Gyroscopic Investing

He might not be the smartest guy, WiseOne.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:47 pm I imagine that the stock market would go wild. People would switch from cash to stocks for the (non-negative) dividends. This kinda did happen after 2009....dividend stocks have been bid up to absurd P/E ratios. Also, holders of long bonds whose price goes through the roof when the interest rates drop would rejoice. I expect gold would tank.

I don't get why Trump is still calling for negative interest rates when the economy and stock market are both looking GOOD. That is just bizarre. Why would the Fed reduce interest rates in this scenario?

If enough people bid down the interest rate because they think the world is becoming deflationary, you would eventually progress past 0% and get into negative rates. People would be asking the government to take their $1,000 and give them back $995, instead of the $990 it would have deflated to for some reason. If the market (people) thought this was plausible, it would be a rational movement towards negative rates. I don't think this is the case, so it must be:

The government sets the interest rate in the negative by fiat. Since people like you and me don't have to buy negative-rate instruments if we don't think they'll "beat" deflation, we can skip them. But big financial companies and corporations do seem to have to use them since AFAIK you can't open a checking account with $100 billion in it. Therefore, they're a form of corporate taxation, since the government can take their free loan and do whatever with it, then give back less money. But in any case, once people find a way out of giving the government money (they stop buying negative bonds), it will exert market pressure on interest rates upward. Or they could resist those market signals and wind up with no deficit, since nobody will be lending them money

Trump's logic seems to be that since the US is the entity that everyone in the world wants to lend money to, we should be able to offer the lowest interest rate. Since other countries who are worse borrowers than us are able to borrow at lower interest rates, and some are able to borrow take at negative rates, we should be even more negative, which should let us expend resources as if lenders givers were simply giving them to us.

So, it's kind of a kink in the hose for us normal people who are used to Treasuries, but you can still loan money to other entities and get a return on it. Pretty much what you said. There is no economic law that says we "deserve" a risk-free return. Marc Andreesen wrote an article about that a while ago, but I haven't been able to find it again (he might have deleted it?). Anyways, that's kinda how I see it.

The trumpsters here are goldbugs right? So how is wanting to print more money (ie lower rates) a good thing. He appears to have no interest in "sound money" or shrinking the power of government by taking away the printing press. Its much harder to start wars if you cant print the money for them

Yes, I guess most of my post was just thinking out loud. The third paragraph is the important one, because IIRC, Trump has actually said that's the reason we should "have" negative interest rates. And it makes sense when you look at it from the government's perspective, as opposed to making sense only if you believe he's pushing for it just to be a dick.

As far as gold would do in that scenario, I lean more to tech's side than WiseOnes. Stocks, real estate, and other investments like would get bid down to insanely low levels. Rich people in foreign countries would probably invest more in their own countries, too. But gold would go up, since people would still want a safe place to stash their money that can't burn down or go bankrupt.

I guess it's a question of whether the tail is wagging the dog. Negative interest rates would normally occur in a deflationary economy, in which gold would likely do poorly. But, Trump doesn't seem to be pushing negative rates for that reason. Pushing interest rates that far below inflation...you're right, that could result in gold skyrocketing. If that's the case though, why isn't that happening in Germany? Their inflation rate is 1.4%, not far below ours, yet their long bonds are hovering around 0% yield.

Still think a lot of people would switch not to gold, but to dividend stocks thus pushing up those prices. I remember seeing a lot of blogs promoting dividend stocks after 2009.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:53 pm He might not be the smartest guy, WiseOne.

Au contraire. And I think Kriegs is over thinking it. To me it's simple. As Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid." If the market tanks between now and the election, it makes Trump's reelection prospects more difficult. How do you goose the economy and insure a stock market rally? Lower interest rates. Trump knows this, and if he can talk the Fed into doing it, the economic reaction will make him look really good right before the vote.

I guess.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:34 pm Disagree on gold: it would go to the moon.

Tech, maybe six months ago, you asked what specifically I didn’t like about Trump’s actions or policies (not words), and I’ve certainly been taking my time to supply more than a few. There are some that actions and policies i like.

But, it’s time to add two more glaring problems to the list:
ALLOWING TURKEY TO MASSACRE KURDS // if I didn’t mention it before
WITNESS INTIMIDATION. // fairly fresh, of course

*Never mind the moon quote. I just wanted a quote in your notifications.

