Gyroscopic Investing

I wouldn't have guessed this...

[img width=500]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/201 ... log480.png[/img]

This really changes my views on Jeb's chances. 

[img width=300]http://dinarvets.com/forums/uploads/gal ... 0_6770.jpg[/img]

Tyler wrote: [img width=300]http://dinarvets.com/forums/uploads/gal ... 0_6770.jpg[/img]

and... approval just went down.  I think the best thing you can do for your approval is hide.  Maybe that's what Hillary is up to.

That's pretty depressing but I find this even scarier than the idea of another Bush presidency ......

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -done.html

TennPaGa wrote: I think it is pretty standard for a president's approval ratings to go up a bit after he leaves office.

Gallup: History Usually Kinder to Ex-Presidents

It is.  You tend to look back on history in a nostalgic way.  Same with Clinton, Reagan, etc. 

You also realize that the types of issues these guys are dealt are generally hard to resolve and typically have no great, apparent fix/answer often times.

clacy wrote: It is.  You tend to look back on history in a nostalgic way.  Same with Clinton, Reagan, etc. 

The most perfect example of this is, I believe, Abraham Lincoln. They didn't have approval ratings back then, of course, but based on what I've read he was not nearly the popular president on either side of the Mason Dixon line that he eventually became. It probably helps your future approval ratings to be assassinated too. Kennedy would be another example of that.

I realize this isn't uncommon, but to me GWB's legacy seems to have gotten worse in my mind.  Not better.  It's far more apparent to me now what a disaster he was than in 2008.  But that's probably just cuz I'm turning into an ardent civil libertarian, and wasn't that much of one back then.

And the fact that 84% of Republicans approve of him is just a woefully disappointing number to see.

moda0306 wrote: I realize this isn't uncommon, but to me GWB's legacy seems to have gotten worse in my mind.  Not better.  It's far more apparent to me now what a disaster he was than in 2008.  But that's probably just cuz I'm turning into an ardent civil libertarian, and wasn't that much of one back then.

And the fact that 84% of Republicans approve of him is just a woefully disappointing number to see.

I quite agree. His legacy includes:
- Starting two endless wars that destabilized the region and contributed to creating the very threat we were worried about--an islamic terrorist state
- A major new welfare program: Medicare Part D
- The PATRIOT act, warrantless wiretapping, domestic spying, etc.
- The TSA
- Militarized local police departments
- To Big To Fail
- No Child Left Behind Act
- Torture
- Discrediting the Republican party for an entire generation


On the plus side, he lowered taxes and helped Africans with AIDS.

Bush was an idiot and the wars unnecessary.

The obvious reason Bush looks better is because of the incompetent, deceitful guy in the white house.  On this forum however it seems to me that many have such a hard on for Bush's military actions, that subsequent presidents could torture animals on video and Bush would still be considered worse.

TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD: candidate bush has been too honest about his opinions and the only way he gets nomination, is if votes are split between his opponents.

In the Rubio interview I posted a link to above he was asked about whether he would have voted for the war in Iraq knowing what he knows now and he said no and that also GWB himself would not have voted for it knowing what he knows now.

I think that is not true. I heard GWB speaking not long ago and he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do then and it was still the right thing to do now. So he is totally unapologetic about the fiasco that cost every American family about a years wages to pay for and still counting, not to mention the loss of life, mostly by Iraqis.

Benko wrote: TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD: candidate bush has been too honest about his opinions and the only way he gets nomination, is if votes are split between his opponents.

I think that has a long history of working as a strategy. Just look at candidates like John McCain, Bob Dole, and even Mitt Romney. All you need to do is be the last mediocre nincompoop left standing after letting the others duke it out.

madbean wrote: That's pretty depressing but I find this even scarier than the idea of another Bush presidency ......

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -done.html

I think I'm gonna puke...

“Vulnerable nations still depend on us to deter aggression from their larger neighbors,” Rubio continued. “Oppressed peoples still turn their eyes toward our shores, wondering if we can hear their cries, wondering if we notice their afflictions.”

Not that I don't think there are some truly horrific, even preventable things going on around the world.  But we play too much "pick and choose" with regards to our willingness to address it to be able to talk about it in such a melodramatic tone.

moda0306 wrote: Not that I don't think there are some truly horrific, even preventable things going on around the world.  But we play too much "pick and choose" with regards to our willingness to address it to be able to talk about it in such a melodramatic tone.

How about we actually do something to help victims closer to home?

Poverty
Rank City         Democrat control since

1 Detroit, MI 1961
2 Buffalo, NY 1954
3 Cincinnati, OH 1984
4 Cleveland, OH 1989
5 Miami, FL         forever
6 St. Louis, MO 1949
7 El Paso, TX forever
8 Milwaukee, WI 1908
9 Philadelphia, PA 1952
10 Newark, NJ 1907

http://www.scragged.com/articles/democr ... ter-cities

Benko,

What do you suggest "we" do about that problem?

moda0306 wrote: Benko,

What do you suggest "we" do about that problem?

The Dems will tell you that we need to raise taxes and throw more money and government control at the problem.

I didn't ask what the dems want to do to solve it. You mentioned it would be a better idea that "we" try to solve the problem of poverty in our own cities. I figured you meant government since that was the entity mentioned acting in foreign countries. So I'm just curious what you think should be done (presumably by government) to solve inner city poverty. If you weren't talking about government, that's sort of impertinent to the question of foreign policy, is it not?

Edit:

Oops. Wrong person. Thought you were Benko.

moda0306 wrote: Benko,

What do you suggest "we" do about that problem?

Honestly the most practical realistic solution is population replacement AKA gentrification. This usually doesn't happen until the city hits rock bottom following disastrous mismanagement and possibly even bankruptcy, and hippie artist types come in and rent real estate in the cheapest and worst neighborhoods en masse, accidentally improving them and paving the way for more mainstream inhabitants to come in and start businesses that cater to them.

Of course, the displaced people just leave and ruin another city.

Benko wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Not that I don't think there are some truly horrific, even preventable things going on around the world.  But we play too much "pick and choose" with regards to our willingness to address it to be able to talk about it in such a melodramatic tone.

How about we actually do something to help victims closer to home?

Poverty
Rank City         Democrat control since

1 Detroit, MI 1961
2 Buffalo, NY 1954
3 Cincinnati, OH 1984
4 Cleveland, OH 1989
5 Miami, FL         forever
6 St. Louis, MO 1949
7 El Paso, TX forever
8 Milwaukee, WI 1908
9 Philadelphia, PA 1952
10 Newark, NJ 1907

http://www.scragged.com/articles/democr ... ter-cities

Nice list.  Now do it for the richest cities!

Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results.

STOP F'N DIGGING (as in if you're in a hole...).  If there are 100 or 1000 possible different remedies, try a different one. 

Benko wrote: Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results.

STOP F'N DIGGING (as in if you're in a hole...).  If there are 100 or 1000 possible different remedies, try a different one.

You were the one that brought up aiding poverty in our domestic cities.

I figured you had some ideas as to how to do that. And if it doesn't involve government, then I don't even know what we are talking about, here.

TennPaGa wrote:

clacy wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: I think it is pretty standard for a president's approval ratings to go up a bit after he leaves office.

Gallup: History Usually Kinder to Ex-Presidents

It is.  You tend to look back on history in a nostalgic way.  Same with Clinton, Reagan, etc. 

I agree.

Also, note that the table moda posted is from 2013.

Because his brother Jeb is running, I would expect the approval ratings for W to decrease as the 2016 election approaches.  I think the same will happen with Bill Clinton's ratings because Hillary is running, though not as much because (i) it has been longer since Bill has been president compared with W (ii) Bill's popularity when he left was higher than W's when he left.

Oddly, I have actually been slowly-but-surely falling out of love with Bill Clinton ever since about 2006 or so... perhaps later (I was in college, so pardon me for any bright eyed idealism towards folks).  After issues around deregulation & the financial crisis, trade deals that have appeared more and more corrupt as time goes on, expansions of police funding/powers, marriage laws (though I can hardly blame him given the status of that issue in the 1990's), expansion and reinforcement of the spy-state, and just the fact that his economy was more luck built on the expansion of the PC and internet with simultaneous cheap oil, it really tarnished my view of him.

I still really enjoy hearing him speak when he is "on."  I think he's also pretty good at times about talking critically about the failures of his administration (eg, in interviews he comments on how and seems visibly upset at how he misjudged the obesity epidemic (not that I think this is necessarily the job of the federal government to worry about, but the mere fact that he's admitting and upset at an arguable failure of a presidency is commendable in a sea of NONE of that in politics).

It's no surprise, though, that a statist Marxist atheist like me gets most upset with the adoration of Reagan.  He truly is the Barack Obama of the republican party, and I'll be annoyed if all my liberal friends talk about Obama the way repubs talk about Reagan today.  He was an actor.  He boiled down feelings of American tribalism into a dog-whistle that would make the Pied Piper blush.  The more I study history, critical thinking, and politics, the more obvious this becomes.  Perhaps the U.S. "needed some of that" after two decades of divisive, challenging bullshit, but he leveraged that to some really despicable ends in South America, and in other arenas I won't get into.

Oddly, though I don't think he was "meant to be president," I've actually come to really respect Jimmy Carter.  He is about as honest and genuine a human being as you could ask for, even if you disagree with his policy preferences (I'm never going to agree 100% with anyone, so to me honesty and critical thinking is far more important than "opinion").  Most of the economic garbage during his presidency wasn't "his fault," but the guy just wasn't built to withstand more than one term as president in the U.S.  Sure, after Vietnam and Watergate, an "honest guy" was perfect for the white house... but eventually we want our tribalist dog whistle back more than being told to turn our thermostats down and drive 55.

I guess that's all neither here nor there... just "moda's take."

For what it's worth, Moda, I'm in almost complete agreement with everything you wrote. Don't forget Clinton's provocative expansion of NATO into Russia's backyard, sowing the seeds for their belligerence today. And of course he raised taxes too. There's also the Assault Weapons Ban... Jeez, if I really think about it, there's a ton of crap.

http://on.cc.com/1A4z5bR

Wow... Jon Stewart sums up Jeb's bumbling on the topic quite wonderfully.  Perhaps I was wrong to be afraid of Jeb's chances.

Pointedstick wrote: For what it's worth, Moda, I'm in almost complete agreement with everything you wrote. Don't forget Clinton's provocative expansion of NATO into Russia's backyard, sowing the seeds for their belligerence today. And of course he raised taxes too. There's also the Assault Weapons Ban... Jeez, if I really think about it, there's a ton of crap.

Like I've said in the past, I don't like when we disagree.

And you must be listening to Dan Carlin (with that whole NATO/Russia analysis)!  If not, I'm curious where you've been reading up on that analysis.

He's single-handedly knocked my view of Clinton way down... and Obama... and knocked Reagan and Bush even further down.  And he slapped Teddy Roosevelt around quite a bit (I stll love the guy in a weird way... anyone that convicted and independent and can get shot in the chest and deliver a speech (reading around the hole in the speech notes caused by the bullet) gets my respect, at the very least).

Now I love guys like Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul.  Dammit... I guess ignorance was bliss.  Perpetual disapointment: engage.

moda0306 wrote: Like I've said in the past, I don't like when we disagree.

And you must be listening to Dan Carlin (with that whole NATO/Russia analysis)!  If not, I'm curious where you've been reading up on that analysis.

No, not him. Can't remember where I read that perspective, but it immediately made sense to me.

moda0306 wrote: Now I love guys like Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul.  Dammit... I guess ignorance was bliss.  Perpetual disapointment: engage.

Welcome to the clubhouse. There aren't any brownies. In fact, there are no perks whatsoever.