I Think This Forum Should Stick To Investing

[Mountaineer]

I have to agree with doodle on this. It's a bit silly invoking Trump as someone who stands up to bullies...
..or is it?

I can see both sides.
On a personal level, yes, Trump will sue you for attacking him or give harder than he got. It's fair to say he's something of a bully.
In the realm of politics, he doesn't put up with what he perceives as bs. So somedude's point is valid.

No two sides to Trump. He is and out and out bully, exhibiting ALL the traits of a bully. One of those traits is that whenever he as gets even a tiny portion back at him that he dishes out with regularity he goes into FULL crybaby mode.

Vinny

Crybaby or just luring the suckers into pitbull territory? I am not quite sure.

[pmward]

in a thread about sticking to investing, the trump bad - politics posting has gotten pretty thick,

Yeah I guess it probably would be a hopeless cause splitting it off to a different site.

[doodle]

in a thread about sticking to investing, the trump bad - politics posting has gotten pretty thick,

what are we protesting about again?

I'm just responding to Some Guys praise of Trump standing up to bullies. Anyways, I'm supposed to be on a forum vacation. I need to split.

[l82start]

in a thread about sticking to investing, the trump bad - politics posting has gotten pretty thick,

Yeah I guess it probably would be a hopeless cause splitting it off to a different site.

LOL agreed

[vnatale]

I agree the forum is being split in two directions and I vote we get rid of the finance and investing talk and focus on the politics. Politics is interesting and dynamically changing while the PP has been the same for 20+ years.

How hard is the permanent portfolio, really? The whole point is that it’s simple and brainless once you have it set up. Do we really need to keep discussing the best gold coin of 2020 to buy?

I come here for the politics and get sucked into reading about gold ETFs and it’s really distracting me from political conversation.

Our beloved Tomfoolery has spoken!

Amusing, as usual.

I also know this is your usual satirical comment. I for one still have tons of questions on specific implementation of various aspects of the Permanent Portfolio.

Vinny

Vinny my interweb friend, you seem to be a very very precise person. Thus my question, exactly how many questions are in a ton, or tonne if you are feeling particularly British at this particular moment ?

You are correct that I can be an extremely precise person. Sometimes maddingly precise for some who have to deal with me in real life. But to better answer your question...once I get back on my Permanent Portfolio journey you shall see in real time!

Vinny

You said tons. Thus my question above. If I just watch your PP reengagement, how will I ever know exactly when you pass from one ton of questions into the second ton? Would you be kind enough to flag the appropriate end to the first ton?

I will endeavor to do so just for my dear friend known as Mountaineer!

Vinny

[vnatale]

I have to agree with doodle on this. It's a bit silly invoking Trump as someone who stands up to bullies...
..or is it?

I can see both sides.
On a personal level, yes, Trump will sue you for attacking him or give harder than he got. It's fair to say he's something of a bully.
In the realm of politics, he doesn't put up with what he perceives as bs. So somedude's point is valid.

No two sides to Trump. He is and out and out bully, exhibiting ALL the traits of a bully. One of those traits is that whenever he as gets even a tiny portion back at him that he dishes out with regularity he goes into FULL crybaby mode.

Vinny

Crybaby or just luring the suckers into pitbull territory? I am not quite sure.

Certified crybaby. Just checked my dictionary for the definition of crybaby and Trump's picture was there.

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

I have to agree with doodle on this. It's a bit silly invoking Trump as someone who stands up to bullies...
..or is it?

I can see both sides.
On a personal level, yes, Trump will sue you for attacking him or give harder than he got. It's fair to say he's something of a bully.
In the realm of politics, he doesn't put up with what he perceives as bs. So somedude's point is valid.

No two sides to Trump. He is and out and out bully, exhibiting ALL the traits of a bully. One of those traits is that whenever he as gets even a tiny portion back at him that he dishes out with regularity he goes into FULL crybaby mode.

Vinny

Crybaby or just luring the suckers into pitbull territory? I am not quite sure.

Certified crybaby. Just checked my dictionary for the definition of crybaby and Trump's picture was there.

Vinny

I concede! You are the man. Unless I call for a recount. Or issue an Executive Order. Or ask the NYT to give an opinion. Or pardon myself.

[Xan]

There are now 10 people in my poll, a poll that is in this section that people can opt out of mind you, that have said yes they have considered leaving this forum because of politics. Why is that? Well, why when there is a car accident on the freeway to people slow down to look as they pass by? It's basically impossible to ignore it, whether or not you get notifications.

"Have considered" with no time window is really not at all meaningful. "Are you considering" would be much more meaningful. Why did you phrase it the way you did?

As for something more drastic, like banning political talk completely, it just isn't going to happen. "Splitting" the forum isn't going to happen either, because a "split" forum is just another forum, and part of the "split" would be the complete banning of political talk that already isn't going to happen.

We're all still getting used to the new ignorable subforum. And we're at "peak politics" as has been pointed out. Things will settle down. Please do just ignore the politics forum if you don't like it.

It seems that the real complaint is that there are discussions going on in the political forum that you don't like, and rather than just ignore them you want them to be banned. I honestly don't understand that viewpoint at all. The system gives you an easy way to just ignore the whole thing. If you're not tempted to navigate to a different site, then why are you tempted to click on "Politics"?

So you can stop asking. The answer is no. There will be no ban on political discussions. Having them in their own ignorable section is a fine solution that should satisfy everybody.

[pmward]

"Have considered" with no time window is really not at all meaningful. "Are you considering" would be much more meaningful. Why did you phrase it the way you did?