I started this thread with Martin Indyk’s attack on Trump’s Mideast policy, from Foreign Affairs.

Here’s an excerpt of the opposing opinion from Michael Doran ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scott_Doran ), from the same issue.

...as the Palestinians have remained impoverished wards of the international community, with threats of terror their chief negotiating tool. Most Arab states moved on long ago. They now treat Israel as a normal player in the eternal great game of regional power balancing. So now has the Trump administration. And for that, it has been excoriated.

The administration’s approach is a disaster, critics say, because it concedes so much to Israel upfront that the Palestinians will never agree to negotiate. The critics are correct about the unlikely prospects for a deal anytime soon. But that makes the Trump administration different from its predecessors how? U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry squandered more than a year of the Obama administration trying in vain to jump-start peace talks, a quixotic effort that even his own negotiators knew would not succeed. Is that the benchmark against which Trump is to be judged? If so, he will end up failing a lot more cheaply.

Hmm.
(link, paywalled though https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... -americans)

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:57 pm The beef between Turkey and the Kurds is none of our business. Those people have been killing each other for centuries, and getting in the middle of that is a certain recipe for disaster.

Ok, but don’t you think we got in the Kurds’ business long enough to receive help from them, so that we should help them back instead of screwing them over and leaving them to be slaughtered? A simple this for that or what do they call it? Quid pro quo.

As for "witness intimidation", did you know that the witness would never have known about the "mean tweet" during her testimony if Schiff hadn't read it to her.

I did not and do not know that. Trump doesn’t tweet for his own consumption. When the President tweets about you, one is going to hear about it. I only remember her speaking about the torment in the past tense, and in plural “days.”

Simonjester wrote: i agree we should help them ..but..
there is more than one way to support the kurds. Boots on the ground may be the go to solution for those with a vested interest in the perma-war state, just not necessarily the best solution for Americans or the Kurds.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:57 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:43 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:34 pm Disagree on gold: it would go to the moon.

Tech, maybe six months ago, you asked what specifically I didn’t like about Trump’s actions or policies (not words), and I’ve certainly been taking my time to supply more than a few. There are some that actions and policies i like.

But, it’s time to add two more glaring problems to the list:
ALLOWING TURKEY TO MASSACRE KURDS // if I didn’t mention it before
WITNESS INTIMIDATION. // fairly fresh, of course

*Never mind the moon quote. I just wanted a quote in your notifications.

The beef between Turkey and the Kurds is none of our business. Those people have been killing each other for centuries, and getting in the middle of that is a certain recipe for disaster.

As for "witness intimidation", did you know that the witness would never have known about the "mean tweet" during her testimony if Schiff hadn't read it to her.

Also, the definition of "witness intimidation" doesn't cover this situation anyway: "Witness intimidation means the threatening of a crucial court witnesses by pressure or extortion to compel him/her to not to testify." (https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/witness-intimidation/)

There was no threat and she was not a "crucial witness", since she witnessed nothing.

Of course I know why you are grasping at straws. You don't have anything.

I believe that there was a break shortly after Schiff had read it to her. It's a near certainty even if Schiff had not read it to her, she would have been told about it by someone(s) during that break.

And, it comes down to how one interprets both "pressure" and "crucial witness". It's clear how you are interpreting both of them but that does not make either interpretation definitive.

Vinny

Simonjester wrote: i agree we should help them ..but..
there is more than one way to support the kurds. Boots on the ground may be the go to solution for those with a vested interest in the perma-war state, just not necessarily the best solution for Americans or the Kurds.

We helped the Hmong permanently settle in the States. Are you thinking something along those lines? If not, then——?
From the Kurdish point of view, it must look strange. We’re fine making war with ISIS and the reward the Kurds get for fighting on our side is: we are a peace-loving nation and have decided to stop fighting at this time. You’re on your own with the Kurds.

Or, maybe Trump has a thing for dictators and strongmen. There are things I like about the Trump administrations’ actions and by tech’s own definition of TDS, that disqualifies me. Putin, Kim, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and Erdogan. He loves the despots.
I hope we get something out of this move.

Simonjester wrote:
i hadn't considered resettling but ..sure... its one tool in the list of a bunch that could be used, humanitarian aid, (food, water, medical care) international sanctions against the aggressors, no fly zones, provide military Intel, training, weapons/ammunition. and undoubtedly others that i haven't heard mentioned or suggested yet.. ...mix and match.... use what makes the best strategic and diplomatic sense based on an accurate understanding of the immediate situation, and the big picture..

