_user

I agree. Scott Adams is profoundly brilliant. He has completely transformed my thinking on how people make political decisions. I now understand why facts & rational arguments are useless when in the realm of politics or articles of faith. And, reactions (like almost all of the messages posted on this thread) are so easy to predict that it's become laughable. Thanks to Packer for the original link to him. He may have some really clever thoughts. I read through his blog a bit. But he says Trump has 98% chance of winning. That pretty much got me to stop reading his stuff, not because he seems to be pro-Trump but because I really question his judgement. Am i reading it wrong? If he is wrong about the election it will be another addition to his long list of failures including careers in banking, telecom, a computer game maker, restaurant owner, and app designer. He also believes there is a high probability that we are all living in a computer simulation. A normal reaction would be to ignore him as a loser and a crackpot (like some on the thread have already done). But anyone doing so would miss a chance to learn some serious life lessons that he has to offer from those very failures. His main approach to life is try, fail, learn, repeat. But he is far from a failure. He is a fabulously wealthy, a best-selling author, a highly-paid speaker, a cartoonist who is syndicated in 2000 newspapers in 65 countries, a trained hypnotist, a student of persuasion, and dates a girl who looks like a super model (to some). A lot of attention is paid to people who have made quick riches like Elizabeth Holmes, Michael Burry, and others who have "cracked" the secret to success. Of course, people what replicate that very success. But what practice knowledge can one really expect to learn from these right-place-at-the-right-time people? IMO, not much. I pickup much more useful knowledge from rare people like Scott Adams who not only have failed time & again, but possess the talent for simplifying lessons and writing in an easy-to-read style. I don't have the time at the moment to reply to everything you said, but I'd be shocked if we were not living in some type of simulation. The chances that we are in base reality are so small to be almost nonexistent.

The debates are useless in normal years, this year, with these candidates, even more so. I don't watch the debates anymore for the same reason I don't vote. I don't want to be counted as supporting the system itself. I do what I wish everyone else would do (be the change you want to see in the world). Imagine if the ratings showed that almost no one watched the debates and imagine if on election day less than a million people showed up to vote. How could these idiots even pretend that they have some kind of mandate to rule?

As I've said many times politics is a mental illness that infects the victims brains and shuts down logical reasoning functionality causing cognitive dissonance. You can't expect a rational polite conversation. Not here, not anywhere. How can someone think Trump saying that he grabs woman's private parts is disgusting, while at the same time think nothing of Bill Clinton raping women? It's just politics. A good rule of thumb is that both sides are usually pretty close to correct when talking about the other side, yet completely full of shit when talking about their own side. Even when both sides do exactly the same things they only see it on the other side not their own. For just one simple example of this: Liberals thought Bush was a war criminal, and still think Obama is not. Any rational analysis of both presidents militarily would come to the conclusion that Obama has killed many times more innocent people than Bush did, yet they just don't see it. They won't even let their minds entertain the thought. If an Obama supporter is even reading this far, he is already saying that I'm nuts. (Most aren't reading this, because they have probably blocked me already anyway.) Just par for the course when discussing politics with those thoroughly infected with the disease.

This is exactly the question Obama and Clinton supporters are pretending not to hear. I don't see it answered anywhere. Hillary made a lot of hay over Trump supposedly being cozy with Putin, but no one is saying anything about the Democrats playing with nuclear war. I don't think this is a small issue. It is the largest of issues possible. I don't care if Trump is a racist asshole who hates trade and immigration and gays and wants to do all kinds of primitive conservative nonsense. Why do the democrats want war with Russia? Why poke the bear? Especially when it has a nuclear arsenal? Not really expecting an answer. Feel free to ignore this as usual. Counter that Trump says mean things, he's not well spoken, wants to build a rediculous wall, called Rosie fat, has no character, blah, blah, blah. So I'll give you my opinion. Another cold war bringing us right to the brink of nuclear holocaust is exactly what the military industrial complex wants right now. There is already a tremendous amount being spent on the military and even the usually sleeping public is starting to notice. The war on terror isn't cutting it anymore, something huge is going to have to happen for that spending to grow in any substantial way from here. Hillary IS the military industrial complex candidate and Obama is towing the line as well.

