Parsad Posted February 25 Posted February 25 https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-trumps-state-union-023146143.html Cheers!
dealraker Posted February 25 Posted February 25 (edited) My view isn't changing. A significant number of Americans are willing to stick with Trump only because of Mr. Market's endless upwards-to-the-right march, many of whom literally think the markets can not go down under his reign. If, or better said when, Mr. Market takes an extended plunge? Trump's unpopularity will be legendary. Secondary thought: Is this when we go hard socialist? Do many Americans swear off the markets for years? Keep in mind how much speculation dominates so many "investors" stuff. In the meantime: Buy the dip! Rates surely going down! My non-insurance HALO stuff has gone fucking crazy up- to the point of nausea. Chase it people, chase it...its running so run faster to join up! I'll add that loss of power for Trump isn't my theme. He will stay fully in control with a 25% approval rating. Executives are terrified of him, particularly big corp executives. Edited February 25 by dealraker
73 Reds Posted February 25 Posted February 25 23 minutes ago, dealraker said: My view isn't changing. A significant number of Americans are willing to stick with Trump only because of Mr. Market's endless upwards-to-the-right march, many of whom literally think the markets can not go down under his reign. If, or better said when, Mr. Market takes an extended plunge? Trump's unpopularity will be legendary. Secondary thought: Is this when we go hard socialist? Do many Americans swear off the markets for years? Keep in mind how much speculation dominates so many "investors" stuff. In the meantime: Buy the dip! Rates surely going down! My non-insurance HALO stuff has gone fucking crazy up- to the point of nausea. Chase it people, chase it...its running so run faster to join up! I think most people would agree with you. After all, isn't prosperity on everyone's aspiration list?
73 Reds Posted February 25 Posted February 25 1 hour ago, Parsad said: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-trumps-state-union-023146143.html Cheers! Who fact checks the fact checkers?
dealraker Posted February 25 Posted February 25 33 minutes ago, 73 Reds said: I think most people would agree with you. After all, isn't prosperity on everyone's aspiration list? I am looking forward to Greg Abel's letter from Berkshire. He's not sitting in the photo sessions with any politician, not many seem willing to avoid this apparent necessity. It is probably not in most CEO's best interest to be bluntly honest, Greg may offer something there. This may not be relevant, but my guess is that it is relevant.
SharperDingaan Posted February 25 Posted February 25 (edited) State of the Union address: No denying that Orange Boy is one hell of a salesman, and that one really has to seem him in action to believe it; quite the skill, and not hard to see why he won two elections. The reality though, is that he is still a melting ice cube, his name is not on the upcoming voting card, and this speech burnt a lot of his remaining political capital. His best chance of a mid-term win is a war with Iran, Iranian regime change, and a exit by the mid-terms; entangle boots on the ground, and he looses. Lot of lipstick on this pig, but the reality is that tariffs have imploded. Threatening higher 'other' tariffs if you back out of existing 'deals' is just admission of defeat, and admission that a US signature on any kind of agreement is 'non-binding'. Orange Boy looses the mid-terms ... compliance with these agreements disappears, and foreign state intervention is fair turnaround. We saw a 'Hail Mary' pass last night, that has to land as hoped; it doesn't work, and it's game over. The economy is not delivering for most people; he fails, and Orange Boy's highest value 'brand exit', is assassination ... a long standing US tradition. While investment opportunities continue to abound, one must be nimble ...... WEB punch-card opportunities, in volume, that happen rarely in a life-time of investing. Help yourself, and run hard , as the asymmetric payoffs are just adding to the opportunities. May we all do well SD Edited February 25 by SharperDingaan
73 Reds Posted February 25 Posted February 25 9 minutes ago, dealraker said: I am looking forward to Greg Abel's letter from Berkshire. He's not sitting in the photo sessions with any politician, not many seem willing to avoid this apparent necessity. It is probably not in most CEO's best interest to be bluntly honest, Greg may offer something there. This may not be relevant, but my guess is that it is relevant. +1
73 Reds Posted February 25 Posted February 25 7 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said: State of the Union address: No denying that Orange Boy is one hell of a salesman, and that one really has to seem him in action to believe it; quite the skill, and not hard to see why he won two elections. The reality though, is that he is still a melting ice cube, his name is not on the upcoming voting card, and this speech burnt a lot of his remaining political capital. His best chance of a mid-term win is a war with Iran, Iranian regime change, and a exit by the mid-terms; entangle boots on the ground, and he looses. Lot of lipstick on this pig, but the reality is that tariffs have imploded. Threatening higher 'other' tariffs if you back out of existing 'deals' is just admission of defeat, and admission that a US signature on any kind of agreement is 'non-binding'. Orange Boy looses the mid-terms ... compliance with these agreements disappears, and foreign state intervention is fair turnaround. We saw a 'Hail Mary' pass last night, that has to land as hoped; it doesn't work, and it's game over. The economy is not delivering for most people; he fails, and Orange Boy's highest value 'brand exit', is assassination ... a long standing US tradition. While investment opportunities continue to abound, one must be nimble ...... WEB punch-card opportunities, in volume, that happen rarely in a life-time of investing. Help yourself , and run hard, as the asymmetric payoffs just adding to the opportunities. May we all do well SD One question: Where were you during the Biden years?
