Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: cobafdek on November 01, 2017, 12:06:55 AM

Title: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 01, 2017, 12:06:55 AM
The topic on First Charges Filed in Mueller Case is a clinic on various manifestations of Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Paraphrasing writser's inscription:  when you are hallucinating, you do not know you are hallucinating.  It's only difficult and painful for others.

Case #1:
As stupid as Trump is, he's street smart enough like a mafia Don to insulate himself.
This is cognitive dissonance.

Case #2:
That's what will undo him eventually. He requires total loyalty, even to the point of claiming the sky is green and 2+2=5 (yes, his inauguration crowd was millions of people, the biggest ever!), but he has no loyalty for his people as soon as they aren't useful to him anymore. Almost everyone who was close to him except direct family has been dumped, or is even now getting attacked on Twitter.
This is magical thinking about loyalty.

Case #3:
Again, we just see a dead man walking - relying on the rules for rulers.

According to the pundits this is the best it gets for the republicans; 2018 is supposedly looking like a disaster, with 2019 and beyond even worse. Impeachment takes a long time, and the results are uncertain. However should the chump become a martyr? an awful lot of problems drop away; & the man has already prepared the ground by releasing the JFK files. The liability becomes an asset, the twitter feed finally goes silent, the 'family' establishes a lock on rulership. And 5 years on, maybe the first FEMALE US President ends up being a Trump?   

Enron, became Enron - in part because Ken Lay (Chairman) knew he was dying. When Enron finally blew he would either be gone, or close to it; others would be taking the fall, and he wouldn't be explaining anything. One has to wonder whether a version of the same thing isn't happening here - as almost all Dons know they will not be shuffling off as a result of old age.

Sadly it's also America, and this kind of solution has a long history.

SD
This is incoherence bordering on psychosis.

These are not examples of abnormal brains.  These are completely NORMAL cognitive behaviors, in otherwise highly intelligent people.

These examples support the thinking of evolutionary psychologists, who say the the human brain did not evolve to perceive objective reality.  We perceive according to patterns, according to bizarre frames of reference.  Our political and religious thinking do not prevent these guys and all of us from reproducing, becoming skillful and insightful investors, and otherwise succeeding in life. 
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2017, 06:26:29 AM
What is objective reality? Please do tell us as soon as you're done saying nothing (aside from badly parroting Scott Adams talking points) in the most condescending way possible.

No wait, your schtick is to say "people say conflicting things, how can we know? People who hate Trump are obviously hallucinating it all and the others are correct", right? This is the "different people see different movies playing" narrative, right? Or are you going a bit further into the "there's not objective reality! There are no facts, it's impossible to know anything, what does it matter, my beliefs are just as good as any, etc.."?

It's not like you could be the one rationalizing it all away with these rhetorical devices, right? I'm sure it's normal for presidents to have like 10+ of their close people leave in less than a year, a few for bumbling incompetence (Scaramuchi), many because they lied on security forms about meeting foreign agents offering dirt on political adversaries to try to change the course of an election (including their son and son in law, and now Papadopoulos who pled guilty)? I'm sure it's normal to be caught on tape bragging about sexual assault and have 16 women come out and confirm it. I'm sure it's normal to be on the record lying or saying things without evidence over and over again (he'll definitely release his tax returns, right? Obama tapped Trump tower, right? His businesses will be in a blind trust, right? The crowds at the inauguration were bigger than Obama's, right?), to fire the FBI chief after asking for a loyalty pledge when you learn he's investigating people around you, etc. It's also totally normal to have a US president jump to the defense of a foreign despot when someone says he's a killer by immediately putting down the US, around the same time he's calling NATO obsolete, or to basically be the only one to come to the defense of a Nazi/KKK rally where murder took place by pointing out that there were violent people on both sides (technically true, just like in WWII, but the message in context is clear), or to try to ban people from entering the country based on their religion, or to make pro-torture statements based on myths (general Pershing), or to publicly undermine their secretaries of state and call for IQ tests, or to have many staff get caught using private email servers after calling for an opponent to be jailed for doing so, I'm sure it's also normal for presidents to seem to get a large portion of their intelligence from cable news talk shows (he often parrots it back right after it airs), etc.

Anyway, enjoy your president, I'm sure you wish your level of humility, intelligence and integrity matched his. Exactly the kind of man you'd like to have your daughter marry, to paraphrase Buffett.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/?list=speaker
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: SharperDingaan on November 01, 2017, 08:11:44 AM
No, these are all examples of not playing the game.
The game setter is only useful as long as the game benefits enough of the 'right' people. Comes the day it doesn't, it's either time for a new game - or a new game master. New calculation.

Travel the world long enough, and you'll quickly observe that this is also the 'norm' - not the exception.
Ask any Russian.

SD
 
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2017, 08:42:30 AM
No, these are all examples of not playing the game.
The game setter is only useful as long as the game benefits enough of the 'right' people (ie: French and Russian Revolutions). Comes the day it doesn't, it's either time for a new game - or a new game master. New calculation.

Travel the world long enough, and you'll quickly observe that this is also the 'norm' - not the exception.
Ask any Russian.

SD

The game? These are examples of being a low quality individual.

What's your point? This doesn't make any of it any better. Are you preaching moral relativism?

Lying, even if common, is bad. Corruption, even if common, is bad. Sexual harassment, even if common, is bad. Tyranny, even if common, is bad. Torture, even if common, is bad. Racism, even if common, is bad.

The fact that we had slavery and genocide since forever doesn't make these things any more good or desirable. We should strive to do better (and we have, in the arc of time -- Violence and has been going down, democracy and freedom going up, poverty down, etc).
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 01, 2017, 08:45:49 AM
Case #4:
What is objective reality? Please do tell us as soon as you're done saying nothing (aside from badly parroting Scott Adams talking points) in the most condescending way possible.

No wait, your schtick is to say "people say conflicting things, how can we know? People who hate Trump are obviously hallucinating it all and the others are correct", right? This is the "different people see different movies playing" narrative, right? Or are you going a bit further into the "there's not objective reality! There are no facts, it's impossible to know anything, what does it matter, my beliefs are just as good as any, etc.."?

It's not like you could be the one rationalizing it all away with these rhetorical devices, right? I'm sure it's normal for presidents to have like 10+ members of their close people leave in less than a year, a few for bumbling incompetence (Scaramuchi), many because they lied on security forms about meeting foreign agents offering dirt on political adversaries to try to change the course of an election (including their son and son in law, and now Papadopoulos who pled guilty)? I'm sure it's normal to be caught on tape bragging about sexual assault and have 16 women come out and confirm it. I'm sure it's normal to be on the record lying or saying things without evidence over and over again (he'll definitely release his tax returns, right? Obama tapped Trump tower, right? His businesses will be in a blind trust, right?), to fire the FBI chief after asking for a loyalty pledge when you learn he's investigating people around you, etc. It's also totally normal to have a US president jump to the defense of a foreign despot when someone says he's a killer by immediately putting down the US, around the same time he's calling NATO obsolete, or to basically be the only one to come to the defense of a Nazi/KKK rally by pointing out that there were violent people on both sides (technically true, just like in WWII, but the message in context is clear), or to try to ban people form entering the country based on their religion, or to make pro-torture statements based on myths (general Pershing), or to publicly undermine their secretaries of state and call for IQ tests, or to have many staff get caught using private email servers after calling for an opponent to be jailed for doing so, I'm sure it's also normal for presidents to seem to get a large portion of their intelligence from cable news talk shows (he often parrots it back right after it airs), etc.

Anyway, enjoy your president, I'm sure you wish your level of humility, intelligence and integrity matched his. Exactly the kind of man you'd like to have your daughter marry, to paraphrase Buffett.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/?list=speaker
Triggered.  And doubling down.  Thanks for the additional example.

Also, confirmation bias working overtime.  Scott Adams?  I was channeling Rory Sutherland, and, I admit, badly.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2017, 08:54:38 AM
Case #4:

Triggered.  And doubling down.  Thanks for the additional example.

Also, confirmation bias working overtime.  Scott Adams?  I was channeling Rory Sutherland, and, I admit, badly.

More nothing. Zero substance, just rhetorical tricks ("if I act like I've won, some people will believe I'm smart and I've won" and "if I throw around words like triggered and cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance, surely people will read into it that I'm saying something clever").

Kind of like a con artist. Seems familiar these days...
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 01, 2017, 09:04:24 AM
Ask any Russian.

Funny you mention it.  You're probably way ahead of me.  I'm only a third of the way through Brothers Karamazov.  I may understand you better when I'm finished.  You're starting to make sense to me.  Thanks for your reply.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on November 01, 2017, 09:42:46 AM
Can you provide some more explanation? I'm too dense to understand how you came to your individual conclusions in the original post.

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 01, 2017, 09:46:03 AM
Where is this going?

Since Dostoievsky is mentioned, this thread reminds me of the plot in the play: Six characters in search of an author by Pirandello. Read that in 1985.
It's a play that you may like cobafdek, because it exploits the blur between illusion and reality.

Potential relevance to an investment thread discussion style and the present polarized environment:

One of the unique aspects of the play is that each participant fails to try to listen and understand others.

From a review:

"The play discusses the tragedy of modern man's failure to communicate. The real problem faced by the modern people is the lack of communication amidst them. In modern society each person has his or her solipsistic world within himself/herself."

We are all deranged to some degree, perhaps some more than others.

Can we, at least, give it a try?


Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: watsa_is_a_randian_hero on November 01, 2017, 09:57:30 AM
what is the point of this?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: SharperDingaan on November 01, 2017, 09:59:57 AM
No, these are all examples of not playing the game.
The game setter is only useful as long as the game benefits enough of the 'right' people (ie: French and Russian Revolutions). Comes the day it doesn't, it's either time for a new game - or a new game master. New calculation.

Travel the world long enough, and you'll quickly observe that this is also the 'norm' - not the exception.
Ask any Russian.

SD

The game? These are examples of being a low quality individual.

What's your point? This doesn't make any of it any better. Are you preaching moral relativism?

Lying, even if common, is bad. Corruption, even if common, is bad. Sexual harassment, even if common, is bad. Tyranny, even if common, is bad. Torture, even if common, is bad. Racism, even if common, is bad.

The fact that we had slavery and genocide since forever doesn't make these things any more good or desirable. We should strive to do better (and we have, in the arc of time -- Violence and has been going down, democracy and freedom going up, poverty down, etc).

For the top 1-2% to get richer, the bottom 90% have to contribute.
The 'game' is just the systematic way of getting the 90% to contribute without argument, and it's typically the top 1-2% who set it. It has nothing to do with good or bad - it's purely about getting the contributions in the most business like manner. When the flows are disrupted, or no longer what they were, it's time for a change - a key message of the rules for rulers.

SD






Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rukawa on November 01, 2017, 11:30:12 AM
what is the point of this?

To vent mostly. That is what this particular subforum is for :)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 01, 2017, 12:42:09 PM
Can you provide some more explanation? I'm too dense to understand how you came to your individual conclusions in the original post.

1.  The writer firmly believes Trump is an absolute idiot.  Some events occur that indicate Trump may actually be savvy.  Cognitive dissonance is experiencing the tension between his beliefs and the new facts.  The easiest way out is to deny or minimize the new fact, because it is only one fact.  Longstanding beliefs are harder to give up.  But trying to minimize the new facts results in something crazy:  he's just "street" smart, which he believes is not really intelligence, but it is. 

2.  The writer presents a caricature of the virtue of loyalty.  Loyalty is imagined as an absolute.  But nobody in real life demands loyalty for loyalty's sake.  Even a mafia don wants effectiveness:  a loyal but ineffective capo gets whacked or demoted.  Trump is all about results (to a fault).  All of the people he's fired was because of lack of effectiveness, and each one knows it.  It was not because of refusing to kiss his ring.  (The technical explanation is that Trump's ethics are consequentialist.  The writer depicts loyalty in a non-consequentialist frame.  Many cognitive social scientists call this "everyday Kantianism," meaning loyalty is a categorical imperative, which they consider magical thinking.

3.  I'm having second thoughts about this one.  Sometimes psychosis and insight look exactly the same!
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2017, 01:35:04 PM
2.  The writer presents a caricature of the virtue of loyalty.  Loyalty is imagined as an absolute.  But nobody in real life demands loyalty for loyalty's sake.  Even a mafia don wants effectiveness:  a loyal but ineffective capo gets whacked or demoted.  Trump is all about results (to a fault).  All of the people he's fired was because of lack of effectiveness, and each one knows it.  It was not because of refusing to kiss his ring.  (The technical explanation is that Trump's ethics are consequentialist.  The writer depicts loyalty in a non-consequentialist frame.  Many cognitive social scientists call this "everyday Kantianism," meaning loyalty is a categorical imperative, which they consider magical thinking.

Who's caricaturing now? That's not my position.

My position is that Trump makes a big deal of demanding absolute personal loyalty and punishing people who don't show it, but he himself has relatively little for others, and in return, I don't think most others have very deep loyalty for him (it's more opportunistic, to get a job or access to power). So when his guys end up sitting across from FBI agents in a prisoner's dilemma kind of situation, chances are that they'll think twice about sacrificing themselves to save a guy who's probably tweeting about how he didn't know them and they never mattered anyway, and will take the deal. This might be happening as we speak.

"Trump is all about results (to a fault)."

Trump is all about himself. I suspect a narcissistic personality type. It would explain the constant bragging, self-aggrandizing, habitual lying, and need for attention (narcissistic supply feeds these people, either positive or negative), and the constant blaming of everyone else and never admitting any wrongs. His lack of shame has helped him greatly, because most people who find themselves in the situations he's put himself in tend to recuse themselves.

Personally, I don't think Trump is an idiot. Probably around average intelligence, maybe a bit more. But I think his integrity is way below average and his ego off the charts. His curiosity seems very low, leading to poor general knowledge of things that aren't on TV.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 01, 2017, 01:54:58 PM
Cobafdek:
You posted this table last year before the election. Within context, you implied this was a rational way to view the candidates. Obviously we can't judge Hillary, but we can judge Trump. Lets see how Dear Leader is doing against expectations.

Lobbyists: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/21/president-donald-trump-lobbyists-hired/416749001/

Banks: He is pushing to repeal Dodd-Frank

Saudi: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/29/politics/kushner-saudi-arabia-trip/index.html
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-did-not-stop-war-gulf-between-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-668987

Tax Policy: Current proposal is expected to be tax hikes for middle and lower class; tax cuts for wealthy

Taxing Rich: This was so transparent. See above

Russia: LOLOLOLOL! I'll never understand the rationalization of this shit.

China: He killed TPP; the US answer to Chinese exports. It was Trump "being tough on China" and definitely had nothing to do with Cronyism:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/kushners-set-to-get-400-million-from-chinese-on-marquee-tower

Cronyism: Emoluments, friends in cabinet, and his daughter and son-in-law are non-confirmed "advisers". I can keep going for a long time on this one.

TTIP: This is true. Trump does want to kill trade relations with our allies. No argument here.

Israel-Palestine: Complicated topic, lets skip for the moment.

Iran: Still on-going. However, the Libyan War was cited just a few months ago as the reason North Korea is a problem today (by Fox News and the like). Yet this table is asserting that Trump will (and presumably should?) do exactly that mistake? He is definitely trying to bully Iran and [potentially?] back out of a signed nuclear deal. "Bold move Cotton. Lets see how this plays out."


Trump's "Effective to a fault." Your posts are the TDS. It's poetic irony.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 01, 2017, 02:23:00 PM
I'm shocked (shocked!) and disappointed when politicians don't live up to expectations.

The only results that count are MAGA and that the Forgotten Men and Women Are Forgotten No Longer.  Then most is forgiven. 

We have 3 (or 7) years to go.  It's not over yet.

By the way, you should send your post to Taleb for comments.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 01, 2017, 02:56:31 PM
What are the criteria that define the "forgotten man/woman"?
Why are "forgotten" ones inspired by Mr. Trump?

Want to learn.

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on November 01, 2017, 03:00:24 PM
Some events occur that indicate Trump may actually be savvy. 


Trump is all about results (to a fault).  All of the people he's fired was because of lack of effectiveness, and each one knows it.


I'm shocked (shocked!) and disappointed when politicians don't live up to expectations.


We have 3 (or 7) years to go.  It's not over yet.

____
I guess where I was confused is because to me, you are exhibiting the same cognitive biases.

So you claim Trump is savvy. Trump is all about results.

But you acknowledge he is a disappointment (because he has not produced results?)

And then you move the yardstick to X years down the line?

Maybe I am misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 01, 2017, 03:33:37 PM
What are the criteria that define the "forgotten man/woman"?
Why are "forgotten" ones inspired by Mr. Trump?

Want to learn.

No objective criteria.  I think it's a subjective state of mind, but JD Vance's book Hillbilly Elegy may point the way.  The same for Making America Great Again.  How will we know when it is great again?  Only if it feels that way.

The genius (or idiocy, depending on your point of view) of Trump's rhetoric is that the terms are open-ended and non-partisan.  It's up to each person to decide what they mean, and whether he belongs in that category.  Enough voters felt qualified to be included in that category to make him President.

By this logic, if he is removed from office (losing election, or impeachment), you might conclude the forgotten men and women still felt forgotten.

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on November 01, 2017, 03:54:36 PM
No objective criteria

How will we know when it is great again?  Only if it feels that way

____

These are the problems which create the cognitive biases you are complaining about.

Real progress is measurable.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 01, 2017, 04:06:17 PM
I guess where I was confused is because to me, you are exhibiting the same cognitive biases.

You're not confused.  My brain is only human, and I am subject to the same cognitive biases.  For example, I think I experience cognitive dissonance when I read Parsad's, Liberty's, and other's opinions on Trump, because I find their investment stuff worthwhile to read.  Starting this thread could be seen as my way of reducing my discomfort.  I could be completely off base, as I might have been with Case #3:  you see how I relented somewhat to SharperDingaan's view.

I'm shocked (shocked!) and disappointed when politicians don't live up to expectations.

Irony fail:  I guess I'm not very good impersonating Captain Renault in Casablanca.  Too early to conclude Trump is a failure.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Parsad on November 01, 2017, 04:08:47 PM
Case #4:

Triggered.  And doubling down.  Thanks for the additional example.

Also, confirmation bias working overtime.  Scott Adams?  I was channeling Rory Sutherland, and, I admit, badly.

More nothing. Zero substance, just rhetorical tricks ("if I act like I've won, some people will believe I'm smart and I've won" and "if I throw around words like triggered and cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance, surely people will read into it that I'm saying something clever").

Kind of like a con artist. Seems familiar these days...

+1!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 01, 2017, 04:13:41 PM
These are the problems which create the cognitive biases you are complaining about.

Real progress is measurable.

Correct that the emotion brain is involved with the cognitive biases, but I'm not complaining about them, and didn't want to come across as complaining.  I'm just making note of them.

Feelings/emotions/subjective states aren't real?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on November 01, 2017, 04:19:43 PM
If it's too early to tell, then all our discussion is pointless and all we can do is wait and see.

In the meantime, what we can do is create good metrics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria) to evaluate his performance.

It would be interesting to see what goals/metrics/milestones people have in mind to consider his presidency a success.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 01, 2017, 04:27:05 PM
Not surprised at all by this. I've called it out plenty of times.

I myself voted for Trump. He is not my favorite candidate ever. He is not even what I'd classify as a great person or a role model of any sorts. He is what he is and for many reasons, to me, I decided he was a better option than sticking with Hillary and the status quo.

But what is highly amusing are the type of things highlighted here. The complete insanity his critics seem to display grasping at every little bit of anything to try to prove to themselves that he is what they want him to be.

I've seen so many laughable headlines critiquing things ranging from how much his wife's clothing cost(even though Hillary regularly wore $15,000 Hermes shirts) to the fact that his wife wore a certain outfit to such and such event(while Michelle Obama was a fashionista for doing the same), calling him racist/fascist/whatever for not explicitly singling out a group of white extremists(even though Barry O never heard a peep about refusing to denounce radical Islam), complaining about the corruption among his inner circle(even though politicians across the board are largely corrupt and the Clintons were quite possible the most corrupt of any politicians to even step foot in Washington), to calling him an idiot/crook/whatever for bankrupting companies and dodging taxes(these same people idolize fellows like Buffett and Lampert for doing the same). It's hilarious. Almost as hilarious as all the Hollywood heroes/women's/human rights activists/major liberals getting exposed by the Harvey Weinstein scandal. There are a lot of Ben Affleck's and George Clooney's here...

There's so much turnover in his cabinet OMG. It must be because it's in chaos and he's an idiot. Or maybe unlike previous politicians he doesn't fill it with his friends to let them chill for 4-8 years and rather runs it the same way he did his own businesses; firing someone if they arent doing the job right or if a better candidate comes along. Anyway, I'll just see what I want to see.

Edit, also have to throw in the Comey hilariousness. "Comey should be fired for what he did to Hillary before the election and how he handled that"...Trump fires Comey..."Obstruction of justice! How dare Comey get fired"... LOL
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Parsad on November 01, 2017, 04:37:36 PM
Not surprised at all by this. I've called it out plenty of times.

I myself voted for Trump. He is not my favorite candidate ever. He is not even what I'd classify as a great person or a role model of any sorts. He is what he is and for many reasons, to me, I decided he was a better option than sticking with Hillary and the status quo.

But what is highly amusing are the type of things highlighted here. The complete insanity his critics seem to display grasping at every little bit of anything to try to prove to themselves that he is what they want him to be.

I've seen so many laughable headlines critiquing things ranging from how much his wife's clothing cost(even though Hillary regularly wore $15,000 Hermes shirts) to the fact that his wife wore a certain outfit to such and such event(while Michelle Obama was a fashionista for doing the same), calling him racist/fascist/whatever for not explicitly singling out a group of white extremists(even though Barry O never heard a peep about refusing to denounce radical Islam), complaining about the corruption among his inner circle(even though politicians across the board are largely corrupt and the Clintons were quite possible the most corrupt of any politicians to even step foot in Washington), to calling him an idiot/crook/whatever for bankrupting companies and dodging taxes(these same people idolize fellows like Buffett and Lampert for doing the same). It's hilarious. Almost as hilarious as all the Hollywood heroes/women's/human rights activists/major liberals getting exposed by the Harvey Weinstein scandal. There are a lot of Ben Affleck's and George Clooney's here...

There's so much turnover in his cabinet OMG. It must be because it's in chaos and he's an idiot. Or maybe unlike previous politicians his doesn't fill it with his friends to let them chill for 4-8 years and rather runs it the same way he did his own businesses; firing someone if they arent doing the job right or if a better candidate comes along. Anyway, I'll just see what I want to see.

Ignore all of the stupid little things that people have grasped onto and won't let go.  We are closing in on a year in office.  By ANY measure...has there been any success or progress by the Trump administration, in any area at all?

Forget about the complete dysfunction within his own team, the Republican party and the present collusion case against those that advised, supported or guided him.  Has there been any piece of progress anywhere in nearly a year in office?  Anything...at all?

What he could have gotten done if his bullying tactics, twitter obsession and ego were put aside:

- Could have reduced corporate and personal taxes across the board.
- Could have repatriated back nearly $1-1.5T in offshore cash.
- Could have fixed Obamacare...properly.
- Could have tightened immigration controls.
- Could have boldly taken the global stage and lead the world to deal with NK.
- Could have aligned both conservative democrats and liberal republicans.
- Could have evened the playing field between China and the United States.
- Could have used offshore cash to invest in domestic business and entrepreneurship.
- Could have propelled U.S. into becoming fully energy self-sufficient.