In hindsight I would have phrased it that way.

It seems that the real complaint is that there are discussions going on in the political forum that you don't like, and rather than just ignore them you want them to be banned. I honestly don't understand that viewpoint at all. The system gives you an easy way to just ignore the whole thing. If you're not tempted to navigate to a different site, then why are you tempted to click on "Politics"?

This is part of the problem. The generalization and assumptions. You don't really know that this is the reason people are upset. So you make this broad assumption and use that as a way to discount every other opinion. This happens A LOT on this forum. The fact is that many people have left because of this, and many people have considered leaving because of this. I personally don't think it's the content that offends people, it's the way people are treated.

I've also never once asked for a "ban" on political discussions. So you're being very presumptuous there as well. Like when you try to tell me what I think and why I made the suggestion, and it totally doesn't match what I think or why I made the suggestion... like you obviously don't get it or don't care. And that is frustrating.

Either way, I already conceded in my response to L82start that the way even this thread devolved into Trump vs not-Trump it was probably hopeless to even try to separate the two. I figured it was worth the suggestion, or at least the discussion. I hope you're right that "peak politics" will pass and things will settle back down. I love the political philosophical discussions. But the whole partisan politics thing... especially how every thread these days keeps devolving into an endless Trump vs not-Trump debate... I'm getting really frustrated. I'm trying to have patience and hope the storm blows over come Dec 14 with the elector vote, or at the very latest Jan 20 after the inauguration.

[vnatale]

"Have considered" with no time window is really not at all meaningful. "Are you considering" would be much more meaningful. Why did you phrase it the way you did?

In hindsight I would have phrased it that way.

It seems that the real complaint is that there are discussions going on in the political forum that you don't like, and rather than just ignore them you want them to be banned. I honestly don't understand that viewpoint at all. The system gives you an easy way to just ignore the whole thing. If you're not tempted to navigate to a different site, then why are you tempted to click on "Politics"?

This is part of the problem. The generalization and assumptions. You don't really know that this is the reason people are upset. So you make this broad assumption and use that as a way to discount every other opinion. This happens A LOT on this forum. The fact is that many people have left because of this, and many people have considered leaving because of this. I personally don't think it's the content that offends people, it's the way people are treated.

I've also never once asked for a "ban" on political discussions. So you're being very presumptuous there as well. Like when you try to tell me what I think and why I made the suggestion, and it totally doesn't match what I think or why I made the suggestion... like you obviously don't get it or don't care. And that is frustrating.

Either way, I already conceded in my response to L82start that the way even this thread devolved into Trump vs not-Trump it was probably hopeless to even try to separate the two. I hope you're right that "peak politics" will pass and things will settle back down. I love the political philosophical discussions. But the whole partisan politics thing... especially how every thread these days keeps devolving into an endless Trump vs not-Trump debate... I'm getting really frustrated. I'm trying to have patience and hope the storm blows over come Dec 14 with the elector vote, or at the very latest Jan 20 after the inauguration.

Before you know it....the next 48 days will have passed!

Vinny

[l82start]

I hope you're right that "peak politics" will pass and things will settle back down. I love the political philosophical discussions.

IT always has in the past.. i am sure it will again..

[Tortoise]

The politics section literally was created just a few weeks ago... up until ~Nov 12 I left the forum entirely for 6 months due to the politics getting on my nerves. Obviously, I'm thinking of leaving again.

Yeah, I realize the Politics sub-forum was just created in early November. But even prior to that, I don't remember seeing you post very often (if at all) in any of the political threads in the Other Discussions sub-forum. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's what I recall.

It seemed like you really jumped into the political threads for the first time starting on Nov 12 -- just three weeks ago -- yet your user profile says your Politics posts comprise over 20% of your total posts since you joined in Jan 2019. Subtracting your six-month sabbatical, that means that in just the most recent 5% of the time you've been active on this forum, you've produced over 20% of your total posts.

That's a really big sudden burst of participation in the Politics sub-forum for someone who says that politics is getting on his nerves and who has already opted out of Politics sub-forum notifications in his user settings.

Are you admitting that this is a forum only for Pro-Trump, non-analytical/quant investors, that do not have a VP? Because the fact that all people that have left or complained supposedly have common characteristics... characteristics you don't have... proves my point exactly. Would those people have left if they felt like this was an open, welcoming, non-hostile environment here?

Things in the US have become a lot more politically polarized in recent years and especially recent months. My perspective is that as a result, the forum members became politically divided largely into two groups: (1) the never-Trumpers, and (2) those who don't necessarily think that Trump is Orange Hitler.

Both groups have been fairly vocal and well-represented in recent political threads, so I don't get the sense that the voices of the never-Trumpers are being drowned in a flood of American flags and spray tan. In some threads, maybe, but not all of them. It just seems that in general, the never-Trumpers here are the ones who seem to get so fed up with heated political discussions that they choose to leave the forum permanently rather than just opting out of the Politics sub-forum, taking a short forum vacation, or maybe blocking one or two users who raise their blood pressure the most.

Since the never-Trumper members tend to emphasize decorum, I often get the sense that they expect others to compromise (e.g., "meet in the middle") for the sake of appearances and orderliness. Strong disagreement can be terribly messy, and that's very distasteful and uncomfortable to the decorum folks. By contrast, the members who emphasize policy or substance over decorum tend to attach themselves strongly to what they have determined is philosophically right or truthful and are loath to compromise on that just for the sake of "meeting in the middle." Their position is that in truth vs. falsehood and right vs. wrong, there is often no room for compromise -- integrity is an all-or-nothing proposition.