SNL skit on Donald Trump - one of the funniest I have ever seen

[LongHaul]

SNL skit

 

[rkbabang]

Actually Trump's twitter account is just about the funniest thing I've ever seen. If he just spent the next four years on twitter and didn't do anything else he'd be a great president.

 

Unfortunately he'll probably do some stuff as well as tweet

[LongHaul]

RKABANG:  Actually Trump's twitter account is highly intelligent with deep, accurate analysis that is well thought out.  (deep sarcasm :)  haha )  .  His twitter account is hilarious.

 

Look at this post.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump  Jan 11

"Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!"

 

Trump confirms that Russia has "NO NOTHING" on him.  With that double negative I wonder what is the something they have.  The WhiteHouse is now comedy central!

 

 

[rkbabang]

The WhiteHouse is now comedy central!

 

Yes, and I think that is quite an improvement.  People think Trump is going to be the end of the world or something.  I think that he's going to be no worse than any of the other presidents in my lifetime*, only far more entertaining.  A solid win as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

*I was born during the Nixon administration.

 

[netnet]

The WhiteHouse is now comedy central!

 

Yes, and I think that is quite an improvement.  People think Trump is going to be the end of the world or something.  I think that he's going to be no worse than any of the other presidents in my lifetime*, only far more entertaining.  A solid win as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

*I was born during the Nixon administration.

 

You will have been alive for three of the worst presidents in the history of the nation--

• Bush 2, the shrub-trillions spent on an unnecessary war, with the country in shambles, Iraq. 
  
• Nixon, resigned in disgrace.
  
• and now Trump, with 85% probability he will be one of the worst, already one of the worst transitions.
  

[rkbabang]

The WhiteHouse is now comedy central!

 

Yes, and I think that is quite an improvement.  People think Trump is going to be the end of the world or something.  I think that he's going to be no worse than any of the other presidents in my lifetime*, only far more entertaining.  A solid win as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

*I was born during the Nixon administration.

 

You will have been alive for three of the worst presidents in the history of the nation--

• Bush 2, the shrub-trillions spent on an unnecessary war, with the country in shambles, Iraq. 
  
• Nixon, resigned in disgrace.
  
• and now Trump, with 85% probability he will be one of the worst, already one of the worst transitions.
  

 

They were all pretty bad, but my list of the worst would be:

 

1) Woodrow Wilson

2) FDR

3) LBJ

 

None of the presidents in my lifetime have even approached that kind of evil.

 

[adesigar]

They were all pretty bad, but my list of the worst would be:

 

1) Woodrow Wilson

2) FDR

3) LBJ

 

None of the presidents in my lifetime have even approached that kind of evil.

 

Since you say they were "evil" mind explaining why you selected these 3?

Hopefully you have a valid reason to call someone "evil" beyond the usual libertarian nonsense.

[netnet]

They were all pretty bad, but my list of the worst would be:

 

1) Woodrow Wilson

2) FDR

3) LBJ

 

None of the presidents in my lifetime have even approached that kind of evil.

 

Since you say they were "evil" mind explaining why you selected these 3?

Hopefully you have a valid reason to call someone "evil" beyond the usual libertarian nonsense.

+1

 

Unless one were draft age at the time, LBJ is not even close to being "evil".  Got the Civil Rights bill passed knowing that it would destroy the Democratic base in the South for a generation, not to mention the poverty programs and science funding.  FDR helped save the world from Hitler, and to all you libertarians probably saved America from socialism, even as he was called a traitor to his class. Wilson was pretty bad,  a f#cking racist, who tried to destroy what little progress the US had managed since Reconstruction.

[rb]

They were all pretty bad, but my list of the worst would be:

 

1) Woodrow Wilson

2) FDR

3) LBJ

 

None of the presidents in my lifetime have even approached that kind of evil.

 

Since you say they were "evil" mind explaining why you selected these 3?

Hopefully you have a valid reason to call someone "evil" beyond the usual libertarian nonsense.

+1

 

Unless one were draft age at the time, LBJ is not even close to being "evil".  Got the Civil Rights bill passed knowing that it would destroy the Democratic base in the South for a generation, not to mention the poverty programs and science funding.  FDR helped save the world from Hitler, and to all you libertarians probably saved America from socialism, even as he was called a traitor to his class. Wilson was pretty bad,  a f#cking racist, who tried to destroy what little progress the US had managed since Reconstruction.

Not sure, but I'm guessing some of the evils of FDR and LBJ ware social security and medicare along with those poverty programs.

