2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

You are focusing on one business among a number he has owned. Yes, that business failed.

Look at the whole data set.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:04 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Business is usually a matter of who makes the least errors, rather than a litany of stunning ideas or whatever Hollywood portrays it as. In focusing on failed businesses, there is naturally some cherry picking to get the instances with more failure, since...that's why they failed.


That's not even an oversimplification, that's just wrong. Businesses fail for a lot of reasons, businesses succeed for a lot of reasons. The idea that it rests mainly on the shoulders of some businessman is just laughable. Can they fuck it up? Sure, but they can also do everything right and fail, and everything wrong and succeed. It's just as much about luck as anything, as your business is dependent on the entire economy, which is a constantly changing and chaotic system.


True... but when you look at a persons career over many years, you can get a sense of whether or not that person tends to be in positions where things succeed or fail. There are plenty of examples of people who have a track record of success, or a track record of failure; or somewhere in between.

With that in mind, Trump is... well... Meh. He's made a lot of really good deals, and he's made a lot of really bad ones. He's made billions and lost billions. He's made a lot of decisions that, in hindsight, are either brilliant or fucking terrible. Sorry, but when the aggregate of your business life is that you started out really rich and ended up really rich, it just doesn't inspire much beyond "Meh."

All of that being said, it will be interesting to see what happens with someone like Trump running the government, in terms of business and investment. Despite his overall "Meh" rating, he actually does have a history of making deals and getting big things done. This isn't an endorsement of Trump, just a rhetorical observation.

My hope is that he leverages his business experience (and he does have it, especially compared to most people who are in politics) and actually does great things with the economy; and that the rest of his bullshit gets held in check.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

Here's the punchline, Tyndmyr: If you take out the illegal bailout and self-competition parts, I actually just described *several* of his businesses.
cphite wrote:With that in mind, Trump is... well... Meh. He's made a lot of really good deals, and he's made a lot of really bad ones. He's made billions and lost billions. He's made a lot of decisions that, in hindsight, are either brilliant or fucking terrible. Sorry, but when the aggregate of your business life is that you started out really rich and ended up really rich, it just doesn't inspire much beyond "Meh."
Can you name any one of his brilliant decisions? Like, *just* one?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:12 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:] Can you name any one of his brilliant decisions? Like, *just* one?


Acquiring the US for parting out and resale. :lol:

More seriously, I'm assuming we're talking about things like 40 Wall Street, the rink in NYC, or Grand Hyatt.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:12 pm UTC

Wel, Hippo, think of it this way. Trump has been in business for along time, and he often approached it with the same wacky impulsiveness as his candidacy. He might not be as rich with as he claims to be, but he's still in business, with plenty of money, surrounded by sharks who would gladly relieve him of the rest of it.

He might not be a uniquely great businessman, but he's way more canny than his public persona suggests. He's now surrounded by the Republican establishment trying to play him for their own purposes, but I wouldn't bet on him losing that game.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:22 pm UTC

Just pointing out that this conversation has turned in to an anxiety sharing fest. Trump will be President January 20th. It doesn't matter at this point what may have gone on in the past. He could have ruined every business he has touched. And could have Klan flags flying in his living room. He will still be President. That ship has sailed.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Believing that success is a result of chance, rather than your own efforts, is strongly correlated with a lack of success.


I did not say that it was entirely chance, I said that chance is just as important as anything; you are the one who is saying that success is based primarily on a single thing (whether or not the businessman makes mistakes).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:29 pm UTC

And what, exactly, does your "chance is mostly responsible" theory tell us that's useful about Trump?

Do you honestly believe that it's mostly a matter of chance if he'll be a good leader or not?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And what, exactly, does your "chance is mostly responsible" theory tell us that's useful about Trump?

Do you honestly believe that it's mostly a matter of chance if he'll be a good leader or not?


Jesus Fucking Christ. How the hell are you posting here if you can't read?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:35 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And what, exactly, does your "chance is mostly responsible" theory tell us that's useful about Trump?

