Question For Those That Voted For Trump

[Jurgis]

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.

 

What frank87 said.

 

Also, this forum - for better or worse - is a community (or maybe "was").

Yeah, there are forums where I only read one thread, but not others because these forums are not communities. In these other forums a single thread may be a community. Here the whole forum was for a while. So, the participation was per whole forum and not per thread.

 

It's possible to say that the forum community is gone and just leave this thread (btw, politics is now creeping into investment threads too, so that might be short term solution). It's not very satisfying solution, but I'll consider that as possible choice too.

[rkbabang]

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.

 

What frank87 said.

 

Also, this forum - for better or worse - is a community (or maybe "was").

Yeah, there are forums where I only read one thread, but not others because these forums are not communities. In these other forums a single thread may be a community. Here the whole forum was for a while. So, the participation was per whole forum and not per thread.

 

It's possible to say that the forum community is gone and just leave this thread (btw, politics is now creeping into investment threads too, so that might be short term solution). It's not very satisfying solution, but I'll consider that as possible choice too.

 

So you read every message?  There are hundreds of posts to this forum per day.  I'd never have the time to do that.  I've been here since 2008 (the old board) and I've always picked only the threads that interest me to read.

 

[Guest cherzeca]

We should start a thread on religion.

 

politics is religion for secularists

[Guest cherzeca]

to those who say why do i read this thread if i think it is wrongheaded.

 

here:  read this "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."

 

this is gibberish, in terms of constitutional argumentation.  what trump said on campaign trail and what mr. mayor says anytime now, quite frankly, is absolutely irrelevant to the constitutional question.  constitutionality does not depend on whether trump is mean spirited or views this EO as accomplishing, to a minor extent, what he cant do directly.

 

constitutionality of this EO depends upon whether there is authority for executive to issue immigration orders (answer=yes), whether EO on its face discriminates on a basis permitted by immigration concerns (answer=yes, country of origin), and how it is applied in the field.  nothing set forth in the quote above implicates a constitutional analysis.

 

so i read this thread to try to educate a group of very smart posters who have obvious blind spots when it comes to constitutional analysis.

 

lol, just wait for the scotus pick, and watch for that new thread...

[Dalal.Holdings]

Trump's EO clearly violates the 1965 Immiration act that prevents immigration from being restricted based on nationality. The fact that many support such a power grab is concerning.

 

Attorney generals do not need to obey the president, the president is not their boss (though he does appoint them) in the sense that we have bosses. The DOJ is supposed to traditionally remain independent from POTUS in operations (how would the DOJ investigate a president like Nixon if it weren't?).

 

Trump is treating the DOJ like he's treating a subsidiary business which hurts the institution (he's causing a lot of institutional harm that may harm the country for much longer than his presidency). He is greatly expanding power of the President as if he a CEO (or dictator).

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2017/01/30/the-wrongly-fired-attorney-general-lawfully-refused-to-defend-the-muslim-exclusion-order/#1175674c7b8c

 

The ban was not legal according to many experts (including the federal judge who ruled on it), especially the application to legal green card holders. It's up to the courts to decide.

 

Of course to many on here, it's "I like trump so she was in the wrong, should have obeyed her boss, and should be fired". It's not so simple.

[sys]

the majority of Americans are seeing through this BS. They are happy that they finally have a leader who works on promises made during an election.

 

please don't slander my country, the majority of americans do not approve of trump's initial days in office.

 

 

http://fortune.com/2017/01/29/donald-trump-approval-rating-gallup/

[rb]

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.

 

What frank87 said.

 

Also, this forum - for better or worse - is a community (or maybe "was").

Yeah, there are forums where I only read one thread, but not others because these forums are not communities. In these other forums a single thread may be a community. Here the whole forum was for a while. So, the participation was per whole forum and not per thread.

 

It's possible to say that the forum community is gone and just leave this thread (btw, politics is now creeping into investment threads too, so that might be short term solution). It's not very satisfying solution, but I'll consider that as possible choice too.

 

So you read every message?  There are hundreds of posts to this forum per day.  I'd never have the time to do that.  I've been here since 2008 (the old board) and I've always picked only the threads that interest me to read.

Well when rkbabang is right he's really right. Who doesn't want to participate in a discussion clearly marked so if free not to do it. If you don't like the way it's going you're free to leave it.

 

As for community/other threads/productivity.... Once you start to employ censorship and try to shut people up I don't think that is conducive to productivity or sense of community. If there are a bunch of rooms and a lot of members of the community choose to congregate in one room will they be happy when you kick them out?

