Peregrine Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 The vindictiveness that a thread like this foments is alarming. Some posters here appear to post not for the sake of debate but just to get back at another poster or "the other side". Does any of this make you feel good? Does any of this change anyone's position one iota? Reminds me more of the type of shitstorms in reddit and Facebook. I suggest that Parsad lock this thread.
DooDiligence Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 The vindictiveness that a thread like this foments is alarming. Some posters here appear to post not for the sake of debate but just to get back at another poster or "the other side". Does any of this make you feel good? Does any of this change anyone's position one iota? Reminds me more of the type of shitstorms in reddit and Facebook. I suggest that Parsad lock this thread. +1
rkbabang Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 The vindictiveness that a thread like this foments is alarming. Some posters here appear to post not for the sake of debate but just to get back at another poster or "the other side". Does any of this make you feel good? Does any of this change anyone's position one iota? Reminds me more of the type of shitstorms in reddit and Facebook. I suggest that Parsad lock this thread. +1 Politics is divisive and therefore discussing it tends to be derisive. It makes perfect sense that it would be that way. There are two ways any person or group of people can interact with any other person or group of people. Voluntarily through persuasion or coercively through violence or threats thereof. Voluntary interactions are usually win-win, because both parties choose to take part. But when you set up a winner take all win-lose system where if you don't win and get to force your ideas on me, then I win and get to force my ideas on you, how could debating such things not be somewhat quarrelsome?
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 yates is a jill stein wannabe. 15 minutes of fame. the DOJ office of legal counsel had already passed on legality of EO. if you know constitutional law re immigration, you know that trump had legal authority to issue this EO. yates violated her oath of office in deciding not to enforce a legal order. she wanted to commit career suicide. maybe will get a gig on CNN now but more importantly, why are we debating this on an investment board? Assume you are correct on all points...even though hundreds of thousands of protesters disagree with you, including a number of Republican party members, supporters and well-known Conservatives. You are telling me that this President's conduct so far, his compulsive tweeting, choice of words when characterising those that disagree with him, and the ridiculously inane and incompetent way he has executed this travel ban, doesn't worry you in the slightest? Top brass at the borders, Department of Homeland Security, foreign embassies, travel bureaus, you name it...had no idea what this ban meant and how to enforce it. Citizens, green card holders, children, etc were held at borders or denied entry. This was a major f**k up. Sears executes their retail business with more competency! Cheers! none of the protesters etc disagree with me re executive authority to issue EO. they are upset as a policy matter. they have no basis as a legal matter. my point was simply that yates had a legal duty to enforce a legal order, and she breached that duty. there is no rule of law if yates can do what she wants after swearing an oath to uphold the constitution. yes, the rollout was bad, and is being fixed. as for trump tweets, going nuts over these is the first sign of "trump derangement syndrome" (TDS). you may need to seek professional help...
cubsfan Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 The vindictiveness that a thread like this foments is alarming. Some posters here appear to post not for the sake of debate but just to get back at another poster or "the other side". Does any of this make you feel good? Does any of this change anyone's position one iota? Reminds me more of the type of shitstorms in reddit and Facebook. I suggest that Parsad lock this thread. A very good idea.
valcont Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle. The Dems are overplaying their hands here . Trump has definitely erred by including the permanent residents who are already vetted but his executive order is not an overreach and definitely not a #muslimban. More muslims live in Indonesia and India than the Middle east so if he wanted less muslims in the country , he would have included those countries too. We know what a mess Europe is in after they admitted these refugees. They have experienced instances of rapes,stabbings & terrorism not too long back so it does no good to bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing will happen because it hasn't happened here so far. These countries are highly unstable and a hotbed of terrorism and should be treated as such. Merkel ,Obama et al don't have to think of that because they are guarded 24x7 but a citizen doesn't have that luxury. What he/she sees is these elites sacrificing the populace to achieve their higher ideals. I say f..off to that. Now it would be another thing if Trump decides to police muslim citizens/permanent resident. Now we are getting into the gray zone of what is acceptable and fair. If that is acceptable , then it should be acceptable to monitor a young white male with right wing leanings. There have been numerous shooting in the religious places, schools ,malls by this segment to make an equally credible claim. Considering the company he keeps, I think he will make that mistake and not be fair. That would be a great time to come out and protest and not look like a cry wolf.
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 yates is a jill stein wannabe. 15 minutes of fame. the DOJ office of legal counsel had already passed on legality of EO. if you know constitutional law re immigration, you know that trump had legal authority to issue this EO. yates violated her oath of office in deciding not to enforce a legal order. she wanted to commit career suicide. maybe will get a gig on CNN now but more importantly, why are we debating this on an investment board? there are plenty of policy issues that will be introduced by trump admin and taken up by congress re taxes, regulation etc that has enormous relevance to investing. this is not being discussed on this thread. this thread appears to be started to provoke attacks more on the stylistic as opposed to substantive merits of the trump administration. crowd size, tweets oh my! Why are you commenting on a thread on U.S. politics if you didn't want to talk about U.S. politics?
Jurgis Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Sally Yates is a hero. Well, Republicans wanted her to stand up to the president... so will they support her now? At her confirmation hearings to be deputy attorney general, Ms. Yates faced a grilling from Republicans who were furious about former President Barack Obama’s order liberalizing immigration policy. The question: Would Ms. Yates be willing to stand up to the president? Her inquisitor? Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, and now Mr. Trump’s nominee for attorney general. “If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say ‘No?’” Mr. Sessions asked. “I believe the attorney general or deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and Constitution and give their independent legal advice to the president,” Ms. Yates replied. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html
onyx1 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Sally Yates is a hero. Well, Republicans wanted her to stand up to the president... so will they support her now? At her confirmation hearings to be deputy attorney general, Ms. Yates faced a grilling from Republicans who were furious about former President Barack Obama’s order liberalizing immigration policy. The question: Would Ms. Yates be willing to stand up to the president? Her inquisitor? Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, and now Mr. Trump’s nominee for attorney general. “If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say ‘No?’” Mr. Sessions asked. “I believe the attorney general or deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and Constitution and give their independent legal advice to the president,” Ms. Yates replied. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html Under Obama, Yates was asked to break the law. She did. Under Trump, Yates was asked to enforce the law. She refused. Not a hero. Her 15 minutes are over.
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Sally Yates is a hero. Well, Republicans wanted her to stand up to the president... so will they support her now? At her confirmation hearings to be deputy attorney general, Ms. Yates faced a grilling from Republicans who were furious about former President Barack Obama’s order liberalizing immigration policy. The question: Would Ms. Yates be willing to stand up to the president? Her inquisitor? Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, and now Mr. Trump’s nominee for attorney general. “If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say ‘No?’” Mr. Sessions asked. “I believe the attorney general or deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and Constitution and give their independent legal advice to the president,” Ms. Yates replied. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html Under Obama, Yates was asked to break the law. She did. Under Trump, Yates was asked to enforce the law. She refused. Not a hero. Her 15 minutes are over. this precisely gets at the wrongheadedness of this thread. any discussion of political differences is a waste of time for an investor, imo. however, any discussion of policy that affects investing is more than called for. any discussion that calls yates a hero can only be based upon politics. if you cant appreciate how dangerous it is to the rule of law, the bedrock to our system of free enterprise, for an acting atty general to instruct DOJ not to enforce an order that is clearly within the executive branch's constitutional authority, as determined by the DOJ in-house constitutional authority, the DOJ office of legal counsel, then it is clear that this thread is a waste of data bits. whether it should be closed i leave to our beloved site administrator.
rkbabang Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Sally Yates is a hero. Well, Republicans wanted her to stand up to the president... so will they support her now? At her confirmation hearings to be deputy attorney general, Ms. Yates faced a grilling from Republicans who were furious about former President Barack Obama’s order liberalizing immigration policy. The question: Would Ms. Yates be willing to stand up to the president? Her inquisitor? Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, and now Mr. Trump’s nominee for attorney general. “If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say ‘No?’” Mr. Sessions asked. “I believe the attorney general or deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and Constitution and give their independent legal advice to the president,” Ms. Yates replied. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html Under Obama, Yates was asked to break the law. She did. Under Trump, Yates was asked to enforce the law. She refused. Not a hero. Her 15 minutes are over. this precisely gets at the wrongheadedness of this thread. any discussion of political differences is a waste of time for an investor, imo. however, any discussion of policy that affects investing is more than called for. any discussion that calls yates a hero can only be based upon politics. if you cant appreciate how dangerous it is to the rule of law, the bedrock to our system of free enterprise, for an acting atty general to instruct DOJ not to enforce an order that is clearly within the executive branch's constitutional authority, as determined by the DOJ in-house constitutional authority, the DOJ office of legal counsel, then it is clear that this thread is a waste of data bits. whether it should be closed i leave to our beloved site administrator. When you openly defy your boss you have to expect that you'll get fired. She should have resigned in protest.
