onyx1 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 You're going to drive yourself crazy thinking you can change anyone's political support with facts & reason. That's why I asked if facts matter to you. Tengen, No more or less than any other human, and in the context of politics that means no. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply deluding themselves. By asking this question I don't think you caught my point, so let me try one more time. I terms of persuading the electorate, facts & reason don't matter. What does matter? 1) Identity to a group or cause. 2) Stories or analogies. 3) Facts & reason. Group identity is more effective than a story. Stories are more effective than facts. And facts are better than....nothing. Trump's emphasis on 1 & 2 has kept him in the race despite battling the Democrat party, the media, and many in his own party. His appeal is long on emotion and identity groups like proud Americans, law & order lovers, and the religious among many others. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and won a second term by ignoring facts & reason and by emphasizing 1 & 2. Despite all the complaining about it, there is a reason why winning political parties play identity politics: it works. And there is a lot of wisdom in the old etiquette rule: "Never discuss religion or politics." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 WTF is going on with there people ??? "Rush Limbaugh complains that "the Left" treats nonconsensual sex as rape" (posted by a "Law professor @MiamiLawSchool crim/1st Am/family law") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 WTF is going on with there people ??? "Rush Limbaugh complains that "the Left" treats nonconsensual sex as rape" (posted by a "Law professor @MiamiLawSchool crim/1st Am/family law") I think the word you're looking for is deplorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 If a lot of Trump's wealth comes from his brand, I wonder how much it's worth now :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwimmingNaked Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I think the word you're looking for is deplorable. This election has exposed a lot of deplorables (not Rush though, he was always one). I think support for Trump would be cause to end a friendship, especially if you've reasoned with the person. Luckily I haven't had to do it, only supporter I know is a former high school buddy who converted into a deplorable well before Trump came on the scene. Not to say all Trump supporters are deplorable, many are just gullible chumps who buy the fake confidence he inspires (like any good con) and some are voting for him for purely strategic reasons (ie. get a conservative SC judge). But I find the hypocrisy of the Christian Right particularly amusing to watch, Trump is the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins and everything their religion preaches against. Despite all these scandals, the thing I still find most troubling about Trump is how profoundly ignorant he is on just about everything, though it makes sense as self-obsessed people have little curiosity about anything other than what will be affecting their immediate future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 If a lot of Trump's wealth comes from his brand, I wonder how much it's worth now :P No such thing as bad publicity. All this stuff has been known about before, we're just rehashing it. He's in the news, he ran for president, this is all good for his brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwimmingNaked Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 If a lot of Trump's wealth comes from his brand, I wonder how much it's worth now :P No such thing as bad publicity. All this stuff has been known about before, we're just rehashing it. He's in the news, he ran for president, this is all good for his brand. Not really... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/04/what-donald-trumps-candidacy-has-really-meant-for-his-business-empire/ Also remember someone reporting that his kids are pissed at how much the campaign is hurting business. Most of his hotels are in big cities and cater to the upper-middle to upper class. I doubt he has even 20% support among the type of people who have or would have stayed in his hotels. I'm pretty sure he just mostly licenses out his brand to developers, but what developer would want to use his name now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyx1 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I think the word you're looking for is deplorable. I think support for Trump would be cause to end a friendship, especially if you've reasoned with the person. A good example of someone who doesn't understand how people make political decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watsa_is_a_randian_hero Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 If a lot of Trump's wealth comes from his brand, I wonder how much it's worth now :P No such thing as bad publicity. All this stuff has been known about before, we're just rehashing it. He's in the news, he ran for president, this is all good for his brand. Not really... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/04/what-donald-trumps-candidacy-has-really-meant-for-his-business-empire/ Also remember someone reporting that his kids are pissed at how much the campaign is hurting business. Most of his hotels are in big cities and cater to the upper-middle to upper class. I doubt he has even 20% support among the type of people who have or would have stayed in his hotels. I'm pretty sure he just mostly licenses out his brand to developers, but what developer would want to use his name now? If he loses, he starts his own cable news network. He will immediately have very high ratings with a core following. He has high brand value for the potential to create new assets. You are thinking narrow-minded if you think of brand value as only relating to existing assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valcont Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151737656851/the-era-of-women The master persuader fraud is walking back on his "insights" about Trump's victory . Think about how many Trumpsters believed in his idiotic foresights, baseless assertions and fact free theories. All that has gone to waste. Now he compares the odds of this video appearing to a meteor striking Clinton !! Any reasonable intelligent person could have predicted that the odds of such video are pretty high. I just hope his followers have better sources of information when they invest. Remember this is what he predicted a month ago. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150772972746/how-to-know-an-election-is-over http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150264994381/the-race-for-president-is-probably-over http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150284922631/checking-my-predictions-about-clintons-health Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Assuming Trump loses now. He says, he would put HRC in jail for her email scandals. Do you suppose he has given any thought to the criminal charges he might be facing when this is over. All this crud pouring out is empowering women to come forward. It reminds me of the fallout from Bill Crosby - once a couple of women came forward, then they were many. And Tiger Woods - nothing illegal but same type of fallout. My son has decided the best situation is to be rich and unknown, and the worst is to be poor and famous. I agree with him. Trump is headed rapidly toward poor and (in) famous. I dont believe this helps his brand one bit. There was a move afoot to have his name removed from Trump tower in Toronto, already. My bet is the owners get out of the licensing deal any way they can. See how fast sponsors dumped Tiger and Crosby, and a host of other celebrity endorsers. Me to my Wife: " Honey, I have two nights booked at the Trump hotel downtown". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I mean hell, of this entire thread I'd say 85% of the posts are Trump-related. Hillary who? Oh, the person that isn't Donald. The entire country and world knows who he is now. He further legitimized himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I think the word you're looking for is deplorable. I think support for Trump would be cause to end a friendship, especially if you've reasoned with the person. A good example of someone who doesn't understand how people make political decisions. I actually agree with the naked swimmer that Trump would be cause to end friendships. However I don't think that friendships get ended because one votes for the other party or because people don't understand how political decisions get made. I think friendships end because Trump has empowered people to express how they really think and feel. Now they lay out their thoughts bare and it enables you to have a clearer picture of the person. Let me share a personal anecdote. I'll preface that I hang out in pretty conservative circles not with super PC people. I was at this party a while back and one of our friends was there. Normally he tends to be the loud, opinionated, in your face type but otherwise seemed a perfectly nice guy. So we all thought, well that just his style. Now at this party he starts going on this massive rant just shouting how Trump is so awesome, then he moves on to the Jews, then to holocaust denial, then to blacks (not the word he used), Muslims (again not the word/words he used), and then he tops it off with his view that political correctness is out of control and that's why you can't beat your wife and kids anymore which is unfortunate. Everyone fell quiet and I haven't really seen him around much after that. Friendships as all relationships are built on a common set of values. If it comes out that one person doesn't share those values or has a completely opposite set then the relationship is in danger. For example, if I find out that Joey is a member of the Klan, that's a deal breaker. I'm not gonna continue hanging out with him just because he's fun at parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 If a lot of Trump's wealth comes from his brand, I wonder how much it's worth now :P No such thing as bad publicity. All this stuff has been known about before, we're just rehashing it. He's in the news, he ran for president, this is all good for his brand. Oh, but there is such a thing as bad publicity. You think Samsung is happy about every airline having to warn passengers about exploding phones? You think Bill Crossby and Mel Gibson's careers took a turn for the better after they were in headlines so much? A lot of people who didn't see Trump as particularly political before and didn't mind going to a Trump hotel or casino or watching a TV show with him will now avoid these things. I don't even think that's controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 thats fair. in this case i still think overall, from donald's perspective he is probably better off having run. i personally hope he goes broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 thats fair. in this case i still think overall, from donald's perspective he is probably better off having run. i personally hope he goes broke. Time will tell, but I think running might turn out to have been the worst thing he could do at the end of his career. It was high risk/reward to be clear, and he had a clear chance at winning despite the early doubt of everybody, but now I think he's probably going to be a bit like Mel Gibson and Bill Cosby in most circles, and that's gotta hurt to a man who loves nothing more than being in adored in public and to have his name associated with success. Especially since he spends most of his time with elites in places like New York, California and London, not in rural Alabama or or suburbian Florida or whatever. Probably won't be surrounded by fans.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 These just keep coming. Howard Stern with Trump about "sexual predators": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHPUZk5HdRA&feature=youtu.be&t=21m53s Via Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tengen Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 You're going to drive yourself crazy thinking you can change anyone's political support with facts & reason. That's why I asked if facts matter to you. No more or less than any other human, and in the context of politics that means no. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply deluding themselves. Well I guess that's the end of the conversation. Please excuse me while I continue to lead my delusional existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardGibbons Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Well I guess that's the end of the conversation. Please excuse me while I continue to lead my delusional existence. I think it's quite a useful point he makes. Basically, onyx doesn't really care to be rational, thoughtful, or reasonable in any sense of the word. For him, it's not at all about qualifications, demeanor, intelligence, or ethics. He finds Trump prettier than Clinton and will therefore unapologetically vote for him, for who says that reason, logic, or facts should play any part in deciding the leader of the free world? It explains nicely so many people don't seem to be acting rationally, and why the core of Trump's base is the racists, the violent, and the misogynists. This election might not be the battle of the sexes, the war of the corrupt, or the maverick vs. the establishment. It might actually be the fight between the reasonable and the unreasonable. (And one of the nice things about onyx's unreasonableness is that he can claim that everyone is like that, including him. It nicely avoids any sort of cognitive dissonance, enabling him to justify anything and feel good about himself, while still believing that people should take him seriously. I think it's pretty neat.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Investor20 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Well I guess that's the end of the conversation. Please excuse me while I continue to lead my delusional existence. I think it's quite a useful point he makes. Basically, onyx doesn't really care to be rational, thoughtful, or reasonable in any sense of the word. For him, it's not at all about qualifications, demeanor, intelligence, or ethics. He finds Trump prettier than Clinton and will therefore unapologetically vote for him, for who says that reason, logic, or facts should play any part in deciding the leader of the free world? It explains nicely so many people don't seem to be acting rationally, and why the core of Trump's base is the racists, the violent, and the misogynists. This election might not be the battle of the sexes, the war of the corrupt, or the maverick vs. the establishment. It might actually be the fight between the reasonable and the unreasonable. (And one of the nice things about onyx's unreasonableness is that he can claim that everyone is like that, including him. It nicely avoids any sort of cognitive dissonance, enabling him to justify anything and feel good about himself, while still believing that people should take him seriously. I think it's pretty neat.) Richard, I tried to raise couple of times the issue of Hillary proposal of redefining short term capital gains to 6 years. I would not get one response. Why is that on a forum for investors? http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-to-propose-rise-in-capital-gains-taxes-on-short-term-investments-1437747732 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyx1 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Well I guess that's the end of the conversation. Please excuse me while I continue to lead my delusional existence. I think it's quite a useful point he makes. Basically, onyx doesn't really care to be rational, thoughtful, or reasonable in any sense of the word. For him, it's not at all about qualifications, demeanor, intelligence, or ethics. He finds Trump prettier than Clinton and will therefore unapologetically vote for him, for who says that reason, logic, or facts should play any part in deciding the leader of the free world? It explains nicely so many people don't seem to be acting rationally, and why the core of Trump's base is the racists, the violent, and the misogynists. This election might not be the battle of the sexes, the war of the corrupt, or the maverick vs. the establishment. It might actually be the fight between the reasonable and the unreasonable. (And one of the nice things about onyx's unreasonableness is that he can claim that everyone is like that, including him. It nicely avoids any sort of cognitive dissonance, enabling him to justify anything and feel good about himself, while still believing that people should take him seriously. I think it's pretty neat.) Richard, I tried to raise couple of times the issue of Hillary proposal of redefining short term capital gains to 6 years. I would not get one response. Why is that on a forum for investors? http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-to-propose-rise-in-capital-gains-taxes-on-short-term-investments-1437747732 Could it be that in politics........ [wait for it] ................ facts don't matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Richard that is so unfair. I raised for example the effect of Hillary proposal of redefining short term for capital gains for 6 years. I have not had one response even after couple of posts. Why is that even on a forum for investments? http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-to-propose-rise-in-capital-gains-taxes-on-short-term-investments-1437747732 I've seen that question when you posted it but didn't really want to engage because I thought you're part of the facts don't matter crowd. I operate on facts. But if you want to go into it honestly I'll give that a shot. It'll be more of a sketch cause it's a bit late and I don't wanna write a white paper on this, so more of a collection of thoughts. So whenever you're talking about tax policy you're talking about gov't revenue levels, incentives or a combination of the two. Obviously I think this proposal will increase taxes. By what level it remains to be seen, but I think it'll be net revenue positive. Obviously Hillary's plan has some new expenditures for the government (education, infrastructure, family leave, tax credits for families, etc) if you want to do those things and not blow up the deficit you need to raise taxes somewhere. This is part of that tax raise. Trump promises a massive increase in spending, a massive tax cut, and a massive cut in debt which makes him delusional. But let's not focus on that. Anyway, if you're against any tax raises anywhere period then I understand your point of view and there's not much more to discuss. If not let's move to the next part about incentives. Obviously a change in capital gains taxation will have some influence on investments. It will obviously discourage some but not all short term investments. Financial markets serve two purposes: liquidity and price discovery. Would this change in taxation be detrimental to any of them? No. It will not lower liquidity because market making is not taxed as capital gains and I think it'll probably aid price discovery. If you implement H's plan you'll push investors to become more long term investors as opposed to speculators. Then basically everyone has to sharpen their pencils and do better research so they can hold companies longer which leads to better price discouraging. Basically nudging people from the CNBC crowd to the Buffett crowd. I don't see this hurting the markets at all and I think we could all do with a bit less speculation these days. These are just my initial thoughts. If you want to explore it further I'm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Investor20 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Richard that is so unfair. I raised for example the effect of Hillary proposal of redefining short term for capital gains for 6 years. I have not had one response even after couple of posts. Why is that even on a forum for investments? http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-to-propose-rise-in-capital-gains-taxes-on-short-term-investments-1437747732 I've seen that question when you posted it but didn't really want to engage because I thought you're part of the facts don't matter crowd. ....... If you implement H's plan you'll push investors to become more long term investors as opposed to speculators. Then basically everyone has to sharpen their pencils and do better research so they can hold companies longer which leads to better price discouraging. Basically nudging people from the CNBC crowd to the Buffett crowd. I don't see this hurting the markets at all and I think we could all do with a bit less speculation these days. These are just my initial thoughts. If you want to explore it further I'm down. Why would such a question be not about facts? To me it tells me HC just does not understand investment process, at least the Buffett type. You are supposed to hold or even buy more when it goes down and sell when it goes up, but this prevents such a process. If something is overpriced after holding for 3 years, why should that person be prevented from selling it? Buffett had hundreds of stocks during his 13 year partnership which works out to much shorter than 6 years of holding period. Even if you consider earlier Berkshire investments, it turns out much lower. Here is one study: "The median holding period is one year, with approximately 20% (30%) of stocks held for more than two years (less than six months)." of Berkshire holdings. https://www.cxoadvisory.com/7307/animal-spirits/why-dont-we-all-just-do-what-warren-buffett-does/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Schwab711 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Who prevents you from selling before 6 years? This same problem exists now if the stock pops in the first few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now