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:48 pm

Simonjester wrote: i agree we should help them ..but..
there is more than one way to support the kurds. Boots on the ground may be the go to solution for those with a vested interest in the perma-war state, just not necessarily the best solution for Americans or the Kurds.

We helped the Hmong permanently settle in the States. Are you thinking something along those lines? If not, then——?
From the Kurdish point of view, it must look strange. We’re fine making war with ISIS and the reward the Kurds get for fighting on our side is: we are a peace-loving nation and have decided to stop fighting at this time. You’re on your own with the Kurds.

Or, maybe Trump has a thing for dictators and strongmen. There are things I like about the Trump administrations’ actions and by tech’s own definition of TDS, that disqualifies me. Putin, Kim, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and Erdogan. He loves the despots.
I hope we get something out of this move.

Why does everyone think that migrating a group like the Hmong or the Kurds (or Syrians or Guatemalans for that matter) to the US is a good thing? It is a surefire way to wipe out a culture permanently, which I don't view as a good thing. Neither is uprooting an entire population from the land they've lived in for centuries. There are so many negatives to this I don't even know where to begin.

I agree with Libertarian666 that sending troops to intervene between Turkey and the Kurds would be the height of folly. So we'd not only be waging permanent war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, but we'd have to add Turkey to the list. Also, Turkey is currently a (much-needed) ally in the Middle East, whose military bases are critical jumping-off points for the existing Mideast wars, and that obviously would no longer be the case. I would favor diplomacy (focused on Turkey) but probably nothing beyond that.

On the other hand, if we no longer had Turkey's military bases to use for staging areas, maybe the other Mideast wars would fizzle out....good thing perhaps?

Alright, alright, Tech. I guess I’m stage one or stage 2 then, but being aware of your own illness is the beginning step on the road to recovery.

Now what are you doing to curb your Trump Adoration Syndrome?

WiseOne: my first choice would be for a Kurdistan. But, it’s going to take some serious “folly” first.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:41 pm

yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:35 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:57 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:43 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:34 pm Disagree on gold: it would go to the moon.

Tech, maybe six months ago, you asked what specifically I didn’t like about Trump’s actions or policies (not words), and I’ve certainly been taking my time to supply more than a few. There are some that actions and policies i like.

But, it’s time to add two more glaring problems to the list:
ALLOWING TURKEY TO MASSACRE KURDS // if I didn’t mention it before
WITNESS INTIMIDATION. // fairly fresh, of course

*Never mind the moon quote. I just wanted a quote in your notifications.

The beef between Turkey and the Kurds is none of our business. Those people have been killing each other for centuries, and getting in the middle of that is a certain recipe for disaster.

As for "witness intimidation", did you know that the witness would never have known about the "mean tweet" during her testimony if Schiff hadn't read it to her.

Also, the definition of "witness intimidation" doesn't cover this situation anyway: "Witness intimidation means the threatening of a crucial court witnesses by pressure or extortion to compel him/her to not to testify." (https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/witness-intimidation/)

There was no threat and she was not a "crucial witness", since she witnessed nothing.

Of course I know why you are grasping at straws. You don't have anything.

I believe that there was a break shortly after Schiff had read it to her. It's a near certainty even if Schiff had not read it to her, she would have been told about it by someone(s) during that break.

And, it comes down to how one interprets both "pressure" and "crucial witness". It's clear how you are interpreting both of them but that does not make either interpretation definitive.

Vinny

TDS will make you see things that aren't there.
I'm not going to read your posts on political topics anymore, as they contain nothing but your completely biased opinions.

Who is NOT biased?

However...….a short while ago on this morning's C-Span's Washington Journal I heard Jonathan Turley speak about the Impeachment Inquiry. He is a law professor at Georgetown. And, he seemed completely credible on many levels.

He caused me to now agree with you that it was NOT witness intimidation. He stated it did not fit the legal definition. That Trump had not engaged in an act using his official position. That because he is president does not mean he gives up his 1st Amendment rights.

On the other hand, that he tweeted what he did was the major event of the Friday hearings. It was a turning point in the Republicans questioning of the ambassador. That after the release of that tweet they pulled back considerably in the aggressiveness of their questions towards her.

