Gyroscopic Investing

Mountaineer wrote: Here is one (slanted?  ) view of obama from a couple years ago.  Still seems to hold a lot of truth.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/scott/130301

Excerpt:
Obama appears to be a tormented man who is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps because, as a child, he grew up around family members and mentors who instilled him with an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That bitterness seems not to have left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem – for anyone in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

... Mountaineer

Sorry, man.  That's the hyperbole-ridden garbage I can't stand.  I'm surprised you got all the way through it before writing it off as just political blustering.

Please... provide evidence of his "resentment, anger, and disdain," or his "hateful, spiteful, malevelant, vindictive" nature. 

Here's a pretty cool trick I've discovered.  The more subjective words like those above that someone has to use in two paragraphs of analysis, the less analysis is actually based in anything close to reality.  The more it is just papering over their weak arguments about who Obama is or what their policy preferences are and why.

Where hyperbole exists, usually it's there to fill an intellectual/analytical void, IMO.

The only politician in the U.S. alive I can think of where that ridiculous descriptive excess rings true is Dick Cheney.  The rest are just smart, dedicated public servants at best, and megalomaniacal blow-hards at worst, for the most part.  Obama is no different.  While I can understand where MG is coming from ragging on him for being in over his head, all this "spiteful, hateful, evil, satan, anti-christ" hyperbole garbage seems like a stretch.  (sorry for the snarkastic straw man at the end there) 

moda0306 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: So explain to me how certain events would have shaken out differently to the degree to which you could say with a straight face that:

The way I see it, a Romney Presidency would have been far, far more effective at what it set out to accomplish (yes, even on the marijuana issue, unfortunately).  That's the difference worldy executive experience brings to the table.  I said this before and I'll say it again more colorfully: OBAMA IS IN OVER HIS FUCKING HEAD!!!

What was it out to accomplish? 

Gas prices down?

Check.

Stock market WAY up?

Check.

Unemployment down and actual job growth?

Check.

Shrinking deficit to below 3% of GDP?

Check (I think :/)



Look I'm purposefully cherry-picking here.  I'm not trying to say Obama's been great... the economy is a hell of a lot bigger than any one President.  But whenever I press people on this stuff they can never give me a straight answer... WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER WITH ROMNEY?

You can say Obama is in over his head.  I'd say almost all presidents are.  But that's irrelevent... the question is what actual measurable difference is that making?  If you can't point to something you think would be better and why, then (sorry to be rude, but) your original statement that "noone can contest" that Romney would be FAR, FAR better than Obama rings pretty hollow.

None of those things are connected with Obama's actions.  He could have played golf every day of his term, and those outcomes would be the same.  Not literally, of course.  He would have to pretend to do something.  Which of Obama's actual projects has succeeded?


Funding solar companies, now bankrupt.  Failure.

ACA website down... wait, up, and so are premiums.  Failure.

Increased surveillance state, embarrassingly revealed by ex-IT-guy?  Failure.

Drone bombings world over, and now a rogue Islamic State?  Failure.


Obama's presidency is an object lesson in the pointlessness of central gov't.  Five more presidents as hands-off as Obama, or more so, and we'll be flying around like the Jetsons.  Thank god.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Look I'm purposefully cherry-picking here.  I'm not trying to say Obama's been great... the economy is a hell of a lot bigger than any one President.  But whenever I press people on this stuff they can never give me a straight answer... WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER WITH ROMNEY?

You can say Obama is in over his head.  I'd say almost all presidents are.  But that's irrelevent... the question is what actual measurable difference is that making?  If you can't point to something you think would be better and why, then (sorry to be rude, but) your original statement that "noone can contest" that Romney would be FAR, FAR better than Obama rings pretty hollow.

I don't credit gas prices being down, the stock market being up, or other irrelevant things like that to whoever the current President is.  And if that is all the Obama administration can claim after six years, that should tell you how bad they are reaching for any sign of credit.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two areas Romney would have been vastly better at....  downsizing/reforming the Federal government and our overseas military-intervention adventures.

Unless a leopard can change its spots, I can't wait until Obama and his admnistration are gone, because by the time his term is up, the world may be crashing and burning and we'll really need to elect someone who finally has a clue.

Re: Downsizing/reforming the Federal Gov't

Well now you've put him right back along side those austerity kooks.  IMO, you significantly cut spending and we double-dip in the U.S. into recession.


Re: Downsizing/reforming our overseas military adventures

I really, really don't believe Romney would have downsized the military, based on his blatherings.  And his support of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam doesn't add much to my confidence.

I mean we'll never know, man.  I just don't think your analysis holds much water.


But I agree with you that we look far too much at unemployment and the stock market to judge presidential success... but if you can't do it for Obama, you can't do it for Reagan either.  Can't have your cake and eat it too. (by "you," I mean people in general... not YOU).

moda0306 wrote: The only politician in the U.S. alive I can think of where that ridiculous descriptive excess rings true is Dick Cheney.  The rest are just

Well, Dick Cheney has unicorns in his head, so...

Lowe wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: The way I see it, a Romney Presidency would have been far, far more effective at what it set out to accomplish (yes, even on the marijuana issue, unfortunately).  That's the difference worldy executive experience brings to the table.  I said this before and I'll say it again more colorfully: OBAMA IS IN OVER HIS FUCKING HEAD!!!

What was it out to accomplish? 

Gas prices down?

Check.

Stock market WAY up?

Check.

Unemployment down and actual job growth?

Check.

Shrinking deficit to below 3% of GDP?

Check (I think :/)



Look I'm purposefully cherry-picking here.  I'm not trying to say Obama's been great... the economy is a hell of a lot bigger than any one President.  But whenever I press people on this stuff they can never give me a straight answer... WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER WITH ROMNEY?

You can say Obama is in over his head.  I'd say almost all presidents are.  But that's irrelevent... the question is what actual measurable difference is that making?  If you can't point to something you think would be better and why, then (sorry to be rude, but) your original statement that "noone can contest" that Romney would be FAR, FAR better than Obama rings pretty hollow.

None of those things are connected with Obama's actions.  He could have played golf every day of his term, and those outcomes would be the same.   Not literally, of course.  He would have to pretend to do something.  Which of Obama's actual projects has succeeded?


Funding solar companies, now bankrupt.  Failure.

ACA website down... wait, up, and so are premiums.  Failure.

Increased surveillance state, embarrassingly revealed by ex-IT-guy?  Failure.

Drone bombings world over, and now a rogue Islamic State?  Failure.


Obama's presidency is an object lesson in the pointlessness of central gov't.  Five more presidents as hands-off as Obama, or more so, and we'll be flying around like the Jetsons.  Thank god.

I actually sort of agree with your first bolded statement.  But that says a lot about how little influence the president has on the economy in the short-term.  Carry the implications of that with you as you continue to make arguments going forward about economics/politics.

A few solar companies went down.  Solar as an industry is booming.  Did Obama help that?  It would appear somewhat.

To say that the ACA was unsuccessful because of a downed webside is a bit ludicrous.

Those last two are supposed to have gone any other way with a Romney or McCain in the whitehouse?  Sorry man... that dog don't hunt.

moda0306 wrote: Well now you've put him right back along side those austerity kooks.  IMO, you significantly cut spending and we double-dip in the U.S. into recession.

I didn't say anythng about cutting spending or downsizing the military.  I was referring to improving productivity.  Is improving productivity in the Federal government austerity or deflationary?  Transfer payments would have been untouched.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Well now you've put him right back along side those austerity kooks.  IMO, you significantly cut spending and we double-dip in the U.S. into recession.

I didn't say anythng about cutting spending.  I was referring to improving productivity.  Is improving productivity in the Federal government austerity or deflationary?

By no means.  I guess I assumed you meant mainly through spending cuts at the Federal level.

Though I can agree with you that if anyone can improve productivity, it probably would be Romney, I don't know how he was suggesting (or how he actually would have) accomplished that.


And regarding his affect on military adventures, what were you saying?

moda0306 wrote: Though I can agree with you that if anyone can improve productivity, it probably would be Romney, I don't know how he was suggesting (or how he actually would have) accomplished that.

Well then my dog can hunt.  Unlike Obama, I have more confidence Romeny would have had the experience to put it together and pull it off.

And if you didn't mean cutting spending, what was "downsizing" supposed to mean?

moda0306 wrote: And regarding his affect on military adventures, what were you saying?

They're NeoCons.  What do you think?  Obama has been a wimp either way: defense or interventionism.  When they say the President is Commander-in-Chief of all the military branches, I don't think people really understand what that means to put an inexperienced community organizer into the role.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Though I can agree with you that if anyone can improve productivity, it probably would be Romney, I don't know how he was suggesting (or how he actually would have) accomplished that.

Well then my dog can hunt.  Unlike Obama, I have more confidence Romeny would have had the experience to put it together and pull it off.

You still haven't explained the military thing.  You think Romney would have "fixed" our military adventures?

Please tell me what a guy who supports our involvement in Vietnam would have done?

EDIT: You got to the military thing...  My bad.  Though you didn't really describe WHAT he'd do different... you just called Obama an inexperienced dipshit.


Further, you didn't say "I think Romney would have been better than Obama."  You said, "No one can contest that Romney would have been far, far preferable than Obama during the past three years."


Sorry... not only does that dog not hunt, it eats its own sh!t, pees on the carpet, and humps guests.

moda0306 wrote: And if you didn't mean cutting spending, what was "downsizing" supposed to mean?

I meant consolidation, early retirement and the opposite of creating more new bureaucracies, etc.  Quit nitpicking.  You know my positions.

moda0306 wrote:

Lowe wrote:

moda0306 wrote: What was it out to accomplish? 

Gas prices down?

Check.

Stock market WAY up?

Check.

Unemployment down and actual job growth?

Check.

Shrinking deficit to below 3% of GDP?

Check (I think :/)



Look I'm purposefully cherry-picking here.  I'm not trying to say Obama's been great... the economy is a hell of a lot bigger than any one President.  But whenever I press people on this stuff they can never give me a straight answer... WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER WITH ROMNEY?

You can say Obama is in over his head.  I'd say almost all presidents are.  But that's irrelevent... the question is what actual measurable difference is that making?  If you can't point to something you think would be better and why, then (sorry to be rude, but) your original statement that "noone can contest" that Romney would be FAR, FAR better than Obama rings pretty hollow.

None of those things are connected with Obama's actions.  He could have played golf every day of his term, and those outcomes would be the same.   Not literally, of course.  He would have to pretend to do something.  Which of Obama's actual projects has succeeded?


Funding solar companies, now bankrupt.  Failure.

ACA website down... wait, up, and so are premiums.  Failure.

Increased surveillance state, embarrassingly revealed by ex-IT-guy?  Failure.

Drone bombings world over, and now a rogue Islamic State?  Failure.


Obama's presidency is an object lesson in the pointlessness of central gov't.  Five more presidents as hands-off as Obama, or more so, and we'll be flying around like the Jetsons.  Thank god.

I actually sort of agree with your first bolded statement.  But that says a lot about how little influence the president has on the economy in the short-term.  Carry the implications of that with you as you continue to make arguments going forward about economics/politics.

A few solar companies went down.  Solar as an industry is booming.  Did Obama help that?  It would appear somewhat.

To say that the ACA was unsuccessful because of a downed webside is a bit ludicrous.

Those last two are supposed to have gone any other way with a Romney or McCain in the whitehouse?  Sorry man... that dog don't hunt.

Solar companies in China are doing swell.  So is SolarCity, which had their federal loan fall through, I believe.  It looks like it was a boondoggle to me.

As for ACA, most accounts I have heard have workplace premiums rising.  Mine did.  Wasn't ACA supposed to stop that?  If not, what is it supposed to do?

I don't know whether McCain or Romney would have allowed the heinous police state Obama has, and we won't have a chance to find out.  Frankly it came as a surprise to me that Obama had allowed things to get to where they are.  What I am trying to say, though, is that a rock with a mustache painted on it would have made a better president than any of them.

moda0306 wrote: Further, you didn't say "I think Romney would have been better than Obama."  You said, "No one can contest that Romney would have been far, far preferable than Obama during the past three years."

Sorry... not only does that dog not hunt, it eats its own sh!t, pees on the carpet, and humps guests.

Okay, maybe that was a hyperbole statement.   But I didn't mean it as a Republican reaction that is typical political B.S..  But to anyone lookng at Obama vs Romney objectively, it should be obvious.  The job of a President is to run the EXECUTIVE branch and act as the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the armed forces.  Obama has had ZERO relevant experience at either job and it shows.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Further, you didn't say "I think Romney would have been better than Obama."  You said, "No one can contest that Romney would have been far, far preferable than Obama during the past three years."

Sorry... not only does that dog not hunt, it eats its own sh!t, pees on the carpet, and humps guests.

Okay, maybe that was a hyperbole statement.   But I didn't mean it as a Republican reaction that is typical political B.S..  But to anyone lookng at Obama vs Romney objectively, it should be obvious.  The job of a President is to run the EXECUTIVE branch and act as the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the armed forces.  Obama has had ZERO relevant experience at either job and it shows.

Well from a general stature standpoint, as long as Romney stayed in "CEO Lex Luthor" mode and avoided trying to act like a NASCAR dad, I think I agree he would have been far more Presidential than Obama, who is more like a bumbling professor a lot of the time, and (IMO) a friendly, likable guy other times... but that's not who you want as a president.

You want Teddy f'kin Roosevelt .

moda0306 wrote: You still haven't explained the military thing.  You think Romney would have "fixed" our military adventures?

Please tell me what a guy who supports our involvement in Vietnam would have done?

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan so early.  And I'm also pretty sure ISIS wouldn't be an issue right now.  Syria I've no idea about, but Benzghai likely would not have happened.  Republicans take threat warnings far more seriously than Democrats, which is weird to say because even with a Democrat administration, you still have the Pentagon, Homeland Security, etc. staffed with Republicans, but the ultimate decision still comes from the President itsefl.  So what we're really all wondering is what are all the critical decisions Obama decided to nix that reflected his Democrat wimpyness on security matters?

And where are all the secret lovers if Obama is gonna keep up with the Democrat stereotype.

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Here is one (slanted?  ) view of obama from a couple years ago.  Still seems to hold a lot of truth.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/scott/130301

Excerpt:
Obama appears to be a tormented man who is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps because, as a child, he grew up around family members and mentors who instilled him with an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That bitterness seems not to have left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem – for anyone in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

... Mountaineer

Sorry, man.  That's the hyperbole-ridden garbage I can't stand.  I'm surprised you got all the way through it before writing it off as just political blustering.

Of course it is political blustering ... just like the political blustering you are doing in support of the unexperienced (argue with that?) in running much of anything other than his mouth (obama, not you).  What exactly is it that you use to determine current and future probability of a healthy USA - that is in the president's realm of responsibility and that obama has so successfully done - and done in a way that offsets his foibles?

... Mountaineer

Personally, the difference I see between the two is that while Obama is an incompetent political lightweight who is largely unable to get much done, Romney has repeatedly demonstrated his competence in leadership, both political and practical, and as a result, one would expect that he would be much better at getting what he wants. This begs the obvious question: is what Romney wants the same as what I want? If Romney will be better at Obama at doing things I don't like, I might be better off with Obama.

That said, I voted for him and prefer him to Obama, since my views align better with his than with Obama's.

Mountaineer,

I may throw a little bluster in here and there, but I actually make reasoned arguments for most of my positions.  There is a difference between simply stating arbitrary qualitative attributes of a person that don't at all align with his personality style (hateful, malevolent) and asking conservatives to lay out their case as to what a Republican would have done differently, and challenging them on it.

If there were democrats on this board saying things like:

"No one can contest that Obama has been far, far preferable to what Romney would have been during the past three years."

I'd be giving them the same hard time.  That's a ridiculous statement (MG admitted it was hyperbole). But they're not.  The only people on this forum making asinine statements about the quality of the president vs his foes, as far as I can see, are the conservative elements here.  Now that doesn't mean that Romney or McCain wouldn't have done better, but once you start watching people who have to use all sorts of hyperbole about how EVIL Obama is try to fumble their way through an argument about why we'd be in a much better spot with McCain or something, it's obvious that the very hyperbole that was so abundantly descriptive and material to the quality of this person (Obama) was just a bunch of gibberish to disquise that they can't critically think their way out of a wet paper bag.

Pointedstick wrote: Personally, the difference I see between the two is that while Obama is an incompetent political lightweight who is largely unable to get much done, Romney has repeatedly demonstrated his competence in leadership, both political and practical, and as a result, one would expect that he would be much better at getting what he wants. This begs the obvious question: is what Romney wants the same as what I want? If Romney will be better at Obama at doing things I don't like, I might be better off with Obama.

That said, I voted for him and prefer him to Obama, since my views align better with his than with Obama's.

This is very reasonably-put.  Can't disagree with a word of it.


I'm curious, just to test whether my personality senses are way off or not, do you think this excerpt of Obama accurately describes his nature:

Obama appears to be a tormented man who is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps because, as a child, he grew up around family members and mentors who instilled him with an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That bitterness seems not to have left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem – for anyone in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

I think there's a LARGE portion of the Republican electorate that sees Obama THIS way, rather than simply someone who is in over his head, perhaps a bit pompous, and who's nausiating to listen to... or whatever.

I can very much relate to your/MT's view of who Obama is.  I can somewhat see Cheney as the evil dude, perhaps, that some people think Obama is, but I simply can't see most politicians even a being that bad, much less Obama, who while being quite in over his head, I find to be a pretty likable guy.

Just wanted to see what you thought, because that's one take on a person I simply don't understand.

moda0306 wrote: I'm curious, just to test whether my personality senses are way off or not, do you think this excerpt of Obama accurately describes his nature:

Obama appears to be a tormented man who is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps because, as a child, he grew up around family members and mentors who instilled him with an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That bitterness seems not to have left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem – for anyone in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

I think it is an exaggeration of something that is largely true, and we see it when Obama chides his opponents for, well, being his opponents. The view is the Rush Limbaughization of the fact that Obama doesn't seem to like being contradicted or opposed. It's like he doesn't get that politics is a game where everyone's against you, and he keeps wanting it to be this thing where you make your case, and if it's good enough people agree with you and get behind you and you get it done! This is of course a laughable notion, but it's the working model of politics that I feel like Obama's playing from. And the way he manifests this is making lots and lots of speeches and then being surprised that he didn't convince anyone, and then centralizing power to himself wherever he can, so he doesn't have to depend on the support of others. We saw this recently in how Pentagon officials were complaining that they were being cut out of the loop and everything was going through the DoD instead, where all of Obama's friends were. It's just one example, but again, I think it's the kernel of truth that drives that blustery exaggeration.

PS,

Gotcha. 

Perhaps I can't see it because, like Obama, I get annoyed when I have to play political games to get a point accrossed.  Perhaps I'm more "hateful" of my opponents than the guy who puts on a more "hateful" show, simply because his hate is just to rile up his base... not a real emotion (think Rush Limbaugh).

However, if you're right, what does that really say worse things about?  Obama, who thinks he's making the correct rational arguments, and when they're ignored, moves ahead on his own... or a "game player" (think LBJ or something) who doesn't care about making the best argument, but about putting on the most effective show to win the game?

I mean, I would imagine that if what you say is true, electing a guy like Rand (or especially ol' Ron) would be ESPECIALLY interesting.  Those guys have some CONVICTION!!  And they don't like playing the game that so many in Washington are skilled at playing.

Would we call them "hateful, spiteful, vindictive, and malevolent" when they side-step congress, the Fed, and the systems in place to bring about the change they wish to see?

I mean the ultimate maverick, love him or hate him, was Teddy Roosevelt (as far as I know).  The guy was simultaniously a brutal racist nationalist and an anti-racist (yup... he was a weird dude), enviornmentalist, anti-trust, pro-regulation populist.  He simply Did. Not. Care. what ANYONE thought cuz he KNEW he was right, and often did a pretty good job of arguing his case.  It's part of the reason I'm utterly captivated by the guy.  Some of his accusations of others sound downright hateful.  But he's on a lot of people's short-list of favorite presidents that would label Obama the anti-Christ.

MachineGhost wrote: I don't credit gas prices being down, the stock market being up, or other irrelevant things like that to whoever the current President is.  And if that is all the Obama administration can claim after six years, that should tell you how bad they are reaching for any sign of credit.

The new senate majority leader was trying to claiming it...

Senator McConnell wrote:After so many years of sluggish growth, we’re finally seeing some economic data that can provide a glimmer of hope. The uptick appears to coincide with the biggest political change of the Obama administration’s long tenure in Washington: the expectation of a new Republican Congress.

moda0306 wrote: However, if you're right, what does that really say worse things about?  Obama, who thinks he's making the correct rational arguments, and when they're ignored, moves ahead on his own... or a "game player" (think LBJ or something) who doesn't care about making the best argument, but about putting on the most effective show to win the game?

It suggests that conviction is irrelevant compared to being good at playing the game. Think about Ned Stark in Game of Thrones. A man with HONOR! A man with CONVICTION! A man with MORALS! And where did they get him?

I mean, think about Bill Clinton. Now that man could play the game of politics!

Politics is a game with rules. If you play by the rules, you can win. If you don't know the rules, you will lose. End of story. It doesn't matter how righteous or moral or compassionate or whatever you are. This is why Obama is weak. Even if you like him and what he stands for, you have to admit he's piss-poor at getting any of it done.

moda0306 wrote: I mean the ultimate maverick, love him or hate him, was Teddy Roosevelt (as far as I know).  The guy was simultaniously a brutal racist nationalist and an anti-racist (yup... he was a weird dude), enviornmentalist, anti-trust, pro-regulation populist.  He simply Did. Not. Care. what ANYONE thought cuz he KNEW he was right, and often did a pretty good job of arguing his case.  It's part of the reason I'm utterly captivated by the guy.  Some of his accusations of others sound downright hateful.  But he's on a lot of people's short-list of favorite presidents that would label Obama the anti-Christ.

What are we in some alternate universe tonight? I'm totally agreeing with Moda on this one. TR is da Man! I highly recommend Edmund Morris' trilogy on his life. It would be a real toss up to me who was the most talented President ever between TR and Lincoln. For pure renaissance man qualities TR beats Lincoln hands down. Lincoln had the far tougher job though and his vision in terms of long-term impact on the U.S. was just below the Founding Fathers...and we probably can credit Lincoln with correcting the errors of the F.Fs in the application of their vision.