-->
@n8nrgmi
Don't be sad. Quarantine is almost over. You can soon go back to clapping when the applause light comes on.
not voting for biden is effectively letting trump win
Posts
Total:
141
-->
@n8nrgmi
Why is Trump unfit to be President? Name crimes you believe he committed that disqualify him as President. Hurt feelings and being offended by what he says do not count.
Reasons I believe Biden is unfit to be President:
1) Obvious signs of the on set of dementia. I have experience with this as my father just passed and had it at the end. I don't need to be a doctor or psychologist to recognize the symptoms of dementia.
2) Overwhelming evidence that Both Biden and his son have been taking bribes from China in return for access to the white House. "Quid Pro Quo"
3) A long documented history, "NOT ACCUSATIONS" but corroborated instances of sexual assault and sexual harassment of women.
4) An attempt to over throw a sitting President by lying and fabricating evidence and submitting that evidence to the courts and the FBI to conduct surveillance on a private citizen in an attempt to destroy their attempt at a Presidential bid. Then again fabricating evidence to investigate a sitting President.
There are more reasons but these are sufficient to disqualify him as President.
-->
@sadolite
An attempt to overthrow a sitting President by lying and fabricating evidence and submitting that evidence to the courts and the FBI to conduct surveillance on a private citizen in an attempt to destroy their attempt at a Presidential bid. Then again fabricating evidence to investigate a sitting President.
Obama is probably much more responsible for this than Biden. At least from the recovered FBI documents that vindicated Flynn.
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden had to know about everything and was part of it.
-->
@sadolite
Biden had to know about everything and was part of it.
Biden and Obama. This goes all the way to the job. Why do you think Obama is mouthing off right now. He’s afraid cause he knows this goes back to him. Remember, Flynn was partly the basis for the Special Counsel. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Obama, Biden, Yates should all be brought forth a grand jury under oath.
-->
@fauxlaw
[...] my wealth has increased 51% since Trump was elected, and I've not lost squat by the recent Covid-19 effect. Hell, yeah, I'm voting for him again.
[...] Virtually all my investments are in a no-loss mode - they stay level in a loss, but I gain when it grows. My risk, and reward, is less, but I can, at this point, afford that. [...] I have a net worth in the high 7 figures, mostly by real estate.
Hello.
Such an increase is quite impressive, 14.72% annually (roughly, if we assume we are exactly three years into Donald Trump's term as president). This is actually better than the S&P500's annual 13.59% over the same period. Though I assume the difference lies in the almost four month turbulent lag between 20 January and now. Beyond congratulating you for this impressive financial performance in the face of the Covid-19 crisis and considering that your risk and reward are inferior to that of stocks - if I correctly understood, I wish to ask: what are the actual mechanics of your investments, or at least those most responsible for this performance? If most of your wealth is in real estate I am skeptical that it registered such an increase since real estate usually offers less return than the stock market; though I am not aware of all the types of investment using real-estate as an underlying asset, I must admit.
I suspect you included the revenue from your freelance work in the 51% figure, I'll let you clarify this point.
Finally, I am curious as whether you hold Donald Trump responsible (fully or partially) for such performance or you believe another individual as president will bring financial disturbances that most probably will be nonexistent or minimal under Donald trump's second term.
-->
@Hyades
My investment strategy, like my favorite fishing spot, is not for you. It's mine. Find yours, because my situation is not yours.
Yes, real estate does represent a good portion of it, but that is also particular to me. Like is said; location, location, location. One property is in Silicon Valley, owned since 1978, mortgage-free and earning $5G/mo, and whose value has appreciated by a factor of 17.5:1 since.
Yes, I attribute my gains in the market to Donald Trump. Any President who thinks like Trump will succeed like Trump for those who seriously invest, but Biden is not Trump and never will be. I will tell you my investment strategy is simple: ambition, planning, execution, and a solid belief that the money supply, contrary to Oba'a, is not limited. That's all I'll say.
-->
@fauxlaw
You don't believe in a zero-sum economy?
-->
@Greyparrot
Given that there is no upper limit to available money supply, nor to the number of people who take advantage of it, no, I do not. Zero sum implies an equitable winner:loser ratio. I don't buy it.
