Banana republic

[nafregnum]

It also has some interesting investing implications for the next 4 years as the media machine is ramped up.

 

NYT had a big run since October because of yuge increases in subscribership.  Whatever he is, Trump sure drives people to read about him.  He is a weapon of mass distraction. 

 

Great article by Ryan Holiday:  Want to Really Make America Great Again? Stop Reading the News.

 

http://observer.com/2016/11/want-to-really-make-america-great-again-stop-reading-the-news/

 

All this distraction could be a gift to value investors who can keep calm: the more eyeballs glued to the news, the less efficient the market may become.

[Spekulatius]

Interesting point about the ACA.  IMO the name Obamacare was more marketing than anything else.  The Dems were capitalizing on the Obama name to sell the program.  Congress had to approve something before it effected folks & the truth is that even with approval without consensus from the Reps is leading to a dismantle today.  It will be interesting to see if the Rep plan is more dependent upon state & local control or some other mechanism than rule making from Washington.  IMO ACA's major flaw was not the concept but the idea that the national government could enforce national rules on all the population.  Without these national rules, ACA is easy pass.

 

As to the Spicer interview, I really do not see the big deal here.  Obama selectively chose who he wanted to speak to also & am I sure favorites were given access others did not get.  As a matter of fact, one of Fox's reporters (Rosen) got on the Justice department's bad boy list under the last admin.  I think the main difference with Trump is that he will be more overt about his biases than Obama.  Just because you are covert about your biases dose not mean you do not have them as we have seen the Obama exec orders & legislation.  They key here IMO for the press is to facilitate compromise for benefit of all Americans.  Why would you even try to deal with people who are not even open to this possibility?

 

Packer

 

Yes Congress is a check on the President's actions...my sense is that Trump really shook up the republican party, and the republican congressmen don't know where their allegiances lie...so even if they did disagree with Trump, they are hesitant to really "check" him. But you're right: we're lucky enough to have a strong foundation with a gov't with checks and balances, unlike a blatant dictatorship or oligarchy.

 

In terms of Obama's biases, my view is that, although the biases were there, Obama at least let his opponents have a seat at the table. Take the White House Correspondents Dinner (Trump just announced he will not attend). Obama attended and, admittedly, took blatant shots at his opponents, but he showed up and let them show up as well.

 

Finally, in terms of the Press. To me it's pretty simple...regardless who is the President, we live in a democracy. He doesn't get to define what is "rational" enough to get aired. Freedom of the Press is pretty straightforward.

 

Trump can argue that  that the Press is unfair to him.

The other side can rebut: Well if Trump thinks entire Press is out to get him, maybe it's because they have valid reasons.

 

In some sense, it comes with the territory (as the saying goes, if you cant take the heat...)

 

+1!  Absolutely correct.  I don't remember the Obama Administration taking any such stance with the press or even a single Republican with all of the crap that was spewing out about Obama's nationality or religion.  Forget everything else...just this one simple issue was carried as a torch by Trump and Tea Party members for nearly the entire 8-year term of his presidency.  Even Glenn Beck was one of those stating that Obama was a muslim, born in Kenya.  Even now, there are millions of Trump supporters who believe this shit.  Cheers!

 

It has been said before, but we live in an age, where facts don't matter any more.

[Guest longinvestor]

Interesting point about the ACA.  IMO the name Obamacare was more marketing than anything else.  The Dems were capitalizing on the Obama name to sell the program.  Congress had to approve something before it effected folks & the truth is that even with approval without consensus from the Reps is leading to a dismantle today.  It will be interesting to see if the Rep plan is more dependent upon state & local control or some other mechanism than rule making from Washington.  IMO ACA's major flaw was not the concept but the idea that the national government could enforce national rules on all the population.  Without these national rules, ACA is easy pass.

 

As to the Spicer interview, I really do not see the big deal here.  Obama selectively chose who he wanted to speak to also & am I sure favorites were given access others did not get.  As a matter of fact, one of Fox's reporters (Rosen) got on the Justice department's bad boy list under the last admin.  I think the main difference with Trump is that he will be more overt about his biases than Obama.  Just because you are covert about your biases dose not mean you do not have them as we have seen the Obama exec orders & legislation.  They key here IMO for the press is to facilitate compromise for benefit of all Americans.  Why would you even try to deal with people who are not even open to this possibility?

