Alternative Facts, Broken Promises & Wolves

[DrmDoc]

Seriously, Ten oz, was there anything about "Seeing him all day everyday for over a year" that normalized your view of Trump or altered your opinion of him as president during the elections? Did your daily exposure to Trump's fallacies weaken your determination to vote as you did? If you weren't swayed to Trump by his pre-election press coverage or motivated to vote for him, why is it impossible to believe that others didn't experience the same and may do so again in future elections?

 

As for voter's sentiment, Trump was less disliked in those states where Electoral College votes were pivotal. Although Hillary won the popular cumulative vote, she did not receive the popular votes in those pivotal individual states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, etc.) which was the distinction that led to Trump's election. As I said and continue to believe, media coverage didn't fuel Trump's success and likely will not in the future.

Edited January 30, 2017 by DrmDoc

[StringJunky]

...As I said and continue to believe, media coverage didn't fuel Trump's success and likely will not in the future.

Ideology diddit.

[waitforufo]

 

 

Which would be another "alt-fact"

 

The first thing that jumped out at us when we started examining our data was the sheer number of headlines in which Donald Trump’s name appeared. Across the eight outlets, we found Trump’s name mentioned in a total of 14,924 article headlines from July 1, 2015, to Aug. 31, 2016. Clinton has been mentioned in less than half that amount.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/?utm_term=.53fba5eafa59

 

 

Much of the above was simply campaign strategy on the part of both Trump and Clinton. Trump aggressively worked at getting headlines and succeeded. Clinton sat back and watched believing that Trump was making a fool of himself and that his own actions would lead to his defeat. Trump simply had the winning strategy.

 

 

 

The study found that 62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of Trump was negative in tone.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettedkins/2016/12/13/trump-benefited-from-overwhelmingly-negative-tone-of-election-news-coverage-study-finds/#6d7076a46093

 

The above link opens with the following.

 

 

Depending on who you believe, Donald Trump won the election because of Russian hackers, last-minute FBI announcements, fake news, or because Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate.

My vote is for "Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate." Read that link.

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Here's an idea... Maybe there was more than one reason for the outcome we found!?! I know... nuance and subtlety is like... hard, and stuff... but maybe if we try real hard we can see the world is not so simplistic and sometimes multiple variables are responsible in different degrees for producing the outcomes we see.

Edited January 30, 2017 by iNow

[waitforufo]

Here's an idea... Maybe there was more than one reason for the outcome we found!?! I know... nuance and subtlety is like... hard, and stuff... but maybe if we try real hard we can see the world is not so simplistic and sometimes multiple variables are responsible in different degrees for producing the outcomes we see.

This is the lament always given when one wants to ignore the obvious answer. The Democrats screwed up by picking Hillary for their candidate. Case closed.

[DrmDoc]

This is the lament always given when one wants to ignore the obvious answer. The Democrats screwed up by picking Hillary for their candidate. Case closed.

 

Given enough time, as evident by Trump's recent actions and protests around the world, you will come to realize that the Republicans screwed up as well.

Edited January 31, 2017 by DrmDoc

[ecoli]

Those are pretty left-wing sentiments even by UK standards. Surprising. It's a truism really and no-brainer but segregation can only perpetuate division in every sense and dischord.

 

Cato is a libertarian think tank... a classical liberal, rather than conservative organization. They were founded by Charles Koch, but also Murray Rothbard who was a strongly anti-authoritarian Austrian economist.

[swansont]

 

My vote is for "Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate." Read that link.

 

 

We're discussing "alt-facts", not re-hashing campaign strategy.

[Sensei]

"Donald Trump's trade chief Peter Navarro accuses Germany of abusing euro for own gain"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/31/donald-trumps-trade-chief-peter-navarro-accuses-germany-abusing/

Edited January 31, 2017 by Sensei

[DrmDoc]

Here we have more evidence of this administrations support for wolves guarding sheep. The Trump administration is about to remove regulations put in place by the Obama administration to protect clients and investors from predatory investment practices (Dodd-Frank). One rule particularly "hated by the financial industry", according to a Bloomberg report, "requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients." Removing this rule could result in advice lining the pockets of advisers rather than counsel sustaining and growing the retirement accounts of unaware and unknowledgeable clients. One may only assume that dismantling the financial protection of retirement accounts from Wall Street is why those who supported Trump voted him into office.

