Jump to content

**President Trump 2018 Thread**


Brian
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Did you just enroll in your 401k yesterday? You haven't ever mentioned it until today as far as I have seen. My portfolio is up 7%+ over the last month even with today's news. Beware of the bubble from the years of QE and free money. Gravy train can't last forever.


Congrats on your portfolio. Ive had a 401k for over a decade, used to trade euro dollars at the CME back in the day. I dont go around parading my financial status on this board because its entirely irrelevant to the topic. 

That being said, I dont really think most people care if you were up 7%, I think what most people care about is that Trump's actions could create some pretty bad results. So Id think someone like you, may be a little concerned.

But who knows, maybe you think trade wars with China are a good thing that will really help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Same here. I have been in some pretty aggressive funds for several years, but last week I had a q and a with a broker and it was determined I now don't have the appetite to be as aggressive. Going to get more conservative. I don't think it's going to crash right away, but it's going to crash and crash hard.  In good times, you should be paying down debt, etc. We are just creating more.

I've moved some to real estate investments that are pretty consistent with a rental base around here.  Anything to keep it stable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, raBBit said:

It seems like you only bring up your 401k when it suits your agenda. Economy going up? That's because of Obama. Going down? That's Trump. I don't think people care if your 401k is down. Considering it's been a bad day for global markets, nearly everyone's is down today.

I am not for tariffs. I also think the US gets boned on a lot of trade deals recently. I think Trump and President Xi will come to an agreement and Trump is just showing the weight he can throw around if China wants to play difficult. 

You don't fight a war on multiple fronts.  The Trump administration has started a trade war with Canada, Mexico, multiple individual countries in Europe, the EU, and China.  This is a dumb trade strategy that is going to hurt US consumers and US markets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, raBBit said:

It seems like you only bring up your 401k when it suits your agenda. Economy going up? That's because of Obama. Going down? That's Trump. I don't think people care if your 401k is down. Considering it's been a bad day for global markets, nearly everyone's is down today.

I am not for tariffs. I also think the US gets boned on a lot of trade deals recently. I think Trump and President Xi will come to an agreement and Trump is just showing the weight he can throw around if China wants to play difficult. 

Strange. Your first post said Ive never brought up my 401k, now you are saying I only bring it up when it suits my agenda. The comment was a joke about the "great negotiator" and how he is on a path to ruining our economy. Maybe you disagree with that, I dont know. Most of the time economics is tricky, its not easy to say who is responsible and who isnt. I dont usually praise or condemn Clinton/Obama/Bush/Trump etc for the economy because its usually more complex than any single person.

So the reason I made the comment today is because this is one of those rare times when a single person is causing problems. You may think China is going to back down, but as Illini pointed out, Trump is now fighting multiple fronts. That is almost always bad. If anything given the precarious position of Trump's support at home, China may be emboldened in their response and try and really put the hammer down on the US. 

One of the bad things about going up against a pseudo dictatorship like China is that they dont really have to bend to the will of the people. They can starve their people longer than Trump can starve his. Never fight a land war in Asia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People won't be starving in China, but the GDP growth will slow to a reality of just 2~3% from a base most exports consider to be in the 4~4.5% range compared to the official numbers in the 6~7 range.  The global impact will be not insignificant, especially emerging markets.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

People won't be starving in China, but the GDP growth will slow to a reality of just 2~3% from a base most exports consider to be in the 4~4.5% range compared to the official numbers in the 6~7 range.  The global impact will be not insignificant, especially emerging markets.

It was hyperbole. It just means that China can outlast the US because China isnt a democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

It was hyperbole. It just means that China can outlast the US because China isnt a democracy. 

The Chinese economy is dependent on the US markets like a welfare check.  We could well collapse their economy like we did to the USSR in the late 80s and early 90s, if this were to become a protracted battle.  While we would see inflation and some shortages,  the Chinese economy is so levered up and dependent on dollars it would be brutal for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Proof?

So do the damning answers Horowitz gave to the guy's questions get rendered useless because you disagree with the guy asking the question?

So... I'm not sure that quote says what you think it says.  Even if there WAS bias (more on that in a second) in the handling of Clinton e-mail investigation vs. the Trump/Russia connection prior to the election, one of those things was highly publicized, and the other came to light after the election was over.  If an FBI investigation influenced the 2016 election, it was objectively the investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails.

All of the concern about bias with the Trump/Russia investigation stem from texts and statements prior to the election.  In the absence of, I don't know, actual evidence that the Mueller probe is biased (and stop with the all Witch Hunt cries considering the number of indictments that have already come down), the fact that there were some admittedly bad text messages prior to the election has no bearing on the Mueller investigation.

And here's an actual quote from the IG Report, “Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the investigative decisions we reviewed,” the IG report states."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/14/17465360/peter-strzok-text-inspector-general-stop

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least they are fixing this problem. Unreal what had to happen for them to do it. Unreal they did it in the first place. Unreal all the BS they spouted that less than 24 hours later they are showing to be "fake news". Trump will parade around as the great fixer, somehow overcoming Democratic law to reunite these kids with their parents.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

At least they are fixing this problem. Unreal what had to happen for them to do it. Unreal they did it in the first place. Unreal all the BS they spouted that less than 24 hours later they are showing to be "fake news". Trump will parade around as the great fixer, somehow overcoming Democratic law to reunite these kids with their parents.