SharperDingaan Posted February 25 Posted February 25 3 minutes ago, 73 Reds said: One question: Where were you during the Biden years? Still making a profit .... but sadly, not as much ; the former Trudeau era making it quite a bit harder in the o/g sector. SD
73 Reds Posted February 25 Posted February 25 Just now, SharperDingaan said: Still making a profit .... but sadly, not as much ; the former Trudeau era making it quite a bit harder in the o/g sector. SD Touche. But as US politics go, lame duck Presidents nearly always endure the same fate after the midterm elections. Yawn.
Gregmal Posted February 25 Posted February 25 (edited) I frequently ask, and seldom receive a response to the question…what do democrats stand for? Well we did get some further datapoints on this last night. The answer is, NOT for an immigrant(or her mother) whom was murdered on the way home from work by one of their constituents. The answer is, a FEW will begrudgingly applaud a bunch of young men whom proudly represented our country at the Olympics, although most still won’t. Truly a pitiful and frumpy bunch of losers. Edited February 25 by Gregmal
73 Reds Posted February 25 Posted February 25 28 minutes ago, Gregmal said: I frequently ask, and seldom receive a response to the question…what do democrats stand for? Well we did get some further datapoints on this last night. The answer is, NOT for an immigrant(or her mother) whom was murdered on the way home from work by one of their constituents. The answer is, a FEW will begrudgingly applaud a bunch of young men whom proudly represented our country at the Olympics, although most still won’t. Truly a pitiful and frumpy bunch of losers. Give credit to those who showed up. Those who didn't evidently felt it was beneath them to honor true American heroes.
Parsad Posted February 25 Posted February 25 27 minutes ago, Gregmal said: I frequently ask, and seldom receive a response to the question…what do democrats stand for? Well we did get some further datapoints on this last night. The answer is, NOT for an immigrant(or her mother) whom was murdered on the way home from work by one of their constituents. The answer is, a FEW will begrudgingly applaud a bunch of young men whom proudly represented our country at the Olympics, although most still won’t. Truly a pitiful and frumpy bunch of losers. Agree with you there! I thought the best line of the night was when Trump said "These guys never stand up!" The funny thing is that Trump will lose power not because of the Democrats, who have no clear leader or anyone to take up the mantle, but of his own follies and stupidity! The actual makings of a Great President might have been there...the clown show kept getting in the way each term. Frankly, I hope Rubio ends up leading! Cheers!
cubsfan Posted February 25 Posted February 25 1 minute ago, Parsad said: Agree with you there! I thought the best line of the night was when Trump said "These guys never stand up!" The funny thing is that Trump will lose power not because of the Democrats, who have no clear leader or anyone to take up the mantle, but of his own follies and stupidity! The actual makings of a Great President might have been there...the clown show kept getting in the way each term. Frankly, I hope Rubio ends up leading! Cheers! Damn Parsad - almost sounds like you're starting to come around!
Gregmal Posted February 25 Posted February 25 Push comes to shove they’re an empty, leaderless clown show that only seems to wake up in the morning, still, to be team “get Trump”. But you can’t deny that, especially after the showing last night, that their ethos isn’t still very Hillary Clinton inspired. That cold, butch, nasty women attitude is undeniable.
Parsad Posted February 25 Posted February 25 You guys won't believe it, but I'm a centrist. Balanced budget, strong country, low debt, good economy, progressive values, support for those that cannot take care of themselves or are in true need of assistance. I'm also in favor of legal immigration, due process, compassionate immigration (to a degree), good education, universal healthcare with a strong private healthcare sector and believe in climate change...I trust science and medicine. I'm also not nationalistic...I believe Canada can play a significant role globally and we have a duty to do so. So put me where I belong on that political spectrum! Cheers!
73 Reds Posted February 25 Posted February 25 2 minutes ago, Gregmal said: Push comes to shove they’re an empty, leaderless clown show that only seems to wake up in the morning, still, to be team “get Trump”. But you can’t deny that, especially after the showing last night, that their ethos isn’t still very Hillary Clinton inspired. That cold, butch, nasty women attitude is undeniable. Well, hope she decides to run again. For multiple reasons.