Nope.  Nada...zilch...nothing done, nothing passed...wasted opportunities!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 01, 2017, 04:44:42 PM
Not surprised at all by this. I've called it out plenty of times.

I myself voted for Trump. He is not my favorite candidate ever. He is not even what I'd classify as a great person or a role model of any sorts. He is what he is and for many reasons, to me, I decided he was a better option than sticking with Hillary and the status quo.

But what is highly amusing are the type of things highlighted here. The complete insanity his critics seem to display grasping at every little bit of anything to try to prove to themselves that he is what they want him to be.

I've seen so many laughable headlines critiquing things ranging from how much his wife's clothing cost(even though Hillary regularly wore $15,000 Hermes shirts) to the fact that his wife wore a certain outfit to such and such event(while Michelle Obama was a fashionista for doing the same), calling him racist/fascist/whatever for not explicitly singling out a group of white extremists(even though Barry O never heard a peep about refusing to denounce radical Islam), complaining about the corruption among his inner circle(even though politicians across the board are largely corrupt and the Clintons were quite possible the most corrupt of any politicians to even step foot in Washington), to calling him an idiot/crook/whatever for bankrupting companies and dodging taxes(these same people idolize fellows like Buffett and Lampert for doing the same). It's hilarious. Almost as hilarious as all the Hollywood heroes/women's/human rights activists/major liberals getting exposed by the Harvey Weinstein scandal. There are a lot of Ben Affleck's and George Clooney's here...

There's so much turnover in his cabinet OMG. It must be because it's in chaos and he's an idiot. Or maybe unlike previous politicians his doesn't fill it with his friends to let them chill for 4-8 years and rather runs it the same way he did his own businesses; firing someone if they arent doing the job right or if a better candidate comes along. Anyway, I'll just see what I want to see.

Ignore all of the stupid little things that people have grasped onto and won't let go.  We are closing in on a year in office.  By ANY measure...has there been any success or progress by the Trump administration, in any area at all?

Forget about the complete dysfunction within his own team, the Republican party and the present collusion case against those that advised, supported or guided him.  Has there been any piece of progress anywhere in nearly a year in office?  Anything...at all?

What he could have gotten done if his bullying tactics, twitter obsession and ego were put aside:

- Could have reduced corporate and personal taxes across the board.
- Could have repatriated back nearly $1-1.5T in offshore cash.
- Could have fixed Obamacare...properly.
- Could have tightened immigration controls.
- Could have boldly taken the global stage and lead the world to deal with NK.
- Could have aligned both conservative democrats and liberal republicans.
- Could have evened the playing field between China and the United States.
- Could have used offshore cash to invest in domestic business and entrepreneurship.
- Could have propelled U.S. into becoming fully energy self-sufficient.

Nope.  Nada...zilch...nothing done, nothing passed...wasted opportunities!  Cheers!

Ok. I agree with you. But being objective, is it not entirely clear that Trump is basically the most bullshit Republican to ever run as one. Democrats hate him, Republicans hate him. Is it really shocking he can't get anything through? The progress you are seeing is folks like Corker, Flake, soon to be McConnell, Pelosi and Schumer, all leaving because they are starting to get the message that people are sick of their nonsense? That is what Trump brings to the table. It will turn the system around(hopefully), as we are already starting to see hints of that. I just hope he doesn't get us nuked with his bravado bs but let's get real, he's a one term president who was really just as Michael Moore described him, a human Molotov cocktail the middle class sent to Washington to say F you.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on November 01, 2017, 04:55:47 PM
Quote
unlike previous politicians he doesn't fill it with his friends to let them chill for 4-8 years and rather runs it the same way he did his own businesses; firing someone if they arent doing the job right or if a better candidate comes along

Democrats hate him, Republicans hate him. Is it really shocking he can't get anything through?

the other perspective is that he makes excuses for his own ineffectiveness, but not his employees.

if all the goals that Sanjeev mentioned are not realistic, what are some realistic goals for a successful Trump presidency?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 01, 2017, 05:01:48 PM
"turn the system around(hopefully)"
That is what interests me now. However it's done and by whom.

Let's not forget the forgotten and try to address how things can get done.
There is so much potential. Especially if it's inclusive. Let's define the realistic goals and the way to achieve them.

The definition of the "forgotten man" is certainly fuzzy and has been twisted along the way to "fit" the ideology.

"JD Vance's book Hillbilly Elegy may point the way". Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

Maybe a suggestion for a slightly different perspective on the issue:
http://swcta.net/moore/files/2013/03/Nickel-and-Dimed-Barbara-Ehrenreich.pdf

The Dream has to be kept alive.



Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2017, 05:04:03 PM
Pretty weak, Greg.

You made a list of strawmen...

I don't see anybody here focusing on what Trump's wife is wearing, but it's pretty hypocritical to focus on Clinton wearing some expensive clothes when Trump is constantly posing in a golden palace sitting on a golden throne and bragging about being rich (and then turning around and doing his best pitch to blue collar people -- who he never really gave much thought before running for office -- about caring so much about them).

I don't care what Obama or Trump call terrorists, and clearly if Obama had used that phrase it wouldn't have changed anything (not like his opponents would've been satisfied by that). It's pretty clear that Obama didn't have affinities for Al Quaeda or ISIS. He killed Bin Laden and bombed the crap out of them (maybe if Bush hadn't lied to start a war in 2003 ISIS would've never existed, but whatever). Trump, on the other hand, became the only person to defend the white supremacists, which was very peculiar. Equating the two doesn't work.

As for Trump's financials, well, if he ever released his tax returns like he promised countless times to do (and blamed Romney for not doing fast enough), we could say more. But nobody here is admiring Buffett for "bankrupting companies (?) and dodging taxes". It's fine to be tax efficient, and good for Trump if he is. But I think that as a presidential candidate, his taxes and businesses should've been scrutinized like past candidates, and even moreso as president. He should also put his assets in a blind trust not run by his children who he sees all the time, which he said he'd do before he actually didn't, because conflicts of interests are a real thing. Only someone of low integrity would weasel out of doing what is clearly the right thing by claiming that the letter of the law doesn't force him to do so.

As for the turnover in the cabinet, thats not the problem. The problem is the reason why there's so much turnover. Chaos and incompetence and scandals over lies on security clearance forms, firing the FBI director, the constant drumbeat of new Russia-linked revelations (which are made even more peculiar by Trump's very weird behavior wrt Russia and Putin for much of last year) and such. For months it was basically one or more scandal per day. This is unprecedented stuff and trying to spin it as some competent business guy optimizing his staff is disingenious.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: EliG on November 01, 2017, 05:27:24 PM
President's job approval after 280 days in the office vs. unemployment rate:

Trump, 2017: 35% / 4.4%
Obama, 2009: 53% / 9.3%
Bush, 2001: 88% / 4.7%              *** Bush's approval spiked after 9/11
Clinton, 1993: 47% / 6.9%

So... unemployment rate is 4.4%, the economy is not in a recession, stock market is at the record highs, the country is not at war, body bags are not coming back by the planeload... yet Trump's job approval rating sits at 35%. How can that be??

Option 1: 65% of the country is suffering a derangement syndrome / cognitive dissonance.
Option 2: Trump defenders fail to see or refuse to see what is plainly obvious to a comfortable majority.

That's a tough one to figure out.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 01, 2017, 05:27:47 PM
Pretty weak, Greg.

You made a list of strawmen...

I don't see anybody here focusing on what Trump's wife is wearing, but it's pretty hypocritical to focus on Clinton wearing some expensive clothes when Trump is constantly posing in a golden palace sitting on a golden throne and bragging about being rich (and then turning around and doing his best pitch to blue collar people -- who he never really gave much thought before running for office -- about caring so much about them).

I don't care what Obama or Trump call terrorists, and clearly if Obama had used that phrase it wouldn't have changed anything (not like his opponents would've been satisfied by that). It's pretty clear that Obama didn't have affinities for Al Quaeda or ISIS. He killed Bin Laden and bombed the crap out of them (maybe if Bush hadn't lied to start a war in 2003 ISIS would've never existed, but whatever). Trump, on the other hand, became the only person to defend the white supremacists, which was very peculiar. Equating the two doesn't work.

As for Trump's financials, well, if he ever released his tax returns like he promised countless times to do (and blamed Romney for not doing fast enough), we could say more. But nobody here is admiring Buffett for "bankrupting companies (?) and dodging taxes". It's fine to be tax efficient, and good for Trump if he is. But I think that as a presidential candidate, his taxes and businesses should've been scrutinized like past candidates, and even moreso as president. He should also put his assets in a blind trust not run by his children who he sees all the time, which he said he'd do before he actually didn't, because conflicts of interests are a real thing. Only someone of low integrity would weasel out of doing what is clearly the right thing by claiming that the letter of the law doesn't force him to do so.

As for the turnover in the cabinet, thats not the problem. The problem is the reason why there's so much turnover. Chaos and incompetence and scandals over lies on security clearance forms and the constant drumbeat of new Russia-linked revelations (which are made even more peculiar by Trump's very weird behavior wrt Russia and Putin for much of last year) and such. For months it was basically one or more scandal per day. This is unprecedented stuff and trying to spin it as some competent business guy optimizing his staff is disingenious.

Maybe not you as an individual, specifically, but these things have been all over the news, nonstop now, for the past couple years and increasingly more so since he was elected. Some of it's even been posted here.

The media has literally gone insane. It's like, how many more "polls" do we have to see? All the time, "Trump approval rating lowest ever", "polls indicate Republicans now hate Trump", "polls indicate America favors impeaching Trump". I mean haven't these people learned their lesson? After the lying and blatantly false "polls" these people put out hoping to influence the election; after Trump calling their bluff and saying that the polls were media manipulated lies, and winning; they lost any semblance of credibility. And they were shown to be the frauds that they were. And yet still, they are back at it trying to tell people about their polls, and their tabloid level stories, and how people seeing advertisements paid for by Russians influenced the election(imagine that? 120m people on FB influenced the election but 300m+ Americans seeing CNN, NYT, WAPO etc didn't? Please), etc. It's a joke. Enough is enough.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: EliG on November 01, 2017, 05:35:03 PM
After the lying and blatantly false "polls" these people put out hoping to influence the election...
Trump lost the national popular vote by 3 million, which is close to what national polls projected. He won 3 mid-west states by a combined margin of ~110K votes, which is well within margin of error of the small polls conducted in those 3 states.

But feel free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you want to believe.

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2017, 05:44:09 PM
Maybe not you as an individual, specifically, but these things have been all over the news, nonstop now, for the past couple years and increasingly more so since he was elected. Some of it's even been posted here.

The media has literally gone insane. It's like, how many more "polls" do we have to see? All the time, "Trump approval rating lowest ever", "polls indicate Republicans now hate Trump", "polls indicate America favors impeaching Trump". I mean haven't these people learned their lesson? After the lying and blatantly false "polls" these people put out hoping to influence the election; after Trump calling their bluff and saying that the polls were media manipulated lies, and winning; they lost any semblance of credibility. And they were shown to be the frauds that they were. And yet still, they are back at it trying to tell people about their polls, and their tabloid level stories, and how people seeing advertisements paid for by Russians influenced the election(imagine that? 120m people on FB influenced the election but 300m+ Americans seeing CNN, NYT, WAPO etc didn't? Please), etc. It's a joke. Enough is enough.

Oh, okay, it's the media's fault...

The same media that gave Trump wall-to-wall free coverage for months because his outrageousness gave good ratings. Trump would never have won if he wasn't primarily a media/reality TV celebrity.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 01, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
After the lying and blatantly false "polls" these people put out hoping to influence the election...
Trump lost the national popular vote by 3 million, which is close to what national polls projected. He won 3 mid-west states by a combined margin of ~110K votes, which is well within margin of error of the small polls conducted in those 3 states.

But feel free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you want to believe.

Perhaps you are forgetting but WaPo, CNN, etc, the whole liberal propeganda machine had Hillary winning by anywhere from 6-9% overall. They had her winning by double digits states like Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, NH, etc. Heck there were even a few saying she would win states like Arizona by 5%. They weren't even close. One can maybe stretch the argument by saying what you are; that it was a popular vote. But it wasn't when you looked at the state projections, it was disgraceful. When you looked at the electoral college poll projections, it was blatant how much they lied. Yet no one is calling for an investigation there.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 01, 2017, 05:45:34 PM
Maybe not you as an individual, specifically, but these things have been all over the news, nonstop now, for the past couple years and increasingly more so since he was elected. Some of it's even been posted here.

The media has literally gone insane. It's like, how many more "polls" do we have to see? All the time, "Trump approval rating lowest ever", "polls indicate Republicans now hate Trump", "polls indicate America favors impeaching Trump". I mean haven't these people learned their lesson? After the lying and blatantly false "polls" these people put out hoping to influence the election; after Trump calling their bluff and saying that the polls were media manipulated lies, and winning; they lost any semblance of credibility. And they were shown to be the frauds that they were. And yet still, they are back at it trying to tell people about their polls, and their tabloid level stories, and how people seeing advertisements paid for by Russians influenced the election(imagine that? 120m people on FB influenced the election but 300m+ Americans seeing CNN, NYT, WAPO etc didn't? Please), etc. It's a joke. Enough is enough.

Oh, okay, it's the media's fault...

The same media that gave Trump wall-to-wall free coverage for months because his outrageousness gave good ratings. Trump would never have won if he wasn't primarily a media/reality TV celebrity.

The media gave Trump coverage because their own agenda led them to believe that constantly covering him(and always bashing him) would get them the result they wanted. Boy did that backfire.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2017, 05:54:42 PM
The media gave Trump coverage because their own agenda led them to believe that constantly covering him(and always bashing him) would get them the result they wanted. Boy did that backfire.

They certainly didn't think he had much chances of winning. Nobody did on both sides of the aisle, and I'm pretty sure that includes Trump until the very end. He was basically lucky that a bunch of stars aligned to allow him to squeak through.

But what came first, the chicken or the egg?

When someone does something reprehensible and gets negative coverage, is it the coverage's fault?

Trump actually got off easier than anyone else in the media, he was totally teflon for a long time. Have any other presidential candidate do some of the things that he's pulled - even just one of them - and they'd be over. They basically graded him on a curve, expecting him to say things that aren't true, to make promises he'd break, to call people names and not understand policy details, or have lots of ethical conflicts, make racist remarks, etc.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Hawks on November 01, 2017, 06:12:08 PM
Could we move on from all this, and deal with investing, markets, companies, etc?  That's what this Board is primarily about.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 01, 2017, 06:12:47 PM
The media gave Trump coverage because their own agenda led them to believe that constantly covering him(and always bashing him) would get them the result they wanted. Boy did that backfire.

They certainly didn't think he had much chances of winning. Nobody did on both sides of the aisle, and I'm pretty sure that includes Trump until the very end. He was basically lucky that a bunch of stars aligned to allow him to squeak through.

But what came first, the chicken or the egg?

When someone does something reprehensible and gets negative coverage, is it the coverage's fault?

Trump actually got off easier than anyone else in the media, he was totally teflon for a long time. Have any other presidential candidate do some of the things that he's pulled - even just one of them - and they'd be over. They basically graded him on a curve, expecting him to say things that aren't true, to make promises he'd break, to call people names and not understand policy details, or have lots of ethical conflicts, make racist remarks, etc.

If you were paying attention and being honest, Trump winning was always a very real possibility. The media got played by Trump(who's apparently a grand idiot) because he saw the crap they were pulling was just alienating the people who he needed to vote for him further, and bilked it. Meanwhile these people thought they were putting victory on a plate for Clinton.

If your eyes were open and you weren't just believing what you wanted to believe Trump winning was actually quite conceivable. Myself and a small few others on here predicted it. I remember a post from DTEJD1997 talking about the sheer enthusiasm from a Trump rally of predominantly white women in Detroit. What happened? The usual Liberal bunch here mocked him. They believed what they wanted to. In terms of applying this to investments, this is the equivalent to the retail investor who believes the stock promoters and crooked management when listening to grand stories about how his $15,000 penny stock investment is about to take off. Meanwhile those reading the tea leaves/scouring the 10K's knew what was really going on. It's been going on for quite a while, and this election just happened to be the boiling point.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2017, 07:11:52 PM
The media gave Trump coverage because their own agenda led them to believe that constantly covering him(and always bashing him) would get them the result they wanted. Boy did that backfire.

They certainly didn't think he had much chances of winning. Nobody did on both sides of the aisle, and I'm pretty sure that includes Trump until the very end. He was basically lucky that a bunch of stars aligned to allow him to squeak through.

But what came first, the chicken or the egg?

When someone does something reprehensible and gets negative coverage, is it the coverage's fault?

Trump actually got off easier than anyone else in the media, he was totally teflon for a long time. Have any other presidential candidate do some of the things that he's pulled - even just one of them - and they'd be over. They basically graded him on a curve, expecting him to say things that aren't true, to make promises he'd break, to call people names and not understand policy details, or have lots of ethical conflicts, make racist remarks, etc.

If you were paying attention and being honest, Trump winning was always a very real possibility. The media got played by Trump(who's apparently a grand idiot) because he saw the crap they were pulling was just alienating the people who he needed to vote for him further, and bilked it. Meanwhile these people thought they were putting victory on a plate for Clinton.

If your eyes were open and you weren't just believing what you wanted to believe Trump winning was actually quite conceivable. Myself and a small few others on here predicted it. I remember a post from DTEJD1997 talking about the sheer enthusiasm from a Trump rally of predominantly white women in Detroit. What happened? The usual Liberal bunch here mocked him. They believed what they wanted to. In terms of applying this to investments, this is the equivalent to the retail investor who believes the stock promoters and crooked management when listening to grand stories about how his $15,000 penny stock investment is about to take off. Meanwhile those reading the tea leaves/scouring the 10K's knew what was really going on. It's been going on for quite a while, and this election just happened to be the boiling point.

Don't pretend like it was anything other than a fluke. It was so close that anything could've derailed it. Comey doesn't come out one week before, he loses. Access Hollywood tape comes out a bit later, he loses. A few thousand more Ds come out to vote in a couple states, he loses. He's running agaisnt a man and no doubt that swings more than needed from the mysoginists... Even now his popularity is at historical lows.

And I was actually one of the people who thought he had a better chance than the polls predicted, as I kept telling people around me. Scott Adams did make some good points back then. But it was still always going to need all stars properly aligned for a photo finish at best, after eight years of power by the other party...

Low probably events do happen. Someone does win the lottery. But to afterwards pretend they were obvious is hindsight bias.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2017, 07:12:35 PM
Could we move on from all this, and deal with investing, markets, companies, etc?  That's what this Board is primarily about.

What are you doing in the politics section? Got lost?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 01, 2017, 07:38:29 PM
After the lying and blatantly false "polls" these people put out hoping to influence the election...
Trump lost the national popular vote by 3 million, which is close to what national polls projected. He won 3 mid-west states by a combined margin of ~110K votes, which is well within margin of error of the small polls conducted in those 3 states.

But feel free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you want to believe.

Perhaps you are forgetting but WaPo, CNN, etc, the whole liberal propeganda machine had Hillary winning by anywhere from 6-9% overall. They had her winning by double digits states like Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, NH, etc. Heck there were even a few saying she would win states like Arizona by 5%. They weren't even close. One can maybe stretch the argument by saying what you are; that it was a popular vote. But it wasn't when you looked at the state projections, it was disgraceful. When you looked at the electoral college poll projections, it was blatant how much they lied. Yet no one is calling for an investigation there.

They really didn't, man. A couple states missed estimates (makes sense with p = 0.05). The right-wing media was just as bad at the time. I hate Trump and actually bet on him winning. Check my post history. Nate Silver had Trump at 35% odds on election eve. Trump was the favorite in mid-October (electoral, not popular). The NYT, WaPo, LAT, ect had temporary blindness but they have sincerely improved coverage. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ect included (i don't have cable so I forget them). I listen to Rush and Hannity often. The right-wing MSM is on equal footing, but they won so they didn't need to recalibrate post-election. Look at cobafdek's response to me. Nothing matters, worship Trump (fuck Democrats) is the motto. That blows my mind.

There was no conspiracy with 500 journalists, 5000 gov't workers, IC employees, private lawyers, ect all involved, led by the Clinton's. There's no way the Clinton's could be that bright. Trump won. No one disputes that (other than FNC, Rush, Hannity, Breitbart with strawmen). I can't even get my friend to keep some secrets between us. Trump won. I'm trying to point out the party is over, message was sent, we've all been bamboozled, and Trump is a greedy pig. He's not MAGA. We are MAGA. Trump is killing this country. If you still don't believe me fine. I'll profit as we lose our footing in the world. My entire portfolio is still pro-Trump. I took him at his word this whole time. Check my Twitter for real-time anger for trusting him over and over.

If you still don't believe the polls thing, send me an outlet and I'll show you what happened. 98% or so of past elections could be called on popular vote. Hillary had the popular vote for sure. 2016 was an anomaly, relative to historical elections (maybe obviously).
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Hawks on November 01, 2017, 07:39:31 PM
Sorry Liberty, got distracted by all the posters trying to score "political points".  All the best.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 01, 2017, 07:43:16 PM
The media gave Trump coverage because their own agenda led them to believe that constantly covering him(and always bashing him) would get them the result they wanted. Boy did that backfire.

They certainly didn't think he had much chances of winning. Nobody did on both sides of the aisle, and I'm pretty sure that includes Trump until the very end. He was basically lucky that a bunch of stars aligned to allow him to squeak through.

But what came first, the chicken or the egg?

When someone does something reprehensible and gets negative coverage, is it the coverage's fault?

Trump actually got off easier than anyone else in the media, he was totally teflon for a long time. Have any other presidential candidate do some of the things that he's pulled - even just one of them - and they'd be over. They basically graded him on a curve, expecting him to say things that aren't true, to make promises he'd break, to call people names and not understand policy details, or have lots of ethical conflicts, make racist remarks, etc.

If you were paying attention and being honest, Trump winning was always a very real possibility. The media got played by Trump(who's apparently a grand idiot) because he saw the crap they were pulling was just alienating the people who he needed to vote for him further, and bilked it. Meanwhile these people thought they were putting victory on a plate for Clinton.

If your eyes were open and you weren't just believing what you wanted to believe Trump winning was actually quite conceivable. Myself and a small few others on here predicted it. I remember a post from DTEJD1997 talking about the sheer enthusiasm from a Trump rally of predominantly white women in Detroit. What happened? The usual Liberal bunch here mocked him. They believed what they wanted to. In terms of applying this to investments, this is the equivalent to the retail investor who believes the stock promoters and crooked management when listening to grand stories about how his $15,000 penny stock investment is about to take off. Meanwhile those reading the tea leaves/scouring the 10K's knew what was really going on. It's been going on for quite a while, and this election just happened to be the boiling point.

Don't pretend like it was anything other than a fluke. It was so close that anything could've derailed it. Comey doesn't come out one week before, he loses. Access Hollywood tape comes out a bit later, he loses. A few thousand more Ds come out to vote in a couple states, he loses. He's running agaisnt a man and no doubt that swings more than needed from the mysoginists... Even now his popularity is at historical lows.