I am particularly interested what the Ingram's of the world who backed the policy do when Trump flip flops on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, raBBit said:

The reason the Clinton Investigation was such a story was because the FBI ignored new evidence relating to it and the information got to objective parties who then forced Comey to release his letter.

The information was leaked to Devin Nunes and Rudy Guilliani. Are you calling these guys "objective parties"?

It should also be pointed out that the "new evidence" ended up amounting to...nothing. There wasn't actually anything new (or at least nothing really substantive, can't remember if they did find a handful of new but unimportant emails)  in the information recovered from Weiner's laptop. If anything, if the FBI had reviewed that information when they first got it in late September 2016, that would have been much better for Clinton as Comey wouldn't have released his letter (which was immediately leaked by Congressional Republicans) so close the election itself. That letter getting released in early October means it's quickly in and out of the news cycle, pushed about by Access Hollywood or the debates or whatever else came up throughout October.

The report helped to illustrate how well the conservative working of the refs works, too. Comey was so, so afraid of GOP backlash or criticism that he felt he had to release the letter to Congress (again, immediately leaked by GOP for political gains). He didn't ever seem to consider the fairness to the other side of acting like that or in keeping the ongoing Russia investigation tightly under wraps.

The IG report also didn't look into why FBI agents were leaking anti-Clinton information outside of the FBI, likely to Trump campaign members and supporters (like Nunes and Guilliani). Isn't that blatant corruption?

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, raBBit said:

Proof?

So do the damning answers Horowitz gave to the guy's questions get rendered useless because you disagree with the guy asking the question?

Interesting that you are calling for proof, when you have consistently brought up the Seth Rich case with much less evidence.

http://politicalhaze.com/2017/02/republican-representative-mark-gaetz-conservative-florida-panhandle-lot-secrets-closet-part-two/

 

I cant find anything that I would really hang my hat on, but you and I have very different standards. The Matt Gaetz conspiracy theory seems to be more grounded in fact than your Seth Rich claims.

Edited by Soxbadger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) I was referring to this: "The reason the Clinton Investigation was such a story was because the FBI ignored new evidence relating to it and the information got to objective parties who then forced Comey to release his letter."

The IG report is clearly not what you were referring to here. This claim refers to actions in 2016. Who are the "objective parties" you reference that got the information that forced Comey to issue his letter?

2.) They decided not to prioritize it because they had other ongoing investigations. You keep making allegations about political motivations and bias, but the IG report explicitly rejects those claims. Comey did not actually ever *have* to write that letter. He could have decided not to reopen, or he could have done so and kept it quiet, like he did with the ongoing Russia investigation. You're assuming your conclusions a bit here.

3.) Comey did do something wrong. He never should have released that letter. He was a bad director. I'm not sure how what I said was really fear-mongering, though it is of course at least somewhat speculation since we're using Comey's emails, notes etc. to determine his mindset.

4.) It's directly related to claims of political bias within the FBI, and it's also substantiated at least by Nunes (Nunes: FBI Agents Leaked Clinton Info to Me), who just recently claimed he was informed in September 2016, and Guiliani revealed that the FBI questioned him about his tease of Comey's letter coming a couple of days ahead of it. If we're discussing the IG investigation into the Clinton Email investigation, it's pretty relevant. 

What you've not substantiated is that, beyond some text messages which were also critical of a variety of other people and praised some others like Kasich, that there really was or is some big anti-Trump conspiracy that tainted the FBI's investigation into Clinton's emails or the ongoing Russia investigation. The IG report rejects the claims on the Clinton investigation and doesn't address the Russia investigation.

 

 

do you believe the claims by some that there's a second, *real* IG report that's much more damning?

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Seth Rich is an unsolved murder that was a huge news story.

I don't even know who Matt Gaetz is. I looked up how a sitting congressman committed murder and my quick search yielded no results. Notice how Rock has since posted but ignored my inquiry for proof. He has none.

Notice how I bring up the IG report, something that somehow evaded all regulars in this forum except me, and the conversation has immediately turned to some unrelated left wing conspiracy theory and bringing up old arguments. The tactics are obvious here. No one here can successful defend the establishment left without obfuscating, presenting selective information or straight up lying. Can you guys ever admit wrongdoing on behalf of your team?

Googled it and found it in less than a second. Seems like a solid citizen.

 

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/18966

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Seth Rich is an unsolved murder that was a huge news story.

I don't even know who Matt Gaetz is. I looked up how a sitting congressman committed murder and my quick search yielded no results. Notice how Rock has since posted but ignored my inquiry for proof. He has none.

Notice how I bring up the IG report, something that somehow evaded all regulars in this forum except me, and the conversation has immediately turned to some unrelated left wing conspiracy theory and bringing up old arguments. The tactics are obvious here. No one here can successful defend the establishment left without obfuscating, presenting selective information or straight up lying. Can you guys ever admit wrongdoing on behalf of your team?

