Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Ben,,, my post was clearly labeled as a response to rono. It happens to post after Ooby. I never saw his post until my reply to rono posted. I have absolutely nothing to say to him. But anyone who can stand behind orange monster is to be pitied for their lack of patroitism, compassion and awareness.
And you don't see and hear him fanning the flames of hatred and laying the groundwork for a dictatorship? For God's sake, in a recent speech he suggested that anyone who disagrees with him is guilty of treason. "L'etat c'est moi" is how dictators talk and think. Donald Trump has said over and over that he wants to be the ruler of America. Have you not heard him speak of his admiration for rulers with absolute power? We have a different system of government here, long may it live. If you believe in freedom how can you support him? Apologies if I'm getting too personal.
In America, there are three branches to the federal government. This helps maintain a balance of power. Trump has said many things over the years, sometimes contradicting himself. I still support conservative policies at the federal level. I don't support hated or dictatorships. I know that some people think that all Republicans have drank the Kool aid, but I judge each policy on its own merit.
Can I just ask that when people make claims, like, "anyone that disagrees with me, has to be a complete moron", that they cite credible sources (i.e. peer reviewed journals). Thanks.
Ben,,, my post was clearly labeled as a response to rono. It happens to post after Ooby. I never saw his post until my reply to rono posted. I have absolutely nothing to say to him. But anyone who can stand behind orange monster is to be pitied for their lack of patroitism, compassion and awareness.
Yes, I saw who it was addressed to. That's why I asked you to please read the post that I was pretty sure you hadn't seen. It was meant as evidence that not all Trump supporters are villains. I was pointing out —to everyone really— that not everyone who is misinformed is "shameful". In my opinion it's not helpful to call each other names. I cannot personally comprehend how someone who literally daily utters big whopper falsehoods, who claims —for instance —that the modest turnout to his inauguration was the largest turnout ever seen — can possibly be trusted to hold office of any kind. It boggles my mind that any American can support someone who decrees that little children be literally pulled from their mothers' arms, who in the face of the fact that illegal immigration was relatively low compared to a decade earlier, that America is about to be swamped by marauders "sent" (by whom?) by Mexico. Trump's speeches are a coded message to haters that anyone they perceive as of lower status than they may be freely bashed with no legal repercussions. But it does seem that through party loyalty, family loyalty, and ideology some decent people are able to support the utterly indecent occupier of the White House. In short, nothing can be gained by calling names. I do want us to remain one nation.
@ Ben. Thank you for your series of thoughtful posts. I get the impression that you and I agree about,,your words,,the utterly indecent occupier of the white house. And yes,,,you are right and I am wrong,,,, nothing can be gained by name calling. One thing I can't understand is how you can be so protective of those who provide comfort and support for behavior that you clearly find abhorrent. Comfort and support for someone whose behavior is not just not meeting our approval but is historically without precident. This is no longer just a difference of opinion between two parties I am certain you would agree. We are now at the point where the unthinkable has become commonplace. Really bad stuff is heading our way and those who support him will be judged harshly when the history of this administration is written. Your thoughts?
@larryB: Because some are innocent of malice. They are just ignorant. Because, I want us to remain one nation. Because the best way out of this mess may be through more dialog and less enmity. Dialog with nihilists is impossible. But not all self-described conservatives are nihilists.
@ben I appreciate that you are trying to bring civility to the discussion board. But, seriously dude, at the same time, you keep calling me (and everyone else that does not share your world view, which happens to be most Americans) ignorant over and over again.
Ben,,,,I appreciate your optimistic frame of reference. I am not sure if you are calling supporters of the occupier of the White House conservatives but I don't confuse the two. George Will is a Conservative. I doubt he supports Helsinki, trade wars, grabbing women by the xxxx, etc. etc. Jack booted thugs in Berlin might too have been called ignorant but that would not have excused their behavior. And calling his supporters ignorant is name calling too. You called me out for that. As for me,,,, ignorant is not a word I would use to describe them. They know exactly what he is about and they dig it. They may not know they are being used but they will figure it out.Ask the farmers in the Midwest this week and ask the folks who lose their health insurance when he ruins the ACA. And they will figure it out. But no,,, I would not call them ignorant. They support him with malice of for thought. They know exactly why.