 

Packer

 

Yes Congress is a check on the President's actions...my sense is that Trump really shook up the republican party, and the republican congressmen don't know where their allegiances lie...so even if they did disagree with Trump, they are hesitant to really "check" him. But you're right: we're lucky enough to have a strong foundation with a gov't with checks and balances, unlike a blatant dictatorship or oligarchy.

 

In terms of Obama's biases, my view is that, although the biases were there, Obama at least let his opponents have a seat at the table. Take the White House Correspondents Dinner (Trump just announced he will not attend). Obama attended and, admittedly, took blatant shots at his opponents, but he showed up and let them show up as well.

 

Finally, in terms of the Press. To me it's pretty simple...regardless who is the President, we live in a democracy. He doesn't get to define what is "rational" enough to get aired. Freedom of the Press is pretty straightforward.

 

Trump can argue that  that the Press is unfair to him.

The other side can rebut: Well if Trump thinks entire Press is out to get him, maybe it's because they have valid reasons.

 

In some sense, it comes with the territory (as the saying goes, if you cant take the heat...)

 

+1!  Absolutely correct.  I don't remember the Obama Administration taking any such stance with the press or even a single Republican with all of the crap that was spewing out about Obama's nationality or religion.  Forget everything else...just this one simple issue was carried as a torch by Trump and Tea Party members for nearly the entire 8-year term of his presidency.  Even Glenn Beck was one of those stating that Obama was a muslim, born in Kenya.  Even now, there are millions of Trump supporters who believe this shit.  Cheers!

 

It has been said before, but we live in an age, where facts don't matter any more.

wth cares, stock market is on a tear, the bad people will be stopped at the wall, those here already will be soon deported, everyone's oil will soon be ours, our airports will become first world again, all of our debt will be extinguished and individuals and corporations won't be paying taxes any more. What more facts are we talking about?

[Desert_Rat]

You read this, or any of the other pieces on the same thing and don't see it as rife with negative connotation? The random Twitter quotes? Presenting him as "weird" or some sort of buffoon for practicing a speech? Why is this is even a headline.

 

Surprisingly, I have noticed a different tone in a lot of the stuff put out today after last nights speech. That doesn't negate the fact that for the past year the media has gone so far out of their way to undermine and make him look bad. The Nazi Germany comparisons? Seriously? In fact this, more than anything else in my opinion is what put Trump over the top with the election. There were many people who were just so sick and tired of the media doing everything it could to will Clinton into office. The same media the had Kyrie Irving's "the world is flat" quote as front page news recently. These guys are a bunch of clowns and its amusing that they continue to be perplexed as to why they are hated and no longer allowed to do big boy jobs; like access the president.

 

NYT had a big run since October because of yuge increases in subscribership.  Whatever he is, Trump sure drives people to read about him.  He is a weapon of mass distraction. 

 

Other MSM can't touch FOX in the news game so they use another angle. Sadly, that angle is highly disrespectful of my country, never mind driving the millennials raging mad, and should stop. But it won't because $$

 

Capitalism at its worst.

 

 

[tengen]

We want to talk about fake news/media bias?

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/president-donald-trump-practice-congress-speech-in-back-of-car.html

 

How exactly is this newsworthy, or necessarily something to present as "weird".

 

So what's the bias or fake news here? The article points out the fact that he was practicing in back of the car. I'd relate to your sentiment if they knocked him for it, but they didn't.

 

Newsworthy? no. Fake? no.

 

You read this, or any of the other pieces on the same thing and don't see it as rife with negative connotation? The random Twitter quotes? Presenting him as "weird" or some sort of buffoon for practicing a speech? Why is this is even a headline.

 

No, no and no.

[Guest Schwab711]

We want to talk about fake news/media bias?

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/president-donald-trump-practice-congress-speech-in-back-of-car.html

 

How exactly is this newsworthy, or necessarily something to present as "weird".

