Gyroscopic Investing

From what I could find, this was a relatively unbiased poll.

Anyone else want to share?

https://www.isidewith.com/

[img width=500]https://www.isidewith.com/results-image ... 435013.jpg[/img]

[img width=500]http://i.imgur.com/41FXxJe.png[/img]

I thought some of the questions were rather un-nuanced.  There's not always a black or white answer.  But selecting or entering your own stance won't match your answer.  Idiots.  I went back and selected just straight up Yes or No.  I can't believe Santorum is in second place.  I hate that guy!  Makes my skin crawl.

Simonjester wrote: i was a little surprised at the results so i took it twice

Ben Carson came up at the top on both, i was expecting Rand Paul

and how did Carly get in there? it almost made me sing the sesame street "one of these things is not like the others" song

Desert wrote: Ok, somebody shoot me now. 

Wow, you must be pretty weird!  But we knew that already. 

Half of New Mexico on that voter map looks like a hot bed of libertarian thought.  So does half of Minnesota.

Basically all of us should be pretty happy with whoever becomes the Republican nominee.

Pointedstick wrote: Basically all of us should be pretty happy with whoever becomes the Republican nominee.

Not if Santorum won it!!!  But thankfully, that's just not going to happen.  I like Huckabee as a person but I wouldn't want him winning it either.  Religious types make my skin crawl.

Desert wrote:   Yeah, I'm definitely weird. 

But that poll is messed up; I'd vote for Sanders before Trump.

Are you crazy?!!  What's wrong with Trump?  He lives in the real world unlike Sanders.

TennPaGa wrote: How often did you choose an answer from the "Other stances" list?

Did any of you adjust the importance of particular questions?

Also, did you notice that only a small number of questions were shown in each area initially, and you had to click a link to expose more questions?  For example, at first there were only 3 Social Issues questions (abortion, same sex marriage, and business's ability to refuse customers on religious grounds), but you could click a link to show 5 more.

I took strictly Yes or No, answered all extra questions and did not weight anything other than the default except for term limits.  That went all the way to the right!!!

Putting that back to default boosts Cruz above Bush and lowers Rand to 89%.  LOL, Bush just can't seem to catch a break.  And Trump trumps Carson.

EDIT: If you don't click on expand all Candidates you won't see the true top five.  Rubio is now in my fifth place, not Cruz.

Libertarian666 wrote:

It's pretty freakin' weird that most of us score higher with Rand Paul than you do.  Hah!

I'm surprised the spread was so small between the candidates. 

... M

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Basically all of us should be pretty happy with whoever becomes the Republican nominee.

Not if Santorum won it!!!  But thankfully, that's just not going to happen.  I like Huckabee as a person but I wouldn't want him winning it either.  Religious types make my skin crawl.

…I meant, among the realistic contenders, that is. Because let's face it, even though we all like Rand Paul, it's not going to be him. I really hope Trump can crush Rubio. I see Bush II written all over him: a sincere but inexperienced fellow without any real accomplishments who's bought and paid for by the lizard illuminati. I suspect he is and would continue to be easily manipulated by them.

How does a clown or a buffoon graduate from Wharton School of Business? Or turn a million dollars into ten billion dollars? Or run an international business empire? Or become the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination nearly instantly?

I think there is much more to it than many people want to believe. If you want to preserve your hatred of Donald Trump, the idea that he is actually an evil genius master manipulator fits the facts much better than the idea that he is a fortunate clown.

Desert wrote: Well, "hatred" is way too strong, but let me address the questions anyway.  I don't think Trump's the only buffoon to graduate from a good school.  A B.S. from UPenn doesn't require a genius, but I'm sure he's not stupid.  (Buffoon doesn't equal stupid, by the way).  And as for his biz empire, I have seen calculations that show his inheritance would have grown faster invested in a simple index fund, rather than managed by Trump. 