Do you honestly believe that it's mostly a matter of chance if he'll be a good leader or not?
I think Thesh was talking about chance and its impact on success in business, not politics.

It's also not Thesh's theory, I don't think? The idea that you can do everything right and still fail (and everything wrong and still succeed) is a pretty old one, as far as I'm aware.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:42 pm UTC

It can be down to luck that you hit it really big in business ala Silicon Valley, but top businessmen with consistent records of getting and staying rich for decades doesn't happen by mere good luck.

I think the better aspect to focus on Trump for is the fact that his money is primarily from selling a brand, and whether or not that way of making money would be remotely relevant to the running of a government.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:49 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:It can be down to luck that you hit it really big in business ala Silicon Valley, but top businessmen with consistent records of getting and staying rich for decades doesn't happen by mere good luck.


Considering how many people inherited their wealth and stayed rich forever, I think that's probably just plain wrong. Remember, if you started out with Trump's money but kept it in an S&P 500 index fund, you'd probably be doing better than Trump. Similarly, if you sufficiently diversify, then with enough capital you can start up enough businesses in different industries, with favorable odds of getting a positive return, as long as you aren't a complete idiot about what businesses you start, then even if some fail and some succeed, in the long run your successful businesses should make enough to make up for the losses and you can stay rich forever. Expected return in the business world is positive, after all - and the richer you are, the easier it is to grow your wealth as you spend less on consumption.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:55 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:It can be down to luck that you hit it really big in business ala Silicon Valley, but top businessmen with consistent records of getting and staying rich for decades doesn't happen by mere good luck.

I think the better aspect to focus on Trump for is the fact that his money is primarily from selling a brand, and whether or not that way of making money would be remotely relevant to the running of a government.
Yeah, he might have some luck, but you don't remain in business like he did with sharks around you unless you are good at something. Part of it is his brand, but I also think Trump is good at something else: manipulating people and the power structures that people reside in. I work with a lot of sales people in my job and I see a lot of their tricks used by Trump in his campaign and suspect he picked them up in the course of all his real estate deals. In sales, a little bit of sleaze and being willing to push the ethical line tends to help you greatly. But while that transactional approach might win you a campaign(or run a business), it is a disastrous way to run a country.

Thesh wrote:Considering how many people inherited their wealth and stayed rich forever, I think that's probably just plain wrong. Remember, if you started out with Trump's money but kept it in an S&P 500 index fund, you'd probably be doing better than Trump. Similarly, if you sufficiently diversify, then with enough capital you can start up enough businesses in different industries, with favorable odds of getting a positive return, as long as you aren't a complete idiot about what businesses you start, then even if some fail and some succeed, in the long run your successful businesses should make enough to make up for the losses. Expected return in the business world is positive, after all.
Trump probably has too much money to invest in an index fund without pretty adversely affecting that fund. As much as he might have done something different and made more or even just sat on it, Trump used his money and invested in his business and still maintained it. I don't think he is any sort of genius here, but I think painting him as just lucky or outright incompetent is a stretch. He has a certain charisma that appeals to some people(not me) and clearly used it to his advantage.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:04 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:It can be down to luck that you hit it really big in business ala Silicon Valley, but top businessmen with consistent records of getting and staying rich for decades doesn't happen by mere good luck.


This is a guy who literally wrote off a 900-million dollar loss in a single year.

I'm not sure if Trump was the kind of guy who "stayed rich for decades".
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:04 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Here's the punchline, Tyndmyr: If you take out the illegal bailout and self-competition parts, I actually just described *several* of his businesses.
cphite wrote:With that in mind, Trump is... well... Meh. He's made a lot of really good deals, and he's made a lot of really bad ones. He's made billions and lost billions. He's made a lot of decisions that, in hindsight, are either brilliant or fucking terrible. Sorry, but when the aggregate of your business life is that you started out really rich and ended up really rich, it just doesn't inspire much beyond "Meh."
Can you name any one of his brilliant decisions? Like, *just* one?