 

So what's the bias or fake news here? The article points out the fact that he was practicing in back of the car. I'd relate to your sentiment if they knocked him for it, but they didn't.

 

Newsworthy? no. Fake? no.

 

You read this, or any of the other pieces on the same thing and don't see it as rife with negative connotation? The random Twitter quotes? Presenting him as "weird" or some sort of buffoon for practicing a speech? Why is this is even a headline.

 

Surprisingly, I have noticed a different tone in a lot of the stuff put out today after last nights speech. That doesn't negate the fact that for the past year the media has gone so far out of their way to undermine and make him look bad. The Nazi Germany comparisons? Seriously? In fact this, more than anything else in my opinion is what put Trump over the top with the election. There were many people who were just so sick and tired of the media doing everything it could to will Clinton into office. The same media the had Kyrie Irving's "the world is flat" quote as front page news recently. These guys are a bunch of clowns and its amusing that they continue to be perplexed as to why they are hated and no longer allowed to do big boy jobs; like access the president.

 

I doubt MSM is confused about it. They are all finally growing again for the first time in a decade or so. They just know what makes money. Anyone of fame that says or does anything potentially controversial and literally anything at all on Trump generate clicks. Media outlets (left, right, and center leaning) are all in the business of generating ad revenue. They are generally not going for Pulitzer prizes, that's your non-profits and local papers. If anything, I think the American public didn't notice the business model change over the prior 30 or so years.

 

I'm also pretty sure that every president (and major presidential candidate?) since Hitler has been called Hitler (fun side note: it was actually a little difficult finding a Bill Clinton/Hitler article because there are so many on Hillary).

 

http://theweek.com/articles/568774/why-republicans-are-obsessed-comparing-obama-hitler

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/14/dnc-chair-frontrunner-once-compared-george-bush-to-hitler/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/02/farrakhan-compares-hillary-clinton-to-hitler-in-sermon.html

https://larouchepac.com/20141211/bush-family-nazi-dynasty-us

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/27/the-atlantic-lists-bush-reagan-next-to-pol-pot-hitler-as-worst-leaders-in-human-history/    (bonus Pol-Pot reference)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

 

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/media/AnalogiesUSPresHitlerMegan.htm

 

No one with any sense should take the Hitler claims seriously. It's politics.

 

I completely agree it sucks but the 'fake news' is almost certainly proportionally equal on both sides. Personally, I hate the term 'fake news' because that itself is fake. There is plenty of news that isn't fake, which makes that phrase fake. Quite the paradox. I also think it's wonderful in a way because people are focusing on confirming details and such more so than before. It makes the average American more knowledgeable and less likely to be tricked into feeling or thinking a certain way.

 

Fake news is everywhere and nowhere. It's generally all technically true, but Trump called out the misleading aspects and the phrase took on a life of its' own. There were misleading articles well before Trump ran and made a point to call out MSM. You can imagine why they turned their focus towards him. It was a mutual fight. Pictures of him in office shows he primarily watches Fox News and CNN. There's a reason he still watches those outlets. In general, MSM is still by far the most accurate source of information on nearly any non-opinion topic.

[Hawks]

No matter what country you are from, nor what political persuasion you are,  I would like to hear people's perspectives on the YouTube video I just watched. It was titled Bernie Sanders reply to Donald Trump's speech to Congress.  Listen to it first, then respond.

[Desert_Rat]

We want to talk about fake news/media bias?

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/president-donald-trump-practice-congress-speech-in-back-of-car.html

 

How exactly is this newsworthy, or necessarily something to present as "weird".

 

So what's the bias or fake news here? The article points out the fact that he was practicing in back of the car. I'd relate to your sentiment if they knocked him for it, but they didn't.

 

Newsworthy? no. Fake? no.

 

You read this, or any of the other pieces on the same thing and don't see it as rife with negative connotation? The random Twitter quotes? Presenting him as "weird" or some sort of buffoon for practicing a speech? Why is this is even a headline.

 

No, no and no.

 

Selective hearing.