And I was actually one of the people who thought he had a better chance than the polls predicted, as I kept telling people around me. Scott Adams did make some good points back then. But it was still always going to need all stars properly aligned for a photo finish at best, after eight years of power by the other party...

Low probably events do happen. Someone does win the lottery. But to afterwards pretend they were obvious is hindsight bias.

A fluke? Most people paying attention drew immediate comparisons to the Reagan elections in the 80's. You know, the same ones where the MSM called him a bumbling idiot and predicted a landslide loss.

Access Hollywood literally came out at the worst time possible! How do we know this? Because the media purposely waiting to drop this at the moment of greatest expected damage. That is on record. Talk about trying to influence the election!

And yes, "even now his popularity is at all time lows" if you beleieve the polls put out there by the same idiots and liars who gave you the polls that said Hillary would win in a landslide... Perhaps we learn from our mistakes rather than takes these liars at face value?

It wasn't close. Trump took over 300 EC votes and won nearly every major swing state; including ones MSM had polling 10+ points in favor of Clinton days before the election.

And maybe they were low probability to some, but not all. Maybe it's just the ability to see things for what they are. Michael Burry saw what Goldman, Lehman, Citi and the Fed didn't. It was still obvious to him and those paying attention rather than believing what they wanted, or had an incentive to believe.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: EliG on November 01, 2017, 07:56:10 PM
And yes, "even now his popularity is at all time lows" if you beleieve the polls put out there by the same idiots and liars who gave you the polls that said Hillary would win in a landslide... Perhaps we learn from our mistakes rather than takes these liars at face value?

The most recent Fox News poll has Trump's job approval at 38/57, -19 spread.

Here's their last pre-election poll:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/polls

48% Clinton, 44% Trump, enough for a comfortable Clinton victory.

There we go, Fox News must be a left-wing media propaganda outlet run by liberal idiots and liars. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: DTEJD1997 on November 01, 2017, 07:57:37 PM
Hey all:

I can vaguely remember the media being in ABSOLUTE hysterics when Reagan won. They were calling him a cowboy, a warmonger, reckless, dangerous, and on and on and on and on...

In the beginning, they also made fun of his jar of jelly beans.

That he was simply a "B list" actor and a simpleton.  That his supporters were cretins, mentally deficient racists, and on and on.

They were also convinced he would lead us into a nuclear war.

Turns out he was one of the best presidents ever.  Truly a great man.  America and the world was a MUCH better country/place with him serving as President.

Not saying that Trump will be the same way...but the media has been crazy/hysterical and wrong before...
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on November 01, 2017, 08:00:54 PM
After the lying and blatantly false "polls" these people put out hoping to influence the election...
Trump lost the national popular vote by 3 million, which is close to what national polls projected. He won 3 mid-west states by a combined margin of ~110K votes, which is well within margin of error of the small polls conducted in those 3 states.

But feel free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you want to believe.
The polls thing is funny. When polls showed Trump winning they were the shit. When they showed Trump loosing all of a sudden were fake news, lying media, etc.

And no the polls did not predict a massive Clinton win. Yes there were polls that showed Clinton +6 or +8 in the summer but not close to the election day. I don't remember all the details but 538 did an analysis before the election and found a polling average of Clinton +3 or +4. They also noted that all the polls were at least a week old and Trump was showing momentum in those polls and if that momentum continued (which they noted was likely) the margin was smaller than that and it would be a close election. The end result was Clinton +2. So i don't see the big polling error.

Now if there's some polling error in the approval does it really make a difference if Trump's approval rating is 35% or 37% in his first year with a good economy. Would the story change? I think not. It sure looks like a whole bunch of people are having buying remorse. Maybe they through that Molotov cocktail and it felt good but now they're seeing the fire.

OK, so maybe with Trump Americans threw a molotov cocktail and flipped Washington the bird. Maybe I can understand the frustration but was there some other goal behind that? Was the goal to replace the Jeff Flakes and Dean Hellers with Kelli Wars? Will the country and the people be better off under that scenario?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on November 01, 2017, 08:12:31 PM
There was no conspiracy with 500 journalists, 5000 gov't workers, IC employees, private lawyers, ect all involved, led by the Clinton's. There's no way the Clinton's could be that bright. Trump won. No one disputes that (other than FNC, Rush, Hannity, Breitbart with strawmen). I can't even get my friend to keep some secrets between us.
This is so true. It's what makes me shake my head and laugh my ass off at the people seeing conspiracies everywhere. Try to set up a get 10-15 people for a dinner out and see how that goes. Most of us can't get 15 people to conspire to eat some steak but apparently there are some people that can easily and regularly can get hundreds and thousands of people silently on the same page to engage in illegal behavior.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 01, 2017, 08:26:48 PM
Mr. Trump has repeatedly been underestimated.
The election was a close call.
But he won.
In a very polarized world, swing voters made the difference.

"The media got played by Trump(who's apparently a grand idiot) because he saw the crap they were pulling was just alienating the people who he needed to vote for him further, and bilked it."
That may be a very valid point.

The presidency will continue to be a challenging balancing act.
Maybe people underestimate again the capacity to thrive in a divide and conquer environment.

I submit that one of the issues that needs to be analyzed/understood is to figure out why many swing voters switched (sometimes enthusiastically so) to Mr. Trump ie against the establishment and the language/message being offered as an alternative.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 01, 2017, 08:35:21 PM
Hey all:

I can vaguely remember the media being in ABSOLUTE hysterics when Reagan won. They were calling him a cowboy, a warmonger, reckless, dangerous, and on and on and on and on...

In the beginning, they also made fun of his jar of jelly beans.

That he was simply a "B list" actor and a simpleton.  That his supporters were cretins, mentally deficient racists, and on and on.

They were also convinced he would lead us into a nuclear war.

Turns out he was one of the best presidents ever.  Truly a great man.  America and the world was a MUCH better country/place with him serving as President.

Not saying that Trump will be the same way...but the media has been crazy/hysterical and wrong before...

They ranted about quirks. We have legit news media writing articles about specifically why Trump could not have committed Treason (because we are not at War with Russia). This is not Reagan. Not by a long shot.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 01, 2017, 08:43:51 PM
"The media got played by Trump(who's apparently a grand idiot) because he saw the crap they were pulling was just alienating the people who he needed to vote for him further, and bilked it."
That may be a very valid point.

Basically George Wallace, who regretted the decision to divide the populous after he did it.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: DTEJD1997 on November 01, 2017, 09:10:12 PM
Hey all:

I can vaguely remember the media being in ABSOLUTE hysterics when Reagan won. They were calling him a cowboy, a warmonger, reckless, dangerous, and on and on and on and on...

In the beginning, they also made fun of his jar of jelly beans.

That he was simply a "B list" actor and a simpleton.  That his supporters were cretins, mentally deficient racists, and on and on.

They were also convinced he would lead us into a nuclear war.

Turns out he was one of the best presidents ever.  Truly a great man.  America and the world was a MUCH better country/place with him serving as President.

Not saying that Trump will be the same way...but the media has been crazy/hysterical and wrong before...

They ranted about quirks. We have legit news media writing articles about specifically why Trump could not have committed Treason (because we are not at War with Russia). This is not Reagan. Not by a long shot.

I am not saying that Trump is on the same level of Reagan.  Time will tell.

What I am trying to point out is that the collective media lost their minds back around 1980 when Reagan won his first term & shortly thereafter.  They besmirched him and his supporters...kind of like what is going now.

History showed that they could not have been more wrong back in 1980.

The press was wrong back in 1980.  The press was probably more educated back then as compared to now.  Not that they were "sharp knives" back in 1980, but they are definitely "more stupider" now...

Maybe they are right and President Trump will turn out to be a simpering idiot....but they've been very wrong before!
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 01, 2017, 09:30:29 PM
Hey all:

I can vaguely remember the media being in ABSOLUTE hysterics when Reagan won. They were calling him a cowboy, a warmonger, reckless, dangerous, and on and on and on and on...

In the beginning, they also made fun of his jar of jelly beans.

That he was simply a "B list" actor and a simpleton.  That his supporters were cretins, mentally deficient racists, and on and on.

They were also convinced he would lead us into a nuclear war.

Turns out he was one of the best presidents ever.  Truly a great man.  America and the world was a MUCH better country/place with him serving as President.

Not saying that Trump will be the same way...but the media has been crazy/hysterical and wrong before...

They ranted about quirks. We have legit news media writing articles about specifically why Trump could not have committed Treason (because we are not at War with Russia). This is not Reagan. Not by a long shot.

I am not saying that Trump is on the same level of Reagan.  Time will tell.

What I am trying to point out is that the collective media lost their minds back around 1980 when Reagan won his first term & shortly thereafter.  They besmirched him and his supporters...kind of like what is going now.

History showed that they could not have been more wrong back in 1980.

The press was wrong back in 1980.  The press was probably more educated back then as compared to now.  Not that they were "sharp knives" back in 1980, but they are definitely "more stupider" now...

Maybe they are right and President Trump will turn out to be a simpering idiot....but they've been very wrong before!

I mean, everyone and every organization has been wrong before. Trump very likely conspired with Russia. I hate the rationalization that ignores known facts and testimony. Has anyone considered the consequences of if this is a witch hunt and the alleged conspiracy is without any evidence?

It would be the end of the Democrat party, easily 100s of high ranking government officials indicted, 100s of federal law enforcement officials indicted, disbandiment or full restructuring of Intel agencies, and so on. An end of the US government, as we know it. 1,000s of people have bet their careers, reputations, and freedom to call out Trump. What are the odds they are all wrong and Trump is right, despite all the reported crap?

This isn't about liberals/democrats or MSM. This is one of the bigger criminal investigations in US history. I'm at a loss for why I need to point this all out.

Fox News has more access to Trump's admin then any other media outlet at the moment. How has Fox News not broken a single story on Trump/Russia in over 18 months? "To thine own self be true."
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Investor20 on November 02, 2017, 05:55:13 AM
"This isn't about liberals/democrats or MSM. This is one of the bigger criminal investigations in US history. I'm at a loss for why I need to point this all out."

Yes...its not about liberals/conservatives. Its about how our govt works.  I am not sure why more people are not concerned.

NYtimes reports:

"He testifies against others, who in turn are pressured to testify against still others. And all this makes it more difficult to protect the man at the center if indeed he has violated the law."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/opinion/paul-manafort-indictment-trump.html

As per above NYtimes argument, they have to arrest a few other guys to figure out "if indeed he has violated the law".

And all these are cases normally no one would get arrested.  No one would have looked at Manafort, if he was not Trumps campaign manager. How do I know this...look at this Politico article:

"Washington lobbyists who represent foreign powers have taken comfort for decades in the fact that the Justice Department rarely goes after them for potentially breaking the law. That all changed on Monday."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/31/tony-podesta-lobbyists-mueller-manafort-244389

Note in above "decades" Mueller was FBI director for 10 years and active participant in that policy of not pursuing these kind of cases. Manafort got arrested not for what he did, but his association with Trump. That is a very slippery process, and a scary one.

If they ultimately find out that he did not indeed violate the law, too bad for others I guess for getting arrested for things normally they don't. That the govt resorts to these kind of tactics scares me more than anything else.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rkbabang on November 02, 2017, 07:08:54 AM
just as Michael Moore described him, a human Molotov cocktail the middle class sent to Washington to say F you.

I'm not a fan of Moore, but that description is absolutely perfect.  And it is exactly why I'm enjoying all of this so much.  The rage coming from the anti-Trump left is palatable.  I've never seen anything like it in all my life.  They are beside themselves and simply can't deal with it.  The planned rallies where they will be in the streets screaming at the sky (if this is really going to happen) should be youTube gold.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on November 02, 2017, 08:41:45 AM
Note in above "decades" Mueller was FBI director for 10 years and active participant in that policy of not pursuing these kind of cases. Manafort got arrested not for what he did, but his association with Trump. That is a very slippery process, and a scary one.

If they ultimately find out that he did not indeed violate the law, too bad for others I guess for getting arrested for things normally they don't. That the govt resorts to these kind of tactics scares me more than anything else.
I really don't understand the thinking here. They break the low and they shouldn't be arrested because they got away with it in the past? This is ridiculous. Especially in the US where if you catch a kid with some marijuana you throw the book at him. But these guys should be free to essentially act as foreign agents, engage in money laundering, etc and they should be left alone because there's supposedly some gentleman's agreement?

If you break the law I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future the FBI may pay you a visit in the early hours.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cardboard on November 02, 2017, 09:11:19 AM
Following the law now...

It is interesting that RB and others are now pushing for the law to be followed. Actually, I have no problem at all with this thinking.

However, all existing and applicable laws, to all people should be applied. This means application to Clinton, Trump and yes to immigration also.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 02, 2017, 09:18:41 AM
Note in above "decades" Mueller was FBI director for 10 years and active participant in that policy of not pursuing these kind of cases. Manafort got arrested not for what he did, but his association with Trump. That is a very slippery process, and a scary one.

If they ultimately find out that he did not indeed violate the law, too bad for others I guess for getting arrested for things normally they don't. That the govt resorts to these kind of tactics scares me more than anything else.
I really don't understand the thinking here. They break the low and they shouldn't be arrested because they got away with it in the past? This is ridiculous. Especially in the US where if you catch a kid with some marijuana you throw the book at him. But these guys should be free to essentially act as foreign agents, engage in money laundering, etc and they should be left alone because there's supposedly some gentleman's agreement?

If you break the law I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future the FBI may pay you a visit in the early hours.

Pretty much. And this is just another byproduct of Trump. The guy IMO is not much better or worse than the politicians that came before him. He just seems(debate whether it's intentional or not) to highlight, and do everything they all did, just in a much more extravagant way.

Make outrageous promises that can't be fulfilled? Check
Talk out of both sides of his mouth? Check
Surround himself with people who he can use to do the dirty work? Check
Ignore/outrage large portions of the population? Check

Like you said in your post prior to this, that's why it's enjoyable. To see the other side have to deal with what they've done to all of us; and they hate it! It's so enjoyable. Obama spent the majority of his time in office taking passive aggressive swipes at white people. All the libs, who tout free speech and 1st amendment, that protest and harass anyone who shares a different view than them. Democrats as a whole have spend the last decade vilifying the middle/upper middle class. They've all been living lavishly while telling the American people they feel the pain. Politicians, and especially lobbyists have all been above the law for decades. Manifort played that game, and yes, just because he is associated with the Trump witch hunt, is he facing trouble. But now a precedent will be established and more will be forced to change or face similar repercussions. It's all a crock of you know what.

So then here comes Trump who is so bold with all these things it's refreshing. And it's bound to force changes. It's like when Lou Lamouriello of the NJ Devils, a long opponent of what were called "retirement contracts" offered Ilya Kovalchuk 17 years and 100 million with the last 6 years at 500k. It was so outrageous it could only be construed as making a mockery of the system. And a year later those types of contracts were banned.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on November 02, 2017, 09:24:58 AM
However, all existing and applicable laws, to all people should be applied. This means application to Clinton, Trump and yes to immigration also.

Cardboard
Yes I fully agree. Furthermore I think that it's really dangerous to protect people based on political ideology or apply the law in ways that's convenient. You'll just create 2 groups of protected criminals. If for example they find that Podesta engaged in the same shit as Manafort (money laundry, etc) you'll find no protest from me when they haul him away.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rkbabang on November 02, 2017, 09:27:57 AM
However, all existing and applicable laws, to all people should be applied. This means application to Clinton, Trump and yes to immigration also.

Cardboard
Yes I fully agree. Furthermore I think that it's really dangerous to protect people based on political ideology or apply the law in ways that's convenient. You'll just create 2 groups of protected criminals. If for example they find that Podesta engaged in the same shit as Manafort (money laundry, etc) you'll find no protest from me when they haul him away.

"Two groups of protected criminals".  That is as good a description of the current US government as I've seen.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 02, 2017, 09:51:57 AM
For what it's worth, tend to think that, in the main, we get what we deserve.

"We misunderstand public life if we equate it with politics, with the activities of government. Not only do we misunderstand it, we also strangle our sense of public possibilities. The heart of public life is simply the interaction of strangers and that is a basic and vital human experience, not a specialized political process" Palmer, 1981

Some say this started with television and other technology-inducing individualism.
But social media may help with the revival after all.
Long participatory democracy and civic pride.

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 02, 2017, 02:23:11 PM
The Special Counsel didn't just get appointed because people hate Trump. Nor is it out of the ordinary, considering the below timeline (I might have forgotten an important event or 20):

JUL 2016 (22nd): FBI opens counter intelligence Trump/Russia probe (almost certainly because of intercepted electronic communications that were monitored from a FISA warrant. That warrant was almost certainly not granted due to the dossier. Neither of these two conjectures are absolutely confirmed, at present)

AUG 2016 (roughly 2-3 weeks later): Obama receives intelligence that Putin directly ordered and was involved in the cyberwarfare on the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.bcab38c4146d

AUG-NOV 2016: Congress is aware of Trump/Russia and the evidence. They refuse to act or alert the public. Obama does not alert the public until OCT-2016. Aides are now saying that Obama didn't react at the time because of the strong partisan polarization at the time and concerns over how 1/2 the public would react to a perceived favoritism of one candidate and investigation into the other. The new PBS documentary on Putin dives in to this part of the story.

DEC 11 2016: McConnell/Congress states that Russia did commit an attack effecting the US election. Only after the election and new evidence being revealed did he/they admit this is true. We now have everyone but Trump himself agreeing that the facts laid out by IC/Obama/media are true.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/12/why-didnt-obama-reveal-intel-about-russias-influence-on-the-election/510242/

JAN 2017: IC tells the public they are sure the Russians interfered with the election. This again confirms the story of Obama/media/Bi-partisan congress. At this point, we only know the FBI is investigating Trump Campaign and Russia connections, not Trump himself. Again, only Trump is denying anything occurred at this point.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

JAN 27 2017: FBI investigates George Papadopolous and finds him lying to the FBI. At lunchtime of that day, Trump requested to have dinner with the FBI Director (Comey) one-on-one. During the private dinner, Trump talked about and requested loyalty and asked about an on-going investigation into individuals who worked for his campaign. Both Comey and Trump knew that GP was interviewed that morning and found to have lied. Trump misleadingly set up a 1-1 dinner, with the investigator, likely after learning this detail. He then proceeded to ask the investigator about details of the investigation and attempted to sway the investigator as to the facts of the case.

FEB 2017: AG Sessions recuses himself from probe due to involvement with Trump campaign and lying about contacts with Russians
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-leading-jeff-sessions-recusal-fallout/story?id=45855918

MAR 2017: Comey testifies to congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's activities with Russia

MAY 9 2017: Trump fires the FBI Director, who is investigating Trump's campaign.

ONE WEEK LATER: Rosenstein, as acting AG for the scope of this investigation, appoints a SC (Mueller). Cites public interest and unique circumstances as the reason for an independent investigation lead.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel   (plain english reasons)
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download   (legal reasons)



You can look up better timelines but these are the key points in the story, relevant to your comment. To believe Trump about a witch hunt is to assume that nearly every Federal Law Enforcement senior official (including every non-recused official Trump has appointed/nominated) is part of a cover-up that no one has any evidence for, all while fabricating all outstanding evidence in to Trump and his campaign. That is an extremely lofty reach. If we hear hoof beats, we should be thinking horses, not zebras.



Like many others, I'm all for enforcing laws. However, Hillary hasn't been indicted because there's no straight forward case against her, from my understanding. I know this is angering and disappointing to many, but this seems to be the truth of why she wasn't. That's what has been shown in investigation hearings and court docs, all of which are publicly available. If R's could have found something in 1 of the 7 Benghazi investigations on her, the emails, or through any related investigation, they would have charged her.

As to the immigration laws: Again, my understanding is that everything done was in adherence with our laws. The immigration bans were shot down because of Trump running his mouth as to an illegal purpose of the law. If he said nothing and just did it, they would have been legal. It is as annoyingly stupid as that. The actually text was not the issue.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 02, 2017, 02:32:52 PM
The Special Counsel didn't just get appointed because people hate Trump. Nor is it out of the ordinary, considering the below timeline (I might have forgotten an important event or 20):

JUL 2016 (22nd): FBI opens counter intelligence Trump/Russia probe (almost certainly because of intercepted electronic communications that were monitored from a FISA warrant. That warrant was almost certainly not granted due to the dossier. Neither of these two conjectures are absolutely confirmed, at present)

AUG 2016 (roughly 2-3 weeks later): Obama receives intelligence that Putin directly ordered and was involved in the cyberwarfare on the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.bcab38c4146d

AUG-NOV 2016: Congress is aware of Trump/Russia and the evidence. They refuse to act or alert the public. Obama does not alert the public until OCT-2016. Aides are now saying that Obama didn't react at the time because of the strong partisan polarization at the time and concerns over how 1/2 the public would react to a perceived favoritism of one candidate and investigation into the other. The new PBS documentary on Putin dives in to this part of the story.

DEC 11 2016: McConnell/Congress states that Russia did commit an attack effecting the US election. Only after the election and new evidence being revealed did he/they admit this is true. We now have everyone but Trump himself agreeing that the facts laid out by IC/Obama/media are true.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/12/why-didnt-obama-reveal-intel-about-russias-influence-on-the-election/510242/

JAN 2017: IC tells the public they are sure the Russians interfered with the election. This again confirms the story of Obama/media/Bi-partisan congress. At this point, we only know the FBI is investigating Trump Campaign and Russia connections, not Trump himself. Again, only Trump is denying anything occurred at this point.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

JAN 27 2017: FBI investigates George Papadopolous and finds him lying to the FBI. At lunchtime of that day, Trump requested to have dinner with the FBI Director (Comey) one-on-one. During the private dinner, Trump talked about and requested loyalty and asked about an on-going investigation into individuals who worked for his campaign. Both Comey and Trump knew that GP was interviewed that morning and found to have lied. Trump misleadingly set up a 1-1 dinner, with the investigator, likely after learning this detail. He then proceeded to ask the investigator about details of the investigation and attempted to sway the investigator as to the facts of the case.

FEB 2017: AG Sessions recuses himself from probe due to involvement with Trump campaign and lying about contacts with Russians
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-leading-jeff-sessions-recusal-fallout/story?id=45855918

MAR 2017: Comey testifies to congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's activities with Russia

MAY 9 2017: Trump fires the FBI Director, who is investigating Trump's campaign.

ONE WEEK LATER: Rosenstein, as acting AG for the scope of this investigation, appoints a SC (Mueller). Cites public interest and unique circumstances as the reason for an independent investigation lead.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel   (plain english reasons)
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download   (legal reasons)



You can look up better timelines but these are the key points in the story, relevant to your comment. To believe Trump about a witch hunt is to assume that nearly every Federal Law Enforcement senior official (including every non-recused official Trump has appointed/nominated) is part of a cover-up that no one has any evidence for, all while fabricating all outstanding evidence in to Trump and his campaign. That is an extremely lofty reach. If we hear hoof beats, we should be thinking horses, not zebras.



Like many others, I'm all for enforcing laws. However, Hillary hasn't been indicted because there's no straight forward case against her, from my understanding. I know this is angering and disappointing to many, but this seems to be the truth of why she wasn't. That's what has been shown in investigation hearings and court docs, all of which are publicly available. If R's could have found something in 1 of the 7 Benghazi investigations on her, the emails, or through any related investigation, they would have charged her.