Okay, fine... one example is 40 Wall Street - purchased and renovated for just under $36 million, now worth over $500 million. Pretty damn good as real estate investments go.

Look, I don't like the guy either, but the reality is that over the years he's made some really good investments that have resulted in very good returns - which is the very definition of a good investment. You don't have to like someone to acknowledge they did something right.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

Remember, if you started out with Trump's money but kept it in an S&P 500 index fund, you'd probably be doing better than Trump. Similarly, if you sufficiently diversify, then with enough capital you can start up enough businesses in different industries, with favorable odds of getting a positive return


But he didn't. Real estate development is about as far as you can get from indexing and diversification . It's highly personal, has lots of leverageƈ, idiosyncratic project risks, legal traps. Just ’not losing everything' already takes skill, that's rather different from buying an index.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:07 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:Trump probably has too much money to invest in an index fund without pretty adversely affecting that fund.


That's not what I said - I said if you started out investing in an index fund, you'd probably be richer. The point is that staying rich doesn't necessarily imply anything.

Dark567 wrote:As much as he might have done something different and made more or even just sat on it, Trump used his money and invested in his business and still maintained it. I don't think he is any sort of genius here, but I think painting him as just lucky or outright incompetent is a stretch. He has a certain charisma that appeals to some people(not me) and clearly used it to his advantage.


I didn't say he was just lucky, I said that luck is part of it. But I mean, if you want to discuss Trump's luck, Trump owes most of his success to his father's money and connections - being born into that is purely a matter of luck. Sure, he probably picked up things along the way, no one does a job without learning something (experience matters), but connections, especially in the real estate development business, is huge.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8573
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:09 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Just pointing out that this conversation has turned in to an anxiety sharing fest. Trump will be President January 20th. It doesn't matter at this point what may have gone on in the past. He could have ruined every business he has touched. And could have Klan flags flying in his living room. He will still be President. That ship has sailed.

Not true, Bernie can still win!

Seriously though, yeah, he'll be president. So? People can complain, and people should protest, and people should let elected officials know what they expect of them.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:12 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Dark567 wrote:Trump probably has too much money to invest in an index fund without pretty adversely affecting that fund.


That's not what I said - I said if you started out investing in an index fund, you'd probably be richer. The point is that staying rich doesn't necessarily imply anything.
So index funds weren't really a known quantity until the late 80s, early 90s far past when Trump made a good portion of his assets. Enough assets that at that time given the market cap of most of those funds, Trump could not have invested without adversely affecting those funds.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:14 pm UTC

Mike Pompeo will become CIA Chief under a Trump administration. (Enter the URL into google, and then click on the link through google to get access to the article Mr. Pompeo wrote. WSJ allows free access to anyone who accesses the site through google).

Mike Pompeo wrote:Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database. Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed. That includes Presidential Policy Directive-28, which bestows privacy rights on foreigners and imposes burdensome requirements to justify data collection.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politics/ ... index.html
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:17 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:16 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Dark567 wrote:Trump probably has too much money to invest in an index fund without pretty adversely affecting that fund.


That's not what I said - I said if you started out investing in an index fund, you'd probably be richer. The point is that staying rich doesn't necessarily imply anything.
So index funds weren't really a known quantity until the late 80s, early 90s far past when Trump made a good portion of his assets. Enough assets that at that time given the market cap of most of those funds, Trump could not have invested without adversely affecting those funds.


Now I'm just confused; do you have a point to make or is this being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:19 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Now I'm just confused; do you have a point to make or is this being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic?
I am saying what you are proposing for Trump's alternative to investing in real estate, "investing in an index fund" wasn't really an option.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:21 pm UTC

Another thing - people make that S&p 500 comparison with hindsight. It made huge gains over the 80s and 90s, but people in the 70s couldn't know that. In those days, the stock market barely kept up with inflation.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:25 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Seriously though, yeah, he'll be president. So? People can complain, and people should protest, and people should let elected officials know what they expect of them.
Yep. And I'm not saying they shouldn't talk about whatever they please. Whatever gets them through the day.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Thesh wrote:Now I'm just confused; do you have a point to make or is this being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic?
I am saying what you are proposing for Trump's alternative to investing in real estate, "investing in an index fund" wasn't really an option.