[watsa_is_a_randian_hero]

First of all - these SNL skits are not funny.  I'm not trying to be bias (I used to admit the Bush ones were funny), I just think they're not funny.  They are in essence playing him off as an unaware idiot - the same as Bush.  Its become old hat.  Trump is not Bush.  Anyone, regardless of party, who does not see the political genius in what Trump just pulled off, winning against all odds, and still thinks Trump is someone of low intelligence should perhaps re-examine their perception of their own intelligence and their own accomplishments. 

 

Second of all - this is an investments forum.  If you want to discuss politics, why not at least discuss the impact of policy of markets and/or the economy.  I happen to think that a key reason we've had such an anemic recovery ) with the US growing at the slowest pace over the last decade since WWII and low labor participation rates) is high regulation, high taxes, government policy on student loans government policy on social security disability.

 

I think that part of this is the pendulum swinging too far (as the case can be in either direction) after the great recession.  I think the other driver of this of this is an inability for washington to get deals done in a bipartisan way (this was a failure of Obama's; you can't look at it any other way.  If it weren't, Hillary or Joe or Bernie would be sworn in this Friday). 

 

I'm hopeful that Trump almost acts as a third party (in many ways he was his own party), and simply acts as a broker of deals between the dem and rep establishments.  I think this is a role that he wants and a role that suits him.  I think if he can break through the gridlock of washington, then its a win for America.  I think this could certainly mean good things for the economy.  I think to a large extent the market already reflects this - the market is up 6.6% in 2 months.  The question is whether there is still opportunity, given the extremely high market multiple in place, and the countervailing winds of an uptrend in interest rates.  Personally I've been taking some profits in the rally, but I was over-invested prior to the election. 

 

 

 

 

 

[KinAlberta]

6+% change due to a change in politicians? Especially an anti-pure-capitalism/anti-free trade politician - surprises me how politics seems to equate so strongly to general investment performance.

[RichardGibbons]

Anyone, regardless of party, who does not see the political genius in what Trump just pulled off, winning against all odds, and still thinks Trump is someone of low intelligence should perhaps re-examine their perception of their own intelligence and their own accomplishments.

 

I can be kind of simple sometimes, so I don't see the genius.  Can you explain the genius to me?  Do you just mean stating that America was a failure because of foreigners and people who are not white, and that only he could save it? Or do you see it as something more than that?

 

To me, it actually looked a lot like Obama's first campaign with the addition of overt xenophobia.

 

I happen to think that a key reason we've had such an anemic recovery ) with the US growing at the slowest pace over the last decade since WWII and low labor participation rates) is high regulation, high taxes, government policy on student loans government policy on social security disability.

 

Interesting point of view.  I'm pretty convinced that it's because of automation and globalization.  If you automate away a bunch of jobs and send the rest away to countries that pay employees less, you'd expect most first world countries to suck wind.

 

I think the other driver of this of this is an inability for washington to get deals done in a bipartisan way (this was a failure of Obama's; you can't look at it any other way).

 

I'll believe you if you can do the following: convince me to type the phrase "ideology turns your brain into cabbage" on this thread once more after this post.  If you can't, then clearly this is your failure, and only your failure because you should've done whatever possible to get me to say that phrase.

 

I think if he can break through the gridlock of washington, then its a win for America.

 

The gridlock was because the Republicans refused to govern while a Democrat controlled the White House.  Now that Republicans control Congress, the Senate, and the White House, this gridlock doesn't actually exist anymore.  Thus, I suspect the only gridlock will be in areas where Trump deviates from Republican dogma.  (And I'd say the same thing if the Democrats controlled all three institutions as well.)

 

The gridlock will return any time the Democrats control the White House but not the Congress or Senate, because the Republicans have learnt that voters won't punish them for refusing to govern.

[watsa_is_a_randian_hero]

Richard- I'm not really interested in having a political discussion on this forum.  I am interested in looking at things realistically and their implications on investments and the markets. 

 

Dems lost, Trump won.  Again, I say this not to start a political discussion with you, but to try to point out that many have underestimated him, and I believe he is smart and cunning, and this has implications.  He was an underdog anyway you look at this.  You think he stumbled in by luck?  He threaded the needle for a huge electoral win.  He played this whole election, from the primary through, as a chess game always ahead of his opponents.  If you dislike him, you would do better to understand your adversary and acknowledge where he has succeeded where others have failed.  Again, He is smart and cunning.  This has implications on the economy and markets, as he will likely be successful, in my opinion, at making large sweeping changes to our nations trade, political allies, regulations, etc.  I think for him part of it is him doing what he thinks is right, but certainly part of it is his ego - this is why you should expect him to be successful at making large changes - he wants a legacy for his ego, and will get it one way or another, even if it means working with democrats for votes on key legislation. 