Ben,,,thanks for the dialogue. I admire your positive sense of humanity. My reading of history is not so sunny.
Please accept my apologies for my ignorant use of the the word "ignorant" which has not been well received by those with divergent opinions on other matters. I have done some research this evening and discovered the word has pejorative connotations which I did not intend. I have not been using "ignorant" as an epithet. I meant it as a descriptor meaning "not aware of the facts".
An example: I came to Mutual Fund Observer and to this forum because in certain aspects of mutual fund investing I was ignorant. I was lacking accurate information and lacking an understanding of a good number of technical terms. I do not berate myself for not knowing what I needed to know. I simply didn't know. I still have much to learn.
@00BY Well said...I, for one, have never been convinced to change my political positions by ANYONE or ANY link on this board. And the more strident and insulting the opposing poster is, the less convinced I become. Posters have to realize that there are REAL PEOPLE behind our screen names, with diverse experiences and backgrounds....and that influences our beliefs more than some random poster with a link to a NYT article.
What they HAVE succeeded in doing, however, is chasing anyone with a differing viewpoint away from the board...because conservative posters, myself included, feel unfairly attacked by a handful of people...again, who feel like because it is digital communication...not face-to-face...they have the right to gang up and offend whoever has the temerity to disagree. Just because I have a different viewpoint does not mean I am ignorant and I respectfully disagree with anyone who thinks so.
I have friends who are liberal, friends who are conservative and friends who keep their political views so private, that I don't know what their persuasion is. We enjoy each other's company because although we disagree (a lot), we are always respectful and don't try to convince each other to change our positions!
I understand, @little5bee. Go BLUE! ..... And yet, facts are facts. A great deal of my own angst comes from: either some folks are deliberately disregarding facts, or they acknowledge facts, but do not let new facts (information) impact their own understanding. On the other hand, there is Barry Goldwater, after his final luncheon at the White House with Dick Nixon. Goldwater came out to the street to face reporters. And at long last, after a lot of the Watergate mess had already played-out, Goldwater said plainly, on tv, to the whole country, that he told Nixon: "I said to him that the only thing for him left to do was to resign." (paraphrase, there.) Uncle Barry was not afraid of facts, in the end. And he was a Republican. (As opposed to current-day Repugnants.)
Speaking for myself it is NOT about conservatives v. liberals. It's about him - his values, morals and integrity. Granted none of us are probably incident free but he is so deep in the toilet I can't even.
Speaking for myself it is NOT about conservatives v. liberals. It's about him - his values, morals and integrity. Granted none of us are probably incident free but he is so deep in the toilet I can't even.
Speaking for myself it is NOT about conservatives v. liberals. It's about him - his values, morals and integrity. Granted none of us are probably incident free but he is so deep in the toilet I can't even.
Exactly how I felt/feel about the Clintons. Yet despite his many faults, the economy boomed under Clinton...much like it is under Trump. On a personal level, both of my stepsons were hired by Chrysler for assembly line positions this year. With high school diplomas only, both of them struggled with a series of low paying service jobs, part time work and handyman gigs during the Obama administration. So happy for both of them and others like them!
Don't be like my 90-year-old aunt, who despite having a great long life, can't stop complaining about her neighbor's fence!
Exactly how I felt/feel about the Clintons. Yet despite his many faults, the economy boomed under Clinton
Will the false moral equivalencies and whataboutism between Trump and the Clintons ever end? During the Nixon era, Republican politicians finally turned against the president when they realized the evidence of corruption was too great and they decided to put country before party, but not today:
There are a handful of Republicans who represent the intellectual base of true conservatism like David Frum and Bill Kristol who recognize the threat he really poses to our democratic institutions: https://nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/politics/republicans-democrats-coalition-trump.html But the base remains diehard loyalists and the thing is so what if the economy is doing well? Economies have done well under other corrupt regimes. It doesn't paper over every other sin, and there is no real historical equivalent--certainly not the Clintons--with this kind of behavior. If the Clintons or Obama had behaved in this way during their tenure with this Congress they would not only have been impeached. They would be in jail right now.