-->
@fauxlaw
Also, value is not a static singular concept. The only reason why trade even happens in a free market is because your time and labor and products and services are worth more to someone else than it is of value to yourself.
Voluntary trade is always a meeting where 2 parties value the thing they are getting more than the thing they are giving. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
-->
@fauxlaw
As the GDP rises, the money supply also has to rise to prevent deflation, which is much worse than inflation as it encourages people to hoard money as the value of money rises.
Economies are designed to have a slight oversupply of printed money (usually around 3%) to encourage people to spend and invest instead of hoarding dollars in a mattress or a vault.
So yes, there is no set limit to the GDP and no set limit to the corresponding money supply level to support that GDP.
-->
@fauxlaw
My investment strategy, like my favorite fishing spot, is not for you. It's mine. Find yours, because my situation is not yours.
Very well then. Obviously it is legitimate of you to refuse to disclose any information, though I find the secrecy useless.
You said that your investments were for the most part in "no-loss" mode, however such investments can only be so if they are privately guaranteed (by an insurer) or protected by some kind of law. And even considering this, their performance are much lower than that of the stock market considering portfolio managers invest in very low risk assets in order to minimize the risk of a negative return, even if punctual. No such investment exists in the US, that is, being guaranteed against negative return and registering performance similar to that of the stock market, that I am aware of. You could be using some kind of structured product, which can effectively cover against a loss, but those usually have specific time limits and potential unfavorable scenarios, so they can still ultimately register a loss.
Considering all of the above, I find your claim of a 51% increase of wealth under Trump's presidency dubious, and the details you have provided to be half-lies at best.
Yes, real estate does represent a good portion of it, but that is also particular to me. Like is said; location, location, location. One property is in Silicon Valley, owned since 1978, mortgage-free and earning $5G/mo, and whose value has appreciated by a factor of 17.5:1 since.
That's great but I did not inquire about your investments prior to 2017.
Yes, I attribute my gains in the market to Donald Trump.
Since I cannot legitimately consider that you have personally benefited from Trump's presidency in a proportions you claim and that you seem to argue that because the stock market went up he is a good president, I will assume that your says can be summed up to the following:
The stock market has increased under Trump's presidency and he is responsible for it, therefore he is fit to be president.
And to this I must once again express my curiosity. Why do you think the stock market is a good metric to assess the proficiency of a head of state, and why does it seem to be the only metric you are willing to legitimize?
PS: If the increase is due to real estate however, I must again ask the same question, but for the real estate market.
I am also curious as whether or not you included taxation in your figures.
-->
@Hyades
though I find the secrecy useless.
Useless to you, yes. That's by design. Get it?
I cannot legitimately consider that you have personally benefited from Trump's presidency
That is also by design. Like I said, you figure out your path. I've set mine, and did so prior to 2017. That Trump has contributed to the success of my investment path, I claim regardless of your doubt. Doubt is on you, entirely, and you're welcome to it. What do I have to prove to you? Naught.
I am also curious as whether or not you included taxation in your figures.
Of course I do. However, regardless of my assets, my investment growth is structured such that most of it [no, I will not disclose a percentage] is tax-deferred such that I probably pay less in taxes than you do. At my age, I've paid grandly; I don't anymore. I'm building wealth for my children and grandchildren at this point because I am generous to me and mine. The rest of you: go fish.
-->
@fauxlaw
Useless to you, yes. That's by design. Get it?
No, unfortunately. I see your point in wanting to protect your privacy though the use is hardly existent. You have no secret technique that's worth protecting and that wouldn't already be known to me in one form or another. My inquiry regarding the mechanics of your investment strategy was an attempt to make sense of your contradictory claims, not to gather information that would be exploitable for my own interests. And I do not appreciate the condescending tone of this interrogative sentence.
That is also by design. Like I said, you figure out your path. I've set mine, and did so prior to 2017. That Trump has contributed to the success of my investment path, I claim regardless of your doubt. Doubt is on you, entirely, and you're welcome to it. What do I have to prove to you? Naught.
It seems to me that you made several claims with the ultimate aim being to justify a vote in favour of Donald Trump in the coming US presidential election and I believe you ought to at least answer for these claims and justify them with a satisfying reasoning, especially given the context of where you expressed yourself. The fact that you engaged personal information as an intent to support these claims is your responsibility, if you do not wish such claims to be questioned this way in the future I advise you to refrain from engaging such information.
I could tell stories about my life to justify my position and call on personal privacy when questioned about the truthfulness of my says, but that would not amount to a very constructive discussion and, ultimately, would have just been a way to boost my ego. I do not claim you entered this thread by malice or vanity, but you most certainly are failing to make any constructive contribution, especially since my intervention offers you to detail your reasoning.
Of course I do. However, regardless of my assets, my investment growth is structured such that most of it [no, I will not disclose a percentage] is tax-deferred such that I probably pay less in taxes than you do. At my age, I've paid grandly; I don't anymore. I'm building wealth for my children and grandchildren at this point because I am generous to me and mine.
A laudable endeavour, but I did not ask you to justify yourself regarding taxation.
The rest of you: go fish.
Irrelevant metaphor made for the sake of a rhetorical punch.
-->
@Hyades
You have the right to be offended. Milk it.
So, you want a justification for my vote for President Trump to re-elect him? How about this: re=read my post #33. That's it, pure and simple. Don't like it? Doesn'ty work for you? That's on you, entirely, as I've repeated ad nauseam.
I am also curious as whether or not you included taxation in your figures.
That's called an ask, my friend, in this man's lexicon. Not in yours? Sorry about yours.
a rhetorical punch.
Now, you're getting it.
-->
@fauxlaw
I went back to re-read your post #33. I agree opportunities are there, but there are a good chunk of people caught in the fake promises of prosperity from government agents vested in the welfare Ponzi scheme.
For example, the state I live in has 7 million people and about 10% live below the poverty line. Last year the state took in 1 billion dollars from the state lottery, which is mostly funded by my state's 700 thousand poor. Most of those poor people contributed a whopping amount near 1000 dollars on average per person per year. If those people had invested that money in either bettering themselves or investing in something with a positive return rate instead of a near 100% negative return rate, they would have far more wealth and security, but they believe the government will keep them safe even from their own individual poor personal lifestyle choices. That propaganda needs to be exposed and shattered for wealth equity to have a chance of closing the wealth gap between the savers and the spenders.
-->
@Greyparrot
I entirely agree. The working poor are mostly their own worst enemy. I would add that many also blow more on booze and cigs, neither of which have much health benefit.
-->
@fauxlaw
Booze, cigs and lottery tickets were deemed essential reasons to congregate while education, church, and political protests were deemed non-essential.
China would be proud of us.
-->
@fauxlaw
So, you want a justification for my vote for President Trump to re-elect him? How about this: re=read my post #33. That's it, pure and simple. Don't like it? Doesn'ty work for you? That's on you, entirely, as I've repeated ad nauseam.
No, I wanted to make sense of your initial says. But since it seems you are not disposed to have a discussion on this matter, I will most happily try to work with the post you are directing me to and shall dismiss my previous observations and my first impression of your person for the sake of fairness.
I do not know if you were answering to anybody specifically for this post so I will interpret it without considering the context of the discussion.
I'll spell it out in simple terms so you're sure to understand: Only in a free society can one individual so change his paradigm of uselessness, poverty, and worthlessness as to prosper and enjoy the blessed rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I have nothing to say about this at this point.
The government of personal liberty has not limits set upon it. No, there is no "there comes a time when you have made enough money," and no, there is no "you didn't build that," as the party in the person of Oba'a propsed as the way things are. Biden is another confirmation of that limiting philosophy. Trump is its antithesis. These are abrupt limitations, and you are free, as Richard Bach said, to "argue for your limitations; they are yours."
It seems to me that you are being critical of what you perceive to be a regular pattern in the Democrats' political views, this pattern being the idea that chrematistics and entrepreneurship should have some sorts of limitations since they conflict with some alleged moral values if left unchecked. However, you see the glorification of chrematistics and entrepreneurship in the person of Donald Trump, two ideas that you yourself support and therefore you find yourself aligned with him about "the way life ought to be lived", if I may phrase it that way.