I see the problem. The forum software cuts off my post when other people read them - so you aren't ignoring where I specifically laid out my point, you are simply not seeing it. Maybe it will work if I put it in a quote.

Thesh wrote:The point is that staying rich doesn't necessarily imply anything.


If you want to ignore everything I said and debate the S&P 500 index, fine, but that is completely irrelevant.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

You're the one who brought up the index? If you want to make a broader point, then sure, there are conservative approaches to investment that allow rich people to stay rich with little skill or effort. But Trump didn't take those approaches, so how is it relevant? If he had a cautious and calculating personality, he would probably still be rich today, but not president.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:The worst part is that, with the exception of that Breitbart douche, Trump is surrounding himself by Republican insiders. Now Romney is going to be secretary of state? So much for sticking it to the man by voting Trump...


In practice, this is what always happens. If you have no people on staff with political experience, it's going to be very hard to actually get anything done.

The Great Hippo wrote:For me, the special objection is that Trump is absurdly incompetent -- as a business owner, a politician, and a diplomat.


He's really not. Yeah, he's not Warren Buffet as a business owner or anything, but plenty of business owners tank everything and lose all their money. That's not even weird as a result. He's just somewhere in the middle. Not a great person, maybe, but not on the extreme end of terrible. As a politician, well...there's almost no track record to judge him on.

I think the evaluations of his character keep bleeding over into how people see him in other areas.

The Great Hippo wrote:
elasto wrote:Outright bigotry is strictly worse than behind closed doors bigotry for one key reason: People who hold views that they know are shameful will tend to hold back. People who feel no shame will see no reason not to follow through. Witness, for example, how much worse people behave when they feel anonymous eg. on the net or as part of a mob.
Is it shame, or is it concern that people are just too "sensitive"?

I've dealt with a lot of people who express racist sentiments when they feel safe, but won't, otherwise. In my (highly limited) experience, shame had nothing to do with it; they just thought they existed in a culture where their views would be received with hostility.


Yeah. I think the power of shaming people is sometimes over-estimated. It mostly just seems to make enemies of people. Yeah, they may walk away from *that* confrontation, but that doesn't mean they've converted to your way of thinking, or that you've "won". They've just written you off as someone to talk to about it.

elasto wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:I've dealt with a lot of people who express racist sentiments when they feel safe, but won't, otherwise. In my (highly limited) experience, shame had nothing to do with it; they just thought they existed in a culture where their views would be received with hostility.

Unless it escalates further, suffering hostility - whether passive aggressive or just outright aggressive - tends to cause feelings of embarrassment and shame. Those feelings then cause you to want to conform to social expectations.


No. The standard reaction to hostility is fight or flight. They may argue, or they may exit, but that doesn't mean they conform to your expectations, just because you yelled at them.

This strange, strange idea is central to why the left is failing in the US, I think. Haranguing people isn't at all the same as persuading them.

sardia wrote:Prove that statement. You're learning the wrong lesson from this election. If anything, Democrats took whites for granted and were expecting black to make up for them. Minorities took Democrats for granted is more true.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wha ... ts-do-now/
Democrats took the Midwest for granted.


There are multiple lessons. Taking the Midwest for granted, while dismissively referring to it as fly-over country was probably an error, yes. It's far from the only one.

I note that fivethirtyeight's assessment is very similar to my earlier pessimism. It's good to see other people looking at the 2018 map and seeing what's in store.

The idea that you can just segment messaging out for every state has limits, though. Sure, you can focus on portions of your platform with more appeal there, but if you're airing contradictory ads in different areas, we have the internet now. You're going to get lit up for that. A big part of performance was of course, Clinton just not going to rural areas. You can't win if you don't try.

This assessment though, is short on actual actions. Yeah, yeah, gains in power are typically correlated with not holding the white house, giving us the pattern of back and forth swings...but that doesn't actually change the 2018 map. It's going to be a mess. Just putting trust in that correlation without significantly changing what you're actually doing seems misguided.