Edited February 3, 2017 by DrmDoc

[waitforufo]

Here we have more evidence of this administrations support for wolves guarding sheep. The Trump administration is about to remove regulations put in place by the Obama administration to protect clients and investors from predatory investment practices (Dodd-Frank). One rule particularly "hated by the financial industry", according to a Bloomberg report, "requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients." Removing this rule could result in advice lining the pockets of advisers rather than counsel sustaining and growing the retirement accounts of unaware and unknowledgeable clients. One may only assume that dismantling the financial protection of retirement accounts from Wall Street is why those who supported Trump voted him into office.

Who cares? Only rich people have money and if they lose it, that only serves them right.

[iNow]

It's hard to take you seriously when you post such obvious flame bait.

[DrmDoc]

Who cares? Only rich people have money and if they lose it, that only serves them right.

 

So...only rich people have retirement accounts, make investments, use banks, and own property? Are you still trolling?

 

It's hard to take you seriously when you post such obvious flame bait.

 

He tends to pop in and out of discussions with not much interest, it seems, other than his personal amusement.

[Phi for All]

Who cares? Only rich people have money and if they lose it, that only serves them right.

 

Seriously, I was going to post earlier about you thinking exactly this way, in the cynical, small government, I-haven't-been-screwed-yet, caveat emptor way you have. Then I thought no Phi, you don't know that for sure, so I erased it.

[waitforufo]

It's hard to take you seriously when you post such obvious flame bait.

 

 

So...only rich people have retirement accounts, make investments, use banks, and own property? Are you still trolling?

 

 

He tends to pop in and out of discussions with not much interest, it seems, other than his personal amusement.

 

 

Seriously, I was going to post earlier about you thinking exactly this way, in the cynical, small government, I-haven't-been-screwed-yet, caveat emptor way you have. Then I thought no Phi, you don't know that for sure, so I erased it.

Is money all you one percenters care about?

[DrmDoc]

 

 

Is money all you one percenters care about?

 

You clearly don't understand that the protections Donald is removing are for the ninety-nine percenters, which means you--although I assume you are a one percenter in sheep's clothing like Trump's primary supporters and his cabinet of advisers.

[waitforufo]

 

You clearly don't understand that the protections Donald is removing are for the ninety-nine percenters, which means you--although I assume you are a one percenter in sheep's clothing like Trump's primary supporters and his cabinet of advisers.

Removing protection from the ninety-nine percenters?

 

63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#ad25afa6dde1

70% of Americans don't have $1000 in savings.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/09/savings-study/91083712/

So you are not talking about 99% are you? You one percenters with your fancy STEM jobs ain't fooling anyone.

[DrmDoc]

 

Removing protection from the ninety-nine percenters?

 

63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#ad25afa6dde1

70% of Americans don't have $1000 in savings.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/09/savings-study/91083712/

So you are not talking about 99% are you? You one percenters with your fancy STEM jobs ain't fooling anyone.

 

 

If you​ have a retirement account, make investments, use banks, or own property, then it is your financial protections that this administration is removing...now do you understand? These are protections put in place to avoid the kind of financial collapse and nation-wide depression unleashed on our nation under the last Republican administration--which is something you probably believe isn't necessary.

[waitforufo]

 

If you​ have a retirement account, make investments, use banks, or own property, then it is your financial protections that this administration is removing...now do you understand? These are protections put in place to avoid the kind of financial collapse and nation-wide depression unleashed on our nation under the last Republican administration--which is something you probably believe isn't necessary.

Yep, I have all those things and more. How did I do it? Well I just took all that cliched good old investment advice you always hear and read about. You know like in the business page of your local news paper. Things like always pay yourself first, invest with a long term strategy, diversify to avoid risk and stuff like that. Well guess what? It works like a charm. Yeah, your friends might drive nicer cars, live in bigger houses, and go on really nice annual vacations, but you got money. When you have money the store is just a place that keeps your stuff until you need it. Who knows, maybe their way is better, they sure do seem like they are having fun. It is hard to feel sorry for them when they go broke and can't retire. On the other hand, they had their fun, and I'm just having mine now. Things always seem to work out in the end don't they?

[DrmDoc]

Yep, I have all those things and more...

 

 

And you're not a one percenter? Your prudent investments will certainly go the way as many other prudent investments did if Wall Street is freed to run unchecked as it did before Dodd-Frank--but you're immune, right? Your investments didn't lose a penny of value during this past recession and they don't need no stinking financial protection, right? Although the markets have rebound under Dodd-Frank, it's incredibly naïve to believe your investments don't need Dodd-Frank's continued protection--but, it is your money and, like you said, "Who cares?"

Edited February 4, 2017 by DrmDoc

[waitforufo]

 

And you're not a one percenter? Your prudent investments will certainly go the way as many other prudent investments did if Wall Street is freed to run unchecked as it did before Dodd-Frank--but you're immune, right? Your investments didn't lose a penny of value during this past recession and they don't need no stinking financial protection, right? Although the markets have rebound under Dodd-Frank, it's incredibly naïve to believe your investments don't need Dodd-Frank's continued protection--but, it is your money and, like you said, "Who cares?"

 

Let's go back to your post that started this little conversation shall we.

 

Here we have more evidence of this administrations support for wolves guarding sheep. The Trump administration is about to remove regulations put in place by the Obama administration to protect clients and investors from predatory investment practices (Dodd-Frank). One rule particularly "hated by the financial industry", according to a Bloomberg report, "requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients." Removing this rule could result in advice lining the pockets of advisers rather than counsel sustaining and growing the retirement accounts of unaware and unknowledgeable clients. One may only assume that dismantling the financial protection of retirement accounts from Wall Street is why those who supported Trump voted him into office.

Your compliant above is focused on Obama's Fiduciary Rule which "requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients." This rule was issued on April 6, 2016. This was less than year ago. I was doing just fine less than a year ago. This rule has had no impact on my or anyone else's savings or investment performance. Somehow, without this rule and by simply following age old investment advice I and many like me have done just fine financially. Sure, over the 35 years I have been saving and investing both the stock and bond markets have had their ups and downs, but remember I invest with that sage advice about having a long term strategy. Sure, the downs were nerve wracking but I simply rode them out. I invested in mutual funds with diversified portfolios so the downs weren't too bad. In fact I put little thought into investing because investing is colossally boring. I just looked at Morningstar and picked funds with a 7 out of 10 risk assessment, paid myself first by setting up automatic monthly checking withdrawals, and forgot about it. You know, like my local news paper business section advisor's recommended that I do. When I started doing this, I was putting in as little as $100 a month. I laugh when people tell me investing is difficult.

 

All Dodd-Frank did was reduce the availability of credit thereby reducing economic growth. That is why our recovery from the last recession was the slowest since the great depression. I'm sure I and everyone else would have more today without Dodd-Frank.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

 

Let's go back to your post that started this little conversation shall we.

 

Your compliant above is focused on Obama's Fiduciary Rule which "requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients." This rule was issued on April 6, 2016. This was less than year ago. I was doing just fine less than a year ago. This rule has had no impact on my or anyone else's savings or investment performance. Somehow, without this rule and by simply following age old investment advice I and many like me have done just fine financially. Sure, over the 35 years I have been saving and investing both the stock and bond markets have had their ups and downs, but remember I invest with that sage advice about having a long term strategy. Sure, the downs were nerve wracking but I simply rode them out. I invested in mutual funds with diversified portfolios so the downs weren't too bad. In fact I put little thought into investing because investing is colossally boring. I just looked at Morningstar and picked funds with a 7 out of 10 risk assessment, paid myself first by setting up automatic monthly checking withdrawals, and forgot about it. You know, like my local news paper business section advisor's recommended that I do. When I started doing this, I was putting in as little as $100 a month. I laugh when people tell me investing is difficult.

 

All Dodd-Frank did was reduce the availability of credit thereby reducing economic growth. That is why our recovery from the last recession was the slowest since the great depression. I'm sure I and everyone else would have more today without Dodd-Frank.

 

 

 

 

This type of 'I'm all right Jack' thinking is exactly why the 1%ers exist.

 

The title is a well-known English expression indicating smug and complacent selfishness,^[5] with an implied "fuck you!".

 

[StringJunky]

 

This type of 'I'm all right Jack' thinking is exactly why the 1%ers exist.

 

"Keep your hands off my stack". He makes the flawed assumption that everyone starts with the same knowledge, resources, ability and opportunities. He's a "dog eat dog" type of person... which is probably at the core of the Republican ethos.

Edited February 4, 2017 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

 

Let's go back to your post that started this little conversation shall we.

 

Let's...

 

 

Your compliant above is focused on Obama's Fiduciary Rule which "requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients."

 

You're half correct, my comments included both Dodd-Frank and the DOL Fiduciary Rule.

 

This rule was issued on April 6, 2016. This was less than year ago. I was doing just fine less than a year ago. This rule has had no impact on my or anyone else's savings or investment performance.

 

The proposed rules were an update of ERISA rules enacted in 1974 to reflect the changing investment landscape. The Department of Labor (DOL) Fiduciary Rule this administration has suspended is based on the simple principle that retirement advisors should "put the best interests of their clients above their own financial interests", so why is this an argument? If you have a broker or financial adviser, your response here suggests that you could care less whether the advice you receive financially benefits your advisors only or lines their pockets with extraordinary and unnecessary fees expensed from your accounts. If that is true, then you are not the prudent investor you profess to be.

 

All Dodd-Frank did was reduce the availability of credit thereby reducing economic growth.

 

Which proves you actually have no idea what Dodd-Frank is and what it did for you. Dodd-Frank was a response to the 2007-2010 financial crisis wherein every retirement account was adversely affected by a substantial collapse of overextended derivative investments and lack of sufficient consumer protections in the market. Dobb-Frank made investment brokers tell you that your high-yield investment--the source of that "more today without Dodd-Frank" that you would have made--is a derivative based on junk bonds and mortgages. The DOL Fiduciary Rule would also have made your advisors tell you that they were being paid 20% or more off the top to sell you those high-yield, risky investments. Whether or not you engage in stable or risky investments, a collapse in the stock market always creates a domino effect that impacts every retirement account and most assets. Although you believe Dodd-Frank stalled growth, in reality it brought stability and less risk to your retirement investments.

Edited February 4, 2017 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

What's interesting to me, waitforufo, is that you've personally made smart decisions with your money across your career and have chosen to be conservative in your approach (instead of spending heavily today for immediate gratification), yet your argument around these rules and regulations distills down to you wanting banks to do the exact opposite.

 

The logical outcome of your position is that you'd rather banks gamble recklessly today and do so with all our money instead of their own (along with the money of those we love)... and in a way where they'll lose more often than not (like Vegas)... instead of proceeding intelligently and with a long-term focus like you have done... using a slow and steady consistent upward growth approach less subject to risk and volatility.

 

The only reason we had to put the regulations in place was because they proved themselves to act like the very people you laugh at who manage their money stupidly, except their stupid actions were executed with OUR cash. Had they been smart with all our money (like you've been with yours) then I could easily join you in support of the removal of regulations, but time and again they've shown themselves to be ignorant addicts, like gamblers who follow bad decisions with worse ones.

 

I'd rather not enable them to be stupid any more. I'd rather we help break the harmful addictions they've exhibited, while still supporting their ability to run an awesome industry. Perhaps we can be allies at least on that one small point, so long as we do so in a way that still allows for growth and creativity and the ability to generate wealth?

Edited February 4, 2017 by iNow