I think Trump is a great promoter of himself.  But what enabled the beginning of that life of self-promotion was the capital and connections of a rich real estate father.  But let me be clear: I don't begrudge him his privilege.  If Trump had started with the same silver spoon, but developed into a thoughtful and decent human being, I would be a supporter.  Unfortunately, he's developed into a buffoon.  The best recent, ridiculous example is his unilateral Twitter war with Megyn Kelly.  I get that he knows what he's doing: he's defending and expanding the Trump brand, using the only tactic he knows.  But that doesn't mean thoughtful people should vote for him. 

As I'm typing here, I'm pretty much flabbergasted that anyone on this forum could be a Trump supporter.  What in the world happened... it's weird.  Maybe you're right, maybe he is a master hypnotist, but somehow a few of us are somehow immune to his magic.

It is just his attitude you don't like? That's how it seems. But [Obama voice] let me be clear [/Obama voice]; we already have a president who's a thoughtful and decent human being. It isn't working out very well. It should be pretty obvious that a thoughtful decent human being is exactly the wrong kind of person to be the president, the same way you might not want your nation's soldiers to be cerebral college professor types. Not all personalities are suited for all jobs. I don't think I would like Donald trump as a person very much, but his dominant, hypnotic, technocratic, managerial skill set seems like exactly what a country like ours needs.

I suspect distaste for his attitude is what's behind your acceptance of the standard criticisms of him. Most of them don't ring true to me. The index fund thing for example, is probably true of many to most business owners, especially during the bull stock run of the 90s. The Megan Kelly "Twitter war" you refer to was like weeks ago, and Kelly in fact seems to support him. Trump doesn't seem to really criticize people much more than any of the other candidates, he just does it in a way that you pay attention to. It's on purpose. Notice how now that he's attracted enough attention, he's shifted out of insult mode and is trying to turn up the charm and credibility. All this stuff is engineered. You need to look past the Trump flavor du jour and try to see the core of who he is and what he does. And to do that, all you really need to do is look at his life and personal record. The man is 69 years old. He has a lot of record to inspect. He is a powerful and successful businessman and negotiator who excels at making stuff happen and getting people to follow him.

Doesn't that sound a bit like… Bill Clinton?

Pointedstick wrote: …I meant, among the realistic contenders, that is. Because let's face it, even though we all like Rand Paul, it's not going to be him. I really hope Trump can crush Rubio. I see Bush II written all over him: a sincere but inexperienced fellow without any real accomplishments who's bought and paid for by the lizard illuminati. I suspect he is and would continue to be easily manipulated by them.

Great minds think alike!!!

Sweaty Rubio is just another Obama to me.  I know Reub doesn't see Obama as being "in over his head", but I see him as being completely co-opted by the reality of the political-industrial complex.  Wash away all of the false Republican hyperbole and he's only managed to get a few token ideologically liberal things accomplished (not that that's a bad thing, but it's what happened to HOPE AND CHANGE OBAMA! that is instructive here).

Desert wrote: What's wrong with Trump?  I don't even know where to start.  In summary, he's a buffoon.  He's an arrogant, privileged bully.  He's the classic "born on third base and thinks he hit a home run" guy.  His one guiding principle in life appears to be to make much of Donald Trump. 

I'm all for an "outsider" type of candidate, but Trump's not the right guy.  If the Republicans choose him, they'll prove to the rest of the country just how completely out of touch with humanity they are. 

Whew.  Here I go again, in my never-ending quest to come in dead last in popularity on this forum. 

P.S. Unfortunately I can't claim credit for being the first to call Trump a "buffoon" on this forum. MT beat me to it. Here's the Google search version, which is exactly how I view Trump:
"a ridiculous but amusing person; a clown."

And why do you care about Trump's "honest" clown showmanship so much?  This is why "serious" career politicians keep getting elected over and over ad infinitum, because voters like you keep finding excuses that have nothing to do with policy platforms or what is in the best interests of the nation.  You must agree with Trump on his policies to score so high, so its seems like it is coming down to a very subjective, emotional, personality thing.  To truly take on the political-industrial complex, you need the attitude, the balls, a track record of getting truly difficult things accomplished and the trust reputation to actually walk the talk in the future.  How often do you find a career politician running for office with all of those credentials?  I hear crickets chirping.

OTOH, Sanders will definitely try and turn us into France.  Do you think Trump will?

Desert wrote: As I'm typing here, I'm pretty much flabbergasted that anyone on this forum could be a Trump supporter.  What in the world happened... it's weird.  Maybe you're right, maybe he is a master hypnotist, but somehow a few of us are somehow immune to his magic.

I think maybe you're just too naive in terms of serious political history?  You're judging Trump by qualities that have nothing to do with fixing what is wrong with America, just as I dislike Santorum and Huckabeee for being overtly religious (Carson hides it except at his campaign page).  OTOH, I can easily see how many could superficially view Trump's showmanship as being the modern day Kardashian of politics, i.e. self-obsessed media whores.  But we Trumpets understand Trump's showmanship is merely a tactic for today's short attention spans and media-is-reality obsessed population to attract the politically disgusted.  He is savvy even if you don't personally agree with his Master Wizard tactics.  And of course, the ruling elites are deathly scared of Trump because he cannot be bought or controlled.  He's immune.  Hence all the endless negative propaganda against him, the likes of which I have never ever seen before.  It is relentless -- even from Fox News!  You should actually be ashamed to have bought into it, as I did in the very beginning when Reub brought it up here.  Do your homework and research.

Granted, a lot of this has to do with the third party cycle that is making an appearance next year.  Trump is the magnet for that energy.  If there were another non-political careerist candidate in place of Trump, I'm pretty sure we would be supporting him/her instead (so long as it isn't a true buffoon like Sanders).  You've got to look at the big picture.  True and lasting political reform only happens in rare time windows, so you've got to press the advantage to the mat when you finally have the opportunity!!!

The last time was with Perot and he later turned out to be a revealed and paid off ringer for the Clintons to throw the election their way, which is why he quit and then came back in.  It destroyed his chances irrevocably, but that was part of the plan.  But that was a very freakin' long time ago.  I'm not wasting the opportunity again (I didn't vote for him, I voted Libertarian).

Pointedstick wrote: Doesn't that sound a bit like… Bill Clinton?

Except I'm pretty sure there's not a trail of dead people behind Trump as there was with Bill's womanizing and Arkansasian NarcoPolitics (or was it really Hillary?  It seems to have stopped once she carpetbagged into New York as a Senator).

Also, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment: probably most of us here agree with the Citizens' United decision on free speech grounds, yet here we are favorably discussing Trump's freedom from needing campaign contributions and looking down on his opponents for being bought and sold by special interests. Food for thought!

Libertarian666 wrote:

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: How does a clown or a buffoon graduate from Wharton School of Business? Or turn a million dollars into ten billion dollars? Or run an international business empire? Or become the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination nearly instantly?

I think there is much more to it than many people want to believe. If you want to preserve your hatred of Donald Trump, the idea that he is actually an evil genius master manipulator fits the facts much better than the idea that he is a fortunate clown.

Well, "hatred" is way too strong, but let me address the questions anyway.  I don't think Trump's the only buffoon to graduate from a good school.  A B.S. from UPenn doesn't require a genius, but I'm sure he's not stupid.  (Buffoon doesn't equal stupid, by the way).  And as for his biz empire, I have seen calculations that show his inheritance would have grown faster invested in a simple index fund, rather than managed by Trump. 

I think Trump is a great promoter of himself.  But what enabled the beginning of that life of self-promotion was the capital and connections of a rich real estate father.  But let me be clear: I don't begrudge him his privilege.  If Trump had started with the same silver spoon, but developed into a thoughtful and decent human being, I would be a supporter.  Unfortunately, he's developed into a buffoon.  The best recent, ridiculous example is his unilateral Twitter war with Megyn Kelly.  I get that he knows what he's doing: he's defending and expanding the Trump brand, using the only tactic he knows.  But that doesn't mean thoughtful people should vote for him. 

As I'm typing here, I'm pretty much flabbergasted that anyone on this forum could be a Trump supporter.  What in the world happened... it's weird.  Maybe you're right, maybe he is a master hypnotist, but somehow a few of us are somehow immune to his magic.

He is not my first choice, but I consider him better than most of the others (besides Rand Paul, of course).

Why? Because he has a pretty good tax plan, is not a warmongering neocon (yes, redundant, I know), doesn't have to kowtow to special interests, doesn't seem rabid about enforcing retarded federal pot laws, and in general seems to lay it out the way he sees it.

Who is a better candidate among the Republicans, other than Rand Paul?

I really think Trump is just a different brand of war-monger. He has suggested that we should bomb the crap out of ISIS and have a ring of troops set up in the Middle East protecting Exxon while they take all the oil. I am not exaggerating in the least. He has actually said this. Very clearly. Also, I have

And I suppose this could just be hyperbole, but then so could anything he says that makes him appealing.

I'm totally with Desert here. While I can appreciate Trump's role, and can have some sort of respect for a good business man, he is a buffoon (doesn't mean he's not smart).  The fact that he "wears" his buffoonery more than most actually makes me respect him more for it. But when the main problem with the presidency and executive branch is its unilateral use of power, the idea that we'd want someone like trump in that position is ridiculous to me.

What makes Obama a bad president, as "thoughtful" as he might appear to be, is the same thing that has made most presidents bad presidents. A hair-trigger approach to executive overreach and lack of oversight/transparency. Reagan had this same problem. The problem isn't "too much thoughtfulness" but "faux thoughtfulness."  And the idea that Trump would be any different is a joke, IMO. The only nice thing is that he might just bring in a different pack of manipulative idiots to run this country. Which might have value in and of itself, but let's call it what it is.

And I believe it was another post but I haven't yet responded to MG's question as to whether democrats are equally or more-so delusional in their support of Hillary. I would say absolutely yes. Nobody here seems to like Hillary, and there is a reason why. As someone said, she is the worst of both worlds. A nanny-statist neocon. Puke!  But we can't just pretend certain realities don't exist. And this is what I'm seeing from Trump, as well as his supporters.


To PS's last point, I agree that there is something to be said for a guy who doesn't owe lobbyists or industries anything. However, this is a structural problem within politics, not something that can be fixed by hoping a billionaire will run for president every 4 years. What we need is far more structure in elections and debates and financing (if not a runoff voting system!!!), and electing trump is just a stop-gap mechanism and will yield very little lasting change.

We've had businessmen as president before. It often doesn't go so well. Herbert Hoover, who was a phenomenal businessman and 10x the human being that Trump is, was a pretty pathetic president. Truman and Harding didn't fare much better when you analyze their legacy and what they brought to our country. I see very little useful overlap.

Dammit.

Bernie Sanders 90%. Surprising since I answered some of the economic stuff very "right-libertarianish."

Hillary Clinton 83%.  Eff.

Rand Paul 71%.

This surprises me. I expanded the foreign policy stuff and gave very non-interventionist answers. And while I was a lefty on environmentalism and a couple healthcare items, I was pretty libertarian on others. The foreign policy stuff was of highest importance to me as this is the President we are talking about here. That's where they exercise most unilateral power. How the hell did Hillary get high on my list?  She's a neocon!!

Pointedstick wrote: Also, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment: probably most of us here agree with the Citizens' United decision on free speech grounds, yet here we are favorably discussing Trump's freedom from needing campaign contributions and looking down on his opponents for being bought and sold by special interests. Food for thought!

People overreact to that damn decision and conflate campaign finance reform with it.  It just allowed corporations to fund political advertising using independent SuperPAC's because it was unfair and bureaucratic that two people could not spend their own money on political speech.  That's entirely different than direct campaign contributions of the type Trump doesn't need.  The silly Democrats would have you believe the world got turned upside down.

moda0306 wrote: I really think Trump is just a different brand of war-monger. He has suggested that we should bomb the crap out of ISIS and have a ring of troops set up in the Middle East protecting Exxon while they take all the oil. I am not exaggerating in the least. He has actually said this. Very clearly.

Put it within context:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trump-foreign-policy-middle-east-oil wrote:About a week after his interview with Evans, Trump elaborated, suggesting that America’s losses in Iraq deserved compensation in the form of Iraqi oil. “In the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils,” he told George Stephanopoulos in 2011. “You go in. You win the war and you take it. . . . You’re not stealing anything. . . . We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves.”

I'm not apologizing for this, but its interesting how much the perspective on war has changed.

moda0306 wrote: I really think Trump is just a different brand of war-monger. He has suggested that we should bomb the crap out of ISIS and have a ring of troops set up in the Middle East protecting Exxon while they take all the oil. I am not exaggerating in the least. He has actually said this. Very clearly.

You are failing to see the product beyond the advertising. Ask yourself any of the following questions:

- What is Donald Trump's primary campaign focus?

- How does Donald Trump think America will benefit from yet more endless, ill-thought-out foreign adventurism?

- Do you really think Donald Trump believes that spending resources on foreign wars will invigorate the USA domestically?

- Do you think the Neocon military industrial complex has more or less of a hold on Donald Trump compared any of the other candidates except for maybe Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul?

moda0306 wrote: And I believe it was another post but I haven't yet responded to MG's question as to whether democrats are equally or more-so delusional in their support of Hillary. I would say absolutely yes. Nobody here seems to like Hillary, and there is a reason why. As someone said, she is the worst of both worlds. A nanny-statist neocon. Puke!  But we can't just pretend certain realities don't exist. And this is what I'm seeing from Trump, as well as his supporters.

Why are you singling out Trump?  They're all Nanny-Statist NeoCons!!!!  We're not going to elect Rand Paul so we have to deal with the cards we've been dealt.  You really think the rest of the contenders that actually have a chance at nomination would be any better than Trump on a whole host of issues, not just foreign policy?  I don't like Trump's foreign policy, but perfection is a mirage.  But I'm also willing to try something different than the same ol' failed NeoCon ideology and ringing a Berlin Wall around ISIS and turning it into an old school Luddite Caliphate seems innovative.  So does the marble wall that Mexico is going to pay for.  We're getting desperate here.

moda0306 wrote: To PS's last point, I agree that there is something to be said for a guy who doesn't owe lobbyists or industries anything. However, this is a structural problem within politics, not something that can be fixed by hoping a billionaire will run for president every 4 years. What we need is far more structure in elections and debates and financing (if not a runoff voting system!!!), and electing trump is just a stop-gap mechanism and will yield very little lasting change.

Agree.  That's why you need to work on all avenues to freedom, not just a Presidential election of which you're not likely to be an elector in the first place anyway.  This is the problem with treating politics as sport.  It wastes resources and energy on arguments instead of DOING SOMETHING.  Harry Browne was 100% right about that.

moda0306 wrote: We've had businessmen as president before. It often doesn't go so well. Herbert Hoover, who was a phenomenal businessman and 10x the human being that Trump is, was a pretty pathetic president. Truman and Harding didn't fare much better when you analyze their legacy and what they brought to our country. I see very little useful overlap.

But that's not a valid comparison.  Economics wasn't even a science back then.  No one knew shit about anything, really.  There wasn't deliberate intention to have "free markets" with canonical mythology; it was a consequence of 1776 and free trade among the nations.  Ayn Rand publishing her book in 1957 is what really institutionalized "laissez faire capitalism" as a political ideology in the Republicans.  Before that (or maybe before FDR), politics was just too crony and corrupt for there to be any need for it formally.

Desert wrote: Oh, and MG, I actually liked crazy old Ross Perot.  He was a legitimate 3rd party candidate.  He was pretty geeky, and had way too many pie charts, but he was a good dude.  And if he was a Bill Clinton plant, as you claim, then I can't wait to see how horrified you'll be when you realize that Trump is a Clinton plant as well, but this time by the true grand wizard in the race, the one and only Hillary! (insert diabolical laughter here).  But seriously, Hillary's gotta be licking her ample chops at the thought of running against her buddy Trump.

The thought has already crossed my mind numerous times.  I would put nothing past the corrupt evil bitch.  I tell you, if that indeed turns out to be the case again, it will be a sad day for any real political reform in America.  But, then again, maybe it will wake people up into even more anger and action.  At some point we've got to get out the pitchforks and take back the country from the political class and Wall Street and do it from the ground up.