 

I can't stand CNN for even a commercial break, as it always takes them less time then that to shit on my country. I mean, that's BAD. I can stand pretty much anything during a commercial break, but CNN makes me so sad I'd rather go back and watch the viagra commercial.

 

[RichardGibbons]

No matter what country you are from, nor what political persuasion you are,  I would like to hear people's perspectives on the YouTube video I just watched. It was titled Bernie Sanders reply to Donald Trump's speech to Congress.  Listen to it first, then respond.

 

His comments about Trump saying "not one word about" medicare, social security, income inequality, corrupt campaign finance, voter suppression, and climate change was largely political rhetoric rather than a serious criticism of Trump's speech.  Sanders had no reason to expect Trump to talk about those things--Trump doesn't feel those things are a problem, so why would he mention them?  Thus, to me, the first third of the Sanders video seemed like pointless campaigning.

 

The comment on clean air/clean water pointing out Trump's hypocrisy was fair.

 

The argument linking spending on defence to cutting benefits for the poor seemed a cheap rhetorical trick.  If Trump thinks defence is lacking, he should spend more on defence.  If he thinks cutting benefits for the poor is the right thing to do, he should do that.  For Bernie to imply that defence spending going up is somehow directly linked to spending on the poor declining is unfair.

 

The tax breaks for the rich comment, and the comment about Trump creating his own swamp were both fair.

 

The corporate tax cut and tax avoidance comments are again conflagrating two distinct issues.  If you think the tax cut is the right thing to do, you should do that.  And if you think using tax shelters is a problem, you should put rules in place to reduce tax shelters.  To say, "We shouldn't cut corporate taxes because companies are using tax shelters" doesn't make sense.  So, again, I think this is cheap rhetoric.

 

The ACA/healthcare comments make sense, as does his comment on single payer being the most sensible healthcare solution, but again, that feels like less of a comment on Trump's speech and more of a campaign slogan for Bernie.

 

The stuff about Republicans being worried feels like he's trying to invigorate his base.  So, pure politics with no substance.

 

Thus, this was more of a campaign speech than an attempt to refute or criticize what Trump said.  While I prefer Sanders' approach to Trump's (and Clinton's to Sanders'), if this video was seriously attempting to be a reply to Trump's speech, it fell woefully short.  (And if he really wanted to do a campaign speech, he shouldn't have bothered linking it to Trump at all, because doing so makes him seem disingenuous.)

[Hawks]

RichardGibbons

Thank you for your reply. I think your comments re the key points were objective for the most part and I appreciate your input. I have also asked a couple of American friends, who also live in Canada during the summer, and some Australian friends what they thought of Sanders remarks. Hoping more American citizens will respond as well.

[rb]

Seriously, is this guy trying to get impeached?

 

Or is something bad about to happen to America and he's trying to get a bad news cycle to distract from a worse news cycle? Somehow waving a flag saying I have a FISA warrant against me doesn't seem like a sensible decision.

[no_free_lunch]

It is funny how all of a sudden the left is concerned about Russia.  Nobody seemed to care when Ukraine was invaded or Syria crossed the red line.  It seemed it was the right pushing for action.  Now suddenly Russia is a big issue since the left can attack with it.  It just shows how unprincipled these guys are.

[onyx1]

Seriously, is this guy trying to get impeached?

 

Or is something bad about to happen to America and he's trying to get a bad news cycle to distract from a worse news cycle? Somehow waving a flag saying I have a FISA warrant against me doesn't seem like a sensible decision.

 

Obama's uses police-state tactics and unleashes six different agencies to spy on the opposition party's candidate in a general election, and you blame the victim?

[Desert_Rat]

It is funny how all of a sudden the left is concerned about Russia.  Nobody seemed to care when Ukraine was invaded or Syria crossed the red line.  It seemed it was the right pushing for action.  Now suddenly Russia is a big issue since the left can attack with it.  It just shows how unprincipled these guys are.

 

Putin must be loving it though. As the left has it, he is a puppeteer and the world is his puppet. I'm not sure why the left is fixated on this fake news, as with MSM on their side they could run anything they want, but I can't imagine how heaping all this praise and power on the leader of the world's 3rd largest military is a good thing.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Seriously, is this guy trying to get impeached?

 

Or is something bad about to happen to America and he's trying to get a bad news cycle to distract from a worse news cycle? Somehow waving a flag saying I have a FISA warrant against me doesn't seem like a sensible decision.

 

Obama's uses police-state tactics and unleashes six different agencies to spy on the opposition party's candidate in a general election, and you blame the victim?

 

Do you have proof of this? I can't find anything proving this.

 

Edit: Seems like a load of bs

[Desert_Rat]

You'll get that as soon as Watergate evidence against Nixon is revealed. Don't be naive. The issue is, do we believe it? damn straight we do.

[Guest Schwab711]

It is funny how all of a sudden the left is concerned about Russia.  Nobody seemed to care when Ukraine was invaded or Syria crossed the red line.  It seemed it was the right pushing for action.  Now suddenly Russia is a big issue since the left can attack with it.  It just shows how unprincipled these guys are.

 

This isn't true. HRC/dem party, with GOP, have criticized obama heavily for not engaging in Syria and Ukraine. You must not read NYT. Why do you think folks here called her a war hawk?

 

Either way, the logic that obama is the worst, so that's our standard for what's acceptable makes no sense. Just like trump supporters don't like being called racist or sexist, not everyone on the left is represented by some cherry-picked opinion piece.

[onyx1]

It is funny how all of a sudden the left is concerned about Russia.  Nobody seemed to care when Ukraine was invaded or Syria crossed the red line.  It seemed it was the right pushing for action.  Now suddenly Russia is a big issue since the left can attack with it.  It just shows how unprincipled these guys are.

 

The left made a case out of Russia for their own self-protection.  Assured that the spying on Trump & Co. would eventually come to light after HRC lost, it looks to me that Obama's minions created this entire "Russian's hacked the election" narrative to distract from the real target of their spying.  Public enemy #1 -- their political opponents. 

 

 

 

[Guest Schwab711]

Seriously, is this guy trying to get impeached?

 

Or is something bad about to happen to America and he's trying to get a bad news cycle to distract from a worse news cycle? Somehow waving a flag saying I have a FISA warrant against me doesn't seem like a sensible decision.

 

Obama's uses police-state tactics and unleashes six different agencies to spy on the opposition party's candidate in a general election, and you blame the victim?

 

Specifically what agencies? What exactly did Obama do? Do you know how FISA warrants work? Trump has the sole power right now to publish the FISA applications to prove your claim. You think he will? Are you going to push him to do it?

 

The 'news bubble' works both ways, whether you don't read MSM or if you only read MSM. Id happily debate this with you in a civil manner. I'm well aware of where you got your news, where it's misleading, and where it has merit.

[Gregmal]

It is funny how all of a sudden the left is concerned about Russia.  Nobody seemed to care when Ukraine was invaded or Syria crossed the red line.  It seemed it was the right pushing for action.  Now suddenly Russia is a big issue since the left can attack with it.  It just shows how unprincipled these guys are.

 

The left made a case out of Russia for their own self-protection.  Assured that the spying on Trump & Co. would eventually come to light after HRC lost, it looks to me that Obama's minions created this entire "Russian's hacked the election" narrative to distract from the real target of their spying.  Public enemy #1 -- their political opponents.

 

The most amusing aspect of all of this from the libs/MSM is that they had been presented with the idea that Russia is something to be concerned about and completely blew it off. I remember Mitt Romney questioning the fact that Russia could be a major problem during one of the 2012 presidential debates and sly ole Barry made some crack about "the 1980's called and wants the Cold War back". The arrogance was unprecedented. Then the Ukraine stuff started going down, and still, no one wanted to touch it and outside of some half assed sanctions, it was ignored again. Now, after losing the election, and ignoring the issues for an eternity, they get all riled up because "someone"(whom they're claiming is from Russia) leaked emails exposing how corrupt key members of the party were. And it's Trump's fault.

[Guest Schwab711]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2014/08/31/obama-foreign-policy-sparks-bipartisan-criticism/

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-send-warning-shot-to-obama-on-ukraine/article/2561935

 

[onyx1]

Seriously, is this guy trying to get impeached?