As to the immigration laws: Again, my understanding is that everything done was in adherence with our laws. The immigration bans were shot down because of Trump running his mouth as to an illegal purpose of the law. If he said nothing and just did it, they would have been legal. It is as annoyingly stupid as that. The actually text was not the issue.

I'm sorry but if you listen to the reasoning Comey gave, your head should spin. With Hillary, we are talking about national security and classified information. Yet I probably couldn't get out of a speeding ticket with the excuses that I didn't intend to break the law, but was just reckless and careless...

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" -James Comey
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on November 02, 2017, 02:39:06 PM
Gregmal, are you this upset when Trump serves classified info to the Russians just straight up?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 02, 2017, 02:43:50 PM
I'm sorry but if you listen to the reasoning Comey gave, your head should spin. With Hillary, we are talking about national security and classified information. Yet I probably couldn't get out of a speeding ticket with the excuses that I didn't intend to break the law, but was just reckless and careless...

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" -James Comey

There's no need for a metaphor here. We know the actual statutes that Hillary was being investigated for potentially violating. We know the actual requirements the government needed to provide to meet the burden of proof. We know the actual case precedent, for this specific statute. We know the actual details of her actions.

It is unnecessary and misleading metaphors like you present that has led to the polarization (on Both Sides, if that's of any help). Comey was absolutely right, if you research the case in detail. Again, it is frustrating and disappointing to many, but he handled the case correctly.

I guess I didn't include this before, but it should be mentioned that Trump has not been impeached for similar reasons. We have prior precedent. Trump has not yet met those standards, despite technically committing offences that are impeachable. Prior precedent matters! It's literally the bedrock of our legal system!
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: EliG on November 02, 2017, 04:35:11 PM
#MAGA people are tired of winning:

(https://i.imgur.com/o0eKv8l.png)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 02, 2017, 04:59:58 PM
#MAGA people are tired of winning:

(https://i.imgur.com/o0eKv8l.png)

Is this not the height of insanity? How many times has he tried doing something on healthcare only to have career politicians like John McCain purposely sabotage it? It's going to be the same thing with taxes. You are already seeing several Republicans refusing to do anything.

This dude's healthcare went up 80% because that's what this Obamacare scam does. And well, if you don't want to get ripped off on healthcare, and choose just not to have it, they screw you with a hefty fine.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: randomep on November 02, 2017, 05:09:59 PM


Is this not the height of insanity? How many times has he tried doing something on healthcare only to have career politicians like John McCain purposely sabotage it? It's going to be the same thing with taxes. You are already seeing several Republicans refusing to do anything.

This dude's healthcare went up 80% because that's what this Obamacare scam does.

Wait Gregmal, you are implying Trump is a successful executive who can turn this country around if only he was not tripped-up or backstabbed by his own people?

That is kinda like Hitler saying that he could've conquered Russia if only his general were comptent.  Comon, we all know now with hindsight Hitler was in waaay over his head...... Kinda like the Trump huh? I am sure if he is alive at ninety he'll bitch like that.

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on November 02, 2017, 05:11:22 PM
Trump is so ineffective! What kind of #loser can't push a bill passed some old farts in congress? Just sitting there as president doing nothing! Talk about #LAZY! Just another example of government waste! I wish he would just fire himself #IMFIRED #letsgogolfing #melaniawheresmymilk
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: EliG on November 02, 2017, 05:16:43 PM
Is this not the height of insanity? How many times has he tried doing something on healthcare only to have career politicians like John McCain purposely sabotage it?

Sorry Greg, but you are badly brainwashed. You live in a bizarro world where black is white, white is black, and you have zero awareness of it. As hard as it is to do, you should try to expand your news sources beyond pro-Trump echo chamber.

FYI, I am a *conservative* Canadian. Just so you know where I'm coming from.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: randomep on November 02, 2017, 05:21:21 PM

I don't know about you but I envy Trump. He has had a grand life. He is filthy rich, he has always had trophy girlfriends and wives and could father a child at 60... and do zero work raising the child. 

To do so he had luck, rich parents, and his own wits. So sure he has something in his brain that I wish I had.  But I still think he is an idiot.  He cannot pick stocks, run a company or run a country.   I think of a businessman's contribution the way Warren Buffett thinks of the airline industry.  Is this a net creater or destroyer of capital?  Trump could be a net destroyer of capital. Or let me put it this way, I don't think he earned beyond the net cost of capital for his shareholders.  He went bankrupt, what? 4 times? His failed to pay back his bond holders how much money?

If every business man did what he did this country would be broke.  That's why I think he is an idiot....... one who is really good at milking the world for his benefit.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: EliG on November 02, 2017, 05:25:14 PM
More winning for the forgotten #MAGA people:

(https://i.imgur.com/7b2HKgZ.png)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 02, 2017, 05:43:52 PM


Is this not the height of insanity? How many times has he tried doing something on healthcare only to have career politicians like John McCain purposely sabotage it? It's going to be the same thing with taxes. You are already seeing several Republicans refusing to do anything.

This dude's healthcare went up 80% because that's what this Obamacare scam does.

Wait Gregmal, you are implying Trump is a successful executive who can turn this country around if only he was not tripped-up or backstabbed by his own people?

That is kinda like Hitler saying that he could've conquered Russia if only his general were comptent.  Comon, we all know now with hindsight Hitler was in waaay over his head...... Kinda like the Trump huh? I am sure if he is alive at ninety he'll bitch like that.

When both Republicans and Democrats refuse to work with him, I don't know what is reasonably expected to get done right off the bat. Maybe Eli thinks he should just go in there and find a way to do it completely by himself or something, but the reality is that he can't change Obamacare with out Congress being willing to do something proactive. Wasn't it McCain who even admitted "we aren't just going to jam this through because we have numbers, like the Democrats did with Obamacare". Yea you're right John, so instead go do nothing. I'm sure John is also using the VA facilities and is currently enrolled through an Obamacare exchange for his brain tumor treatment. Oh wait, of course he isn't. He's got the gold plated benefits packages all Senators do. But he's fine leaving this mess as is for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 02, 2017, 05:45:32 PM
Is this not the height of insanity? How many times has he tried doing something on healthcare only to have career politicians like John McCain purposely sabotage it?

Sorry Greg, but you are badly brainwashed. You live in a bizarro world where black is white, white is black, and you have zero awareness of it. As hard as it is to do, you should try to expand your news sources beyond pro-Trump echo chamber.

FYI, I am a *conservative* Canadian. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

Awful lot of substance here. Bravo. Although what's clear is the same theme as always. Obama creates this giant healthcare mess. Now we blame Trump, who has been in office all of 10 months. Yea, ok.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: randomep on November 02, 2017, 06:04:09 PM


Is this not the height of insanity? How many times has he tried doing something on healthcare only to have career politicians like John McCain purposely sabotage it? It's going to be the same thing with taxes. You are already seeing several Republicans refusing to do anything.

This dude's healthcare went up 80% because that's what this Obamacare scam does.

Wait Gregmal, you are implying Trump is a successful executive who can turn this country around if only he was not tripped-up or backstabbed by his own people?

That is kinda like Hitler saying that he could've conquered Russia if only his general were comptent.  Comon, we all know now with hindsight Hitler was in waaay over his head...... Kinda like the Trump huh? I am sure if he is alive at ninety he'll bitch like that.

When both Republicans and Democrats refuse to work with him, I don't know what is reasonably expected to get done right off the bat. Maybe Eli thinks he should just go in there and find a way to do it completely by himself or something, but the reality is that he can't change Obamacare with out Congress being willing to do something proactive. Wasn't it McCain who even admitted "we aren't just going to jam this through because we have numbers, like the Democrats did with Obamacare". Yea you're right John, so instead go do nothing. I'm sure John is also using the VA facilities and is currently enrolled through an Obamacare exchange for his brain tumor treatment. Oh wait, of course he isn't. He's got the gold plated benefits packages all Senators do. But he's fine leaving this mess as is for the rest of us.

I don't know if you read my post or want to address what I said.   Let me spell it out clearly. He is in waaay over his head.   

I am not just addressing Obamacare..... what about the wall? what about destroying ISIS? I know there is 37 months to go but I can just see the excuses like yours in the coming months when Trump does jack shit different from any other generic middle of the road presidential candidate.

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Gregmal on November 02, 2017, 06:21:23 PM


Is this not the height of insanity? How many times has he tried doing something on healthcare only to have career politicians like John McCain purposely sabotage it? It's going to be the same thing with taxes. You are already seeing several Republicans refusing to do anything.

This dude's healthcare went up 80% because that's what this Obamacare scam does.

Wait Gregmal, you are implying Trump is a successful executive who can turn this country around if only he was not tripped-up or backstabbed by his own people?

That is kinda like Hitler saying that he could've conquered Russia if only his general were comptent.  Comon, we all know now with hindsight Hitler was in waaay over his head...... Kinda like the Trump huh? I am sure if he is alive at ninety he'll bitch like that.

When both Republicans and Democrats refuse to work with him, I don't know what is reasonably expected to get done right off the bat. Maybe Eli thinks he should just go in there and find a way to do it completely by himself or something, but the reality is that he can't change Obamacare with out Congress being willing to do something proactive. Wasn't it McCain who even admitted "we aren't just going to jam this through because we have numbers, like the Democrats did with Obamacare". Yea you're right John, so instead go do nothing. I'm sure John is also using the VA facilities and is currently enrolled through an Obamacare exchange for his brain tumor treatment. Oh wait, of course he isn't. He's got the gold plated benefits packages all Senators do. But he's fine leaving this mess as is for the rest of us.

I don't know if you read my post or want to address what I said.   Let me spell it out clearly. He is in waaay over his head.   

I am not just addressing Obamacare..... what about the wall? what about destroying ISIS? I know there is 37 months to go but I can just see the excuses like yours in the coming months when Trump does jack shit different from any other generic middle of the road presidential candidate.

Well I would think for starters, looking at things deeper than what the tabloid level surface stuff tells you would help. If the Flakes and all those career politicians get turned over, and newer folks come in who aren't bitter that the kingdom as they knew it began crumbling; and Trump still hasn't gotten anything through- fine. But I'm not sure I believe people can be so married to their narratives that they can't see the utter hatred; both Democrat and Republican, career politicians, refuse to do work with him. On top of that its been 10 months. So yes, if the situation in 3 years is just the same, sure, I'd say he failed. But I don't think the situation will be. Things are changing. You can see it starting when these career toolbags like Corker aren't even bothering to run because they know they have no shot without the president's approval.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: randomep on November 02, 2017, 06:58:03 PM

Well I would think for starters, looking at things deeper than what the tabloid level surface stuff tells you would help. If the Flakes and all those career politicians get turned over, and newer folks come in who aren't bitter that the kingdom as they knew it began crumbling; and Trump still hasn't gotten anything through- fine. But I'm not sure I believe people can be so married to their narratives that they can't see the utter hatred; both Democrat and Republican, career politicians, refuse to do work with him. On top of that its been 10 months. So yes, if the situation in 3 years is just the same, sure, I'd say he failed. But I don't think the situation will be. Things are changing. You can see it starting when these career toolbags like Corker aren't even bothering to run because they know they have no shot without the president's approval.

Wow, ok I really misunderstood you. You actually think there is a reasonable chance he can do anything other than "fail" as you describe it?  Ok, I am older and time flies faster, 3 years will fly by like a flash.  Well revisit this thread when it gets closer to 3 years.

Technically, I don't have skin in the game, I am not an american. I know a political discussion is just back and forth like discussing religion with someone that has opposite views to you. It is just words back and forth and ultimately a waste of time.   But putting your stakes down and saying so and so will happen, that is something that can be refuted or confirmed. Kinda like post-mortem after you sell a stock and want to know if your thesis turned out right.

And what is the purpose of this post-mortem? Its your future (assuming you are an american). I'd like to hear discussion on who to pick as the next president, especially if Trump fails as I expect, who knows maybe I'll learn something useful like I learned from our discussion here.....

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on November 02, 2017, 06:59:58 PM
When both Republicans and Democrats refuse to work with him, I don't know what is reasonably expected to get done right off the bat. Maybe Eli thinks he should just go in there and find a way to do it completely by himself or something, but the reality is that he can't change Obamacare with out Congress being willing to do something proactive. Wasn't it McCain who even admitted "we aren't just going to jam this through because we have numbers, like the Democrats did with Obamacare". Yea you're right John, so instead go do nothing. I'm sure John is also using the VA facilities and is currently enrolled through an Obamacare exchange for his brain tumor treatment. Oh wait, of course he isn't. He's got the gold plated benefits packages all Senators do. But he's fine leaving this mess as is for the rest of us.
Hold on a second, I though America didn't have kings where everyone has to bend to the ruler's wants. Also wasn't he who was the best most greatest dealmaker? Why doesn't he go in there to make a deal?

By the way this is the environment leaders operate in. Nobody has everything served on a platter and they just waltz in and take the platitudes. It's always complicated. The good ones make it work somehow and the bad ones don't. Yes some senators voted against healthcare because they were against another 20 million or so people being uninsured.

I think the people voted for repeal and replace. But what they got was repeal. Where was the replace. Where was the White House's proposals on healthcare? Where were the white papers about reforming healthcare that can be negotiated to arrive at a deal? Nowhere. Because there were none. It was all just empty words. So yeah, some senators voted against some empty bullshit. So what did Trump do? Out of spite he pulled subsidies from insurance markets. A move that will both hurt people and cost the government money. Some leadership on display right there.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Investor20 on November 02, 2017, 07:15:32 PM

AUG 2016 (roughly 2-3 weeks later): Obama receives intelligence that Putin directly ordered and was involved in the cyberwarfare on the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.bcab38c4146d
 
The hacking theory has several serious problems.

1) It happened early 2015, when no one could have known Trump is republican nominee. 

So there is no way Russia to have decided to help Trump by hacking DNC. The hacking occured way before Sep 2015 date given below:

"When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

And ofcourse no one did anything about it. A message was left, and that's all. See below.

2) FBI did not do anything about this hacking as per DNC's Wasserman:

"“Respectfully, Secretary Johnson is utterly misinformed. And it’s simply not accurate. ... The FBI and other federal agencies did virtually nothing to make sure that when they were aware at the point that they were aware that there was a concern that there was an intrusion on our network by the Russians that they did virtually nothing to sound the alarm bells to make us aware of that. And they left, essentially, the Russians on our network for more than, for almost a year before we discovered that they were there.”
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-reg-wasserman-schultz-homeland-security-wrong-20170622-story.html

3) FBI never looked at the key evidence - that is study the DNC hacked computers.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers
"Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers"

Its curious that for what some call the biggest investigation ever, which the crime is supposedly the hacking of DNC computers, FBI never looks at the computers.  DNC/FBI doesn't do anything for an year to fix the security hole. And this all happened well before Trump is a republican nominee.

Stalin apparently said, Show me the man and I will show you the crime.  The gist of this is, police is supposed to investigate a crime, not a person.  But here we are investigating Trump, but the crime, the hacking, FBI never looked at the server.  FBI/DNC didn't do anything about the hacking even after they knew about it for an year.


Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 02, 2017, 08:39:37 PM

AUG 2016 (roughly 2-3 weeks later): Obama receives intelligence that Putin directly ordered and was involved in the cyberwarfare on the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.bcab38c4146d
 
The hacking theory has several serious problems.

1) It happened early 2015, when no one could have known Trump is republican nominee. 

So there is no way Russia to have decided to help Trump by hacking DNC. The hacking occured way before Sep 2015 date given below:

"When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

And ofcourse no one did anything about it. A message was left, and that's all. See below.

2) FBI did not do anything about this hacking as per DNC's Wasserman:

"“Respectfully, Secretary Johnson is utterly misinformed. And it’s simply not accurate. ... The FBI and other federal agencies did virtually nothing to make sure that when they were aware at the point that they were aware that there was a concern that there was an intrusion on our network by the Russians that they did virtually nothing to sound the alarm bells to make us aware of that. And they left, essentially, the Russians on our network for more than, for almost a year before we discovered that they were there.”
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-reg-wasserman-schultz-homeland-security-wrong-20170622-story.html

3) FBI never looked at the key evidence - that is study the DNC hacked computers.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers
"Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers"

Its curious that for what some call the biggest investigation ever, which the crime is supposedly the hacking of DNC computers, FBI never looks at the computers.  DNC/FBI doesn't do anything for an year to fix the security hole. And this all happened well before Trump is a republican nominee.

Stalin apparently said, Show me the man and I will show you the crime.  The gist of this is, police is supposed to investigate a crime, not a person.  But here we are investigating Trump, but the crime, the hacking, FBI never looked at the server.  FBI/DNC didn't do anything about the hacking even after they knew about it for an year.

1. Your NYT article seems to confirm it was Russia... Anyway,

George Papadopoulos' guilty plea was for lying to the FBI. One of the lies was about "dirt", which is known to be DNC emails. Importantly, GP knew of this dirt before joining the campaign and before it was publicly announced.

https://www.justice.gov/sco
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/prosecutors-consider-bringing-charges-in-dnc-hacking-case-1509618203
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/prosecutors-have-identified-russian-government-hackers-who-breached-the-dnc/2017/11/02/f38b9b18-bfd3-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html

Also, the theory is Trump was pushed to run in 2013 by Russia, but we don't have proof of that yet. Either way, if you had read my post instead of trying to "gotcha" me, youd see the SC mandate is to investigate potential links between Trump campaign and Russia. GP guilty plea is another example that Trump campaign attempted to acquire DNC emails, which were known to be stolen property because of GP. Trump not being a candidate at the time of theft is moot.

2. It's Wassermen's word vs the FBI and DHS. I'll take law enforcement, as I have over and over.

3. See #1. Also, the SC investigation will certainly cover this detail and opine. It's an active investigation. The FBI and now SC cannot respond or rebuttal alternative theories until they have reached a conclusion.

You mention DNC did nothing, but they did (so did the FBI, just not as cooperatively as youd hope). DNC had crowdstrike investigate the leak, a highly respected firm. The FBI researched mirrors/blueprints/copies of the servers (not the actual physical hardware, which was researched by crowdstrike). I don't know why you assume nothing was done for a year.

Your last quote is quite the catch-22. No criminal charge is legit because you can always find a crime. It has zero value and is not indicative of anything.

Finally, Comey testified that Trump was not personally being investigated. That's the only indication we have right now and it's quite a leap to assume he is under investigation.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rkbabang on November 03, 2017, 05:23:49 AM


Is this not the height of insanity? How many times has he tried doing something on healthcare only to have career politicians like John McCain purposely sabotage it? It's going to be the same thing with taxes. You are already seeing several Republicans refusing to do anything.

This dude's healthcare went up 80% because that's what this Obamacare scam does.

Wait Gregmal, you are implying Trump is a successful executive who can turn this country around if only he was not tripped-up or backstabbed by his own people?

That is kinda like Hitler saying that he could've conquered Russia if only his general were comptent.  Comon, we all know now with hindsight Hitler was in waaay over his head...... Kinda like the Trump huh? I am sure if he is alive at ninety he'll bitch like that.

"His own people"?   I'm not a fan of Trump, but you have to admit that he is on his own.  The Republican party machine hates him almost as much as the Democrats do.  He has no people.  Especially not in congress.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: EliG on November 03, 2017, 08:04:24 PM
The only results that count are MAGA and that the Forgotten Men and Women Are Forgotten No Longer.  Then most is forgiven. 

The Joint Committee on Taxation, distributional estimate of the GOP tax bill:

Estate tax repeal is NOT included in the estimate.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNvn098XUAAAbzq.jpg)

Big Daddy is taking care of the forgotten MAGA people. They are getting tired of winning.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Jurgis on November 03, 2017, 08:12:12 PM
The only results that count are MAGA and that the Forgotten Men and Women Are Forgotten No Longer.  Then most is forgiven. 

The Joint Committee on Taxation, distributional estimate of the GOP tax bill:

Estate tax repeal is NOT included in the estimate.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNvn098XUAAAbzq.jpg)

Big Daddy is taking care of the forgotten MAGA people. They are getting tired of winning.

(http://elliotthall.me/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Its-good-to-be-the-king.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on November 03, 2017, 10:10:03 PM
That chart is almost meaningless without the estate tax. The estate tax is 200B compared to the whole bill that blows a 1.5T hole (very fiscally responsible btw) so it's a big part of it. Once you factor that in it'll be way more skewed. Forgotten people rejoice. You're paying so that multimillionaire elites can have more money. Job well done.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 04, 2017, 08:39:30 AM
Case #4:

Triggered.  And doubling down.  Thanks for the additional example.

Also, confirmation bias working overtime.  Scott Adams?  I was channeling Rory Sutherland, and, I admit, badly.

More nothing. Zero substance, just rhetorical tricks ("if I act like I've won, some people will believe I'm smart and I've won" and "if I throw around words like triggered and cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance, surely people will read into it that I'm saying something clever").

Kind of like a con artist. Seems familiar these days...

+1!  Cheers!

Smiley Fratboy Parsad and Hairtrigger Liberty failing Prof. Munger's psychology classes.  Insane!  Sad!
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Investor20 on November 05, 2017, 05:43:54 PM

AUG 2016 (roughly 2-3 weeks later): Obama receives intelligence that Putin directly ordered and was involved in the cyberwarfare on the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.bcab38c4146d
 
Stalin apparently said, Show me the man and I will show you the crime.  The gist of this is, police is supposed to investigate a crime, not a person.  But here we are investigating Trump, but the crime, the hacking, FBI never looked at the server.  FBI/DNC didn't do anything about the hacking even after they knew about it for an year.

George Papadopoulos' guilty plea was for lying to the FBI. One of the lies was about "dirt", which is known to be DNC emails. Importantly, GP knew of this dirt before joining the campaign and before it was publicly announced.

Yes  Papadopoulos plea was for lying to FBI.  Not for collusion. Neither are activities by Manafort are anything to do with Trump.  These charges are actually exculpatory as explained in below article, because SC is accepting that the Papadopoulos or Manafort actions have nothing to do with collusion.

In addition if you go thru the responses by higher level Trump campaign, they were not encouraging Papadopoulos. The details are in below article written by former NY public prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453264/donald-trump-george-papadopoulos-indictment-exculpatory-trump

We can agree to disagree.  But I want police to pursue crimes, not people.  Sherlock Holmes solves a crime.  He does not investigate if a person is good or bad person.

Harvard law professor Dershowitz says:
“Manafort now is the first domino, and what Mueller wants to do is see him as the first domino, the second domino, the third domino, ultimately trying to get to the big domino, which is President Trump,” Dershowitz said on "Fox & Friends."

If Manafort has nothing to offer to assist Mueller’s larger investigation, then “he’s going to twist in the wind,” Dershowitz said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357794-dershowitz-mueller-will-pressure-manafort-to-squeal-on-trump

I am strongly opposed to these tactics of arresting someone hoping they will give something about someone else & arresting that person hoping they will give something about some one else.....I want police to investigate crimes, not arrest someone to get someone else.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 06, 2017, 05:02:46 AM

AUG 2016 (roughly 2-3 weeks later): Obama receives intelligence that Putin directly ordered and was involved in the cyberwarfare on the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.bcab38c4146d
 
Stalin apparently said, Show me the man and I will show you the crime.  The gist of this is, police is supposed to investigate a crime, not a person.  But here we are investigating Trump, but the crime, the hacking, FBI never looked at the server.  FBI/DNC didn't do anything about the hacking even after they knew about it for an year.