The Democratic coalition is 98% of the way to a governing coalition. The idea that they can win without throwing away minorities isn't without merit. How much do you need to evolve to get you that extra 4%points? 2 to win the 2016 margins, plus 2 points for incumbency advantage.

No party has figured out how to get a permanent coalition yet. Its not like Democrats don't care about economic issues, it just got buried behind the identity stuff.
Yea, 2018 is going to suck, mostly due to the lack of stars to run for state office. Best case, Democrats net more governorships. Worst case, Democrats lose their filibuster capable minority.

Tyndmyr, how much did the GOP change after 2008? They got angrier, but their policy didn't really change. Deficit talk came and went.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:55 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Zohar wrote:Seriously though, yeah, he'll be president. So? People can complain, and people should protest, and people should let elected officials know what they expect of them.
Yep. And I'm not saying they shouldn't talk about whatever they please. Whatever gets them through the day.

Then what was your point in even posting that? Did you think anyone here was under the impression that Trump wasn't elected? (Of course, officially he hasn't been, because the Electoral College doesn't vote until December, and they don't all need to vote for their state's popular vote winner.) Did you think people only discuss the past when they think it can impact one specific future event (i.e. the inauguration)?

Or did you just want to complain about people complaining?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:58 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:You're the one who brought up the index? If you want to make a broader point, then sure, there are conservative approaches to investment that allow rich people to stay rich with little skill or effort. But Trump didn't take those approaches, so how is it relevant? If he had a cautious and calculating personality, he would probably still be rich today, but not president.

I did make a broader point. In fact, that was only one part of my comment. And yes, it is relevant because we weren't talking about whether Donald Trump was smart or stupid, we are talking about whether getting rich and staying rich for decades means you are a good businessman (specifically, I was explaining how once you get rich, diversification is all you need to keep growing your wealth for eternity).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:03 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:(Of course, officially he hasn't been, because the Electoral College doesn't vote until December, and they don't all need to vote for their state's popular vote winner.) Did you think people only discuss the past when they think it can impact one specific future event (i.e. the inauguration)?

Or did you just want to complain about people complaining?
Do I need a point? If people want to engage in naval gazing about Trump's money let them have at. But I enjoy pointing out that as an exercise it's meaningless, and it won't matter in the future. This was all hashed over during the election. The people who needed to be convinced weren't. And there is no data. You don't know his net worth, what he pays for taxes or pretty much anything else.

Even your own statement, which I highlighted in blue, walks close to the edge of trying to say, maybe there is hope that someone there will see my reality. Good luck with that.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:19 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:it's meaningless, and it won't matter in the future.
This is what I was getting at when I said "one specific future event".

There are other ways discussion here can effect the future, apart from preventing Trump's inauguration.

Far more, in fact, than any effect your gleeful "your discussion is meaningless" post will ever have.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:08 pm UTC

It isn't particularly gleeful. I can't recover if this fool walks the economy into the dirt, I don't have the time. Something sometimes lost in the discussion of old white men.

The Presidency is lost to liberals and my personal thought is that we need to be focused on the House and Senate. Trumps picks for the Cabinet are scary, he has a man crush on Putin, wants to roll back Roe v Wade, and he would love to push us into a trade war with China. Pardon me if I'm of the opinion that it makes not one whit of difference if if he got his money through luck or planning.

But ignore me, hell everybody mostly does. I don't take it personally. I need someplace to vent and this is it. For you personally I suggest the foe list. Then you won't see me and we won't have these useless exchanges.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:07 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Lucrece wrote:It can be down to luck that you hit it really big in business ala Silicon Valley, but top businessmen with consistent records of getting and staying rich for decades doesn't happen by mere good luck.


