Whoever votes for Trump is a fool

[cwericb]

Topic would seem more appropriate than “Whoever votes for Biden is a fool.”

Would any reasonably intelligent person vote for a man who:
... has obvious serious mental issues?
... thinks only of himself?
... requires loyalty to himself, not to the country?
... has no self control?
... repeatedly lies?
... refuses to criticize racists?
... politicizes health protection issues while knowingly exposing supporters to a deadly disease? 
... (add your own...)

Trump is a dangerous narcissistic sociopath who is also a pathological liar.

"NARCISSISTIC personality disorder
    Grandiose sense of self-importance. ...
    Lives in a fantasy world that supports their delusions of grandeur. ...
    Needs constant praise and admiration. ...
    Sense of entitlement. ...
    Exploits others without guilt or shame. ...
    Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others."
"SOCIOPATH
    Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires,
    without concern for the effects of their behavior on others."
"PATHOLOGICAL LIARS - demonstrate little care for others and tend to be manipulative in other aspects of their life."

And for the gullible who believe Trump when he says “I am a very stable genius”...  (who says something like that?)
     Given all his promises and lies about releasing his tax records, it now appears that he has paid no taxes either because
     he is a tax cheat or he is a failed businessman with huge losses.
Or both.

Unfortunately, Trump supporters simply refuse to address his issues. 

[Dalal.Holdings]

This topic is offensive. Any vote for a “socialist” Dem president will surely tank the economy and stonk markets.

Just look at the last two D presidents we had—1993 and 2009 were terrible years to buy stonks! 

[rkbabang]

I agree with the subject line in both topics.

[Dalal.Holdings]

“Buh buh buh Both Sides”!

[Dalal.Holdings]

There is definitely an investment opportunity in being contrarian to the usual “D’s are bad for the economy” and “R’s are good for the economy” first order thinking that is so prevalent among even CoBF’ers.

Just look at the U.S. energy sector which is in ruins after an R administration and Senate (compare to how it fared under last D president when U.S. production soared). And how was energy doing when Texas oil guy Bush left during GFC in ‘09?

And of course everyone thinks the pain in energy will worsen over Biden—it’s “so obvious”.

[cwericb]

What is so obvious is that Trump is a ticking time bomb. Hopefully he can be turfed out before he goes off. But he's not going to go easily or quietly.

His defenders maintain "Sure he may have some personality flaws, but he is a great president".

Good old boys Charlie Manson, Jim Jones, and David Koresh, all had some personality flaws too and all of them had their followers. Each of them likely could have gone '... out on 5th Ave and shot someone and not lose any followers".

[Castanza]

There is definitely an investment opportunity in being contrarian to the usual “D’s are bad for the economy” and “R’s are good for the economy” first order thinking that is so prevalent among even CoBF’ers.

Just look at the U.S. energy sector which is in ruins after an R administration and Senate (compare to how it fared under last D president when U.S. production soared). And how was energy doing when Texas oil guy Bush left during GFC in ‘09?

And of course everyone thinks the pain in energy will worsen over Biden—it’s “so obvious”.

This is a bit disingenuous for sure. The shale boom was primarily driven by technological advancements which occurred in 2002 by Mitchell-Devon. They successfully used horizontal drilling which increased output in the Barnett shale by a lot. This caused the horizontal wells to take off starting in 2006. Seismography advancements also took off during this time-frame which was crucial for finding shale beds. I'm not saying Obama had nothing to do with it but even if you look at the legislation he signed it was republicans in congress who wanted to remove the ban on exports and democrats took the other side asking for an extension on wind and solar tax credits. Obama did avoid the pressure from the left to move away from fossil fuels and helped to stave off regulation against it. But in general I would say it was bi-partisan effort and technological advancements which drove the energy growth during the Obama administration. The Middle East wars, high oil and high gas prices created almost the perfect opportunity for a boom. This all played out over 20-25 years. Can't blame Obama for taking credit though!

Generally, I think it's dumb for any president to make serious claim to macro type evolutions in industries and economies.

[Dalal.Holdings]

There is definitely an investment opportunity in being contrarian to the usual “D’s are bad for the economy” and “R’s are good for the economy” first order thinking that is so prevalent among even CoBF’ers.

Just look at the U.S. energy sector which is in ruins after an R administration and Senate (compare to how it fared under last D president when U.S. production soared). And how was energy doing when Texas oil guy Bush left during GFC in ‘09?

And of course everyone thinks the pain in energy will worsen over Biden—it’s “so obvious”.

Generally, I think it's dumb for any president to make serious claim to macro type evolutions in industries and economies.

Whoosh. I think it’s dumb for people to make macro type projections based on the party of the President, but clearly we see it on here every day—ie “Biden’s (or Obama’s or Clinton’s) socialism/green new deal will kill the economy/energy sector”. That was my whole point.

Furthermore, even if you don’t want to credit Obama for shale (and the easy monetary policies that drove drilling), one can easily prove that the Obama administration’s policies did not stand in the way of shale/drilling. They thrived under Obama so there goes conventional wisdom..

[Gilp]

I agree with the subject line in both topics.

Indeed. Vote Jo Jorgensen! 

[Castanza]

There is definitely an investment opportunity in being contrarian to the usual “D’s are bad for the economy” and “R’s are good for the economy” first order thinking that is so prevalent among even CoBF’ers.

Just look at the U.S. energy sector which is in ruins after an R administration and Senate (compare to how it fared under last D president when U.S. production soared). And how was energy doing when Texas oil guy Bush left during GFC in ‘09?

And of course everyone thinks the pain in energy will worsen over Biden—it’s “so obvious”.

Generally, I think it's dumb for any president to make serious claim to macro type evolutions in industries and economies.

Whoosh. I think it’s dumb for people to make macro type projections based on the party of the President, but clearly we see it on here every day—ie “Biden’s (or Obama’s or Clinton’s) socialism/green new deal will kill the economy/energy sector”. That was my whole point.

Furthermore, even if you don’t want to credit Obama for shale (and the easy monetary policies that drove drilling), one can easily prove that the Obama administration’s policies did not stand in the way of shale/drilling. They thrived under Obama so there goes conventional wisdom..

The Shale Boom likely would have happened under any president who sat in office between 2000-2012. By the time environmental concerns garnered steam it was late in President Obama's second term. Especially among the general populace. People and land owners were completely enthralled with figuring out how much they could get in royalties if they leased their land to Chesapeake, Halliburton, etc. An example of this change would be Obama's original position on the Keystone pipeline and then as it garnered more political opposition he decided against it later in his term.

I said "generally". Politics of 2020 is not politics of 2008. Yes, generally there is some agreement or middle ground found in policy (like the Obama fracking era policies). But being as we could have a democratic President and a completely democratic congress I would say there is a absolutely a possibility of big macro changes that can be attributed to a specific president. Changes that could drastically change specific industries and regulations surrounding them. By no means do I think it would be a worst case scenario though. EVs, solar and wind have all come down in cost and gone up in efficiency. This is something that can be attributed to tax credits and subsequently to Obama. I would say that is the beginning of a macro change. Depending on policies, big change could be sooner or later.