George Papadopoulos' guilty plea was for lying to the FBI. One of the lies was about "dirt", which is known to be DNC emails. Importantly, GP knew of this dirt before joining the campaign and before it was publicly announced.

Yes  Papadopoulos plea was for lying to FBI.  Not for collusion. Neither are activities by Manafort are anything to do with Trump.  These charges are actually exculpatory as explained in below article, because SC is accepting that the Papadopoulos or Manafort actions have nothing to do with collusion.

In addition if you go thru the responses by higher level Trump campaign, they were not encouraging Papadopoulos. The details are in below article written by former NY public prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453264/donald-trump-george-papadopoulos-indictment-exculpatory-trump

We can agree to disagree.  But I want police to pursue crimes, not people.  Sherlock Holmes solves a crime.  He does not investigate if a person is good or bad person.

Harvard law professor Dershowitz says:
“Manafort now is the first domino, and what Mueller wants to do is see him as the first domino, the second domino, the third domino, ultimately trying to get to the big domino, which is President Trump,” Dershowitz said on "Fox & Friends."

If Manafort has nothing to offer to assist Mueller’s larger investigation, then “he’s going to twist in the wind,” Dershowitz said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357794-dershowitz-mueller-will-pressure-manafort-to-squeal-on-trump

I am strongly opposed to these tactics of arresting someone hoping they will give something about someone else & arresting that person hoping they will give something about some one else.....I want police to investigate crimes, not arrest someone to get someone else.

What do you think collusion is? Seems like there has been a ton of "collusion" to me (secret or illegal conspiracy). It may not have been proven illegal yet, but Trump's team certainly operated a secret conspiracy.

No one is going to get charged for "collusion". It's a non-legal description of actions, from what I've read. By "collusion", folks are referring to alleged corruption, money laundering, conspiracy, espionage, FARA violations, and such. I'm not a lawyer or expert in this stuff but that's my understanding. The reason I mention the "dirt" is the DNC emails have been a continual part of "collusion" allegations.

In general, the collusion theory is based on the broad allegations that Trump and/or his campaign team (and/or other associates) accepted stolen material from and negotiated as an illegal representative of the US with Russia to carry out any illegal action (definition above, basically). I'm sure there's other allegations that I'm forgetting but this broadly summarizes the point of Mueller's broad scope of investigation (granted by Trump appointee). It's purposefully broad because IC has heavily hinted that this was a multi-year, premeditated operation (with a foreign intel arm, which means it's likely we are all going to learn a lot of spy jargon in the next 12 months). WSJ story just came out saying this goes back to at least 2015. Trump's Twitter suggests it could go back even earlier. Prior financial deals may be related to 2016 as a result (e.g. Manafort and soon to be others). Russia-Ukraine relations from 2005-present are certainly noteworthy with respect to present allegations.

If the first 2 indictments and guilty plea mean Trump is innocent then fantastic in my book. However, given the frequency of lying by all involved and obstruction-like actions of Trump, I think we should determine that with certainty.

It seems like crimes are being pursued. This exact legal tactic is how high level drug dealers and mob bosses are convicted. Similarly, the US passed the RICO act to prevent folks from getting away with crimes they committed, but for various reasons are hard to probe individually (think murder in the mob).

Mueller can only indict criminals. Much like my other posts (and what Dersh) has said, the burden of proof for Mueller is going to be much higher than for normal politicans, which is higher than for normal people. The point of all of this is to restore confidence.

Dersh is speculating, like left-wing outlets. Nothing says Trump is the target. I still believe that until there is reason to believe otherwise. Arresting Manafort, Flynn, and many underlings goes a long way to improve confidence. As long as the investigation is rigorous and unbiased, I'll support any result.

I do like Andrew McCarthy and I read this article before. I don't agree with him here but time will ultimately tell. As to the speed of the case: most mafia-related investigations take 3+ years (from what I've read). Mueller's been working just less than 6 months. We'll see I guess.

Only thing I'll add. GP's plea transcript stated that record destruction charge was dropped for cooperation and either the transcript or plea deal mentioned that further charges may be brought, even with full cooperation. Given recent analysis of Greek news from May 2016 and 2 previously undisclosed Trump campaign national security team meetings, I don't think we've heard the last of GP. I don't want to speculate in this thread but it seems worthwhile to mention since they were discovered after McCarthy's article.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Investor20 on November 07, 2017, 02:36:20 AM

AUG 2016 (roughly 2-3 weeks later): Obama receives intelligence that Putin directly ordered and was involved in the cyberwarfare on the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.bcab38c4146d
 
Stalin apparently said, Show me the man and I will show you the crime.  The gist of this is, police is supposed to investigate a crime, not a person.  But here we are investigating Trump, but the crime, the hacking, FBI never looked at the server.  FBI/DNC didn't do anything about the hacking even after they knew about it for an year.

George Papadopoulos' guilty plea was for lying to the FBI. One of the lies was about "dirt", which is known to be DNC emails. Importantly, GP knew of this dirt before joining the campaign and before it was publicly announced.

Yes  Papadopoulos plea was for lying to FBI.  Not for collusion. Neither are activities by Manafort are anything to do with Trump.  These charges are actually exculpatory as explained in below article, because SC is accepting that the Papadopoulos or Manafort actions have nothing to do with collusion.

In addition if you go thru the responses by higher level Trump campaign, they were not encouraging Papadopoulos. The details are in below article written by former NY public prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453264/donald-trump-george-papadopoulos-indictment-exculpatory-trump

We can agree to disagree.  But I want police to pursue crimes, not people.  Sherlock Holmes solves a crime.  He does not investigate if a person is good or bad person.

Harvard law professor Dershowitz says:
“Manafort now is the first domino, and what Mueller wants to do is see him as the first domino, the second domino, the third domino, ultimately trying to get to the big domino, which is President Trump,” Dershowitz said on "Fox & Friends."

If Manafort has nothing to offer to assist Mueller’s larger investigation, then “he’s going to twist in the wind,” Dershowitz said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357794-dershowitz-mueller-will-pressure-manafort-to-squeal-on-trump

I am strongly opposed to these tactics of arresting someone hoping they will give something about someone else & arresting that person hoping they will give something about some one else.....I want police to investigate crimes, not arrest someone to get someone else.

What do you think collusion is? Seems like there has been a ton of "collusion" to me (secret or illegal conspiracy). It may not have been proven illegal yet, but Trump's team certainly operated a secret conspiracy.

No one is going to get charged for "collusion". It's a non-legal description of actions, from what I've read. By "collusion", folks are referring to alleged corruption, money laundering, conspiracy, espionage, FARA violations, and such. I'm not a lawyer or expert in this stuff but that's my understanding. The reason I mention the "dirt" is the DNC emails have been a continual part of "collusion" allegations.

In general, the collusion theory is based on the broad allegations that Trump and/or his campaign team (and/or other associates) accepted stolen material from and negotiated as an illegal representative of the US with Russia to carry out any illegal action (definition above, basically). I'm sure there's other allegations that I'm forgetting but this broadly summarizes the point of Mueller's broad scope of investigation (granted by Trump appointee). It's purposefully broad because IC has heavily hinted that this was a multi-year, premeditated operation (with a foreign intel arm, which means it's likely we are all going to learn a lot of spy jargon in the next 12 months). WSJ story just came out saying this goes back to at least 2015. Trump's Twitter suggests it could go back even earlier. Prior financial deals may be related to 2016 as a result (e.g. Manafort and soon to be others). Russia-Ukraine relations from 2005-present are certainly noteworthy with respect to present allegations.

If the first 2 indictments and guilty plea mean Trump is innocent then fantastic in my book. However, given the frequency of lying by all involved and obstruction-like actions of Trump, I think we should determine that with certainty.

It seems like crimes are being pursued. This exact legal tactic is how high level drug dealers and mob bosses are convicted. Similarly, the US passed the RICO act to prevent folks from getting away with crimes they committed, but for various reasons are hard to probe individually (think murder in the mob).

Mueller can only indict criminals. Much like my other posts (and what Dersh) has said, the burden of proof for Mueller is going to be much higher than for normal politicans, which is higher than for normal people. The point of all of this is to restore confidence.

Dersh is speculating, like left-wing outlets. Nothing says Trump is the target. I still believe that until there is reason to believe otherwise. Arresting Manafort, Flynn, and many underlings goes a long way to improve confidence. As long as the investigation is rigorous and unbiased, I'll support any result.

I do like Andrew McCarthy and I read this article before. I don't agree with him here but time will ultimately tell. As to the speed of the case: most mafia-related investigations take 3+ years (from what I've read). Mueller's been working just less than 6 months. We'll see I guess.

Only thing I'll add. GP's plea transcript stated that record destruction charge was dropped for cooperation and either the transcript or plea deal mentioned that further charges may be brought, even with full cooperation. Given recent analysis of Greek news from May 2016 and 2 previously undisclosed Trump campaign national security team meetings, I don't think we've heard the last of GP. I don't want to speculate in this thread but it seems worthwhile to mention since they were discovered after McCarthy's article.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

"Mueller's been working just less than 6 months."

But Feds have been working on this for 1.5 years. Its more than dozen agencies. They even wire tapped Manafort when he was campaign manager during a presidential election. Manafort was prior investigated in 2014:

"A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine's former ruling party, the sources told CNN.
The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources."

"The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year.
Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI's efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives."
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html?CNNPolitics=Tw

"The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence...". This is my concern.


Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on November 07, 2017, 05:25:42 AM
"Mueller's been working just less than 6 months."

But Feds have been working on this for 1.5 years. Its more than dozen agencies. They even wire tapped Manafort when he was campaign manager during a presidential election. Manafort was prior investigated in 2014:

Yikes, I forgot the FBI investigation started July 2016. From what we know, it is based on information obtained during FISA surveillance (which has been referred to as wiring taping prior to 2002 or so). I suppose the only difference between then and now, with respect to PM alone, is that Lynch/Carlin never prosecuted PM. Not trying to imply anything with that but it's worth pointing out. Why they didn't (and why we are now) is an important question that needs to be answered during all of this (maybe they weren't done, didn't have enough evidence, political, something in between, or something else altogether).

"A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine's former ruling party, the sources told CNN.
The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources."

"The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year.
Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI's efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives."
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html?CNNPolitics=Tw

"The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence...". This is my concern.

Yes, this is a concern I get. Thanks for bringing this up because this is where I can see people/parties/whatever having reservations. Best we can tell, this counter intel probe into Trump associates (which morphed into investigating Trump Campaign/Russia, led by Mueller) is based on FISA surveillance (which may be some combination of targeted/non-targeted and warranted/warrantless surveillance, for various reasons - I don't think we have clarification on this yet or I've missed it).

I don't know what this means for the Mueller probe. These are the other questions they will eventually have to answer in detail. Who did they surveil? Why? How long? What did they find? Why did the FBI open an investigation? Was it directly related to surveillance (or vice versa)? Why did it merit an expansion of the probe? And, of course, was Trump aware of any of this, how aware was he, for how long, and was this considered when he fired Comey?

I started posting because I didn't like that these threads were polarized and I thought I could add value. I think our discussion has made for a pretty good summary of where the probe is, how we got here, and why both sides have valid reasons to be yelling at each other. It was cool having someone lay out a different viewpoint that is also consistent and well-informed on the topic. Cool stuff. Ultimately, I'm with you on concerns. I really hope we get satisfactory answers to most or all of these basic questions/concerns.

Some interesting links I've saved since I've been following all this:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/director-national-intelligence-releases-2016-transparency-report   (gets in to *estimated* stats on most concerns mentioned by media)
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/741586-nsa-fact-sheet-on-section-702-of-fisa-and.html
https://www.lawfareblog.com/topic/fisa-215-collection
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Government%20Surveillance%20Factsheet.pdf
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on November 21, 2017, 10:10:12 AM
This Thanksgiving season, Katherine Graham in her grave can be grateful that son Donald unloaded this rag awhile ago.

Case #5:  http://www.newsweek.com/how-murderer-charles-manson-and-donald-trump-used-language-gain-followers-717399

The logic technicians on this board will see the basic fallacy of the undistributed middle, in the form of an enthymeme.

The students of rhetoric here will see a propaganda fail, a variant of the "Trump=Hitler" meme.  Sadly, many on this board used it last year.  You know who you are!

Here, Newsweek fails on two counts:  it can neither think logically, nor convince persuasively.  I've just filled out a 5150 on FakeNewsweek.

Time will tell whether this is one of the last gasps of the "Trump=Hitler" hysteria.  If this post fails to trigger anti-Trump board members to respond by doubling down, then the delusion may be dead.





Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 09, 2018, 04:47:46 PM
Intense cognitive dissonance is the hallmark of TDS.  The Mind-reader Illusion is one of the signs of cognitive dissonance.

Compare these two samples of mind-reading:

1.  In other words, because Trump has both a massive ego and virtually no understanding of foreign policy, he foolishly leaped at the bait dangled by the South and North Koreans. . . .  Imagine Trump, for example, thinking he could make a deal with Iran with no expert preparation, no tedious diplomacy, no disclosure by Iran of its program, no agreed-upon parameters — simply by getting in the room with the Supreme Leader and telling him what’s what. . . .  Trump thinks this is like a real-estate deal. He marches into the room, barks a few lines, sets a price and then goes out for a steak dinner with the guy on the other side — all the details to be worked out later. In fact, the details are the entire ballgame. . . .  The fact that, given his druthers, Trump would have marched into a room without preconditions with the North Korean thug tells you everything you need to know about how erratic, dangerous and irrational he can be.

2.  Trump wants more tariffs. He bad mouths trade any chance he gets, gets out of free trade treaties and generally feels like the US economy should be more closed on itself rather than trading with the rest of the world. This is likely because he doesn't understand the difference between a zero-sum game and a non-zero sum game, or that it's not because something is called a "deficit" that it's necessarily bad (if it was phrased as "the US is the biggest purchaser in the world because it's wealthiest and so it buys more from it's much smaller trading partners than they buy from it" I bet he'd feel less like everybody was taking advantage of the country -- it would also make sense to look at where the economic value flows rather than just look at gross revenues from trade with various countries). He also feels like any other country strengthening is somehow taking something away from the US (zero sum game mentality again), so he has to put down others constantly, even allies, rather than help them. . . .  You thinking that this is some masterful 3D chess by Trump is still the old Scott Adams thinking from pre-election days when people thought it was all an act to achieve his goals. Well, the past year has shown that it's really a big SNAFU and that there's no plan and he's just whining it and changing his mind based on the last adviser or lobbyist that he spoke to and who controls access to him or what's on some partisan TV show that evening (literally without fact-checking any of it). So who's naive?

Which one was written by Hairtrigger Liberty?  (Reply #195 in http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/mr-trump-to-to-impose-stiff-tariffs-on-steel-and-aluminum/)

Which one was written by Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post?  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/03/09/damage-control-at-white-house-to-reverse-trumps-stunning-blunder/?utm_term=.6d27d7d8a2d0
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rukawa on March 10, 2018, 05:09:34 AM
I'm no fan of Trump but I think TDS is real. Interestingly it has a historical parallel...Reagan Derangement Syndrome. The funny thing about RDS is that liberals are still pretty deranged in their thinking about Reagan even after he basically brought down communism which is probably the single greatest achievement of any president in the last 60 years.

The thinking about Reagan was that he was some moronic, has-been actor who was enormously dangerous, mean-spirited and malevolent. And that the 1980's was a horrible decade of greed.

So it doesn't matter what Trump does. He will be viewed as evil by liberals now and for the next 30 years regardless of foreign policy or economic accomplishments.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/the-reagan-show-review-gipper-still-drives-liberals-insane/

You also have the equivalents although less extreme on the conservative side..conservative thinking about Obama and Clinton has been deranged. Clinton especially so.

Listen to the opening of the Reagan documentary....it literally sounds ominous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07BHVGm-Y6s
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: DTEJD1997 on March 10, 2018, 09:18:28 AM
I'm no fan of Trump but I think TDS is real. Interestingly it has a historical parallel...Reagan Derangement Syndrome. The funny thing about RDS is that liberals are still pretty deranged in their thinking about Reagan even after he basically brought down communism which is probably the single greatest achievement of any president in the last 60 years.

The thinking about Reagan was that he was some moronic, has-been actor who was enormously dangerous, mean-spirited and malevolent. And that the 1980's was a horrible decade of greed.

So it doesn't matter what Trump does. He will be viewed as evil by liberals now and for the next 30 years regardless of foreign policy or economic accomplishments.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/the-reagan-show-review-gipper-still-drives-liberals-insane/

You also have the equivalents although less extreme on the conservative side..conservative thinking about Obama and Clinton has been deranged. Clinton especially so.

Listen to the opening of the Reagan documentary....it literally sounds ominous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07BHVGm-Y6s
I can remember when Reagan was elected.  A lot of people lost their minds.  It is not as bad as Trump...but the 24 hour news cycle was not really going in 1980.  Many, many, many "news people" ridiculed Reagan for his Jelly Beans, being a cowboy, and of course getting us into a nuclear war.

I can also just remember the last part of the Carter presidency.  So many people were out of work/having financial difficulty.  The problems with inflation...oil, gasoline & heating your home.  Of course, the worst of all was the hostage situation at the Iranian Embassy.  Mr. Carter was probably a decent enough human being.  Somebody you want for your next door neighbor maybe.  President?  You've got to be kidding!  He was ineffectual, totally outgunned & outclassed by his problems & enemies.  A truly TERRIBLE president as shown by the results.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on March 10, 2018, 11:06:48 AM
You also have the equivalents although less extreme on the conservative side..conservative thinking about Obama and Clinton has been deranged. Clinton especially so.
I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt the pitty party. Plus I don't know much about the reaction to Reagan's election so I can't add much to that. But your comment really made me laugh.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about getting a blow job. How quaint that must seem today. And I guess the whole birther thing was just a minor misunderstanding. A significant part of conservatives think that Obama is a muslim who wanted to implement sharia law. If that is less extreme, then making fun of one's jelly beans must be really, really bad.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rkbabang on March 10, 2018, 05:29:45 PM
You also have the equivalents although less extreme on the conservative side..conservative thinking about Obama and Clinton has been deranged. Clinton especially so.
I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt the pitty party. Plus I don't know much about the reaction to Reagan's election so I can't add much to that. But your comment really made me laugh.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about getting a blow job. How quaint that must seem today. And I guess the whole birther thing was just a minor misunderstanding. A significant part of conservatives think that Obama is a muslim who wanted to implement sharia law. If that is less extreme, then making fun of one's jelly beans must be really, really bad.

You are talking about fringe conspiracy theorist with the birther thing, we are talking about the mainstream press and the vast majority of the liberals left.  And the Blowjob thing by a young intern in the Oval Office, could you imagine if Trump did that? No Republican could ever get away with such a thing. You are simply delusional.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on March 10, 2018, 06:11:52 PM
You also have the equivalents although less extreme on the conservative side..conservative thinking about Obama and Clinton has been deranged. Clinton especially so.
I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt the pitty party. Plus I don't know much about the reaction to Reagan's election so I can't add much to that. But your comment really made me laugh.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about getting a blow job. How quaint that must seem today. And I guess the whole birther thing was just a minor misunderstanding. A significant part of conservatives think that Obama is a muslim who wanted to implement sharia law. If that is less extreme, then making fun of one's jelly beans must be really, really bad.

You are talking about fringe conspiracy theorist with the birther thing, we are talking about the mainstream press and the vast majority of the liberals left.  And the Blowjob thing by a young intern in the Oval Office, could you imagine if Trump did that? No Republican could ever get away with such a thing. You are simply delusional.
Cmon man, are you kidding me?

The chief birther is the current president of the United States. I wouldn't exactly call that fringe. As for what republicans can get away with, you have pussy grabbing and the family values people are giving a republican mulligans to bang playboy bunnies and porn stars while the wife's at home with a newborn. I'd say that a republican can get away with quite a bit and that I'm likely not delusional - though one cannot be certain of such things.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rkbabang on March 12, 2018, 05:52:22 AM
You also have the equivalents although less extreme on the conservative side..conservative thinking about Obama and Clinton has been deranged. Clinton especially so.
I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt the pitty party. Plus I don't know much about the reaction to Reagan's election so I can't add much to that. But your comment really made me laugh.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about getting a blow job. How quaint that must seem today. And I guess the whole birther thing was just a minor misunderstanding. A significant part of conservatives think that Obama is a muslim who wanted to implement sharia law. If that is less extreme, then making fun of one's jelly beans must be really, really bad.

You are talking about fringe conspiracy theorist with the birther thing, we are talking about the mainstream press and the vast majority of the liberals left.  And the Blowjob thing by a young intern in the Oval Office, could you imagine if Trump did that? No Republican could ever get away with such a thing. You are simply delusional.
Cmon man, are you kidding me?

The chief birther is the current president of the United States. I wouldn't exactly call that fringe. As for what republicans can get away with, you have pussy grabbing and the family values people are giving a republican mulligans to bang playboy bunnies and porn stars while the wife's at home with a newborn. I'd say that a republican can get away with quite a bit and that I'm likely not delusional - though one cannot be certain of such things.

I don't think you are able to see it.  It is like asking a Red Sox fan to see some nuanced thing from the Yankees point of view.  A Yankees fan would see it, someone who isn't a baseball fan would see it, but the Red Sox fan never will (especially if that thing exists on the other side as well even if in differing amounts).

I hate both sides and always have.  I voted in every election in which I was eligible from 1990 until 2008 (federal, state, local, general, primary) and I have never voted for a person who has won their election, not once.  I am on no team and you could say I am not a (political) sports fan at all.  I hate the game and everyone in it.  I hate what they do, I hate how they talk, I hate how they think.

That said, some observations I can make is that almost all of the mainstream media is skewed as far left as fox news is right. The difference being that everyone knows that Fox news is skewed right and the left wing media tries to portray itself as "unbiased" and somehow more legitimate.

There was a lot of anti-Reagan sentiment in the media, I was old enough to remember that, but nothing like what we see with Trump.  I have never in my life seen such an overreaction by such a large amount of people in society to a political figure.  I'm sorry, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is both entirely real and completely unprecedented.

BTW there have been presidents who have cheated on their wives with bimbos before going back to long before we were born.   Nothing Trump is even accused of is radically different.   He never had sex with a young employee in the Oval Office.  And I didn't personally think even that was such big deal (lying about it under oath was far worse), but to each his own.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 12, 2018, 10:34:08 AM
Former NY Times editor Jill Abramson:

That’s why I carry a little plastic Obama doll in my purse. I pull him out every now and then to remind myself that the United States had a progressive, African American president until very recently. Some people find this strange, but you have to take comfort where you can find it in Donald Trump’s America.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/07/primaries-democratic-wave-2020
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on March 12, 2018, 11:45:10 AM
According to a recent poll, a majority of R's believe there is no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump's campaign and the Russian government. Not that it wasn't a big-enough deal to impeach or that he shouldn't be charged while in office. They believe that there is literally no evidence. Baffling.