Considering how many people inherited their wealth and stayed rich forever, I think that's probably just plain wrong. Remember, if you started out with Trump's money but kept it in an S&P 500 index fund, you'd probably be doing better than Trump. Similarly, if you sufficiently diversify, then with enough capital you can start up enough businesses in different industries, with favorable odds of getting a positive return, as long as you aren't a complete idiot about what businesses you start, then even if some fail and some succeed, in the long run your successful businesses should make enough to make up for the losses and you can stay rich forever. Expected return in the business world is positive, after all - and the richer you are, the easier it is to grow your wealth as you spend less on consumption.



Putting money in such a fund isn't "luck". Most people don't even know such a fund exists. That someone would inform themselves and make an effort to maintain their wealth through whatever means, unlike people who win the lottery and lose it all, is not "luck". Maintaining your wealth is a skill in itself. Rebuilding wealth after losing sizable sums of it is not something you dismiss.

Is he the best investor? Nope. But he is by far much better off in managing his money than most Americans would be. Unfortunately the presidency is not that lucrative so most business magnates don't often run for it. The presidency was a vanity project for Trump. His business credentials are irrelevant anyways; he won't be managing the government's investments -- if he wanted to, he would have run for Congress.
Last edited by Lucrece on Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10336
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:10 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:It isn't particularly gleeful. I can't recover if this fool walks the economy into the dirt, I don't have the time. Something sometimes lost in the discussion of old white men.

The Presidency is lost to liberals and my personal thought is that we need to be focused on the House and Senate. Trumps picks for the Cabinet are scary, he has a man crush on Putin, wants to roll back Roe v Wade, and he would love to push us into a trade war with China. Pardon me if I'm of the opinion that it makes not one whit of difference if if he got his money through luck or planning.

But ignore me, hell everybody mostly does. I don't take it personally. I need someplace to vent and this is it. For you personally I suggest the foe list. Then you won't see me and we won't have these useless exchanges.
oh, Morris...
Vent away our darling.
Go a venting all day.

reasons:
1. Everyone else does.
2. We have the duty to be your sounding board.
You've been one of us a long Time. Like family.
3. This shit is Weird.
4. I like the sound of your voice;
Even when I disagree or don't understand it.
5. Venting is good for you.

Vent Morris! Vent!
Spoiler:
Then keep taking the high road, being honorable and polite, making yourself and us proud.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:18 pm UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/po ... ation.html
Trump, after waffling all week, decides he wants to keep his campaign promise of terrorizing America. Hardliners are to be installed on all issues related to Islam. Sorry muslims, and people who look like muslims. How much is this Trump, and how much is this Trump's advisors?
Mr. Trump moved unapologetically to realize his campaign’s vision of a nation that relentlessly enforces immigration laws; views Muslims with deep suspicion; aggressively enforces drug laws; second-guesses post-World War II alliances; and sends suspected terrorists to Guantánamo Bay or C.I.A. prisons to be interrogated with methods that have been banned as torture.
At a time when American cities have been inflamed by racial tensions, police shootings and fears over homegrown terrorism, Mr. Trump made no conciliatory gestures toward Muslims, Mexicans and African-American neighborhoods, all of which he disparaged during his campaign.
The appointments so far — Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama as attorney general, Representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas as C.I.A. director and Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn as national security adviser — sent an unmistakable signal that he did not intend to use his personnel choices to build bridges to Democrats or moderate Republicans who opposed his campaign’s nationalist overtones.

I know that not all republicans support Trump's national security choices (shit on muslims, and other nonwhites) but are there enough to stop him? There's no 9/11 to scare Congress into submission, but there is the conservative media.

PS Example of Trump corruption/conflict of interest
Spoiler:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/ivanka-trump-shinzo-abe.html
His daughter is marketing the bracelet she wore during her 60 minutes interview. What else will she try to sell? The dress she wore when she sits in on a drone strike?
Last edited by sardia on Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:24 pm UTC

addams wrote:You've been one of us a long Time. Like family.
Thanks for the thought, but I'm truly neither.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:39 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Putting money in such a fund isn't "luck". Most people don't even know such a fund exists.