 

There have been lengthy discussions on this board on topis like ZINC and Fannie and Freddie prefs. I don't click on them (among others) because i don't give a hoot about the subject matter. I also don't go onto those threads and tell the participants to stop talking so much about that and move on to other topics which interest me more.

[Dalal.Holdings]

the majority of Americans are seeing through this BS. They are happy that they finally have a leader who works on promises made during an election.

 

please don't slander my country, the majority of americans do not approve of trump's initial days in office.

 

 

http://fortune.com/2017/01/29/donald-trump-approval-rating-gallup/

 

Ya, they think they have a majority because they won the election. They forget 1) they lost the popular vote, 2) many dems did not vote bc of repulsion to Clinton/favoring Bernie, 3) Trump's approval is in the shitter. Fact is that both candidates in the 2016 election started out with the highest disapproval ratings in modern history. Americans hated both and they now hate trump more than they did.

 

Trump's EO clearly violates the 1965 Immiration act that prevents immigration from being restricted based on nationality/origin. The fact that many support such a power grab is concerning.

[Cardboard]

Same polls that have predicted his massive defeat during the election.  ::)

 

Cardboard

[maybe4less]

"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.

 

FWIW, I appreciate your viewpoint Jurgis (even if I don't always agree) and would be bummed if you left CoFB.

[TorontoRaptorsFan]

the majority of Americans are seeing through this BS. They are happy that they finally have a leader who works on promises made during an election.

 

please don't slander my country, the majority of americans do not approve of trump's initial days in office.

 

 

http://fortune.com/2017/01/29/donald-trump-approval-rating-gallup/

 

It's still early days for Trump's Presidency. Perhaps the better analysis is to judge it 4 years from now.

Besides if you took a poll of those living in the Confederate states before the Civil War I'm sure Lincoln approval ratings would have been dismal.

Oftentimes whether you agree or disagree leaders have to make difficult decisions. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Personally I think way too many people here are getting bent out of shape for no reason at all especially those who have no way to influence policy making decisions.

 

[TorontoRaptorsFan]

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.

 

You're still obsessing about these political threads?

If you had spent more time obsessing about your investment portfolio you would have done better than -9% last year!

Nonetheless I always enjoy reading your posts. I just hope you vote next time.

[rkbabang]

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.

 

You're still obsessing about these political threads?

If you had spent more time obsessing about your investment portfolio you would have done better than -9% last year!

Nonetheless I always enjoy reading your posts. I just hope you vote next time.

 

Touche!    Although I doubt politics had anything to do with me taking a much too large options position and selling too early.  That is a temperament problem that I need to work on.

 

Anyway I hope you don't hold your breath waiting for me to vote.  I agree with some of the things Trump is doing and am horrified at others.  The same would have been likely if she had won.  I can live with myself a little easier knowing that I had nothing to do with this mess.

 

 

[rb]

Trump's EO clearly violates the 1965 Immiration act that prevents immigration from being restricted based on nationality. The fact that many support such a power grab is concerning.

 

Attorney generals do not need to obey the president, the president is not their boss (though he does appoint them) in the sense that we have bosses. The DOJ is supposed to traditionally remain independent from POTUS in operations (how would the DOJ investigate a president like Nixon if it weren't?).

 

Trump is treating the DOJ like he's treating a subsidiary business which hurts the institution (he's causing a lot of institutional harm that may harm the country for much longer than his presidency). He is greatly expanding power of the President as if he a CEO (or dictator).

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2017/01/30/the-wrongly-fired-attorney-general-lawfully-refused-to-defend-the-muslim-exclusion-order/#1175674c7b8c

 

The ban was not legal according to many experts (including the federal judge who ruled on it), especially the application to legal green card holders. It's up to the courts to decide.

 

Of course to many on here, it's "I like trump so she was in the wrong, should have obeyed her boss, and should be fired". It's not so simple.

Let me build a bit on what Dalal said and tie it in on market impact like cherzeca is looking for.

 

I don't have enough legal knowledge to know whether the EO is or isn't constitutional. Though as a lay person I'd say that the inclusion of green card people in the EO would violate the 14th amendment. I know they kinda/sort moved away from that for now but the idea that it was in it in the first place is terrifying.

 

From a market's perspective the US is a but like the Lanisters: It always pays its debts. It also always keeps its word and behaves in a rational and deliberate way. This reputation has been earned hard over a long period of time. This reputation allows the US to have stable markets, low borrowing costs, unlimited access to capital, premium valuations and a host of other goodies.