Similarly, the following has been ignored or overlooked because Trump can do no wrong: (1) the DNC hack (we extradited one of the hackers who has admitted to the crime in a European court); (2) alleging of crimes of political opponents without evidence or even follow-through; (3) nepotism; (4) cronyism; (5) emoluments; (6) Uranium One; (7) "no Russians ever -> No collusion -> Collusion is not a crime -> I didn't personally collude" transition of story; (8) Mexico will pay for the wall, taking guns; (9) cheating on his wife; (10) lying to the public as his first act (crowd size) and every day since; (11) attempting to fire the special counsel; (12) asking the WH Counsel to lie about Trump asking him to fire the special counsel; (13) saying the election was "rigged" before the election; (14) name-calling every political opponent (which we are now seeing by others in the primaries); (15) asking Russia to release Hillary's "deleted emails" (surely your joking, Mr. Trump); (16) Central Park 5 newspaper ad; (17) lying about his business success (let's not forget the Trump U fraud, Trump Casino money laundering, & Trump Tower fraud that wasn't prosecuted); (18) Hiring Flynn despite specific warnings; (19) Firing Flynn only because the MSM made the story publicly known; (20) Asking Comey to drop the investigation in to Flynn; (21) Asking Comey to drop his investigation; (22) Firing Comey when he wouldn't publicly clear Trump; (23) Lying to the public about why he fired Comey (by contradicting himself within 48 hours); (24) Sharing code-word-level Top Secret intelligence with Russia; (25) not enacting Russian sanctions; (26) telling folks not to trust the intelligence community (which has all the smoking-gun-like evidence on Trump and might be affecting his opinion here) and the FBI; and on and on.

I could continue on for a while without Googling. None of this has anything to do with policy preference. That's what's crazy. Folks overlook all of this and more for reasons I can't understand. I get folks believe different methods of governing are more effective than others, but Trump is quite clearly abusing power unlike anyone before him.

We should start a topic about what the parties have in common before we all forget in the coming months. At least we know TDS hit most Americans indiscriminately. :)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 12, 2018, 01:03:43 PM
According to a recent poll, a majority of R's believe there is no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump's campaign and the Russian government. Not that it wasn't a big-enough deal to impeach or that he shouldn't be charged while in office. They believe that there is literally no evidence. Baffling.

Similarly, the following has been ignored or overlooked because Trump can do no wrong: (1) the DNC hack (we extradited one of the hackers who has admitted to the crime in a European court); (2) alleging of crimes of political opponents without evidence or even follow-through; (3) nepotism; (4) cronyism; (5) emoluments; (6) Uranium One; (7) "no Russians ever -> No collusion -> Collusion is not a crime -> I didn't personally collude" transition of story; (8) Mexico will pay for the wall, taking guns; (9) cheating on his wife; (10) lying to the public as his first act (crowd size) and every day since; (11) attempting to fire the special counsel; (12) asking the WH Counsel to lie about Trump asking him to fire the special counsel; (13) saying the election was "rigged" before the election; (14) name-calling every political opponent (which we are now seeing by others in the primaries); (15) asking Russia to release Hillary's "deleted emails" (surely your joking, Mr. Trump); (16) Central Park 5 newspaper ad; (17) lying about his business success (let's not forget the Trump U fraud, Trump Casino money laundering, & Trump Tower fraud that wasn't prosecuted); (18) Hiring Flynn despite specific warnings; (19) Firing Flynn only because the MSM made the story publicly known; (20) Asking Comey to drop the investigation in to Flynn; (21) Asking Comey to drop his investigation; (22) Firing Comey when he wouldn't publicly clear Trump; (23) Lying to the public about why he fired Comey (by contradicting himself within 48 hours); (24) Sharing code-word-level Top Secret intelligence with Russia; (25) not enacting Russian sanctions; (26) telling folks not to trust the intelligence community (which has all the smoking-gun-like evidence on Trump and might be affecting his opinion here) and the FBI; and on and on.

I could continue on for a while without Googling. None of this has anything to do with policy preference. That's what's crazy. Folks overlook all of this and more for reasons I can't understand. I get folks believe different methods of governing are more effective than others, but Trump is quite clearly abusing power unlike anyone before him.

We should start a topic about what the parties have in common before we all forget in the coming months. At least we know TDS hit most Americans indiscriminately. :)

Since I intended this thread's topic to be in the realm of cognitive science, I'll try to limit my comments to the psychological.

If you started out anti-Trump, your recitation of the evidence is impressive and convincing. 

If you started out pro-Trump, that incoherent hodgepodge of facts/non-facts only looks like "evidence" but is not evidence.

That's confirmation bias.  Because of prior bias, both sides have limited credibility when it comes to interpreting the "evidence," and what you say and what I say might be safely ignored.

Much more credible would be a liberal, heavily inclined to be anti-Trump from the beginning, coming to the conclusion that the Russia thing is a big nothing.  That person's assessment of the data feels more objective because it goes against their own bias.  Like Van Jones of CNN, or Alan Dershowitz, among many others.

Can anyone think of a pro-Trump pundit (specifically, not a conservative Republican anti-Trumper, of whom there are many) who says Trump is guilty?

Meanwhile, others may be coming around, like SNL:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/03/11/snl-the-bachelor-robert-muller-investigation-orig-gs.cnn



Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 12, 2018, 01:50:09 PM
Quote
Much more credible would be a liberal, heavily inclined to be anti-Trump from the beginning, coming to the conclusion that the Russia thing is a big nothing.  That person's assessment of the data feels more objective because it goes against their own bias.  Like Van Jones of CNN, or Alan Dershowitz, among many others.

Can anyone think of a pro-Trump pundit (specifically, not a conservative Republican anti-Trumper, of whom there are many) who says Trump is guilty?

I'm just chiming in here, but speaking of cognitive biases, your post suggests that simply changing one's mind is enough to indicate credibility, implying a level of logical reasoning. I don't think that's true at all.

The only thing that is actually credible is a rational assessment of the available facts.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on March 12, 2018, 03:00:40 PM
@cobafdek: Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, a couple other folks on Fox News whose names I can't recall have been very factual about everything imo, Sam Nunberg, Felix Sater, David French, and various former GW Bush appointees. I'm not sure if you'd count Senators Flake, Gowdy, Burr, Sasse, and the indicted folks that have decided to cooperate with Mueller. It's a hard question because there's just not enough that is publicly known yet relative to what would be required to say guilty/not guilty.

Out of curiosity, who do you think would have the biggest impact on Trump supporters' opinion if they changed their mind?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 12, 2018, 03:38:11 PM
Quote
Much more credible would be a liberal, heavily inclined to be anti-Trump from the beginning, coming to the conclusion that the Russia thing is a big nothing.  That person's assessment of the data feels more objective because it goes against their own bias.  Like Van Jones of CNN, or Alan Dershowitz, among many others.

Can anyone think of a pro-Trump pundit (specifically, not a conservative Republican anti-Trumper, of whom there are many) who says Trump is guilty?

I'm just chiming in here, but speaking of cognitive biases, your post suggests that simply changing one's mind is enough to indicate credibility, implying a level of logical reasoning. I don't think that's true at all.

There was nothing in my post about "changing one's mind."  I'm only commenting on relative credibility, keeping in mind that credibility and truth value are not necessarily the same thing. 

Schwab711's assessment may be completely true, and it is credible to some extent.  But it would not be as credible if, say, Sean Hannity were to say Trump and Russia were collaborating to a criminal/impeachable extent.

Conversely, Van Jones and Alan Dershowitz may be more credible to me and other pro-Trumpers, but eventually may be proved to be wrong. 

The only thing that is actually credible is a rational assessment of the available facts.

We think this is true, but cognitive science tells us that in emotionally-charged issues in complex arenas of life, we humans can't agree on what's rational and what are the facts.  It's a little bit easier to say what is more credible (which, again, does not mean it's true), but not by much.


Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 12, 2018, 03:45:38 PM
@cobafdek: Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith, a couple other folks on Fox News whose names I can't recall have been very factual about everything imo, Sam Nunberg, Felix Sater, David French, and various former GW Bush appointees. I'm not sure if you'd count Senators Flake, Gowdy, Burr, Sasse, and the indicted folks that have decided to cooperate with Mueller. It's a hard question because there's just not enough that is publicly known yet relative to what would be required to say guilty/not guilty.

Out of curiosity, who do you think would have the biggest impact on Trump supporters' opinion if they changed their mind?

I'm not sure any of those names are avid pro-Trumpers.  They may seem more "factual," but none are really saying Trump is suspect.  Nunberg is on record saying that Trump royally screwed him, and sounds like Nunberg hates him on a personal level.  GW Bushies are generally anti-Trump.  Flake is avowedly anti-Trump.

It may have to be at the top level of pro-Trumpness for there to be any meaningful dent in Trump's base support:  Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, Ivanka Trump, etc.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on March 12, 2018, 07:20:30 PM
@cobafdek: Fair enough. I do appreciate that you are strict with your purpose in that you are interested in how the folks process this issue (which is not the same as LC ascribing those opinions to you - even if you coincidentally share these opinions).

Always good debating these ideas with you. It helps me a lot. Definitely similar thinking but different perspective, which is awesome from my POV.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 13, 2018, 11:27:45 AM
Idk...we can disagree on the impact of biases and/or whether objective reality exists. Personally I think everyone reads these Charlie Munger/behavioral psychology things and goes overboard.

I think time is better spent creating metrics which are important to you and measuring performance against those.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 13, 2018, 12:10:53 PM
Idk...we can disagree on the impact of biases and/or whether objective reality exists. Personally I think everyone reads these Charlie Munger/behavioral psychology things and goes overboard.

I think time is better spent creating metrics which are important to you and measuring performance against those.

Is that how you picked your wife?  :) ;) :(
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 13, 2018, 12:35:15 PM
Yes but I will not disclose the metrics I used  ;)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rkbabang on March 13, 2018, 02:23:03 PM
Yes but I will not disclose the metrics I used  ;)

+1, if you did pick your wife (some cultures this doesn't happen) how else would you?  Randomly?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on March 13, 2018, 03:26:57 PM
Yes but I will not disclose the metrics I used  ;)

+1, if you did pick your wife (some cultures this doesn't happen) how else would you?  Randomly?
Crazy though: Who knows? Given that the divorce rate is around 50% random selection may very well be a better method.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 13, 2018, 10:39:46 PM
Yes but I will not disclose the metrics I used  ;)

+1, if you did pick your wife (some cultures this doesn't happen) how else would you?  Randomly?
Crazy though: Who knows? Given that the divorce rate is around 50% random selection may very well be a better method.
The maths... :o
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rkbabang on March 14, 2018, 06:21:21 AM
Yes but I will not disclose the metrics I used  ;)

+1, if you did pick your wife (some cultures this doesn't happen) how else would you?  Randomly?
Crazy though: Who knows? Given that the divorce rate is around 50% random selection may very well be a better method.

I read somewhere (I could google this, but I'm too lazy today) that way less than 50% of 1st marriages end in divorce, but the percentage of 2nd, 3rd, 4th+ marriages that end in divorce is sky high.  So while most marriages end in divorce, most people who get married stay married.  It is the same people getting divorced over and over again.   Maybe it is just that some people need to rethink their metrics, or it could just be that some people are jerks and no one can live with them for long.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 14, 2018, 08:24:33 AM
Idk...we can disagree on the impact of biases and/or whether objective reality exists. Personally I think everyone reads these Charlie Munger/behavioral psychology things and goes overboard.

I think time is better spent creating metrics which are important to you and measuring performance against those.

I will consider this a concession and declare victory!  Because what's in bold print could be a slip of tongue when you really meant metrics which are objectively true.

The way to prove my point is to compare the metrics of the group of your friends who want nude pictures of your wife, with the metrics of those who say, "My God!  LC!  What were you thinking!?"

How objective can those metrics be?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 14, 2018, 09:45:35 AM
I chose my words carefully because you were previously arguing that people as a whole can't even agree on what is objective.

By choosing a subjective metric, we can begin figuring out whether that is a good metric or not.

So we can go back to determining credibility as an example. One can say "I will measure credibility as how much this person agrees with myself". E.g. we both like Jesus Trump and delicious Russian vodka, and hate Commies Liberals and lingering halitosis, therefore I will find u more credible than someone else.

Or an even better example is from you when you said that you measure credibility as the distance of one's conclusion from one's personal biases. If you were a KKK member and had a life changing moment and threw away your racist beliefs, you are now more credible than someone else.

Now we've actually taken a stab at defining the problem and we can argue over the metric chosen, rather than argue over whether objective reality exists.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 14, 2018, 01:24:51 PM
Or an even better example is from you when you said that you measure credibility as the distance of one's conclusion from one's personal biases. If you were a KKK member and had a life changing moment and threw away your racist beliefs, you are now more credible than someone else.

Maybe I think you've got it, but not quite.

The Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have concluded there was no Russia collusion.  The Democrats' report will predictably conclude or insinuate the opposite.  Is either side credible?  Only to their partisans. 

Now suppose Devin Nunes writes an independent opinion saying, after examining the evidence, that Trump did collude.  At the same time, Adam Schiff writes his independent report concluding there was no collusion after all.  Because both look like they did not filter the evidence through their expected predicted mental model, both look more credible, compared to their partisan colleagues.  Credible not so much because they changed their minds, but because it appears they did not use their pre-existing filter on reality, and maybe tried to be objective.

Now we've actually taken a stab at defining the problem and we can argue over the metric chosen, rather than argue over whether objective reality exists.

Good.  But here is another example of the inevitable problem with the human brain thinking it directly perceives reality, as opposed to perceiving through a filter on reality.  It makes someone see things that aren't there. 

Nowhere, from my first post here, did anybody question the existence of objective reality.  People who believe I did are literally imagining it, so they look insane, even if they really are not insane (see many of the early replies). 

Imaginary hallucinations are a big feature of TDS, it's so easy to find examples.




Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 14, 2018, 03:42:00 PM
Quote
The Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have concluded there was no Russia collusion.  The Democrats' report will predictably conclude or insinuate the opposite.  Is either side credible?  Only to their partisans. 

Now suppose Devin Nunes writes an independent opinion saying, after examining the evidence, that Trump did collude.  At the same time, Adam Schiff writes his independent report concluding there was no collusion after all.  Because both look like they did not filter the evidence through their expected predicted mental model, both look more credible, compared to their partisan colleagues.  Credible not so much because they changed their minds, but because it appears they did not use their pre-existing filter on reality, and maybe tried to be objective.

This is no way to determine anything. You are assuming a multitude of things which all have to occur for your conclusion to be valid. It's such a roundabout way to conclude anything. Why not look at the facts, look at the analysis, look at the conclusion drawn, and make your own determination as to what happened or who is biased or who is not credible?

Because right now, instead of looking at the logic behind these people's conclusions, you are assuming these people are biased (without providing evidence to support it), AND you are assuming their conclusions are a result of that bias (again without providing evidence), AND you are assuming your own biases are not evident when you make these previous assumptions (with no evidence of this). Maybe the democrats are super biased, but also happen to be right? Maybe the independent reviewers are super biased but the republicans are not biased, yet they both came to the same conclusion. Again, this method is no way to determine anything. 

Quote
Good.  But here is another example of the inevitable problem with the human brain thinking it directly perceives reality, as opposed to perceiving through a filter on reality.  It makes someone see things that aren't there. 

Nowhere, from my first post here, did anybody question the existence of objective reality
Okay, but it's difficult to know what you mean when you say seemingly contradictory things such as, "in emotionally-charged issues in complex arenas of life, we humans can't agree on what's rational and what are the facts." I mean, Liberty brought this issue up in the second post in this very thread.

The first question is: What are the facts?
Once we know that, we can each interpret those facts to determine our own conclusions. Then we can all determine who is "deranged" or not.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 14, 2018, 04:30:23 PM
Quote
The Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have concluded there was no Russia collusion.  The Democrats' report will predictably conclude or insinuate the opposite.  Is either side credible?  Only to their partisans. 

Now suppose Devin Nunes writes an independent opinion saying, after examining the evidence, that Trump did collude.  At the same time, Adam Schiff writes his independent report concluding there was no collusion after all.  Because both look like they did not filter the evidence through their expected predicted mental model, both look more credible, compared to their partisan colleagues.  Credible not so much because they changed their minds, but because it appears they did not use their pre-existing filter on reality, and maybe tried to be objective.

This is no way to determine anything. You are assuming a multitude of things which all have to occur for your conclusion to be valid. It's such a roundabout way to determine truth. Why not just look at the facts, look at the analysis, look at the conclusion drawn, and make your own determination on what happened or who is biased or who is not credible?

Because right now, instead of looking at the logic behind these people's conclusions, you are assuming these people are biased (without providing evidence to support it), AND you are assuming their conclusions are a result of that bias (again without providing evidence). Maybe the dems are super biased but also happen to be right? Maybe the independent reviewers are super biased but the republicans are not biased, yet they both came to the same conclusion. Again, no way to determine credibility. 

Quote
Good.  But here is another example of the inevitable problem with the human brain thinking it directly perceives reality, as opposed to perceiving through a filter on reality.  It makes someone see things that aren't there. 

Nowhere, from my first post here, did anybody question the existence of objective reality
Okay, but it's difficult to know what you mean when you say seemingly contradictory things such as, "in emotionally-charged issues in complex arenas of life, we humans can't agree on what's rational and what are the facts." I mean, Liberty brought this issue up in the second post in this very thread.

The first question is: What are the facts?
Once we know that, we can each interpret those facts to determine our own conclusions. Then we can all determine who is "deranged" or not.

My communication skills must be limited.  There's so much to unpack in the above that I don't know where to begin.  Let's just say it's a good example of cognitive science denial.

I formerly used your "rational" approach in arguing with people to try to change their minds. Outside of mathematics and the physical sciences, you'll probably find out over the years and decades that it is futile, and rarely works in issues of real life, such as politics.

Check out this cognitive scientist and linguist.  Maybe you'll find my points a tiny bit more "credible" because this guy is also an anti-Trumper.  He has practical tips based on his research science for all the anti-Trumpers on this board who will continue to be ineffective and ridiculous in their messaging.  Unless the anti-Trumpers learn even the basics of this non-intuitive stuff, Trump will continue to win.  So you can think of this also as my attempt to help your side.  Meantime, I'll continue to enjoy my President!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2u06oCxfv8

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on March 14, 2018, 04:52:00 PM
Thank you for this interesting discussion.
Somehow, this is related to the spectrum joining intuition and insight.
Relevant for investment decisions.
Humans need to develop and maintain intuitive decison making for most activities.
But all decisions/opinions (political or otherwise) can be improved through an analytical process.
Isn't this what Kahneman describes with fast and slow thinking?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksopQLMQsq8
Tell me about your assumptions and reasoning process so we can share (and compare). :)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Spekulatius on March 14, 2018, 05:06:05 PM
Is there a pill in the works against TDS? I would surely hope so, since it would be a billion $ blockbuster. I think the closest one to buy right now is pot that when liberally applied, makes you care much less. 8).
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 14, 2018, 05:07:45 PM
Quote
My communication skills must be limited.  There's so much to unpack in the above that I don't know where to begin.  Let's just say it's a good example of cognitive science denial.


Hey that's fine, we can end the discussion. It's OK by me to agree to disagree. And thanks for the link but I'm not trying to learn tools of persuasion.

Quote
Outside of mathematics and the physical sciences, you'll probably find out over the years and decades that it is futile, and rarely works in issues of real life, such as politics.
I'm a mathematician in "real life" and I think history would show that math and science are just as worthwhile as any other endeavor. As Cardboard mentioned above, I don't believe there is anything to lose from performing scientific analysis. And finally, that came off as a condescending thing of you to say.

Quote
But all decisions/opinions (political or otherwise) can be improved through an analytical process.
...
Tell me about your assumptions and reasoning process so we can share (and compare). :)

I agree wholeheartedly.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 14, 2018, 08:10:52 PM
Hey that's fine, we can end the discussion. It's OK by me to agree to disagree. And thanks for the link but I'm not trying to learn tools of persuasion.

As a self-appointed T.A. in Prof. Munger's psychology course, I add you to the list of flunkards among the board members.  Sad!  I can assure you that you don't know what you're missing out on.  Among other things, you would have been more likely to avoid the following remarkable hallucination:

Quote
Outside of mathematics and the physical sciences, you'll probably find out over the years and decades that it is futile, and rarely works in issues of real life, such as politics.
I'm a mathematician in "real life" and I think history would show that math and science are just as worthwhile as any other endeavor. As Cardboard mentioned above, I don't believe there is anything to lose from performing scientific analysis. And finally, that came off as a condescending thing of you to say.

I concur with your harsh criticism of something I never said or implied.  (But I thank you for providing another unwitting example appropriate for this TDS thread:  you guys just can't help yourselves!)  Einstein must be condescending, too ("As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"), if you'll permit me to extend his comments beyond what he was talking about in geometry.

Isn't this what Kahneman describes with fast and slow thinking?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksopQLMQsq8
Tell me about your assumptions and reasoning process so we can share (and compare). :)

Studying Kahneman and Tversky is essential.  It's a great start.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 14, 2018, 10:02:09 PM
Haha, well I can take the shade you're throwing, but I will still insist: a logical, reasoned analysis is the most objective way to determine the truth of a situation. If you would like to take a roundabout approach, that's fine but it will provide less assurance in your conclusions.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 14, 2018, 10:09:17 PM
Looks like we're two English-speaking Americans divided by a common language.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 16, 2018, 03:29:41 PM
Going into the weekend, let's entertain ourselves by triggering some board members:

"[Steve] Jobs, who primarily studied humanities not engineering, said he came to realise ‘that an intuitive understanding and consciousness was more significant than abstract thinking and intellectual logical analysis.’"

Read these and consider if the subject is Trump or Jobs:

‘It was as if [his] brain circuits were missing a device that would modulate the extreme spikes of impulsive opinions that popped into his mind.’

‘He would assert something—be it a fact about world history or a recounting of who suggested an idea at a meeting—without even considering the truth.’

‘He was not a model boss or human being, tidily packaged for emulation. [He] could drive those around him to fury and despair.’

‘The key question is why [he] can’t control himself at times from being so reflexively cruel and harmful to some people.’

https://spectator-usa.com/2018/03/donald-trump-is-the-steve-jobs-of-politics/
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 16, 2018, 06:16:50 PM
Sure, let's play the anecdote game. I've got two good ones:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong"
–Richard P. Feynman

“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.”

-Donald Trump
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Spekulatius on March 17, 2018, 05:33:50 AM
Many people that shape history do so despite and maybe even because of serious deficiencies. Adolf Hitler was had serious deficiencies (warped sense of reality, deep hatred, probably depression, jobless bum) yet he was very efficient for many years until fact and the rest of the world caught up with him.

I think what set these history makers apart is that they harness powers they didn’t have the right outlet before they appeared at the scene (in case of Trump it is deep discontent of disenfranchised people mostly in rural areas and the heartland , in Hitlers case it was anger about the WW1 aftermath) that they can harness and embody and in some cases change the course of history for the better or the worse that nobody thought possible.

Note my analogy with Hitler is purely conceptual. I don’t want to imply that Trump is similar to Hitler.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on March 17, 2018, 09:15:47 AM
cobafdek,

This discussion probably belongs elsewhere but your post got me thinking.

I do agree that President Trump has an unusual skillset.
The outcome of which remains open to debate.
And there may be investment implications.

Mr. Jobs was a business genius but he was also a nasty, cruel and self-focused bully. He used his reality distortion field abilities to achieve extraordinary accomplishments but the same strategy revealed deep intuitive character flaws that rendered him oblivious to inconvenient facts leading to tragic consequences (example: decision to delay timely and appropriate treatment for his cancer).
Facts are stubborn things.