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:47 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:48 pm

Simonjester wrote:
i agree we should help them ..but..
there is more than one way to support the kurds. Boots on the ground may be the go to solution for those with a vested interest in the perma-war state, just not necessarily the best solution for Americans or the Kurds.

We helped the Hmong permanently settle in the States. Are you thinking something along those lines? If not, then——?
From the Kurdish point of view, it must look strange. We’re fine making war with ISIS and the reward the Kurds get for fighting on our side is: we are a peace-loving nation and have decided to stop fighting at this time. You’re on your own with the Kurds.

Or, maybe Trump has a thing for dictators and strongmen. There are things I like about the Trump administrations’ actions and by tech’s own definition of TDS, that disqualifies me. Putin, Kim, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and Erdogan. He loves the despots.
I hope we get something out of this move.

Note: I'm not a psychiatrist, so this is not medical advice.

There are different stages of TDS. We are still in the early days of research on this plague affecting society, but here's a rough guideline for diagnosing a patient:

Stage 1: Thinks Trump is bad and Trump supporters are deluded but not necessarily evil. Has absorbed some but not all of the propaganda about Trump's being racist, liking dictators, and the like. If shown some achievement that the patient would agree with if it were the work of someone other than Trump, e.g., VA reform, tax reform, or prison reform such as the First Step Act, agrees that it is a good achievement. The patient will improve his opinion of Trump slightly after this.

Stage 2: Knows Trump is evil and a threat to society, but probably not as bad as Hitler, whereas Trump supporters are dumb hicks like on Hee-Haw. Spouts some Democrat talking points easily but doesn't have all the current ones memorized. If shown an achievement as above, denigrates it as being not of any importance, or says Obama is responsible for it.

Stage 3: Trump is not only evil, but as bad as Hitler, and his supporters are Nazi sympathizers. Knows all of the current talking points and will bring them up on any topic that is even tangentially related to politics. If shown an achievement as above, says it is positively horrific even though the patient would have thought it was wonderful if someone else had done it.

Stage 4: Trump is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini combined, and his supporters are a combination of Nazis and KKK members. Keeps up with intraday changes to talking points and cannot discuss any topic without bringing up Trump and blaming him. Trump has turned the US into a dystopian horror for which the only possible remedy is the extermination of him and his followers.

Hope that helps.

Was ALL of this YOUR original writings? If so then if I was a political science professor and you were my student, I'd have to give you a grade of no less than A+.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:48 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:41 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:41 pm

yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:35 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:57 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:43 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:34 pm Disagree on gold: it would go to the moon.

Tech, maybe six months ago, you asked what specifically I didn’t like about Trump’s actions or policies (not words), and I’ve certainly been taking my time to supply more than a few. There are some that actions and policies i like.

But, it’s time to add two more glaring problems to the list:
ALLOWING TURKEY TO MASSACRE KURDS // if I didn’t mention it before
WITNESS INTIMIDATION. // fairly fresh, of course

*Never mind the moon quote. I just wanted a quote in your notifications.

The beef between Turkey and the Kurds is none of our business. Those people have been killing each other for centuries, and getting in the middle of that is a certain recipe for disaster.

As for "witness intimidation", did you know that the witness would never have known about the "mean tweet" during her testimony if Schiff hadn't read it to her.

Also, the definition of "witness intimidation" doesn't cover this situation anyway: "Witness intimidation means the threatening of a crucial court witnesses by pressure or extortion to compel him/her to not to testify." (https://definitions.uslegal.com/w/witness-intimidation/)

There was no threat and she was not a "crucial witness", since she witnessed nothing.

Of course I know why you are grasping at straws. You don't have anything.

I believe that there was a break shortly after Schiff had read it to her. It's a near certainty even if Schiff had not read it to her, she would have been told about it by someone(s) during that break.

And, it comes down to how one interprets both "pressure" and "crucial witness". It's clear how you are interpreting both of them but that does not make either interpretation definitive.

Vinny

TDS will make you see things that aren't there.
I'm not going to read your posts on political topics anymore, as they contain nothing but your completely biased opinions.

Who is NOT biased?

However...….a short while ago on this morning's C-Span's Washington Journal I heard Jonathan Turley speak about the Impeachment Inquiry. He is a law professor at Georgetown. And, he seemed completely credible on many levels.

He caused me to now agree with you that it was NOT witness intimidation. He stated it did not fit the legal definition. That Trump had not engaged in an act using his official position. That because he is president does not mean he gives up his 1st Amendment rights.

On the other hand, that he tweeted what he did was the major event of the Friday hearings. It was a turning point in the Republicans questioning of the ambassador. That after the release of that tweet they pulled back considerably in the aggressiveness of their questions towards her.

Vinny

Dershowitz has a similar analysis and of course he is a Democrat, like Turley. Both of them are pretty good in actually analyzing the law rather than just going along with the Democrat talking points, which is why neither of them is very popular with most Democrats.

As for the Republicans' questioning of the ambassador, since she didn't actually witness anything I'm not sure how her testimony is relevant to anything anyway.

In a broader view, I think this whole "impeachment in search of a crime" is going to blow up in the Democrats' faces. The general public isn't onboard with it, which they would have to be for the Democrats to benefit politically, and it is solidifying the Republican base even more than it already has been.

The relevance of her testimony is her removal. Yes, all ambassadors "serve at the pleasure of the president". But was her removal part something larger? What was the reason such a long-term ambassador was removed?

And, Turley also pointed out that it was NOT part of Pelosi's plan to have this Impeachment Inquiry. Then this July 25th Ukraine call emerged which forced her hand.

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:42 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:58 am
Alright, alright, Tech. I guess I’m stage one or stage 2 then, but being aware of your own illness is the beginning step on the road to recovery.

Now what are you doing to curb your Trump Adoration Syndrome?

Actually there's a well-known treatment for that: read the NYT or Washington Post, or watch MSNBC/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS.
Fortunately I don't have to do that myself because I have Mark Dice and Mark Levin to do it for me!

Jokes aside, you should take a break from the spinning Dice once in a while and peek directly. I peek at Fox and OneAmericaNews once in a while, and I can't imaging having Jake Tapper or Chris Cuomo interpret it for me. (I actually don't watch that much cnn. Mostly cnbc). I listen to Mark Levin once in a while. Smart, but hateful.

He's on TV? What channel?

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:59 am He's on TV? What channel?

Fox News, Sunday night 8 PM Eastern time.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:52 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:48 pm

Simonjester wrote: i agree we should help them ..but..
there is more than one way to support the kurds. Boots on the ground may be the go to solution for those with a vested interest in the perma-war state, just not necessarily the best solution for Americans or the Kurds.

We helped the Hmong permanently settle in the States. Are you thinking something along those lines? If not, then——?
From the Kurdish point of view, it must look strange. We’re fine making war with ISIS and the reward the Kurds get for fighting on our side is: we are a peace-loving nation and have decided to stop fighting at this time. You’re on your own with the Kurds.

Why does everyone think that migrating a group like the Hmong or the Kurds (or Syrians or Guatemalans for that matter) to the US is a good thing? It is a surefire way to wipe out a culture permanently, which I don't view as a good thing. Neither is uprooting an entire population from the land they've lived in for centuries. There are so many negatives to this I don't even know where to begin.

+1

That said, I don't think I've met a Kurd that I didn't like. There's just something about the idea of inviting over large populations of foreigners to live in our country that makes me grok wrongness.

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:48 pm Or, maybe Trump has a thing for dictators and strongmen. There are things I like about the Trump administrations’ actions and by tech’s own definition of TDS, that disqualifies me. Putin, Kim, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and Erdogan. He loves the despots.

Most Filipinos I know, and I'm married to one of them, would not appreciate seeing Duterte lumped in with that group of despots. To them, he is the Donald Trump of the Philippines.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:49 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:44 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:47 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:48 pm

Simonjester wrote:
i agree we should help them ..but..
there is more than one way to support the kurds. Boots on the ground may be the go to solution for those with a vested interest in the perma-war state, just not necessarily the best solution for Americans or the Kurds.

We helped the Hmong permanently settle in the States. Are you thinking something along those lines? If not, then——?
From the Kurdish point of view, it must look strange. We’re fine making war with ISIS and the reward the Kurds get for fighting on our side is: we are a peace-loving nation and have decided to stop fighting at this time. You’re on your own with the Kurds.

Or, maybe Trump has a thing for dictators and strongmen. There are things I like about the Trump administrations’ actions and by tech’s own definition of TDS, that disqualifies me. Putin, Kim, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and Erdogan. He loves the despots.
I hope we get something out of this move.

Note: I'm not a psychiatrist, so this is not medical advice.