 

On your point on automation, I do agree with you.  There are many facets at play in a dynamic economy.  On globalization, I agree with you, and so would Trump.  He ran on a platform specifically calling out globalization and being anti-globalization.  He won for the same reason brexit won.  I would expect less "free" trade and more elements of a mercantilism approach.  There is a reason US industrials and energy have been huge winners in this rally, while importers (or those who financially engineer imports through transfer pricing of IP) have not.

 

 

 

 

[rb]

You're not interested in having a political discussion yet you're making political posts. Interesting approach.

[RichardGibbons]

Richard- I'm not really interested in having a political discussion on this forum.  I am interested in looking at things realistically and their implications on investments and the markets.

 

Fair enough.  For future reference, if you're not interested in having a political discussion, it would be wise to refrain from saying things like "this was a failure of Obama's; you can't look at it any other way".

 

Dems lost, Trump won.  Again, I say this not to start a political discussion with you, but to try to point out that many have underestimated him, and I believe he is smart and cunning, and this has implications.  He was an underdog anyway you look at this.  You think he stumbled in by luck?  He threaded the needle for a huge electoral win.  He played this whole election, from the primary through, as a chess game always ahead of his opponents.  If you dislike him, you would do better to understand your adversary and acknowledge where he has succeeded where others have failed.  Again, He is smart and cunning.  This has implications on the economy and markets, as he will likely be successful, in my opinion, at making large sweeping changes to our nations trade, political allies, regulations, etc.  I think for him part of it is him doing what he thinks is right, but certainly part of it is his ego - this is why you should expect him to be successful at making large changes - he wants a legacy for his ego, and will get it one way or another, even if it means working with democrats for votes on key legislation. 

 

I see.  Your reasoning is: Trump won when people think he couldn't. Therefore Trump is a political genius.  That's an interesting perspective, for sure.

 

I think you make a very good point about wanting a legacy for his ego, and that he might be willing to work with Democrats for votes on key legislation.  In a way, that's terrifying to me, since I don't trust his judgement to chose a legacy that's good for both USA and humanity as a whole.  (e.g. maybe his legacy will be the normalization of the use of nuclear weapons in conflicts. Or, like Obama, the continued expansion of the surveillance state.)

 

On your point on automation, I do agree with you.  There are many facets at play in a dynamic economy.  On globalization, I agree with you, and so would Trump.  He ran on a platform specifically calling out globalization and being anti-globalization.  He won for the same reason brexit won.  I would expect less "free" trade and more elements of a mercantilism approach.  There is a reason US industrials and energy have been huge winners in this rally, while importers (or those who financially engineer imports through transfer pricing of IP) have not.

 

Yeah, the globalization stuff is really interesting.  Three or four years ago, I thought the anti-globalization guys were naïve tree-huggers.  Now I think I actually understand where they're coming from.  I don't see a good solution to many of their concerns, but it'll be interesting to see how their increasing political influence changes the world over the next couple decades.

[arbcon]

Did anyone see the reddit thread where someone admitted making up the story? I think the thread is something like the greatest troll in history? And everyone bought it?

I did see the thread . For those too old to visit redditt, The troll was started last summer, was forgotten in the election, and resurfaced with cnn in the lead and buzzfeed publishing the document. The guy who did the troll has now hired a lawyer. All this is searchable.

To me, i remember Baldwin in Hunt and think he's down a long way from that role.

[watsa_is_a_randian_hero]

I think you are seeing the point I'm trying to make now.  What is your definition of political genius?  Mine would be someone who can navigate whatever political system they're in to garner enough support to achieve their goals (with the first goal as being elected)***(edit: someone who does this in the ordinary course is just a standard politician.  Someone who does this with the odds stacked against them and still comes out successful is a political genius.).  For many politicians that goal would be wealth or continued power - Trump already has these things, and hes 70 years old.  I think for him its ego and legacy. 

 

I would certainly say Obama is a political genius himself as well...he also had his own huge upset victory against HRC.  What I said about Obama earlier was just stating I think that the gridlock was his failure - and if the country didnt perceive it as such, dems would have had more success in congress in 2010/2012/2014/2016 - 8 elections in a row. 

 

Like I said, for Trump expect him to push big sweeping changes to be remembered for.  I would expect many grand sweeping changes structurally to the way our country works, and I would expect him to work in a bipartisan way to the extent necessary.  I'm talking about big changes - our tax code, obamacare, immigration policy, our strategic foreign alliances (Nato, UN, Russia), trade policy, etc.  Maybe not all, but there's a reason those are targeted areas. 