In order from least likely to lead us into a major war to most likely: Stein, Johnson, Trump, Hillary. That is also the same order for least likely to win to most likely. rkbababg, I know we've tangled on topics before and that our ideologies and ways of looking on things are different. Still I like reading your posts because you don't seem to have a problem with facts unlike others. So I'd like to hear your thoughts on this issue. You have put Trump as less likely to start a major war than Clinton. Others here have expressed similar opinions of Trump the pacifist. Well if Trump is such a pacifist and unlikely to start major wars why is he constantly talking about investing in and expanding the military? The US military is already by far the biggest, most effective, rock out, death and destruction machine ever known to mankind. It already dominates the world. It is surely way too large already to just protect the United States without massive force projection abroad. So if Trump as president wants to retreat from the world militarily and is not looking to start major wars, why does he need to expand the military? Thanks. I don't think Trump is a pacifist by any means. Just like the 4 presidents preceding him he will continue the bombing in the middle east and likely expand it. He is running as a Republican and to get his base out to vote he has to talk strong pro military, that is what the hard core flag waving religious conservatives want to hear. What worries me about Hillary is that she doesn't have to talk pro-military for her base to get out and vote, Obama ran on peace in 2008 and the left was ecstatic, yet she is solidly pro-war and always has been. Her handling of Libya was horrific and her glee over it “We Came, We Saw, He Died” is barbaric. This is not a good person. She is a power hungry monster with absolutely no human empathy. The other thing that scares me is how antagonistic she is about Russia and China. These are the countries we do NOT want to go to war with, and I think we are more likely to do so with her in the Oval Office. I don't think Trump will go out of his way to poke the bear where Hillary will. These are just my opinions so take that for what that is worth.

In order from least likely to lead us into a major war to most likely: Stein, Johnson, Trump, Hillary. That is also the same order for least likely to win to most likely.

Jobs is so overrated. His accomplishment was mainly making a huge marketing machine (while most people believe him to be an innovator, he's not in the slightest). Gates, Musk and Bezos are indeed close. The only reason smartphones and tablets are as ubiquitous as they are is because of Jobs. The design, utility and functionality of the iPhone is what forced other manufacturers to step up their game. When I first used the original iPhone, it was light years ahead of the competition...only now, 9 years later have other manufacturers started producing comparable devices...and the best competitor, the Samsung 7, was recalled for exploding and catching fire! Jobs was not an engineer, but he understood design better than one. Today, his company is the most profitable company in the world, with arguably the strongest balance sheet...how over-rated is he again? Cheers! Because the above is false. Ipod wasn't new and Iphone wasn't either. Similar devices were on the market years before. With some combination of skill and luck Jobs got people to buy it by the millions. I wonder who will take Google glasses, rebrand it and pretend to be an innovator. Did I say that the smartphone didn't exist before jobs, or did I say that he took the smartphone and made it relevant through design, utility and functionality? Think of the products that he created that forged the environment we are now in: - The Apple Computer - The Apple II - The Mac - Macbook - Ipod - Iphone - Ipad - Itunes - Applepay...yes on Cook's watch, but you knew this was coming and was thought of at Apple long ago. Not too mention all of the other Apple products, the insane cash flow at the company or the culture created there. Cheers! +1. Being first to market can get you a first mover advantage, but only if you do it right. If your product isn't ready for primetime, someone else is going to take the idea and run with it, and it may be them or the 3rd or 4th company to try which gets it right. Ford didn't invent the automobile, Tesla didn't invent the electric car, Microsoft didn't invent the computer operating system (they didn't even write the first version of MS DOS), the list is endless. Invention is overrated. Steve Jobs understood this well. EDIT: It baffles me as to why some people think that a company which ultimately succeeds where all others have failed is somehow less worthy of praise rather than more simply because they weren't the first to try.

I'd find it interesting if anyone has changed their vote (and wants to admit it) and why? I'll go first. On the September poll I voted Gary Johnson, because out of the choices given he was the closest to what I support. But since I created this poll, I added my most favored choice: "Not Voting", so I voted thus.

Carrying a tax loss forward is certainly not genius, but he'd be pretty stupid not to.