I read your stuff and I wonder if you would like to read “Reason: The classic experience” by Professor Eric Voegelin. I can’t find my copy or a link but will continue to look for it (edition 1974). But I found some old notes:

-Reason does not correspond to an idea but more to “the process in reality in which concrete human beings, the ‘lovers of wisdom,’ the philosophers as they styled themselves, were engaged in an act of resistance against the social disorder of their age. From this act there emerged the nous as the cognitively luminous force that inspired the philosophers to resist and, at the same time, enabled them to recognize the phenomena of disorder in the light of a humanity ordered by the nous. Thus, reason in the noetic sense was discovered as both the force and the criterion of order”.

(In English: reason is not a treasure to be stored away.)

-When a man cannot define his true humanity within the confine of reason, this sets the foundation for distortion of reality and opens the door to confusion and chaos.

On the topic of reason vs intuition
I understand that Mr. Navarro recently said (March 7, 2018):
"This is the president’s vision. My function, really, as an economist is to try to provide the underlying analytics that confirm his intuition. And his intuition is always right in these matters."



Let’s not forget that this may be about short term political noise in the grand scheme of things and I think that US institutions can survive this.

I understand that Bill Gates recently met President Trump and some pundits suggested that he may want the job. Just like there are similarities between Mr. Jobs and Mr. Trump, there are parallels with Mr. Gates (rich, heads of large empires, etc) but the differences along the intuition/insight spectrum are striking.

Please enlighten me.

In the meantime, I'll go back to financial statements.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: shalab on March 17, 2018, 10:04:04 AM
Right on cigarbutt. I think some of the Trump policies will survive him - especially the reforms in these areas:

    - immigration reform
    - trade reform
    - tax reform (even if individual rates go up which I think they will, corporate rates likely won't go up)

cobafdek,

This discussion probably belongs elsewhere but your post got me thinking.

I do agree that President Trump has an unusual skillset.
The outcome of which remains open to debate.
And there may be investment implications.

Mr. Jobs was a business genius but he was also a nasty, cruel and self-focused bully. He used his reality distortion field abilities to achieve extraordinary accomplishments but the same strategy revealed deep intuitive character flaws that rendered him oblivious to inconvenient facts leading to tragic consequences (example: decision to delay timely and appropriate treatment for his cancer).
Facts are stubborn things.

I read your stuff and I wonder if you would like to read “Reason: The classic experience” by Professor Eric Voegelin. I can’t find my copy or a link but will continue to look for it (edition 1974). But I found some old notes:

-Reason does not correspond to an idea but more to “the process in reality in which concrete human beings, the ‘lovers of wisdom,’ the philosophers as they styled themselves, were engaged in an act of resistance against the social disorder of their age. From this act there emerged the nous as the cognitively luminous force that inspired the philosophers to resist and, at the same time, enabled them to recognize the phenomena of disorder in the light of a humanity ordered by the nous. Thus, reason in the noetic sense was discovered as both the force and the criterion of order”.

(In English: reason is not a treasure to be stored away.)

-When a man cannot define his true humanity within the confine of reason, this sets the foundation for distortion of reality and opens the door to confusion and chaos.

On the topic of reason vs intuition
I understand that Mr. Navarro recently said (March 7, 2018):
"This is the president’s vision. My function, really, as an economist is to try to provide the underlying analytics that confirm his intuition. And his intuition is always right in these matters."



Let’s not forget that this may be about short term political noise in the grand scheme of things and I think that US institutions can survive this.

I understand that Bill Gates recently met President Trump and some pundits suggested that he may want the job. Just like there are similarities between Mr. Jobs and Mr. Trump, there are parallels with Mr. Gates (rich, heads of large empires, etc) but the differences along the intuition/insight spectrum are striking.

Please enlighten me.

In the meantime, I'll go back to financial statements.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 17, 2018, 01:14:40 PM
Many people that shape history do so despite and maybe even because of serious deficiencies. Adolf Hitler was had serious deficiencies (warped sense of reality, deep hatred, probably depression, jobless bum) yet he was very efficient for many years until fact and the rest of the world caught up with him.

I think what set these history makers apart is that they harness powers they didn’t have the right outlet before they appeared at the scene (in case of Trump it is deep discontent of disenfranchised people mostly in rural areas and the heartland , in Hitlers case it was anger about the WW1 aftermath) that they can harness and embody and in some cases change the course of history for the better or the worse that nobody thought possible.

Note my analogy with Hitler is purely conceptual. I don’t want to imply that Trump is similar to Hitler.

Nicely done, on several levels.

At face value, taking your words strictly speaking, you've avoided descending into TDS, and made a great point.  I failed to trigger you!

What's cool for us linguistic/cognitive science nerds is that you may have still achieved the purpose of the "Trump=Hitler" meme, whether or not you consciously intended to do so.  It's the power of negative suggestions, operating on a subconscious level.  When you negate something, our neural circuits first has to process and accept the suggestion "Trump=Hitler" before it reads your negation.  In that split second before processing the negative part, the subconscious may have already accepted the positive suggestion, if it was primed beforehand.  Sure, this is irrational, but it's powerful messaging, and it works on a crowd level.  It won't work on everybody, but it will work on enough.  Ask Congressman Steve Scalise.

And that's why I posted that article comparing Trump to Jobs.  My post was designed to counter that perennial Trump=Hitler belief, which, though it is much weaker than it was immediately post-election, will probably never completely die out. 

So remember this:  I am NOT saying Trump=SteveJobs!
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 17, 2018, 02:05:06 PM
. . . I wonder if you would like to read “Reason: The classic experience” by Professor Eric Voegelin. I can’t find my copy or a link but will continue to look for it (edition 1974). But I found some old notes:

-Reason does not correspond to an idea but more to “the process in reality in which concrete human beings, the ‘lovers of wisdom,’ the philosophers as they styled themselves, were engaged in an act of resistance against the social disorder of their age. From this act there emerged the nous as the cognitively luminous force that inspired the philosophers to resist and, at the same time, enabled them to recognize the phenomena of disorder in the light of a humanity ordered by the nous. Thus, reason in the noetic sense was discovered as both the force and the criterion of order”.

(In English: reason is not a treasure to be stored away.)

-When a man cannot define his true humanity within the confine of reason, this sets the foundation for distortion of reality and opens the door to confusion and chaos.

The last time I saw the name Eric Voegelin was reading National Review when Buckley was still alive as editor.  I haven't read the magazine regularly since.  Voegelin's stuff was on my reading pile that I never got to.  If I were still an undergraduate or graduate student, I might be interested in getting into the weeds of defining "reason" and "rationality."  I'm content to stay ignorant on the myriad details of the definitions, since there are only so many hours in the day.  Let me just say that, ideally, of course people should be reasonable and rational with the goal of getting at the truth of objective reality, however you strictly define those words.  Who could disagree with that?  I agree with all of LC's ideals of rationality and logic.  I don't think it's even possible for anybody to disagree with such ideals:  who actually says that one's own ideas are wrong or irrational?   The problem is that, outside of math and the physical sciences, at the end of any reasonable/rational debate, the opposing sides may get no further than "We agree to disagree," with each side unable to prove or convince the other that it is wrong and irrational.  We each think we're the rational one and the other isn't.

On the topic of reason vs intuition
I understand that Mr. Navarro recently said (March 7, 2018):
"This is the president’s vision. My function, really, as an economist is to try to provide the underlying analytics that confirm his intuition. And his intuition is always right in these matters."



Let’s not forget that this may be about short term political noise in the grand scheme of things and I think that US institutions can survive this.

I understand that Bill Gates recently met President Trump and some pundits suggested that he may want the job. Just like there are similarities between Mr. Jobs and Mr. Trump, there are parallels with Mr. Gates (rich, heads of large empires, etc) but the differences along the intuition/insight spectrum are striking.

Yeah, who knows what's up with the Trump and Gates meeting.  Maybe Trump can persuade Gates that an "America First" policy is not the bad thing he and Melinda are hallucinating it is.  "America First" is an ambiguous slogan, and everyone reads into it what they hope or fear.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on March 17, 2018, 03:43:17 PM
"We each think we're the rational one and the other isn't."

Thanks for taking my post with an open mind.
Contentious political interpretation of « reality » is nothing new.
It is the trend or “drift” that may be concerning IMO.

Recent quote from President Trump, referring to a conversation with Theresa May (March 13th): “As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be.”  (my bold)
One should not over-read such comments fired back at journalists but the “slip” is particularly revealing in terms of policy decisions resulting from factual analysis of issues.

What you describe reminds me of what some people call tribal thinking.
Link:
https://theconversation.com/how-tribal-thinking-has-left-us-in-a-post-truth-world-69486

“Every one of us is vulnerable to thinking that the ideas we hold dear are reasoned or principled positions. But how many of our ideas are adopted and defended as part of our tribal identity?”

Sometimes, questions are more revealing than answers.

“In this atmosphere, it takes a special kind of intellectual honesty to interrogate our own ideas as rigorously as we do other people’s, to listen to other arguments, and to discard our own bad ideas. But this is the only way to break the self-reinforcing binds between tribal identity and conviction.”

That’s what I’ll keep working on in this and other sections of this Board.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Spekulatius on March 18, 2018, 07:15:38 AM
Quote
Yeah, who knows what's up with the Trump and Gates meeting.  Maybe Trump can persuade Gates that an "America First" policy is not the bad thing he and Melinda are hallucinating it is.  "America First" is an ambiguous slogan, and everyone reads into it what they hope or fear

I think Bill and Melinda’s biggest focus in the US is education. Who knows, maybe they hope to find some common ground with Trump here.

Second focus is probably US foreign aide. It seems something that likely comes under the bus with an Smerica first policy. Yet, done correctly, it can do so much good and improve the US goodwill in many countries in the world. Bill and a Melinda have done an amazing job homing in on a few but impotent issues with their foundation and make a difference for millions of people.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Spekulatius on March 23, 2018, 06:26:20 PM
They should rebrand CNN as Trump TV. They almost broadcast about nothing else.

Suggest Program

2AM: Nightly Twitter update

5AM: Twitter - roadmap for today

8AM: Foreign and domestic affairs,morning edition

12AM: Powerplay - who is fired, who is hired?

1PM: West Wing Gadfly: Rumours and leaks

2PM: Twitter - roadmap for the afternoon

6PM: Straight from the gut - Economy analytics

9PM : A shot in the dark - Foreign policy

12PM -late nate intuitionism tweet



Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on March 23, 2018, 06:51:24 PM
They should have 2 stations: CNN Politics and CNN Religion. Mindless topics to argue about and people will sit glued to it.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Spekulatius on March 24, 2018, 01:56:10 PM
Have to say this, watching politics was never so entertaining. I rarely watch CNN generally, but now I turn it on to see what pearls of wisdom emanate from the White House today. It’s downright addictive. I don’t think anybody could have made up this news tornado for a TV show without being ridiculed as totally overboard and unrealistic. News channel viewership got to be off the charts.

Anybody willing to bet when Ivanka fires Donald over disagreement on domestic affairs?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rukawa on March 26, 2018, 01:07:07 PM
As for what republicans can get away with, you have pussy grabbing and the family values people are giving a republican mulligans to bang playboy bunnies and porn stars while the wife's at home with a newborn. I'd say that a republican can get away with quite a bit and that I'm likely not delusional - though one cannot be certain of such things.

I think this is a pretty strong point. When Clinton was in power the whole argument was that he was amoral and power hungry and the Clinton marriage was a sham marriage. This case can be made even more strongly for Trump. He is completely amoral...does any Trump supporter on this thread disagree with my assessment? And worse than Clinton he is pretty open about it.

We have a pretty strange situation when the Democratic party is the party of free trade and family values.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Spekulatius on March 26, 2018, 03:11:06 PM
As for what republicans can get away with, you have pussy grabbing and the family values people are giving a republican mulligans to bang playboy bunnies and porn stars while the wife's at home with a newborn. I'd say that a republican can get away with quite a bit and that I'm likely not delusional - though one cannot be certain of such things.

I think this is a pretty strong point. When Clinton was in power the whole argument was that he was amoral and power hungry and the Clinton marriage was a sham marriage. This case can be made even more strongly for Trump. He is completely amoral...does any Trump supporter on this thread disagree with my assessment? And worse than Clinton he is pretty open about it.

We have a pretty strange situation when the Democratic party is the party of free trade and family values.

It would be a very good thing when the Us populace would get less uptight about the politicians sexual transgression. They are for the most part Alpha personalities, so some of this Alpha male (or female ) behavior should be expected.

François Mitterant had his mistress more or less openly traveling with him on official business and as far as I know, the French didn’t think too much about it, and that was in the 1980‘s. Min dieu , it is Time to become less dilusionary about moral standards.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 27, 2018, 10:42:24 AM
As for what republicans can get away with, you have pussy grabbing and the family values people are giving a republican mulligans to bang playboy bunnies and porn stars while the wife's at home with a newborn. I'd say that a republican can get away with quite a bit and that I'm likely not delusional - though one cannot be certain of such things.
I think this is a pretty strong point.

On the contrary:  it's an extremely weak point.  Calling a politician a hypocrite is one of the weakest debating points available.  It is so obvious that it convinces nobody about nothing.

He is completely amoral...does any Trump supporter on this thread disagree with my assessment?

If you include the following as amoral, then I would agree with you:
1. strong economy and more jobs
2. ISIS on the ropes
3. stronger border control with illegal immigration down sharply
4. keeping campaign promises
5. banning bump stocks
6. taking the US workers' side in trade disputes
7. denuclearizing North Korea

It would be a very good thing when the Us populace would get less uptight about the politicians sexual transgression.

You've misunderestimated us Americans.  Trump's approval ratings are up, just like Clinton's was during the Lewinsky news cycle.  Trump needs maybe 3 or 4 more porn stars and a couple more Playboy playmates to take his approval rating over 50%.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rkbabang on March 27, 2018, 10:56:12 AM
As for what republicans can get away with, you have pussy grabbing and the family values people are giving a republican mulligans to bang playboy bunnies and porn stars while the wife's at home with a newborn. I'd say that a republican can get away with quite a bit and that I'm likely not delusional - though one cannot be certain of such things.

I think this is a pretty strong point. When Clinton was in power the whole argument was that he was amoral and power hungry and the Clinton marriage was a sham marriage. This case can be made even more strongly for Trump. He is completely amoral...does any Trump supporter on this thread disagree with my assessment? And worse than Clinton he is pretty open about it.

We have a pretty strange situation when the Democratic party is the party of free trade and family values.

It would be a very good thing when the Us populace would get less uptight about the politicians sexual transgression. They are for the most part Alpha personalities, so some of this Alpha male (or female ) behavior should be expected.

François Mitterant had his mistress more or less openly traveling with him on official business and as far as I know, the French didn’t think too much about it, and that was in the 1980‘s. Min dieu , it is Time to become less dilusionary about moral standards.

It's funny.  When it's the Republicans screaming about "Family Values" I tend to side with the Democrats.  Now that it is the Democrats screaming about sex with porn stars, I'm tending to side with the Republicans.    I really don't care who sleeps with who.  It's none of my business.  The only thing I really objected to about the whole Lewinsky thing was Clinton bombing an aspirin factory and killing innocent people to get it out of the news cycle.  Bombs concern me more than BJs.  He also lied under oath, but that is just the expected behavior of any government official. Every cop in America does it routinely.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on March 27, 2018, 11:05:18 AM
cobafdek,
I apologize in advance if you take the following the wrong way but humor is a way to communicate too.
"You've misunderestimated us Americans."

I enjoyed the Bushisms tremendously and maybe you're wording is intentional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w65CSu6Cc4A

FWIW, I really think that Mr. George W. Bush has not been appraised to his true value. :)

"Nearly a decade after George W. Bush said "misunderestimated" in a speech, Philip Hensher called the term one of his "most memorable additions to the language, and an incidentally expressive one: it may be that we rather needed a word for 'to underestimate by mistake'."
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on March 27, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
I enjoyed the Bushisms tremendously and maybe you're wording is intentional.

You've successfully read mind:  it was intentional.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on April 05, 2018, 07:29:40 AM
This sounds rational, but it's actually insane:

Call me old fashioned, but I think the way to promote free trade is to sell the idea to the public in your country and in other countries, to honor the agreements you enter into and to keep the moral high ground to be able to lead others and be an example that other countries want to follow, etc. Trade is built on stability, not instability, so you want to be a stabilizing force rather than a destabilizing one.

The U.S. has tried this since at least 2001 when China entered the WTO.  Grandmother's aphorism applies here about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again . . .

When you're insane, you see delusional thinking (in this case, more mind-reading):

Trumps thinks attacking China will be popular in a populist way, that's why he's doing it. He's basing a lot of his beliefs on random FOX News segments and whatever his mogul friends and protectionist advisors slip into his ear (a lot of it factually wrong).  Autocrats like Trump all need an external enemy to blame for their country's problems, and China and Mexico have been Trump's go to for a while.

And Cathy Newman-style attempt at cognitive dissonance reduction:

You're basically making the Bush argument of "you're either with us or against us". That's BS.

Finally, another version of the CNN commercial about apples and bananas:

I do dislike Trump a lot, but it's not an irrational dislike, it's quite rational

Compare Hairtrigger Liberty with the following (from a Jeff Bezos-associated news site):

"It is no coincidence that the Chinese have not yet set the date when these new tariffs will become effective. This means they still see room for extending the current negotiations."
"Given the relatively large dependency of the Chinese economy on American demand, it is likely that China will, in the end, cut its losses and be willing to give Trump something."
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-war-with-china-could-end-up-paying-off-ing-says-2018-4

Nobody knows how it will turn out, but which one sounds more credible and rational?


Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on April 05, 2018, 08:55:37 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/05/judge-andrew-napolitano-what-is-robert-mueller-looking-for.html

Recall the commonly repeated phrase, "There's absolutely no evidence"

Quote
The FBI also had transcripts of telephone conversations and copies of emails and text messages of Trump campaign personnel that had been supplied to it by British intelligence. Connecting the dots, the FBI persuaded a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue a search warrant for the surveillance of Page, an American.

Sounds like there's more evidence then many at Fox News would lead you to believe... It's odd that Fox News would knowingly repeat lies given their crusade against "Fake News". This article should have come with a "Bias Alert" banner (a reoccurring example of Fox News preemptively arbitrating the truth, bias, sanity, ect - it's no surprise that many followers use this tactic as well).

Don't get me wrong, I like Fox News. I read their site everyday. I think it helps me stay balanced (or at least that's the effort). But there are some writers and anchors at the outlet that are purposefully trying to misinform folks while also encouraging those same folks to spread that misinformation and ignore any rebuttals or corrections. The phrase 'fact-check' has been vilified. That sounds like TDS to me.


Quote
Page never registered as a foreign agent, and working for the Kremlin and not registering as a foreign agent is a crime for which the FBI should have investigated Page. Such an investigation would have included surveillance, but not from the FISA court.

...

Instead, it sought a warrant to surveil Page’s communications based on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act standard, which is probable cause of communicating with a foreign power.

Uh, what? Why are they misleading readers? They define Carter Page's actions, the FISA Court's use, and then state that for some unexplained reason that his foreign communications somehow do not qualify for standard treatment. Seems like an odd interpretation considering the lack of explanation for the author's view.


Quote
When such an indicted person can then be persuaded to turn on his former colleagues in return for a lesser charge or a lighter sentence, prosecutors can have a field day. This is a form of bribery -- you tell us on the witness stand what we want to hear and we’ll go easy on you -- that is permitted only to prosecutors; and the courts condone it. If defense counsel gave as much as a lollipop to a witness to shade his testimony, both would be indicted.

Again, what? This is plainly inaccurate reporting and purposeful mischaracterization. Using participants to a scheme to detail the specific actors and methods of the scheme. Since Trump is involved, this is now "bribery" and the FBI is somehow rotten/corrupt. TDS.

Also, the second part of this quote again purposefully misleads readers on how criminal cases work. Prosecutors are able to use these tactics because a defendant has been indicted by a Grand Jury and now the prosecution must prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a hell of a high-bar. Fox News is trying to describe an incomplete and inaccurate situation where any indicted folks must fight uphill to defend their selves.


Quote
This lower, easier-to-demonstrate and unconstitutional standard is the tool of choice these days for FBI agents because it requires less effort and is used in a court that grants 99.9 percent of search warrant applications.

They fail to mention that one of the only denials of a FISA-based surveillance warrant in the past decade is the denial of Page's original application. It's almost like the FISA Court was doing their job and careful not to be politicized. Yet, Fox News is purposefully suppressing this detail to mischaracterize the situation and misinform their viewers. Repeating the phrase "Fake News" further brainwashes their viewers by encouraging them to avoid any outlet that might expose factual explanations behind Fox News' inaccurate characterizations and theories.

TDS.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on April 05, 2018, 09:41:51 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/05/judge-andrew-napolitano-what-is-robert-mueller-l

As I've said similarly before, when defending Trump, an Obama-voter writing in a left-leaning news site is more credible than Fox News:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/381593-when-will-the-media-accept-that-trump-is-not-a-criminal-target

"After a year of being assured that 'bombshell' developments and 'smoking gun' evidence was sealing the criminal case against Trump, the dissonance was too great for many who refuse to accept the obvious meaning of this disclosure."

"Looking at each of the prior filings, the disclosure would seem consistent with a lack of compelling evidence of a crime by Trump. Indeed, it would indicate Trump’s status has not changed from when Comey told Congress that Trump was not a target."

"What is new is that Mueller confirmed Trump’s status has not changed."

"This continued refusal to acknowledge positive developments for Trump is a disturbing pathology."

"CNN analyst Philip Mudd was not satisfied with the 'soft' depictions of the Mueller disclosure and declared that it was devastating news that Mueller was now investigating Trump and that, if Trump were declared a subject, 'I would wet my pants.'"
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on April 05, 2018, 09:53:01 AM
You are making my point. You forgot the qualifier "In my opinion...".

In your opinion, that is more credible. You are not the arbiter of facts. Someone already has that job. We, as citizens, interpret those findings for ourselves. Credibility of the case has nothing to do with my post though. I'm pointing out misinformation and suppression of facts.

I suspect you support your "credibility theory" because you have defined it in such a way to avoid challenging your interpretation of the facts of the case. For example, you refuse to consider opinions of right-leaning Trump-bashers because "never Trump".

We've discussed my opinion of the case already. There's not enough information that's public to opine. I have opinions, but that's all they are. However, I don't think it's surprising that evidence has not been released prior to indictments. I also suspect evidence in any future indictments has already been reported in 2015/2016. This investigation is not surprising. The details of the scheme were widely reported or, in some cases, self-announced by many of the participants.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on April 05, 2018, 10:30:34 AM
I suspect you support your "credibility theory" because you have defined it in such a way to avoid challenging your interpretation of the facts of the case. For example, you refuse to consider opinions of right-leaning Trump-bashers because "never Trump".

How can you possibly know this?  You probably know by now what this is an example of!

This thread is too funny!
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on April 05, 2018, 11:31:15 AM
I'm making an inference, not stating a fact. That's why I say 'I suspect' and not 'I know'. That's why I provided an example after my statement. I don't think I can be anymore deliberate and clear.

Quote
Credibility of the case has nothing to do with my post though.