 

I think emerging markets are all beat up right now.  They have been beat up for a while, first china, then oil/commodity bust, now worries about trade with US.  However, overall and setting aside the specific worries of some of the discussions (such as Trump with China), historically what has been good for US growth has been also good for emerging markets.  EM is priced as one of of the cheapest asset classes on a relative basis (comparing multiples and rates across the board).  Perhaps a good place to start is Ishares russia (that is only partly a joke; for me though, I just own the EM index).

[Viking]

Trump is not President yet so it is a little premature to compare him to other people who have actually served as President for 4 or 8 years terms. We can start in 4 years time. All we can really do at this point is look at what he has said and done up to now and try and project how he will do once in office.

 

Here is a link to 35 quotes from President elect Trump. Not very inspiring. http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/people/donald-trump-quotes-57213

 

When I process everything that Mr Trump has said I come to the conclusion that he has the potential to be the most disruptive US president of my lifetime. He has no filter. He craves attention. He has poor judgement. He is a liar. He is an embellisher. He is brilliant. He is very smart. He is very vindictive.

 

Globalization is dead. Tariffs are on their way. Picking a fight with China alone would be enough. Russia is now our friend. Germany is now our enemy. The EU is a joke. My read is a Trump presidency will be totally unpredictable. The world order as we know it is in the process of being turned upside down and the S&P is in rally mode. Really? Trump is Clearly a change agent and there will be big winners and big losers. My answer in the short term is to raise cash and sit in the weeds for next few months and see how things play out.

[rkbabang]

They were all pretty bad, but my list of the worst would be:

 

1) Woodrow Wilson

2) FDR

3) LBJ

 

None of the presidents in my lifetime have even approached that kind of evil.

 

Since you say they were "evil" mind explaining why you selected these 3?

Hopefully you have a valid reason to call someone "evil" beyond the usual libertarian nonsense.

 

 

I really have to stop myself from commenting on these threads, it is a time sink.  I'll just answer briefly for Wilson. Yes there is the usual libertarian "nonsense" about being concerned of the growth of centralized government power over individual freedom.  The Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the 17th amendment, etc.  That all makes him a horrible president, but I don't use the term evil lightly.  He conspired with Britain (and Wall Street who had lent a ton of money to the allies) to get the US involved in a war that was non of our business, at the expense of all of those lives on the Lusitania.  Germany warned him that they knew the Lusitania was carrying arms and ammunition and was fair game.  He did nothing.  Germany tried to put ads in 50 US newspapers saying that the Lusitania was fair game, Wilson pressured them all not to run the ads, because he didn't want anyone to change their plans and not get aboard the ship.  He wanted all those civilians to die including 100 US citizens, because it would help sway opinions against Germany.  Once the US was in the war he reinstituted slavery in the US (most call it "conscription" or "the draft") and sent 17 million of them to their deaths, he jailed people for things they said or wrote, instituted price/wage controls and rationing, ...  That is just what I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[RichardGibbons]

I think you are seeing the point I'm trying to make now.  What is your definition of political genius?  Mine would be someone who can navigate whatever political system they're in to garner enough support to achieve their goals (with the first goal as being elected)***(edit: someone who does this in the ordinary course is just a standard politician.  Someone who does this with the odds stacked against them and still comes out successful is a political genius.).  For many politicians that goal would be wealth or continued power - Trump already has these things, and hes 70 years old.  I think for him its ego and legacy. 

 

To me, this is a pretty low bar for genius, which I typically consider to be less than 1% of the population.  The way I see it, it was a self-avowed billionaire with a successful TV show, recognized by I imagine at least 75% of the population, running against probably the most hated and vilified woman in the USA. Despite these massive advantages, he wasn't even able to win the popular vote.

 

So that doesn't pass this 1% test in my mind.  That said, I still think it was a noteworthy accomplishment, just not even close to genius level. Maybe it's just a terminology issue, because I do think it was impressive.  For me, political genius level would be some schmuck on the street deciding today that he wanted to run, and winning the presidency in 2020. Or Obama winning a third term.

 

I think you're right that he'll also target the things you say, and if he's successful, those will be massive changes.  Of the ones you mention, the targeting of immigrants worries me the most, since I don't think it's nearly as hard as people think for a major superpower to slip into a fascist state.

 

I'm right with you on the emerging markets thing.  I've been considering FNDE and VWO.