I didn't say that was luck, but it's not skill. It's purely about expected returns, so knowing whether a fund exists or not is irrelevant - you google investment advice and you get it. You invest, wait, and you get money for nothing. It's not skill, it's not special, it's not something only smart people can do, it's just that our economic system is structured to reward you for having money.

Lucrece wrote:Rebuilding wealth after losing sizable sums of it is not something you dismiss.


He rebuilt his wealth? When? Sure, he went to his lawyers who used tax loopholes to get him out, but we don't know what happened after that - his wealth is in question. But either way, no, rebuilding wealth is also dismissible, because he didn't become poor or lose his business connections. He still had every single advantage he had when he first built his wealth, plus experience. Besides, beyond a certain level, not growing wealth is more surprising than growing wealth; if your financial assets are a large enough multiple of your monthly cash outflow, then your wealth is expected to grow exponentially for as long as the economy grows.

Lucrece wrote:Nope. But he is by far much better off in managing his money than most Americans would be.


I'm not seeing a link to a study that says that. What are Trump's returns vs the return for the average American in his position? Or are you saying "Now that he has all the wealth"? Because that's a kind of silly statement - yes, people who are already rich know more about getting richer than people who are poor. That doesn't mean others wouldn't have done better if they had the same advantages as him.
Last edited by Thesh on Sat Nov 19, 2016 12:01 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:56 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Putting money in such a fund isn't "luck". Most people don't even know such a fund exists. That someone would inform themselves and make an effort to maintain their wealth through whatever means, unlike people who win the lottery and lose it all, is not "luck". Maintaining your wealth is a skill in itself. Rebuilding wealth after losing sizable sums of it is not something you dismiss.
People who win the lottery and lose it all probably lose it all because they're not accustom to wealth; they have no wealthy friends, no wealthy contacts, and no prior experience regarding the navigation of wealthy economies and wealthy circles. People who are born into wealth have all those things -- but describing those things as 'skills' seems a little misleading, particularly since they're mostly useless if you're not already wealthy.
Lucrece wrote:Is he the best investor? Nope. But he is by far much better off in managing his money than most Americans would be.
Is that really true? I mean, if I told you Joey declared bankruptcy four times -- despite having received 40 million dollars from his family -- would you then accept my assertion that Joey is really good at managing his money?

(Keep in mind, Trump has probably received more than 40 million dollars from his dad.)

EDIT: Also, sorry -- I missed it:
cphite wrote:Okay, fine... one example is 40 Wall Street - purchased and renovated for just under $36 million, now worth over $500 million. Pretty damn good as real estate investments go.
Just out of curiosity, where did you get the 36 million dollar renovation figure? It's not terribly important, but I wasn't actually able to find any figures on how much he spent on renovations.

40 Wall Street wasn't a brilliant investment; it was arithmetic. The sale of it was shady as hell -- the sellers were desperate. Trump's asset here wasn't business savvy -- it was knowing that a chunk of Wall Street being sold for under ten million dollars in the 90s was a steal, and capitalizing on the fact that the people who had it couldn't maintain it.

He isn't even the one who turned it around; that was his son. When I say 'name a brilliant investment', I'm asking for an investment that wasn't either a product of nepotism or exploiting someone in a desperate situation -- show me a deal he actually researched on?

(Maybe that's unfair; it's hard to point at a really solid business deal anyone made -- especially in real estate. That being said, it seems more likely to me that the guy with four bankruptcies, numerous debt defaults, and perpetual bail-outs from banks and his family might actually have no real clue what he's doing. I find it baffling that anyone might think all of this is just the sign of a mediocre business person; what on earth does a terrible business person look like, then?)

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:35 am UTC

It's possible we're going to end up with Clinton at over a 2 million popular vote lead.

This is pretty terrible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:38 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I find it baffling that anyone might think all of this is just the sign of a mediocre business person; what on earth does a terrible business person look like, then?


Well, if you assume we live in a meritocracy where wealth is dependent primarily on good decision making, and thus wealth is a proxy for how good of a business person you are, then poor people must terrible business people (terrible at everything, really).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests