US Election 2016, part III

[Guard Dog]

 

Fred Barnes is a writer for the Weekly Standard and a very smart man. But there isn't much here we didn't already know: http://www.weeklystandard.com/yup-shes-crooked/article/2003312

 

Given that her opposition is a textbook example of corruption, I also don't see a point in singling out Clinton for corruption.

 

Oh no argument there. We don't like that SOB either. But the Clintons are a bit more brazen about what they do and the lies they tell to cover it, which are swallowed whole by a pro-democrat media, are so improbable that it insults our intelligence.  

Edited July 17, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Pidesco]

 

Trump isn't particularly successful. He was just born really rich.

 

Lots of people inherit a million or two dollars. Lots of people get fronted similar amounts of money by their parents when they start out. Extremely few turn that money into billions as Trump has.

 

You are uninformed or a fool if you don't see that.

 

 

He didn't inherit 1 or 2 million dollars, he inherited a lot more. The money Trump got from his dad was enough to net him billions of dollars as long as he invested it in some index fund back in the 70s.

[Valsuelm]

Yesterday Jeb Bush refused to support Trump saying he was considering voting for Gary Johnson: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/jeb-bush-trashes-donald-trump-on-eve-of-republican-convention/. Mitt Romney has already said he's supporting the Johnson/Weld ticket: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/10/donald-trump-mitt-romney-vote-libertarian-gop-split. Ironically neither of those two are "little r" republicans who might be attracted to the small government, non interventionist foreign policy of the LP. But Trump is making for strange bedfellows and any support we can get is ultimately a good thing. While it would be nice to see Johnson & Weld actually win this thing it's more important that we hit our two biggest goals: Get into the debates and get at least 5% of the popular vote.

 

Gary Johnson is happy to have any defectors from either party: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/11/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-anti-trump-republicans. The last Quinnipiac poll has him at 12%. Inching closer!

 

Wake up.

 

What further evidence do you need that the 'Libertarian Party' has been hijacked beyond Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney saying they might go that way? At the end of the day, that party is owned by the same people who own the Blues and the Reds, and has been for at least a few elections at this point.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Trump isn't particularly successful. He was just born really rich.

 

Lots of people inherit a million or two dollars. Lots of people get fronted similar amounts of money by their parents when they start out. Extremely few turn that money into billions as Trump has.

 

You are uninformed or a fool if you don't see that.

 

 

He didn't inherit 1 or 2 million dollars, he inherited a lot more. The money Trump got from his dad was enough to net him billions of dollars as long as he invested it in some index fund back in the 70s.

 

 

Ok.  It's clear now.

 

You are a fool.

 

Good luck getting rich on your philosophy. You'll need it.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Pidesco]

Unfortunately, I don't have 100 million dollars to invest.

 

https://www.ifa.com/calculator/?i=sp500&g=100000000&s=1/1/1978&e=6/30/2016&gy=true&af=true&aorw=false&perc=false

[Valsuelm]

Unfortunately, I don't have 100 million dollars to invest.

 

https://www.ifa.com/calculator/?i=sp500&g=100000000&s=1/1/1978&e=6/30/2016&gy=true&af=true&aorw=false&perc=false

 

Doesn't matter.

 

By your philosophy you could simply turn even $1000 into more than a million, just by investing in an index fund. I assume any index fund will do, as you don't need to be intelligent or successful to realize which one of those you'd even need.

 

As WoD said a page or two back: Successful people are not afraid to fail.

 

I'll go one further and say that successful people also don't make up BS excuses for why they weren't successful before they are.

 

Either put your money where you mouth is, or realize you're full of it. Or, continue to bask in your willful ignorance, thinking things that are patently untrue and ignoring the realities all around you that prove such.

[Hurlshort]

 

Yesterday Jeb Bush refused to support Trump saying he was considering voting for Gary Johnson: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/jeb-bush-trashes-donald-trump-on-eve-of-republican-convention/. Mitt Romney has already said he's supporting the Johnson/Weld ticket: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/10/donald-trump-mitt-romney-vote-libertarian-gop-split. Ironically neither of those two are "little r" republicans who might be attracted to the small government, non interventionist foreign policy of the LP. But Trump is making for strange bedfellows and any support we can get is ultimately a good thing. While it would be nice to see Johnson & Weld actually win this thing it's more important that we hit our two biggest goals: Get into the debates and get at least 5% of the popular vote.

 

Gary Johnson is happy to have any defectors from either party: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/11/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-anti-trump-republicans. The last Quinnipiac poll has him at 12%. Inching closer!

 

Wake up.

 

What further evidence do you need that the 'Libertarian Party' has been hijacked beyond Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney saying they might go that way? At the end of the day, that party is owned by the same people who own the Blues and the Reds, and has been for at least a few elections at this point.

 

 

Ah, so if by some miracle Johnson manages to get enough votes to win, you can just say the libertarians are really just a part of the big 2 parties.  How convenient for your rhetoric.  

 

Also your math is off by a few zeroes.  If Pid had 100,000 then he could turn it into a million by investing smartly over 40 years.  Not 1,000.

 

But the reality is simply that Trump is a rich guy.  It's much easier to take risks and fail when you've got a healthy fallback plan.  He's not playing with the same deck as 99% of the population.  But not many politicians are.  

Edited July 17, 2016 by Hurlshot

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Yesterday Jeb Bush refused to support Trump saying he was considering voting for Gary Johnson: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/jeb-bush-trashes-donald-trump-on-eve-of-republican-convention/. Mitt Romney has already said he's supporting the Johnson/Weld ticket: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/10/donald-trump-mitt-romney-vote-libertarian-gop-split. Ironically neither of those two are "little r" republicans who might be attracted to the small government, non interventionist foreign policy of the LP. But Trump is making for strange bedfellows and any support we can get is ultimately a good thing. While it would be nice to see Johnson & Weld actually win this thing it's more important that we hit our two biggest goals: Get into the debates and get at least 5% of the popular vote.

 

Gary Johnson is happy to have any defectors from either party: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/11/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-anti-trump-republicans. The last Quinnipiac poll has him at 12%. Inching closer!

 

Wake up.

 

What further evidence do you need that the 'Libertarian Party' has been hijacked beyond Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney saying they might go that way? At the end of the day, that party is owned by the same people who own the Blues and the Reds, and has been for at least a few elections at this point.

 

 

Ah, so if by some miracle Johnson manages to get enough votes to win, you can just say the libertarians are really just a part of the big 2 parties.  How convenient for your rhetoric.  

 

Also your math is off by a few zeroes.  If Pid had 100,000 then he could turn it into a million by investing smartly over 40 years.  Not 1,000.

 

 

Not convenient no. I truly wish there was a legitimate third party (and fourth and fifth at least)  alternative to the establishment two.While there might be one or more out there on the fringes, the Libertarian party certainly is not it. And to be clear, I personally agree with a great deal of the 'libertarian' philosophy, and in fact on a philosophical level I would go much further in the true freedom direction that most libertarians ever would. However, I realize that the political party that pretends to adhere to those values, does so at about the same rate as the two majors adhere to their supposed values. On top of that though, I always go with the better candidate, regardless of their party. The last two go arounds I supported Ron Paul, there is very good reason I do not support Gary Johnson.

 

And no, my math isn't off. Trump's net worth is roughly 1000 times what he started with. And that's after all his relatively well publicized failures.

[Guard Dog]

It's hard to make a supposition as to what the LP would do if it had real power since it's never really had it. And Bush & Romney are not talking about joining, they are talking about voting this year. 

[Pidesco]

 

Unfortunately, I don't have 100 million dollars to invest.

 

https://www.ifa.com/calculator/?i=sp500&g=100000000&s=1/1/1978&e=6/30/2016&gy=true&af=true&aorw=false&perc=false

 

Doesn't matter.

 

By your philosophy you could simply turn even $1000 into more than a million, just by investing in an index fund. I assume any index fund will do, as you don't need to be intelligent or successful to realize which one of those you'd even need.

 

As WoD said a page or two back: Successful people are not afraid to fail.

 

I'll go one further and say that successful people also don't make up BS excuses for why they weren't successful before they are.

 

Either put your money where you mouth is, or realize you're full of it. Or, continue to bask in your willful ignorance, thinking things that are patently untrue and ignoring the realities all around you that prove such.

 

 

It's not a philosophy, it's a fact. If you start life rich enough to live off interest, getting richer is easy.

[Gromnir]

val clear knows finance to the same degree he understands history and law.  

 

am gonna suggest to pidesco that he gives up trying to explain why water is wet.  gonna need explain basics o' the standard and poor's index funds as well as a primer 'bout how how one can reinvest gains if you is gonna make any headway... and after going through the hassle o' education, it still won't matter. the only person you is gonna be arguing with is val, so is no genuine point continuing. invest +$40 million in a s&p index fund back in late 70s has trump worth +$5-$6 billion.  today, trump is worth 'tween $2.5-$4.5 billion.  trump's business genius resulted in less wealth than he woulda' had if he followed the advice o' the most cautious o' financial planners available to him when he inherited. 

 

that being said, trump has been successful with his real estate ventures. not wanna make it seem as if trump is a complete buffoon when it comes to business.  is just far too many failures in business for us to be impressed by donald's keen mind. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

 

And no, my math isn't off. Trump's net worth is roughly 1000 times what he started with. And that's after all his relatively well publicized failures.

 

 

Where are you getting 1000 times?  If he started with 100 million and grew it to 10 billion, that would be 100 times what he started with.  

 

For your patronizing example you gave Pidesco, that would turn his 1,000 into 100,000.  Nice, but hardly impressive over a 40 year period.

 

edit:  Also, most financial groups peg him around 3-4 billion, not 10 billion like he says.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Hurlshot

[Valsuelm]

What, in your opinion, was the worst SCOTUS decision in recent history? For me, hands down, it was Kelo v. New London. At the time I said (and I still stand by it) the five justices who ruled in favor of the City of New London should have been dragged out of the courthouse at the end of a rope and hung in the streets.

There's a number of cases I'd say are worse than Kelo v. New London in recent times. As bad as the Kelo v. New London ruling was, it was at least within the legitimate scope and power of the SCOTUS, and as you pointed out the States have (and some have exercised) the ability to circumvent the ruling by passing laws to do so.

 

Two high profile cases that I'd say were worse than that ruling were Obergefell v. Hodges ('gay marriage') and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ('Obamacare'). There's a lot wrong with both of those rulings, not the least of which is that States have little to no recourse in regards to passing laws to circumvent the ruling. Kelo v. New London didn't take power away from the States and put it in the hands of the Federal government, these two cases did (two of many rulings that ignore the 10th Amendment). I don't want to get into a large discussion on this topic though (at least not in this thread) so I'll just leave it at that. If you want more of my opinion on this, feel free to PM me.

 

Make no mistake though, I agree that Kelo v. New London was a horrible ruling, as well as agree that the five justices should have been dragged out of the courthouse at the end of a rope and hung in the streets. I'm of the opinion that a majority of everyone on Capital Hill should be. The general populace at large hasn't yet gotten to that point however, so we're stuck with the evil for at least a while longer. That said, more and more are thinking along these lines everyday. People aren't just buying guns because they think that the 2nd amendment is going to go away. And only fools with their heads in the sand think that at this point such people are only fringe loonies. One of the primary purposes of the 2nd amendment may be lost on some, but it is not lost on all.

 

One of the best speeches ever in my opinion applies very much in the USA today:

https://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm

 

 

 

St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

March 23, 1775.

 

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

 

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

 

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

 

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

 

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

 

There are more and more people from all walks of life who would agree with Mr. Henry's sentiments applied to 2016 USA every day.

 

As I said, this may be the last Presidential election in the U.S. that matters, for a variety of reasons....

Edited July 18, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

Heaven forbid Val actually acknowledge his math mix-up.  

 

Never change.  It's super healthy to live your life that way.      

[Valsuelm]

Heaven forbid Val actually acknowledge his math mix-up.  

 

Never change.  It's super healthy to live your life that way.      

 

I don't acknowledge a number of your superfluous posts if you haven't noticed. Nor do I wish to argue a point with folks who think that anyone turning themselves from a millionaire into a billionaire is no great achievement, nor folks who are deluded enough to think that all one has to do to make money is to throw their money into an index fund (neverminding this is not how Trump made his money). Nor folks who won't put their money where their mouth is. Nor folks who make up BS excuses for why they weren't successful before they are.

 

The greater point I was trying to make was made. If you can't see it, you can't see it. It has been my observation that you don't see a lot of things.

 

The numbers I pulled from wiki, which pulls the numbers from all over. I never said Trump was worth $100 billion, so far as I know, neither has he. Frankly his exact net worth doesn't matter to me, and the number I gave was stated to be a rough one. Also, for the sake of argument: if Trump only made himself 100x wealthier (or even just 10x wealthier) than when he started out, one is a fool to not think that is a great accomplishment. Only fools who have never done such themselves would take that sour grapes view.

 

But hey... I sincerely hope you get wealthy via index funds, if you actually do put your money where your mouth is. Given how easy some here seem to think it is to grow an investment, to not make that investment would be foolish.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Guard Dog]

 

What, in your opinion, was the worst SCOTUS decision in recent history? For me, hands down, it was Kelo v. New London. At the time I said (and I still stand by it) the five justices who ruled in favor of the City of New London should have been dragged out of the courthouse at the end of a rope and hung in the streets.

There's a number of cases I'd say are worse than Kelo v. New London in recent times. As bad as the Kelo v. New London ruling was, it was at least within the legitimate scope and power of the SCOTUS, and as you pointed out the States have (and some have exercised) the ability to circumvent the ruling by passing laws to do so.

 

Two high profile cases that I'd say were worse than that ruling were Obergefell v. Hodges ('gay marriage') and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ('Obamacare'). There's a lot wrong with both of those rulings, not the least of which is that States have little to no recourse in regards to passing laws to circumvent the ruling. Kelo v. New London didn't take power away from the States and put it in the hands of the Federal government, these two cases did (two of many rulings that ignore the 10th Amendment). I don't want to get into a large discussion on this topic though (at least not in this thread) so I'll just leave it at that. If you want more of my opinion on this, feel free to PM me.

 

Make no mistake though, I agree that Kelo v. New London was a horrible ruling, as well as agree that the five justices should have been dragged out of the courthouse at the end of a rope and hung in the streets. I'm of the opinion that a majority of everyone on Capital Hill should be. The general populace at large hasn't yet gotten to that point however, so we're stuck with the evil for at least a while longer. That said, more and more are thinking along these lines everyday. People aren't just buying guns because they think that the 2nd amendment is going to go away. And only fools with their heads in the sand think that at this point such people are only fringe loonies. One of the primary purposes of the 2nd amendment may be lost on some, but it is not lost on all.

 

One of the best speeches ever in my opinion applies very much in the USA today:

https://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm

 

 

 

St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

March 23, 1775.

 

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

 

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

 

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

 

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

 

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

 

There are more and more people from all walks of life who would agree with Mr. Henry's sentiments applied to 2016 USA every day.

 

As I said, this may be the last Presidential election in the U.S. that matters, for a variety of reasons....

 

I actually disagree with you on Obergefell v. Hodges. Because the government was in the business of sanctioning marriage it made the eventual Equal Protection argument inevitable. I dislike the court overturning the results of State elections as much as you do the the 10th Amendment only applies to powers not specifically reserved and the 14th Amendment specifically reserves Equal Protection. To make a complex issue overly simple. 

 

100% with you on FIB. That ruling depends on accepting that the no insurance penalty is both a tax AND a punitive measure simultaneously with no logical conflict. John Roberts had every reason to side with the Constructionists and chose not to for reasons i don't understand.  

[Hurlshort]

 

The numbers I pulled from wiki, which pulls the numbers from all over. I never said Trump was worth $100 billion, so far as I know, neither has he. Frankly his exact net worth doesn't matter to me, and the number I gave was stated to be a rough one. Also, for the sake of argument: if Trump only made himself 100x wealthier (or even just 10x wealthier) than when he started out, one is a fool to not think that is a great accomplishment. Only fools who have never done such themselves would take that sour grapes view.

 

But hey... I sincerely hope you get wealthy via index funds, if you actually do put your money where your mouth is. Given how easy some here seem to think it is to grow an investment, to not make that investment would be foolish.

 

 

I'm way more than 100x wealthier than when I started.  I started around zero, and now I have, like, way more than that.  I should be president!

 

Vote Hurlsot!

 

[Guard Dog]

I've changed my mind. With the late entry of Hurlshot into the race I am now proud to endorse Hurlshot in 2016. Hurlshot for President. Free History lessons for all and the NHL network on EVERY cable package! Huzzah!

[Gromnir]

 

 

The numbers I pulled from wiki, which pulls the numbers from all over. I never said Trump was worth $100 billion, so far as I know, neither has he. Frankly his exact net worth doesn't matter to me, and the number I gave was stated to be a rough one. Also, for the sake of argument: if Trump only made himself 100x wealthier (or even just 10x wealthier) than when he started out, one is a fool to not think that is a great accomplishment. Only fools who have never done such themselves would take that sour grapes view.

 

But hey... I sincerely hope you get wealthy via index funds, if you actually do put your money where your mouth is. Given how easy some here seem to think it is to grow an investment, to not make that investment would be foolish.

 

 

I'm way more than 100x wealthier than when I started.  I started around zero, and now I have, like, way more than that.  I should be president!

 

Vote Hurlsot!

 

poor people save and invest money for a car.  they save money and invest for a down payment on a house.  if they is a bit better off, they save and invest for college for kids and retirement.  poor and middle-class never have enough money, which is why we don't call the poor, "rich."

 

rich people save and invest money to make more money.  a s&p fund is an extreme conservative investment, and over near 40 years, if the money generated is constant reinvested, the growth is exponential.  

 

however, your efforts is pointless. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hastur]

I imagine I'll be out this fall pounding the pavement handing out political tracts in support of a candidate I detest because he's running against candidate I detest marginally more.  Where I live, that's leaving me open to being jumped or knifed as I walk through the neighborhoods although that's not so much an issue now that targeting is on the house by house level.  The days when you would go out trying to convince individuals door to door are long gone.  Now, you simply want people who might already be inclined to vote for your candidate or issue to get up off their lazy ass and actually vote, which is the only advantage my side might have since a disproportionate number of us vote religiously (in every sense of the word).

 

 

 

How do you have a rational discussion when people won't even charitably listen to other arguments?  Even worse, rational discussion is over-rated.  I'll tackle gun control.  Since this is all anonymous, I can agree that some modest additional gun control laws wouldn't be terrible.  Of course, the gun control laws that Democrats float after mass shootings typically wouldn't have had an immediate effect on the shooting in question, which brings me back to my original point about gun control laws. I could see some laws as being perfectly reasonable, but I'll never agree to them.

 

 

The NRA has been magnificently successful in its mission precisely because they give no ground.  Other advocacy groups have faltered and fallen because they were willing to negotiate more readily in the spirit of compromise.  The NRA fights tooth and nail over every piece of legislation and, if it fails to block the legislation, it continues those fights in court at every level.  There are some people in the NRA who theoretically wouldn't mind having more control of guns, but they understand the way the left operates, which is to try to make incremental steps in order to establish increasing control over the population.  That's not a conspiracy theory.  That's taking a variety of liberal authors, personalities, and politicians at their word.

 

 

This isn't confined to gun control.  The same principle applies to any particular policy view in which the end goal is out of reach within the confines of demographics but steps towards the goal can be normalized and then further steps can be taken at some point in the future.  It would be refreshing if the left would be more honest about this but, to be fair, they can't be honest about it.  If they could be straightforward and say, "we want strict gun laws that make it extremely difficult for the vast majority of citizens to own firearms of any sort," they would have simply done it already.  In places with demographics that permit such an open stance, they do.  Some representatives from liberal districts and some senators from extremely liberal states come close to doing just that.  But never quite there for most of them because they know trying to ban firearms altogether is a lost cause.  For now.

 

 

People should keep in mind that once you get the pendulum swinging towards the side you want, it's probably not just going to stop exactly where you plan.  And then it's liable to cut you in half swinging back on the return trip.

[Guard Dog]

No argument from me Hastur. The left is all about less freedom and more government control over everything. Of course the right is also about less freedom and more government control over some things. At the end of the day you can choose between the side you hate the least or opt for a third option. The only problem with the third option is that the road is long and rocky and votes cast today may bear no fruit this year. you just hope they will in years to come.

[Hastur]

Yeah, Guard Dog, I see your tag line and I fancy myself more or less a libertarian also.  I've always figured the goverment should see to the border and by and large stay out of my personal affairs, from budget to bedroom.  I've still been more or less happy with most of the Republican candidates over the years.  I even saw some value to W on a personal level, although I thought he spent money too freely.  With Trump, we've entered the realm of **** politics where candidates brag about the size of their members and memberships in the same breath.  On the other side, you have Clinton who is as corrupt as a three dollar bill, has the morals of a two bit prostitute, and lacks a single scruple.  One of these people is going to win, and I'm either going to support Trump or do something I haven't done in my adult life.  Not vote for president.  Either one is enough to bring a grown man to tears.

[Oerwinde]

No argument from me Hastur. The left is all about less freedom and more government control over everything. Of course the right is also about less freedom and more government control over some things. At the end of the day you can choose between the side you hate the least or opt for a third option. The only problem with the third option is that the road is long and rocky and votes cast today may bear no fruit this year. you just hope they will in years to come.

 

It used to be that the left wanted to regulate the economy and the right wanted to regulate your morals, but now its the left wants to regulate the economy and your morals, and the right has no idea what it wants.

[Meshugger]

So "Bikers for Trump" have said they will not allow any disturbance by BLM at the convention. Those 300 police officers with bicycles are gonna have to work double time.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

val clear knows finance to the same degree he understands history and law.  

 

 

Vals for me is one of the most exasperating posters I have ever met, he seems to truly operate in his own world of pseudo-intellectualism and constantly claims " other people on these forums have no idea what they say or there sources of information are obviously biased "  when in fact he is constantly wrong or misinformed on a majority of topics 

 

 

And no I dont miss debating with him