 

Or is something bad about to happen to America and he's trying to get a bad news cycle to distract from a worse news cycle? Somehow waving a flag saying I have a FISA warrant against me doesn't seem like a sensible decision.

 

Obama's uses police-state tactics and unleashes six different agencies to spy on the opposition party's candidate in a general election, and you blame the victim?

 

Specifically what agencies?

 

 

1) FBI

2) CIA

3) NSA

4) Treasury

5) DOJ

6) DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency)

 

See paragraph #6:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0

 

 

Also,

 

"FBI, 5 other agencies probe possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump"

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

 

[Guest Schwab711]

Thanks. Obama cant personally request the warrants needed for a thorough investigation. If you were implying his administration acted inappropriately then I agree it's possible. After trump's accusation, we are certainly going to find out! If Obama personally ordered a warrant or interfered in any way, I will be one of the biggest supporters of locking him up. As I mentioned, Trump currently controls that evidence. We'll ave to be patient in that regard. It doesn't excuse anything Trump may or may not have done. Either the warrant was justifiably issued or not.

 

As a side note, I never understood the lack of outrage at extrajudicial killings of American citizens. If folks want to see Obama held accountable then that seems like an easy choice. Its quite possibly the worst offences ever committed.

 

Edit:

As I understand it, the current facts are:

 

June 2016: a warrant covering surveillance of Trump and 3 associates was rejected for unknown reasons. It is suspected it was rejected because the judge did not feel it appropriate to approve given the ongoing election.

 

Sep 2016: Obama formally accuses Russia of interferring with the election.

 

Oct 2016: An edited version of the June application is approved. It is extremely likely it was narrower in scope. It is unknown if Trump was covered, but is widely believed to have covered him.

 

Nov 2016: A day or two before the election, the existence of the FISA warrant approval is published by heatst

 

The way I see it, both judges and Comey have done a great job of investigating while not interferring. The main questions outstanding to me are: Did Obama administration get involved. At the moment, only Trump can prove yes or no. Even if they did, Trump may have cause not to prove it because it would reveal why the warrant was approved. The other question is why is the FBI neither confirming or denying this investigation? They have the power to legally lie in the interest of national security. They also have the right to make the investigation public. Why have they choose the least-used path for these types of allegations?

 

I tend to trust Comey more than anyone else right now because he remained unbiased while investigating both candidates <1month prior to the election. He is close friends with Fitzgerald. I think he means well.

 

Its going to be an exciting few months. There are very few outcomes that don't result in someone going to jail. I think Valerie Jarrett and 3-4 of trump's associates have a huge bullseye on their back at the moment from IC.

[RichardGibbons]

As a side note, I never understood the lack of outrage at extrajudicial killings of American citizens. If folks want to see Obama held accountable then that seems like an easy choice. Its quite possibly the worst offences ever committed.

 

Exactly.  The problem is that the right views every issue through a "right versus left" lens.  (e.g. look at this thread--almost every argument is "Fox News tells me Obama is just as bad")  Instead of fighting for a free country with the rule of law, the right seems to only be interested in whether their team is winning or not.

 

It seriously doesn't matter whether your team wins if the result is that you end up living in a country where freedom of the press no longer exists, the government can murder its citizens without consequences, and hundreds of thousands die each year as a result of pollution.

[Guest Schwab711]

As a side note, I never understood the lack of outrage at extrajudicial killings of American citizens. If folks want to see Obama held accountable then that seems like an easy choice. Its quite possibly the worst offences ever committed.

 

Exactly.  The problem is that the right views every issue through a "right versus left" lens.  (e.g. look at this thread--almost every argument is "Fox News tells me Obama is just as bad")  Instead of fighting for a free country with the rule of law, the right seems to only be interested in whether their team is winning or not.

 

It seriously doesn't matter whether your team wins if the result is that you end up living in a country where freedom of the press no longer exists, the government can murder its citizens without consequences, and hundreds of thousands die each year as a result of pollution.

 

Hear, hear! Throw the parties out, not the constitution! I'll stop spamming now :)