There are different stages of TDS. We are still in the early days of research on this plague affecting society, but here's a rough guideline for diagnosing a patient:

Stage 1: Thinks Trump is bad and Trump supporters are deluded but not necessarily evil. Has absorbed some but not all of the propaganda about Trump's being racist, liking dictators, and the like. If shown some achievement that the patient would agree with if it were the work of someone other than Trump, e.g., VA reform, tax reform, or prison reform such as the First Step Act, agrees that it is a good achievement. The patient will improve his opinion of Trump slightly after this.

Stage 2: Knows Trump is evil and a threat to society, but probably not as bad as Hitler, whereas Trump supporters are dumb hicks like on Hee-Haw. Spouts some Democrat talking points easily but doesn't have all the current ones memorized. If shown an achievement as above, denigrates it as being not of any importance, or says Obama is responsible for it.

Stage 3: Trump is not only evil, but as bad as Hitler, and his supporters are Nazi sympathizers. Knows all of the current talking points and will bring them up on any topic that is even tangentially related to politics. If shown an achievement as above, says it is positively horrific even though the patient would have thought it was wonderful if someone else had done it.

Stage 4: Trump is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini combined, and his supporters are a combination of Nazis and KKK members. Keeps up with intraday changes to talking points and cannot discuss any topic without bringing up Trump and blaming him. Trump has turned the US into a dystopian horror for which the only possible remedy is the extermination of him and his followers.

Hope that helps.

Was ALL of this YOUR original writings? If so then if I was a political science professor and you were my student, I'd have to give you a grade of no less than A+.

Vinny

Yes, that was all my original writing. Thanks!

Your talent in doing that certainly dwarfs mine. If my hypothetical was reversed (you--the professor --assigning me--the student--the assignment to create the definition) I would have frozen in fear. Creativity in writing is NOT anywhere near a talent for me.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:50 pm

WiseOne wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:52 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:48 pm

Simonjester wrote: i agree we should help them ..but..
there is more than one way to support the kurds. Boots on the ground may be the go to solution for those with a vested interest in the perma-war state, just not necessarily the best solution for Americans or the Kurds.

We helped the Hmong permanently settle in the States. Are you thinking something along those lines? If not, then——?
From the Kurdish point of view, it must look strange. We’re fine making war with ISIS and the reward the Kurds get for fighting on our side is: we are a peace-loving nation and have decided to stop fighting at this time. You’re on your own with the Kurds.

Why does everyone think that migrating a group like the Hmong or the Kurds (or Syrians or Guatemalans for that matter) to the US is a good thing? It is a surefire way to wipe out a culture permanently, which I don't view as a good thing. Neither is uprooting an entire population from the land they've lived in for centuries. There are so many negatives to this I don't even know where to begin.

+1

That said, I don't think I've met a Kurd that I didn't like. There's just something about the idea of inviting over large populations of foreigners to live in our country that makes me grok wrongness.

Yes, I'm sure that my being against uprooting an entire population and transplanting them to the US would have me labeled as a "racist" in a heartbeat. It's ridiculous how that narrative is trotted out for just about everything immigration-related.

Another way that the idea of population transplants rubs me the wrong way: there's a hidden undercurrent of Western Superiority Syndrome in it. i.e. of course the Kurds would be better off in the US because their culture and the land they live in now are not up to our high standards. If anything, THAT attitude should be labeled as racist.

btw I suppose I could be accused of Trump Adoration Syndrome also. It's just then when I view the actions of his administration objectively and mentally remove the cloud of hysteria that surrounds the reporting, his painfully ignorant & obtuse quotes & tweets, and the personal dramas that I expect are going on constantly in the White House and probably are worse than what we hear about in the media, I find little that is objectionable and plenty to be happy about. It's a case of picking your poison.

jacksonm2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:22 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:48 pm Or, maybe Trump has a thing for dictators and strongmen. There are things I like about the Trump administrations’ actions and by tech’s own definition of TDS, that disqualifies me. Putin, Kim, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and Erdogan. He loves the despots.

Most Filipinos I know, and I'm married to one of them, would not appreciate seeing Duterte lumped in with that group of despots. To them, he is the Donald Trump of the Philippines.

Seriously? No offense to the wife or any of his supporters, but his policy of open season on suspected drug dealers means that people are murdering their rivals in the streets, whether or not they are actual drug dealers. In the meantime, his son is dealing drugs. For many reasons, Duterte is the definition of a despot.