SharperDingaan Posted February 25 Posted February 25 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Gregmal said: I frequently ask, and seldom receive a response to the question…what do democrats stand for? One of our takeaway's from the address, was that Orange Boy's success is not just his salesmanship; it is also how bad his opposition is. Politics is a blood sport, and the higher one goes .... the bloodier, and more corrupt it gets; at this level, and after this long, the opposition should have a bench full of hard-ass scum well capable of defeating a 78 year old. Rulers rule, atop a pile of skulls; there's always someone younger than you, and it's a limited term engagement until your head joins the pile. Winner takes all, and regular turnover, working in everyone's best interests; the parliamentary 'first past the post' simply being being a less messy way of body disposal. Janitors complained ..... Orange Boy is an old and dated product ..... offer the market a viable, fresh, and 'this century' product; and the calculation will change very quickly. Unlikely to happen by choice, so the change agents .... need to make it happen. Different approaches, dependant upon where in the world you are . Different point of view ... SD Edited February 25 by SharperDingaan
flesh Posted February 25 Posted February 25 46 minutes ago, Parsad said: You guys won't believe it, but I'm a centrist. Balanced budget, strong country, low debt, good economy, progressive values, support for those that cannot take care of themselves or are in true need of assistance. I'm also in favor of legal immigration, due process, compassionate immigration (to a degree), good education, universal healthcare with a strong private healthcare sector and believe in climate change...I trust science and medicine. I'm also not nationalistic...I believe Canada can play a significant role globally and we have a duty to do so. So put me where I belong on that political spectrum! Cheers! That all sounds centrist, excluding the progressive values, unless your talking about the progressive values of 20 years ago. I even asked ai what's considered centrist in canada, in case I was missing something. Modern progressives are the woke. Maybe more a classical liberal with an strong emphasis on big govt programs. I'd argue you can't be for big govt and for balanced budgets if for no other reason than it's never been done and no a unicorn year doesn't count. The bigger the govt in the west, the larger the debt, that's just what happens, and it accelerates over time. You get to the running out of other peoples money part eventually and you hit the negative growth side of the laffer curve, and if you don't like the laffer curve just imagine that 80% tax rates are a disincentive to work hard compared to 30% etc=less work writ large. You get to the debt/inflation/death spiral. I understand if you did it with a balanced budget, that part wouldn't happen. However the negative growth laffer curve would. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy but this is what's happening now in the west isn't it? There's no debate to be had? Anyways, you can still believe in things, that they are true and right lets say, despite outcomes, or what's practical. Just for the record, if a dem said what you just said, minus the progressive values part, in its current incarnation, minus the national healthcare part, I'd vote for that person. Also, I trust science, not scientists. Medicinal facts insofar as they are true in the context in which they are studied and no other contexts, not doctors. I'm not sure why this is debated either, anyone can ask AI Ten different prompts regarding the history of Scientists/doctors seriously messing up. You could read The structure of scientific revolutions. The history of iatrogenics, which I believe trans surgery on kids (progressive value) will become a part of eventually. Look at the food pyramid we grew up with. For example, based on my limited understanding (could be wrong but wanted a current example) GLP1's reduce appetite, reduce intestinal motility, and I don't believe they know much other than that. They don't know how reducing intestinal motility for a decade or two could be a very bad thing. They talk about all of it's other benefits as if magic, however when you see these other benefits they are mostly what you'd expect from someone losing weight, weighing less in general, and fasting/calorie restriction. They don't know the depths of the causal chain that's being interrupted before and after the effect of the drug and it's long term implications and importantly, they don't make this clear to people. They list side effects but not the total obliviousness of their understanding in general. Any time a real scientist is speaking, They equivocate, they qualify, they elaborate on where this or that is or isn't or might not be true and why. They know all the holes in their argument and they don't spare the holes as best they can. They don't want to be right, they want to be accurate. This simply is not what most humans are, no matter their title. They do not act like the final authority.
SharperDingaan Posted February 25 Posted February 25 (edited) It would seem that the replacement Section 122 tariffs are not going to work either ... the choices are either to get permission from the headmaster (Congress), or drop it. Section 122 is a legal tool designed to address international payments problems “of a kind that can only really exist under a fixed-exchange rate regime,” argued Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University. Prof. Somin was co-counsel on one of the cases against the previous iteration of global tariffs, filed on behalf of several U.S. businesses. Such a regime does not currently exist, and Prof. Somin expects the first legal challenges to the new set of tariffs to arrive within weeks. “Section 122 tariffs are vulnerable on a number of grounds. And I think there’s at least a good chance they would be struck down – I certainly hope they would be,” he said in an interview. But opposition to what the Trump administration has done has come from a particularly unusual place: the administration’s own lawyers. In arguing for the previous tariffs, under IEEPA, they argued that Section 122 did not “have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.” If Mr. Trump “wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress,” lawyer Neal Katyal, who argued before the Supreme Court against the previous tariffs, wrote on X. “If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress.” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-trumps-new-tariffs-may-be-illegal-too/ SD Edited February 25 by SharperDingaan
dwy000 Posted February 25 Posted February 25 1 hour ago, Parsad said: You guys won't believe it, but I'm a centrist. Balanced budget, strong country, low debt, good economy, progressive values, support for those that cannot take care of themselves or are in true need of assistance. I'm also in favor of legal immigration, due process, compassionate immigration (to a degree), good education, universal healthcare with a strong private healthcare sector and believe in climate change...I trust science and medicine. I'm also not nationalistic...I believe Canada can play a significant role globally and we have a duty to do so. So put me where I belong on that political spectrum! Cheers! That describes my beliefs to a T. Maybe with a push on less regulation and stronger on balanced budget.
Parsad Posted February 25 Posted February 25 26 minutes ago, flesh said: That all sounds centrist, excluding the progressive values, unless your talking about the progressive values of 20 years ago. I even asked ai what's considered centrist in canada, in case I was missing something. Modern progressives are the woke. Maybe more a classical liberal with an strong emphasis on big govt programs. I'd argue you can't be for big govt and for balanced budgets if for no other reason than it's never been done and no a unicorn year doesn't count. The bigger the govt in the west, the larger the debt, that's just what happens, and it accelerates over time. You get to the running out of other peoples money part eventually and you hit the negative growth side of the laffer curve, and if you don't like the laffer curve just imagine that 80% tax rates are a disincentive to work hard compared to 30% etc=less work writ large. You get to the debt/inflation/death spiral. I understand if you did it with a balanced budget, that part wouldn't happen. However the negative growth laffer curve would. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy but this is what's happening now in the west isn't it? There's no debate to be had? Anyways, you can still believe in things, that they are true and right lets say, despite outcomes, or what's practical. Just for the record, if a dem said what you just said, minus the progressive values part, in its current incarnation, minus the national healthcare part, I'd vote for that person. Actually, you can. It's been done. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin balanced the budget, reduced debt to GDP and maintained social programs while growing the economy...Chretien, a hard left liberal and Martin, a centrist liberal. Demographics and global economics can eff up that trajectory and often does, but that's why a healthy private sector involved with social programs (healthcare, education, etc) combined with controlled immigration (changes in taxpayers to retirees ratios, temporary workers, skilled workers), can address those issues. By no means is it easy...in fact it's damn hard...but it has been done. I'm hoping Carney is of a similar mold! Cheers!
Parsad Posted February 25 Posted February 25 23 minutes ago, dwy000 said: That describes my beliefs to a T. Maybe with a push on less regulation and stronger on balanced budget. I agree with that too. I also think all levels should pay their fair amount of taxes. This special interest catering by parties is what has been detrimental to society! Cheers!
RichardGibbons Posted February 25 Posted February 25 Funny--I read the thread and Sanjeev keeps posting the exact thing I'm about to post, up to and including "@Parsad is saying that because he's a centrist and, here, he almost exclusively pushes back against extremism." Here's the picture of Canada's deficits. About 10 years of surpluses, and I think it would've been close to 20 if not for the 2008 crisis. The only issue is that Trudeau came along and had an excuse to blow everything up. What we really need is for deficit spending outside of recessions or war to be a third rail for the electorate. Or, make it equivalent to a failed confidence vote. Or at least force the party leader to stand up in parliament and say, "I, and my party, have run a deficit during prosperous times. This ought to make it clear to the electorate that we are missing the most basic level wisdom required to run a country, and we recommend that you vote us out of power during the next election."
Parsad Posted February 25 Posted February 25 11 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said: Funny--I read the thread and Sanjeev keeps posting the exact thing I'm about to post, up to and including "@Parsad is saying that because he's a centrist and, here, he almost exclusively pushes back against extremism." Here's the picture of Canada's deficits. About 10 years of surpluses, and I think it would've been close to 20 if not for the 2008 crisis. The only issue is that Trudeau came along and had an excuse to blow everything up. What we really need is for deficit spending outside of recessions or war to be a third rail for the electorate. Or, make it equivalent to a failed confidence vote. Or at least force the party leader to stand up in parliament and say, "I, and my party, have run a deficit during prosperous times. This ought to make it clear to the electorate that we are missing the most basic level wisdom required to run a country, and we recommend that you vote us out of power during the next election." Yup! Same with provincial governments as well. Look at what the fuck Eby is doing here in BC! And you can't blame the party politics, because Horgan ran a surplus as NDP leader...so what gives? Bad leadership and management! Never being able to say "No" to spending! Trying to appease everyone and everything, instead of the welfare of the province or country! Cheers!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now