I didnt quote you and I dont want to engage with you.  Argue with someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

Seth Rich is an unsolved murder that was a huge news story.

I don't even know who Matt Gaetz is. I looked up how a sitting congressman committed murder and my quick search yielded no results. Notice how Rock has since posted but ignored my inquiry for proof. He has none.

Notice how I bring up the IG report, something that somehow evaded all regulars in this forum except me, and the conversation has immediately turned to some unrelated left wing conspiracy theory and bringing up old arguments. The tactics are obvious here. No one here can successful defend the establishment left without obfuscating, presenting selective information or straight up lying. Can you guys ever admit wrongdoing on behalf of your team?

I didnt know who Seth Rich or Matt Gaetz were until I read about them on the thread.

I read the IG report, in my opinion it didnt prove that the FBI was helping Clinton. If anything I think that all of this has shown that Comey helped Trump because he thought Clinton was going to win and after her win he didnt want the right wing conspiracy groups to say that the FBI helped Clinton.

And Im not sure who you are referring to as "establishment left" FBI/CIA etc are all Republican/conservative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

You're really reaching here. Look at the entire report and all of the information available. Anyone saying the FBI didn't have biased parties on the Clinton Email investigation is lying to themselves.

The lead investigator said "we'll stop them" when asked if Trump was going to be president. When another party was asked if they were conflicted by being a holdover in the Trump admin he responded "vive la resistance."  The reason the Clinton Investigation was such a story was because the FBI ignored new evidence relating to it and the information got to objective parties who then forced Comey to release his letter.

Notice how the information I posted was never addressed by others. They tried to attack the character of the guy asking Horowitz with unsubstantiated claims. They won't touch this issue because it's clear that people on the left within the government acted entirely biased, outside of protocol and have contributed to a complete waste of taxpayer money. Nevermind they undermined the democratic process. 

This IG report reeks of the Comey Memo. All of the information proves the parties acted outside of protocol but they aren't being held accountable. This is blatant corruption. 

IF the people at the FBI investigating Clinton really wanted to take steps to swing the election to Trump, they did so in the dumbest way possible.  You had Comey - while not charging Clinton - said that she was "extremely careless."  Then, they reopened the e-mail investigation - publicly - literally weeks before the election.  The FBI took a number of steps that sure didn't help Hillary Clinton on the e-mails issue.

If the FBI really wanted to stop Donald Trump from becoming President, they literally could have leaked to the media "Trump campaign's connections to Russia under investigation by the FBI!"  There was absolute silence on that until after the election was completed.

I'm really hard pressed to see how the conspiracy to stop Donald Trump from being elected president (a) trumped (no pun intended) up a connection between the Trump campaign and Russia illegally; (b) illegally spied on his campaign; and (c) did... nothing... until after he was elected President?  

Rabbit, you are a smart guy.  If the FBI was in the tank for Clinton, why in the world did they not. do. anything. with publicizing the investigation until after the election?  Why did Comey go out of his way to chastise Hillary Clinton while calling for no charges?  Why did they reopen the investigation publicly on the eve of the election. 

It's only after Comey gets fired - and President Trump admits in an interview that Russia was on his mind when he fired him - that Sessions recuses himself and Mueller is appointed to continue the investigation.  The very idea that this is all part of a vast conspiracy against the President is patently absurd...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, raBBit said:

You have read the IG report and come to the conclusion the FBI/CIA are all conservative lol. Read it again and you might find something thing. 

This isn’t about partisanism. Perhaps my “establishment left” comment wasn’t an entirely accurate characterization. These  state operatives were and are against Trump because he’s from outside their world.

Feel free to provide any quotes from public CIA/FBI officials speaking on Trump/Clinton and supporting Trump. I am sure there is one guy or two. But the vast majority is anti Trump, pro Clinton. 

Anti Trump, perhaps. They have to defend themselves. Trump has made them along with the press, the enemy. 

You constantly say you don't like Trump when you are defending his every move. Why do others not liking him bother you so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, raBBit said:

You have read the IG report and come to the conclusion the FBI/CIA are all conservative lol. Read it again and you might find something thing. 

This isn’t about partisanism. Perhaps my “establishment left” comment wasn’t an entirely accurate characterization. These  state operatives were and are against Trump because he’s from outside their world.

Feel free to provide any quotes from public CIA/FBI officials speaking on Trump/Clinton and supporting Trump. I am sure there is one guy or two. But the vast majority is anti Trump, pro Clinton. 

 

Comey is a Republican. Mueller is a Republican. 

What does supporting Trump have to do with being a Republican? Any real Republican would be against Trump too.

It would like Pablo Escobar running for US President, of course I would expect the FBI wouldnt want him irrespective of whether he was a Republican or Democrat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, raBBit said:

You say also as if your first claim wasn't a lie and left wing conspiracy. Back your first argument before moving on to the next. Gaetz is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Your attempt to shift the narrative just exposed you as someone who lies to cover for your partisan team. 

My post had nothing to do with you, didn’t quote you and wasn’t an argument about anything you said. Stop stalking me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...