I find it funny that you often seem to ignore debate that is anchored in facts and prefer to shift debate to subjective topics where you can't be wrong (or right). Either way, until next time.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Value^2 on April 06, 2018, 08:42:23 AM
 I don't know how these Hillary voters can take another 7 years? Even Kids are not safe anymore!  ;D

Texas elected official gets misdemeanor, accused of berating a teen girl wearing Trump T-shirt
“They were scared,” the father of one of the girls told the local news. “They were absolutely scared. My little girl essentially wanted to know if this woman was going to hurt her.”


Burke allegedly screamed, “Grab ‘em by the p---- girls!” at the group of four teenagers waiting in line to get cookies for younger kids at their church Saturday night, KPRC reported.

The father told the local news that when the girls tried to ignore her, she yelled the obscenity again, and then Burke started yelling, “MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!” as she shook her fist at them.

She allegedly took a photo of the girl wearing a “Trump: Make America Great Again” T-shirt before leaving.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/05/texas-elected-official-gets-misdemeanor-accused-berating-teen-girl-wearing-trump-t-shirt.html
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on April 06, 2018, 10:58:53 AM
I don't know how these Hillary voters can take another 7 years? Even Kids are not safe anymore!  ;D

Texas elected official gets misdemeanor, accused of berating a teen girl wearing Trump T-shirt
“They were scared,” the father of one of the girls told the local news. “They were absolutely scared. My little girl essentially wanted to know if this woman was going to hurt her.”


Burke allegedly screamed, “Grab ‘em by the p---- girls!” at the group of four teenagers waiting in line to get cookies for younger kids at their church Saturday night, KPRC reported.

The father told the local news that when the girls tried to ignore her, she yelled the obscenity again, and then Burke started yelling, “MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!” as she shook her fist at them.

She allegedly took a photo of the girl wearing a “Trump: Make America Great Again” T-shirt before leaving.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/05/texas-elected-official-gets-misdemeanor-accused-berating-teen-girl-wearing-trump-t-shirt.html


"One of the families said Burke did reach out to them to apologize"

I would bet that Kellye Burke is a good person, and that this Fox story is about the dissociated segment of her brain that automatically took over when she saw those Trump t-shirts.  "Click, whirr" as Cialdini puts it.  Or, as students of Kahneman would recognize, System 1 shutting down System 2.  (Explains a lot about board members' insane posts.)  The apology comes from System 2.  I hope her family and neighbors and those she wronged, realizing themselves as similarly dissociated human beings, will respond with humanity.

As a public official, however, when dealing with her as voters and constituents, she needs to suffer the consequences.

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on April 06, 2018, 11:14:13 AM
Quote
(Explains a lot about board members' insane posts.)
Insane? You've shown no effort to understand other perspectives - instead simply dismissing contradicting points by labeling them "insane". Classic confirmation bias.

To me it seems like the only one suffering TDS is you.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on April 06, 2018, 11:22:23 AM
Quote
(Explains a lot about board members' insane posts.)
Insane? You've shown no effort to understand other perspectives - instead simply dismissing contradicting points by labeling them "insane". Classic confirmation bias.

To me it seems like the only one suffering TDS is you.

Thanks for your additional example of System 1.

And you're forgiven.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on April 06, 2018, 11:25:26 AM
Yikes, didn't expect to trigger you with 1 post.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on April 06, 2018, 11:42:22 AM
Yikes, didn't expect to trigger you with 1 post.

You and your clever System 2!  (Let's see how many get it!?)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: investor-man on May 08, 2018, 08:37:07 PM
I've got the syndrome real bad tonight. $500k paid from a Russian oligarch directly to Mr. Trump's personal attorney. I got the syndrome so bad. I'm completely deranged. Completely biased. All sorts of cognitive issues in my brain right now. Anyone care to try and sound smart while reexplaining some shitty pop-psychology book they read three chapters of while bored on a layover in an airport? There's some nugget of truth in there somewhere to explain why what I'm seeing isn't really what I'm seeing, right? Right?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: investor-man on May 08, 2018, 08:56:33 PM
I've got the syndrome real bad tonight. $500k paid from a Russian oligarch directly to Mr. Trump's personal attorney. I got the syndrome so bad. I'm completely deranged. Completely biased. All sorts of cognitive issues in my brain right now. Anyone care to try and sound smart while reexplaining some shitty pop-psychology book they read three chapters of while bored on a layover in an airport? There's some nugget of truth in there somewhere to explain why what I'm seeing isn't really what I'm seeing, right? Right?

well now I feel like a jerk. apologies if my words have offended anyone - sometimes you just need an outlet, and this is about the only place I regularly visit that has a population of Trump supporters. I have in my life held onto beliefs that in hindsight were clearly wrong. I was and am embarrassed about those episodes, so I am sympathetic to those that still support Trump. It's hard to put your tail between your legs, but as we all know - you can learn from it.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cardboard on May 10, 2018, 05:58:15 AM
If this is the kind of world and results that Trump brings about, then I hope that your Russian oligarch gives $1,000,000 next election:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/10/trump-welcomes-back-americans-freed-by-north-korea.html

George W. Bush properly identified the axis of evil. He took care of one of them via war. It appears that Trump will take care of one of them by threatening and the other one we will see.

At the very least, he is not kicking the can down the road like Obama did on Iran. Or interfering into other countries way of leading their people. By the way, that is what created the mess in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and other places.

Trump focus is mostly on American interests: do what you want but, don't mess with us.

And by the way, here is the truth on Russia:

https://www.ft.com/content/1e2086bc-3997-11e8-8b98-2f31af407cc8

Cardboard
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on May 10, 2018, 11:54:23 AM
Remarkable cases continue to accumulate, but this is a first example of back-to-back posts showing relapse/remission in under 20 minutes.

(Important disclaimer:  I am not implying the poster has schizophrenia, because making diagnoses anonymously and online is both invalid and impermissible.  This is just an analogy for those who have never undergone medical training and have never witnessed similar psychotic clinical phenomena in person.)

When a schizophrenic patient stops his medication, you get something like this:

I've got the syndrome real bad tonight. $500k paid from a Russian oligarch directly to Mr. Trump's personal attorney. I got the syndrome so bad. I'm completely deranged. Completely biased. All sorts of cognitive issues in my brain right now. Anyone care to try and sound smart while reexplaining some shitty pop-psychology book they read three chapters of while bored on a layover in an airport? There's some nugget of truth in there somewhere to explain why what I'm seeing isn't really what I'm seeing, right? Right?

Unfortunately, many patients, while they are hallucinating, don't know they are hallucinating.  But here we have someone with insight into their delusion, just like many schizophrenics who know they have stopped their medication and who know they are hallucinating.  Many of them voluntarily resume treatment, resulting in something like this:

well now I feel like a jerk. apologies if my words have offended anyone - sometimes you just need an outlet, and this is about the only place I regularly visit that has a population of Trump supporters. I have in my life held onto beliefs that in hindsight were clearly wrong. I was and am embarrassed about those episodes, so I am sympathetic to those that still support Trump. It's hard to put your tail between your legs, but as we all know - you can learn from it.

TDS is obviously partially a tongue-in-cheek diagnosis (as is this whole thread, for those who haven't yet grasped it as such!).  Too many anti-Trumpers can't prevent themselves from displaying the features, which may mean this thread may never end.  Since the election, there is no doubt that psychotic phenomena is everyday, ordinary behavior.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on May 10, 2018, 04:54:44 PM
Well since my last post was reported and removed (presumably for it's blunt accuracy), I'll just say that while I am sympathetic to your delusion, cobafdek, there is a saying about playing chess with pigeons.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cigarbutt on May 10, 2018, 07:08:00 PM
Well since my last post was reported and removed (presumably for it's blunt accuracy), I'll just say that while I am sympathetic to your delusion, cobafdek, there is a saying about playing chess with pigeons.

Try to learn from mistakes and had to look up what the expression meant and found this:
http://davetrott.co.uk/2016/11/playing-chess-with-a-pigeon/

Whether one takes this seriously or not, there is the possibility that the rules of the games are changing. Need adaptation.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on May 10, 2018, 07:34:08 PM
Quote
Whether one takes this seriously or not, there is the possibility that the rules of the games are changing. Need adaptation.

I would say that winning an argument is different from being "right". And the rhetorical tricks people use to win arguments (or political races) have been around for ages, those haven't changed either.

But here on this forum there's nothing to win or lose, it's just a conversation. Sometimes people say dumb stuff, sometimes they say it consistently...that's when I check out from the brain damage.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on May 10, 2018, 09:56:45 PM
If this is the kind of world and results that Trump brings about, then I hope that your Russian oligarch gives $1,000,000 next election:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/10/trump-welcomes-back-americans-freed-by-north-korea.html

Also, heads will explode (and most of those who are deep in TDS will go deeper) because of Kanye West and others, like:

https://twitter.com/realkareemdream/status/994746603876446208

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on May 12, 2018, 08:18:41 AM
I've got the syndrome real bad tonight. $500k paid from a Russian oligarch directly to Mr. Trump's personal attorney. I got the syndrome so bad. I'm completely deranged. Completely biased. All sorts of cognitive issues in my brain right now. Anyone care to try and sound smart while reexplaining some shitty pop-psychology book they read three chapters of while bored on a layover in an airport? There's some nugget of truth in there somewhere to explain why what I'm seeing isn't really what I'm seeing, right? Right?

Well since my last post was reported and removed (presumably for it's blunt accuracy), I'll just say that while I am sympathetic to your delusion, cobafdek, there is a saying about playing chess with pigeons.

The "last post" referred to was by Schwab711.  It is the missing one.  There are other pathognomonic signs and linguistic clues for the suspicion that Schwab711 = investor-man = LC, so that this may be an example of a multiple personality manifestation of TDS.  (Anybody keeping track of how many people using multiple pseudonyms on CoBF?)  Sad!

The post taken down linked to a Taleb tweet.  That post was so lost in the weeds that it missed the big one.  I myself pointed out my own cognitive blindness in my original post of this entire thread.  SharperDingaan replied in a non-hysterical way suggesting he didn't take it personally.  That got me out of my hallucinatory interpretation of his post.

Ironically, SharperDingaan did so by referencing Russia ("Ask any Russian.")  Rather than getting obsessed by the Russian collusion delusion, I did finish reading that dimestore Russian novel I referred to early in this thread.  My favorite quote:  "If everything in the universe were sensible, nothing would happen."

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on May 12, 2018, 12:15:17 PM
I've got the syndrome real bad tonight. $500k paid from a Russian oligarch directly to Mr. Trump's personal attorney. I got the syndrome so bad. I'm completely deranged. Completely biased. All sorts of cognitive issues in my brain right now. Anyone care to try and sound smart while reexplaining some shitty pop-psychology book they read three chapters of while bored on a layover in an airport? There's some nugget of truth in there somewhere to explain why what I'm seeing isn't really what I'm seeing, right? Right?

Well since my last post was reported and removed (presumably for it's blunt accuracy), I'll just say that while I am sympathetic to your delusion, cobafdek, there is a saying about playing chess with pigeons.

The "last post" referred to was by Schwab711.  It is the missing one.  There are other pathognomonic signs and linguistic clues for the suspicion that Schwab711 = investor-man = LC, so that this may be an example of a multiple personality manifestation of TDS.  (Anybody keeping track of how many people using multiple pseudonyms on CoBF?)  Sad!

I believe you cracked the case. I shouldn't have skimped on the software license.
https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/software-helps-identify-anonymous-writers-or-helps-them-stay-that-way/
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Spekulatius on May 20, 2018, 03:08:04 PM
Oldie, but Goldie:
https://youtu.be/NxFkEj7KPC0 (https://youtu.be/NxFkEj7KPC0)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: alpha on May 24, 2018, 07:25:20 AM

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2018/05/24/elon-musks-trump-derangement-syndrome/
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on May 24, 2018, 10:56:26 AM

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2018/05/24/elon-musks-trump-derangement-syndrome/

Although this is a hit piece, it accomplishes the same purpose as this previously linked article:

https://spectator-usa.com/2018/03/donald-trump-is-the-steve-jobs-of-politics/

That article suggested imagining Trump = Steve Jobs, and now Forbes is pairing Trump with Elon Musk.  Good job Peter Cohan!

Intentional or not, these articles could play a role in breaking the mass hysteria anti-Trump bubble by priming the people's collective mind for continued future success for the Trump administration. 
Who knows?  Some rabid anti-Trumpers will always remain that way, but nothing succeeds like success.

By the way, the above Forbes article reminds me of all those Alan Abelson columns in Barron's in the 1990s, presenting the rational and logical case why Amazon.com could not continue for much longer in their cash-burning ways, the accounting doesn't work, etc. etc. etc.  Jeff Bezos has the last laugh.  Maybe Musk and Trump will as well.

We'll see.

Edit:  Meanwhile - https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/999432465495285760
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Spekulatius on May 27, 2018, 08:58:23 AM
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/05/27/retired-teacher-makes-corrections-to-trump-letter-new-day-weekend.cnn (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/05/27/retired-teacher-makes-corrections-to-trump-letter-new-day-weekend.cnn)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: doughishere on May 28, 2018, 10:23:49 AM
On Memorial Day, the president takes some time to remember that those that gave the ultimate sacrifice are grateful to him: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1001085207825534976

The guy cant even go one day without making it about himself.  What a loser.


Compare that with Obama: https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1001131488103030784
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cardboard on May 28, 2018, 01:26:53 PM
I don't really care if he is arrogant, an idiot or whatever as long as he takes care of real business unlike Obama who was a pathetic useless loser who could only make great speaches.

Taking care of business such as protecting the border which is an immediate and real issue:

http://www.kitco.com/news/2018-05-28/UPDATE-1-Mexico-violence-hits-Canadian-silver-miner-apos-s-operations.html

Cardboard

Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Viking on May 28, 2018, 03:50:05 PM
Trump has lowered taxes for businesses in the US  in a significant way. He is also carving away regulation. Like the man or hate the man what he is doing will help companies (with operations domiciled in the US) be much more profitable. In the short term I would expect this will also lead to higher growth.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: investor-man on May 28, 2018, 05:20:05 PM
It doesn't matter to me how many ticks he gets in the win column. He's clearly been bribed and is being blackmailed by the Russians, and his family is taking bribes from foreign nationals at the expense of national security.

This board is a celebration of capitalism. Capitalism relies upon strict rule of law. If Trump serves out a full term it sets a precedent that will turn us into a Kleptocracy. I don't know how anyone here can support him. I agree that the cut in corporate rates is good but it's a laughable trade off to what else having this guy in office means. I'd way rather have Clinton in office doing nothing.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cardboard on May 28, 2018, 06:08:08 PM
Bribed by the Russians to then apply the toughest sanctions against them? Then to challenge them directly by attacking targets in Syria despite threats?

You must be delusional or something. You try to lecture us about capitalism and what not but, you are clearly not having a good hold of basic logic.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: investor-man on May 28, 2018, 06:40:32 PM
He has not enforced any of the sanctions. And the Syria bombings were a play out of Bill Clinton's playbook when he was in the same position. They also weren't effective since he warned them they were coming.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: bearprowler6 on May 28, 2018, 06:48:49 PM
https://www.alternet.org/former-nsa-analyst-claims-us-spy-agencies-have-known-trump-was-russian-agent-2016
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cardboard on May 28, 2018, 08:21:13 PM
Investor-man, read a little bit before just writing crap:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/09/investing/russia-sanctions-deripaska-rusal/index.html

Cardboard
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on May 28, 2018, 08:56:15 PM
Slashing taxes, slashing regulations.

Good for the short term, probably poor for the long term.

We're value investors, right?
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: rb on May 28, 2018, 09:28:06 PM
Trump has lowered taxes for businesses in the US  in a significant way. He is also carving away regulation. Like the man or hate the man what he is doing will help companies (with operations domiciled in the US) be much more profitable. In the short term I would expect this will also lead to higher growth.
This is very short term thinking. I guess you can't put politics aside when speaking about subjects like this but I'll try as much as possible. So let's look at both parts: taxes and regulations.

Taxes is a bit of an interesting one. A nice cut in corporate taxes should yield a nice boost to valuations for companies with heavy US operations. But the US is in an untenable fiscal position right now. They can't go at this level much longer. So you'll have a spending cut or a tax hike. In the case of the US, it's already running pretty lean. So if you wanna do a spending cut you really only have 3 places to cut: military, social security, or medicare. Now, let's be real here, they're not gonna cut the military. The hard core conservative dream is a cut to social security or medicare. But that's really what it is. Just a dream. In reality, you start cutting those and you're done. So you'll have a tax hike. The question is where. They may hike back on the corporate side, they may hike on the personal income side. We'll see how the chips fall.

Regulations is a more straight forward one in my view. Basically society is moving to improve itself over time. We want to pollute less, strive to eliminate abuse of other humans, etc. Now this happens in fits and starts. Some administrations add regulations, some remove some, and so on. But if you look over time it's a megatrend towards the we want to do better direction. You can't fight that with an executive pen. What may be controversial today generally will be anonymously accepted 15 years from now.

Now in practical terms. Say the Trump administration removes some environmental regulation and now you can dump toxic sludge in a river. Some companies are gonna love that because they can save on wastewater equipment. But do you want to own that company or do you want to own the company that doesn't despite the fact that it's allowed to? Of course you want to own the latter. That regulation rollback is at best a temporary relief. The company that fully embraces it will not be ready to deal with the future. You want to have your money in companies that are ready to deal with the future and will prosper over time.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on May 28, 2018, 09:49:07 PM
Investor-man, read a little bit before just writing crap

Keep in mind that investor-man, along with Schwab711, are two of LC's dissociated identities.  There may be more.

Playing around with multiple personalities is actually a useful intellectual exercise, and I wouldn't be surprised if LC has been practicing this for years and is therefore better than most at playing devil's advocate in real life forensics.  It's a sign of mental health that he usually is able to keep these dissociated identities pretty well integrated.  It's also probably why I would guess that LC doesn't have full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome, unlike some of the earliest responders to this thread.

But more recent posts from LC's alter egos have been getting weaker.  There are textual clues that indicate the anti-Trump case is losing badly, and I don't know how much longer LC can keep it up.  Most of the important stuff in this country are going well (economy, jobs, Korea, ISIS, immigration, federal judges, etc.).  In the face of these successes, the anti-Trumpers can only resort to the petty, like:

On Memorial Day, the president takes some time to remember that those that gave the ultimate sacrifice are grateful to him: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1001085207825534976

The guy cant even go one day without making it about himself.  What a loser.

Compare that with Obama: https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1001131488103030784

And:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/28/politics/donald-trump-memorial-day-tweet/index.html

Never mind that Trump says "our country" twice and never refers to himself.  Doughishere and Cillizza are literally imagining the words "l" or "Me," in other words, they are visually hallucinating.  The Cillizza article is also full of mindreading gems and arrogant nastiness, clear signs of TDS.

The most telling point is that neither doughishere nor Chris Cillizza contradict Trump's point about "how well our country is doing today."  They can only be peeved that this was tweeted on Memorial Day. TDS dies hard, but there's nothing like the reality of success to begin to prick the mass hysteria TDS bubble.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on May 29, 2018, 04:43:19 AM
Investor-man, read a little bit before just writing crap:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/09/investing/russia-sanctions-deripaska-rusal/index.html

Cardboard

Cardboard, read a little bit. Russia sanctions have been watered down/delayed. I'm not sure any have started yet.

wsj.com/amp/articles/rusal-set-to-escape-sanctions-after-treasury-amends-russia-blacklist-1525217278
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cardboard on May 29, 2018, 05:22:16 AM
Oh really?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/18/sanctions-hit-oleg-deripaska-quits-boards-en-rusal/

"Mr Deripaska had agreed to cede control of EN+ to help the company escape sanctions imposed by Donald Trump's administration that severely limit its ability to do business."

Do you guys even read financial news?

Cardboard
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Cardboard on May 29, 2018, 05:36:32 AM
Good post RB.

While I agree with you in general, I disagree about excessive regulation. This seems to come when a government becomes too large, too powerful and basically wants to tell people and businesses how they should conduct every facet of their life.

Once that happens, then the system becomes paralyzed, inefficient and not safer since so complex too manage.

On taxes, it is more of the same as the above. Complexity, special rules for all kinds of special interest groups, a government (right or left) that wants to take money from the majority to give it to their favourite cause becomes a real burden for society.

My personal view is that common sense, accountability, proper incentives are key to derive a good balance to these two topics.

Cardboard 


Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on May 29, 2018, 08:44:23 AM
Keep in mind that investor-man, along with Schwab711, are two of LC's dissociated identities.  There may be more.
:o

Quote
LC has been practicing this for years and is therefore better than most at playing devil's advocate in real life forensics.
This is why I keep reminding you to take your daily dose of thorazine!

Quote
Most of the important stuff in this country are going well (economy, jobs, Korea, ISIS, immigration, federal judges, etc.)
Keep in mind this isn't all attributable to Trump. I remember having multiple conversations on this board during Obama's tenure regarding "how little control the President really has over the economy"

Quote
While I agree with you in general, I disagree about excessive regulation. This seems to come when a government becomes too large, too powerful and basically wants to tell people and businesses how they should conduct every facet of their life.
I think we can all point to areas where excess regulation becomes burdensome. But in my opinion, when the pendulum swings too far to one side (over-regulation), the answer isn't to push it just as far to the other side. As you mention later in your post, common sense is required.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Schwab711 on May 29, 2018, 10:06:20 AM
Oh really?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/18/sanctions-hit-oleg-deripaska-quits-boards-en-rusal/

"Mr Deripaska had agreed to cede control of EN+ to help the company escape sanctions imposed by Donald Trump's administration that severely limit its ability to do business."

Do you guys even read financial news?

Cardboard

It says he can keep just under 50% stake and can't be chairman. Then Rusal can continue as usual. That's why I said watered down. I wasn't aware he actually stepped down, so that's news to me.


I do enjoy the TDS thread OP going full Dale Gribble. I deleted my posts that singled out cobafdek and msg'd them privately instead. I told them as much. That is the origin of their theory.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: Viking on May 29, 2018, 10:19:53 AM
This is very short term thinking.

RB, yes, I agree. My read is what Trump is doing could boost US growth later in 2018 and in 2019 (over what it would have been without lower taxes or deregulation). After that, my crystal ball is too murky to have an opinion. From an investing standpoint this is leading me to be a little more aggressive (fully invested). However, if it appears instead that the US economy is headed for a recession I will get more cautious.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on May 29, 2018, 10:22:18 AM
This is why I keep reminding you to take your daily dose of thorazine!

Thorazine!?  You're way behind in psychopharmacology class!  Keep up!:

https://www.amazon.com/Change-Your-Mind-Consciousness-Transcendence/dp/1594204225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527614275&sr=8-1&keywords=michael+pollan

(I'm sure you the gourmand are familiar with this author.)
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: LC on May 29, 2018, 11:51:22 AM
Sounds like we could have a riveting discussion about chemtrails at a Michael Pollan book signing. Bring your own lithium.
Title: Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
Post by: cobafdek on June 08, 2018, 07:45:26 AM
Someone needs to get the KKK to teach Trump how to do racism right.  So far, his actions are all wrong.

Good thing CNN seems to be reprimanding Van Jones in their lead photo here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/19/politics/trump-van-jones-jared-kushner-prison-reform/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/alice-marie-johnson-thankful-trump-cnntv/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/politics/trump-nfl-athletes-kneeling-pardons/index.html