 

The way they've handled the EO was clearly a screwup. Especially the part where it took them 2 days to figure out the Permanent Residents should be allowed in the country. After that instead of trying to smooth things over like a normal administration would have they've decided to make another splash (because they could) with the firing of the AG and that ridiculous press release. I'm don't know whether the AG was withing her rights to criticize or not but she would have been out of the very soon anyway.

 

The way they've handled the whole situation was impulsive and reckless. With that the US has made a withdrawal from that reputational account. If another country would have gone through this situation you would have see a sizeable market reaction. However in the US the market's reaction has been small because the US has a large balance in that reputational account. However that balance is not unlimited and the market will react more forcefully as subsequent withdrawals are made.

[Guest cherzeca]

ok, i do admit it is weird that trump is having hardiman and gorsuch fly out to dc for the scotus announcement.

 

i wonder how they're going to look in swimsuits.  hopefully no speedos...

[onyx1]

"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.

 

Agree.

 

We are in the mists of a historic political tsunami, the magnitude of which we will probably never see again. 

 

It is the main topic of discussion around the world, and the affect of the power shift on businesses everywhere will be profound.

 

It's so interwoven into every institution, that to think that it can be ignored is unrealistic.

[rkbabang]

"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.

 

Agree.

 

We are in the mists of a historic political tsunami, the magnitude of which we will probably never see again. 

 

It is the main topic of discussion around the world, and the affect of the power shift on businesses everywhere will be profound.

 

It's so interwoven into every institution, that to think that it can be ignored is unrealistic.

 

+1.

 

For good or ill this is the topic of conversation just about everywhere right now.

 

[onyx1]

ok, i do admit it is weird that trump is having hardiman and gorsuch fly out to dc for the scotus announcement.

 

i wonder how they're going to look in swimsuits.  hopefully no speedos...

 

I wonder who is going to get the final rose?

[netnet]

to those who say why do i read this thread if i think it is wrongheaded.

 

here:  read this "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."

 

this is gibberish, in terms of constitutional argumentation.  what trump said on campaign trail and what mr. mayor says anytime now, quite frankly, is absolutely irrelevant to the constitutional question.  constitutionality does not depend on whether trump is mean spirited or views this EO as accomplishing, to a minor extent, what he cant do directly.

 

constitutionality of this EO depends upon whether there is authority for executive to issue immigration orders (answer=yes), whether EO on its face discriminates on a basis permitted by immigration concerns (answer=yes, country of origin), and how it is applied in the field.  nothing set forth in the quote above implicates a constitutional analysis.

 

First of all a little civility would be nice. Humor works too. Notice I did not attack you or call your argument specious.

 

Second, Are you arguing that a president has authority to issue EO's, which is no argument at all, because of course they do. I think you are arguing that Trump has the authority to issue this specific EO.  Here, there are eminent legal scholars who disagree with you. So you can say it's gibberish, but let us know when you get your appointment to Harvard Law Review, much less a professorship somewhere.

 

Obviously you don't know the law, constitutional or otherwise.  Intent has great meaning in law in general and in specific constitutional law, both in theory and application, Note this is one bulwark of certain conservatives' argument about how to interpret the constitution in modern day, i.e what did the framers intend.  Thus, intent is not limited to criminal cases. Courts have justly looked to statements of lawmakers when judging constitutionality of a law.  I have not per se seen any specific cases with regard to EO's but the principle holds.

 

There also may be statutory issues, given the 1965 Immigration Act as amended.

 

Furthermore, that more than one district court stayed parts of the EO, clearly show that the arguments are not "gibberish". Now it may turn out that eventually this EO survives, I don't care to handicap that, but it is not nearly as simple as you would make it out to be.

 

 

[netnet]

 

 

We are in the mists of a historic political tsunami, the magnitude of which we will probably never see again. 

 

It is the main topic of discussion around the world, and the affect of the power shift on businesses everywhere will be profound.

 

It's so interwoven into every institution, that to think that it can be ignored is unrealistic.

 

We are in the midst of a it, waist deep and the waters are rising. I just wonder why the VIX is so low.

[Guest cherzeca]

@netnet

 

do yourself a favor, counselor, google the "chinese exclusion cases". then read the actual opinions.  now, off you go

[Tim Eriksen]

 

First of all a little civility would be nice. Humor works too. Notice I did not attack you or call your argument specious.

 

Second, Are you arguing that a president has authority to issue EO's, which is no argument at all, because of course they do. I think you are arguing that Trump has the authority to issue this specific EO.  Here, there are eminent legal scholars who disagree with you. So you can say it's gibberish, but let us know when you get your appointment to Harvard Law Review, much less a professorship somewhere.