While it is true that many people have a problem with chrematistics, I find it hard to believe that Democrats are against entrepreneurship. The latter has been acknowledged by many since the beginning of economics as a science.
No. Put your money to work for you rather than seeking minimum wage to work for it. The latter is a loser's goal. Why be so limited? It is the curse of entitlement. It is the curse of the Democrat Party to think so minimally.
I am skeptical of the idea that people seek minimum wage, if anything people seek higher wages. But I suspect you are voicing a critic of the role leisure plays in determining workers utility and arguing that the Democrats use this weight in individual choices to their political advantage. I am willing to read you expand upon that if it is the case.
You will find, my friends, that such liberty to invest as Trump has diverted the philosophy of Oba'a is not avarice, and is not a goal unto itself. It's blessings reach far and wide to improve self, family, community, and nations. It has worked for 230 years in this constitutional republic. Show me another system of government, and reductive thinking politics with that success.
Sadly, I do not find so. Not to the same extent as you do. I am struggling to find your exact point here, I must confess. What system of government are we talking about? Presidential republic? I suppose you are arguing that chrematistics and entrepreneurship improve "self, family, community and nations" but I will not put words in your mouth, and will let you detail.
Or, vote for Biden and dismiss your idividual potential for success.
Can you tell what is the link between individual "potential for success", and social and economic issues?
What actions and policies of Trump drives you towards him? Because from what I am reading you are mainly antagonizing one side and attributing very personal notions of freedom and self-improvement to the other.
-->
@Hyades
I do not know if you were answering to anybody specifically
Hint: was my #33 addressed to anybody "specifically?" No. There's your answer.
I have nothing to say about this at this point.
The conversation ought to end right there, because my commentary about which you have nothing to say is the WHOLE POINT of my chrematistics.
you perceive to be a regular pattern in the Democrats' political views, this pattern being the idea that chrematistics and entrepreneurship should have some sorts of limitations
Yes, you've just duplicated my attitude about Democrats, which is why I quoted Oba'a: "there comes a time when you have made enough money," and "you didn't build that." Those are Democrat limitation statements. Nope; not in my Republic. Sorry about yours.
I find it hard to believe that Democrats are against entrepreneurship.
Yes, I'm not surprised, because what Oba'a said, as I quoted him above, goes completely over your head. Is there anything about those quotes that gets through the fog? Oba'a is against entrepreneurship. Period. Why do you think he wanted to "fundamentally transform America? From what? Entrepreneurship to a Marxist Socialistic system that ignores everything but labor. Takes more than labor to bring a product to market, my friend. Much, much more, and it isn't the proletariat who pays for it, is it? Or, habver you not read the Communist Manifesto, or Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals?"
I am skeptical of the idea that people seek minimum wage
Be skeptical, but, the fact is, when talking about wages, that's all Democrats talk about: minimum wage. Have you been missing for the last 20 years?
I suspect you are voicing a critic of the role leisure plays in determining workers utility
No. I say a person is capable of arguing for his/hert own worth by calculating what their labor contributes to the bottom line. At that point, who needs a union. Unions determine a baseline of what people are worth and negotiates that, ignoring that individuals bring different ambition, ability to plan, and execute the plan. Unions know nothing of such initiative, and do not factor it into the calculations. Only the worker, himself, can do that, and demonstrate his knowledge by proving his worth and negotating directly for his earned wages, based entirely on his contribution to the bottom line by keeping accurate records of his personal production. I taught my employees how to do that. It made review time much easier for both of us because my employees knew I would fairly assess their calculations. They got raise based on their own figures, and when some calculated incorrectly, and shorted themselves, I always made the correction, as they were learning the ropes of justifying their wages. People must participate in the calculation of their wages rather than going into a review and treating it like a crapshoot. That's being an entrepreneur. The Democrats don't get t.
I admire Trump because his America is mine: Be productive. Be innovative. Be ambitious. Ambition, planning, execution. Those are my chrematistic policies, and Trump shares them. Politics? Bullshyte. That's the American Dream. Trump didn't invent it, and neither did I.
8 days later
Good.