Jurgis Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 if you cant appreciate how dangerous it is to the rule of law, the bedrock to our system of free enterprise, for an acting atty general to instruct DOJ not to enforce an order that is clearly within the executive branch's constitutional authority. Oh, but is it? Is it? Or is that just your biased pro-Trump opinion? There are clearly questions whether Trump EO was legal. Even if pro-Trumpians want to dismiss them.
cwericb Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 "General Discussion: Feel free to talk about anything and everything on this board" "Topic: Question For Those That Voted For Trump" With all due respect, I find it ironic that some posters here are calling for this thread to be locked. The title is clearly political. Why would you read? Why would you post? Are you in favour of censorship? Why stifle free expression of opinions? No one here is forced to click, read or comment on this or any thread. Yes, the subject may be divisive, but on the other hand it does tend to reveal the thought processes of posters on which one might rely for investment opinions.
Jurgis Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 "General Discussion: Feel free to talk about anything and everything on this board" "Topic: Question For Those That Voted For Trump" With all due respect, I find it ironic that some posters here are calling for this thread to be locked. The title is clearly political. Why would you read? Why would you post? Are you in favour of censorship? Why stifle free expression of opinions? No one here is forced to click, read or comment on this or any thread. Yes, the subject may be divisive, but on the other hand it does tend to reveal the thought processes of posters on which one might rely for investment opinions. I am for "no politics" policy on investment boards. The benefits of ignoring ~50 members of this forum are not really outweighing the fact that the forum is likely going to disintegrate from the divisiveness. I am considering to leave CoFB. Not that many will care and not that my participation matters, but just an example of where this goes. Good luck.
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 if you cant appreciate how dangerous it is to the rule of law, the bedrock to our system of free enterprise, for an acting atty general to instruct DOJ not to enforce an order that is clearly within the executive branch's constitutional authority. Oh, but is it? Is it? Or is that just your biased pro-Trump opinion? There are clearly questions whether Trump EO was legal. Even if pro-Trumpians want to dismiss them. there is no constitutional question whatsoever over the legality of EO in terms of authority. now, even if clearly authorized, it can violate civil liberties. does it violate 1st amendment? on its face it is not discriminatory based on religion (which would be problematic...as would a religious based registry). it discriminates based upon country of origin, which is what the immigration system does at its core! one rule for cubans, another rule for dominicans. now, if some numnuts in ICE apply it as a religious test, then that is a lawsuit that needs to be brought. there are clearly no well-considered questions over EO legality. the media is an opposition party, joining forces with the democratic party opposition. this will be an ugly 4 years, and if this board devolves into obsessing with every turn in this process, i think the site administrator will lose this site's effectiveness.
valcont Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 I'll vote for blocking political discussions from this board. I wish I could block the discussions/category. I would block the "General Discussion" , an entirely useless thread related to investing. There are some posters who only contribute to political discussions. Not sure how is that useful? I was guilty of that during elections but I have learned my lessons and moved on.
tengen Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Incidentally: Whenever I imagine Steve Bannon whispering in Trump's ear I think of Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings. Which begs the question.... who is Saruman? Paul Ryan
Cardboard Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Well, if the left leaning people out here were paying attention to other things vs just what MSNBC talks about, they would find a great deal of things around Trump that are highly related to investing. For example, he met with pharmaceutical leaders today. The conclusion? - Expect pressure on drug prices. - Expect plants and HQ to be relocated in the U.S. with lower corporate taxes and less plant related regulations. - Expect faster drug approval with a revamp of the FDA. If you hold a pharma stock or looking at one, don't you believe that this information is worth consideration in your valuation? Cardboard
doc75 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 the media is an opposition party, joining forces with the democratic party opposition. Mostly I think the media is a business, juicing all this political fervour for all it's worth, on both sides of the spectrum. Trump is using them and they're using him. Maybe things seem particularly out of control right now because Trump delights in spectacle and provides a constant stream of "content". (He is, if nothing else, a master of political theatre.) In all honesty, the folks in charge of the MSM must be creaming themselves. That said, I don't understand the current cries about the biased MSM. Hasn't it been this way for years? Fox is part of the MSM and is unabashedly biased to the right. During W's time in office they were essentially the admin's PR dept., much as people are saying now about CNN. During Obama's time Fox was hypercritical while liberal-leaning outfits were in starry-eyed love. Each knows its audience and serves them what they want. I don't think it's good. I enjoy reading objective, rational reporting from both sides, and basically face-palm upon opening most Fox or CNN articles. I'm sure there's always been bias, but the level of groupthink now seems a bit crazy and is being spurred on by opportunistic media giants who have 24/7 access to people's ears/eyes.
doc75 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Well, if the left leaning people out here were paying attention to other things vs just what MSNBC talks about, they would find a great deal of things around Trump that are highly related to investing. For example, he met with pharmaceutical leaders today. The conclusion? - Expect pressure on drug prices. - Expect plants and HQ to be relocated in the U.S. with lower corporate taxes and less plant related regulations. - Expect faster drug approval with a revamp of the FDA. If you hold a pharma stock or looking at one, don't you believe that this information is worth consideration in your valuation? Cardboard +1 I decided to +1 this post because I almost always find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum as Cardboard and thought I'd take the opportunity while I can! :) Related: Wish I knew more about pharma investing (black box to me) because surely there will be big opportunities here. I hope the knowledgeable folks on the board will start posting some ideas!
Guest cherzeca Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Well, if the left leaning people out here were paying attention to other things vs just what MSNBC talks about, they would find a great deal of things around Trump that are highly related to investing. For example, he met with pharmaceutical leaders today. The conclusion? - Expect pressure on drug prices. - Expect plants and HQ to be relocated in the U.S. with lower corporate taxes and less plant related regulations. - Expect faster drug approval with a revamp of the FDA. If you hold a pharma stock or looking at one, don't you believe that this information is worth consideration in your valuation? Cardboard +1 and i would add that i thought it was very significant that trump extracted a promise from saudi king to finance syrian safe zones. to all of those obsessing with trump's risk to world order, think about this in terms of effective common sense diplomacy
rkbabang Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 I have a question for those who think this should be blocked. Why do you read it? Out of the tens and sometimes hundreds of active discussions on this board there are usually only one or two political discussion going on, if any, which are confined to their own threads. Very easy to ignore and never read. There is no requirement that you read every discussion on CoB&F. For example I have no interest in SHLD so I never read that thread when I see it pop up. You can ignore anything that you feel like not reading. "I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, and it should be banned because I can't stop myself from reading it!" is a strange position to take.
Peregrine Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 I have a question for those who think this should be blocked. Why do you read it? Out of the tens and sometimes hundreds of active discussions on this board there are usually only one or two political discussion going on, if any, which are confined to their own threads. Very easy to ignore and never read. There is no requirement that you read every discussion on CoB&F. For example I have no interest in SHLD so I never read that thread when I see it pop up. You can ignore anything that you feel like not reading. "I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, and it should be banned because I can't stop myself from reading it!" is a strange position to take. A thread is like a room. A thread like this just so happens to attract a whole bunch of people into a room to incessantly yell at each other. This isn't productive discussion, in my opinion, and it also leaves other rooms vacant. This room is more like a gigantic clusterfuck of an argument that naturally leads to posters becoming more defensive and holding even stronger to their beliefs than when they first began. There is no middle ground left. I know many here who have a libertarian bent and believe in freedom everything. But some things just aren't productive.
netnet Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 just what MSNBC Fox talks about, they would find a great deal of things around Trump that are highly related to investing. ;) there is no constitutional question whatsoever over the legality of EO in terms of authority. now, even if clearly authorized, it can violate civil liberties. does it violate 1st amendment? on its face it is not discriminatory based on religion (which would be problematic...as would a religious based registry). it discriminates based upon country of origin, which is what the immigration system does at its core! one rule for cubans, another rule for dominicans. now, if some numnuts in ICE apply it as a religious test, then that is a lawsuit that needs to be brought. Actually there is a question about the EO both on constitutional and statutory grounds. On the constitutional side there is ample evidence, which could be taken either way with Trump's original call for a Muslim ban and Guilani's description of crafting such. What 'bigly' worries me is this sort of carelessness, (no consultation with Republicans in Congress, cabinet secretaries--State, Defence and Homeland not consulted or informed prior) will be replicated in dealing with China, Russia and N. Korea. I hope we have no wars shooting or trade, but I think the odds of some kind of trade war are over 50/50. Trump's supporters just proves Munger's adage about ideology turning the brain into cabbage. (As does my antipathy to the buffoon, shall we share some coleslaw? That said, most of the rightist I read agree with me on the Trumpster--See George Will and Brett Stephens)
Recommended Posts