 

Obviously you don't know the law, constitutional or otherwise.  Intent has great meaning in law in general and in specific constitutional law, both in theory and application, Note this is one bulwark of certain conservatives' argument about how to interpret the constitution in modern day, i.e what did the framers intend.  Thus, intent is not limited to criminal cases. Courts have justly looked to statements of lawmakers when judging constitutionality of a law.  I have not per se seen any specific cases with regard to EO's but the principle holds.

 

There also may be statutory issues, given the 1965 Immigration Act as amended.

 

Furthermore, that more than one district court stayed parts of the EO, clearly show that the arguments are not "gibberish". Now it may turn out that eventually this EO survives, I don't care to handicap that, but it is not nearly as simple as you would make it out to be.

 

Do you have legal training? 

 

I took a Con Law class many years ago and your application of original intent is ridiculously far off.  Original intent refers to the intent (or meaning) of the law when drafted.  It has nothing to do with the intent of the person doing the act today.  Trump's reasoning is not relevant.  There is law (Sec. 1182) that gives the President the authority to do what he did.  Sure the Courts may determine that the law is in conflict with the Immigration Act of 1965, or may not.  But it would be improper for them to try to ascertain why the President did what he did.

[LC]

My thanks to Sanjeev for continuing to allow discussion whenever people clamor to "lock the thread". Free speech isn't a right on a private forum, but I appreciate it being allowed, even if it gets "messy" at times.

[Guest cherzeca]

 

First of all a little civility would be nice. Humor works too. Notice I did not attack you or call your argument specious.

 

Second, Are you arguing that a president has authority to issue EO's, which is no argument at all, because of course they do. I think you are arguing that Trump has the authority to issue this specific EO.  Here, there are eminent legal scholars who disagree with you. So you can say it's gibberish, but let us know when you get your appointment to Harvard Law Review, much less a professorship somewhere.

 

Obviously you don't know the law, constitutional or otherwise.  Intent has great meaning in law in general and in specific constitutional law, both in theory and application, Note this is one bulwark of certain conservatives' argument about how to interpret the constitution in modern day, i.e what did the framers intend.  Thus, intent is not limited to criminal cases. Courts have justly looked to statements of lawmakers when judging constitutionality of a law.  I have not per se seen any specific cases with regard to EO's but the principle holds.

 

There also may be statutory issues, given the 1965 Immigration Act as amended.

 

Furthermore, that more than one district court stayed parts of the EO, clearly show that the arguments are not "gibberish". Now it may turn out that eventually this EO survives, I don't care to handicap that, but it is not nearly as simple as you would make it out to be.

 

Do you have legal training? 

 

I took a Con Law class many years ago and your application of original intent is ridiculously far off.  Original intent refers to the intent (or meaning) of the law when drafted.  It has nothing to do with the intent of the person doing the act today.  Trump's reasoning is not relevant.  There is law (Sec. 1182) that gives the President the authority to do what he did.  Sure the Courts may determine that the law is in conflict with the Immigration Act of 1965, or may not.  But it would be improper for them to try to ascertain why the President did what he did.

 

@tim

 

well put.  as a matter of const law, congress has "plenary" power over immigration.  that means beyond judicial review.

 

congress has delegated to president its power over immigration in a series of statutes.  president has unfettered authority to act, though congress could rein him in.  what potus did here, suspend visas/green cards from certain countries, has been done by many presidents, including obama.

 

now, potus can even revoke green cards and existing visas, though that was not what he did here...though there was confusion initially.  the EO order subjected existing holders to an interview process, which initially was poorly handled.  reason why?  because these 7 countries do not have systems that permit vetting.  there are many other muslim majority countries which do.

 

potus can issue an order tomorrow that completely stops the granting of all new green cards and visas.  now under the chinese exclusion cases, potus could do so for religious or racial grounds.  i dont think that part of the chinese exclusion cases still persists though.

[cwericb]

"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.

 

Agree.

 

We are in the mists of a historic political tsunami, the magnitude of which we will probably never see again. 

 

It is the main topic of discussion around the world, and the affect of the power shift on businesses everywhere will be profound.

 

It's so interwoven into every institution, that to think that it can be ignored is unrealistic.

 

+1.

 

For good or ill this is the topic of conversation just about everywhere right now.

 

Agree. Does anyone really believe that politics do not have an impact on investments? Especially with what is going on in Washington presently?

 

We seem to be watching a democratic (small "d") revolution in the way the most influential nation in the world is being run. One would have to be rather naive not to think that will have an effect on markets.