But the base remains diehard loyalists and the thing is so what if the economy is doing well? Economies have done well under other corrupt regimes. It doesn't paper over every other sin, and there is no real historical equivalent--certainly not the Clintons--with this kind of behavior. If the Clintons or Obama had behaved in this way during their tenure with this Congress they would not only have been impeached. They would be in jail right now.
@Lewis Braham "so what if the economy is doing well"? I'll be sure to ask this question to my stepson...but he may be too busy to answer right now with all of the overtime he's working, as well as his parental duties of supporting a wife and 3 children under the age of 6...two of whom are autistic. But even better would be for you to deliver your lecture in person to his co-workers...I'm sure it would be enlightening for all parties involved.
As far as false equivalency, would that be like the "diehard loyalists" on the Democrat side comparing Trump to Hitler?
Whitewater, Travelgate, Lewinsky, Troopergate, Clinton Foundation and misappropriation of funds, Benghazi, Bill giving speeches while Hill was Secretary of State...conflict of interest.
I bet you actually don't know any of the facts about Whitewater, Clinton foundation, Benghazi, etc. Such a smart-sounding guy otherwise, sometimes. And good on you for raising a tough and resourceful child.
Actually, yes, I do...and your comment is semi-passive/aggressive. Maybe you should check out your buddy's comment above...nothing to say about that???
No. Not seriously. I was being sarcastic, with a reference made by S. Bee in the video-clip. Anyhow, there's already enough dirt on President Pussy-grabber. And these statistics still are shocking: "Overall, 54% of women voted for Clinton, much higher than the 42% of women who voted for Trump. But when the women’s vote is divided by race, it becomes clear that black women actually largely drove the so-called gender gap against Trump. The majority of non-college educated white women (64%) voted for Trump.
I bet you actually don't know any of the facts about Whitewater, Clinton foundation, Benghazi, etc. Such a smart-sounding guy otherwise, sometimes. And good on you for raising a tough and resourceful child.
How dare you insult me like this? Such a nasty, self-righteous comment. Like I said yesterday, if anyone disagrees with your positions, your petty, middle-school gang retaliates with bullying and insults. I guess you enjoy keeping the forums clear of any commenters you happen to disagree with and love fawning over each other.
Yeah, right --- well, if you really did, you would know there is nothing there, investigated to death, and beyond, and nothing there. Maybe you do actually know that but think you can troll people. Doesn't seem like you otherwise, though. But sure, run off.
Yeah, right --- well, if you really did, you would know there is nothing there, investigated to death, and beyond, and nothing there.
In your opinion, of course...and on this board, it seems like nothing else matters. You and your cohort run the show...your rules and your playing field...I understand the game now.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going anywhere.
Content, man, content --- try and respond substantively. No one is dissing you. No one is in charge. Surely not I. Glad you changed your mind. But if you can't take the responses and insistence on substantiation, don't go posting your cheapshots, k? Man up and own what you said and engage w/ substance, or don't post such shallow swiping. I think you're forgetting sequence.
try and respond substantively. No one is dissing you.
And in the past, whenever I HAVE provided a source, THAT gets "dissed"...the ONLY sources that are not are the ones that you and your cohort deem as legitimate....and don't say that it's not true, because you know that's a fact.
Comments
Can I just ask that when people make claims, like, "anyone that disagrees with me, has to be a complete moron", that they cite credible sources (i.e. peer reviewed journals). Thanks.
"Please resist the temptation to emulate people who you wouldn't want to be."
Regards- OJ
Ben,,,thanks for the dialogue. I admire your positive sense of humanity. My reading of history is not so sunny.
An example: I came to Mutual Fund Observer and to this forum because in certain aspects of mutual fund investing I was ignorant. I was lacking accurate information and lacking an understanding of a good number of technical terms. I do not berate myself for not knowing what I needed to know. I simply didn't know. I still have much to learn.
What they HAVE succeeded in doing, however, is chasing anyone with a differing viewpoint away from the board...because conservative posters, myself included, feel unfairly attacked by a handful of people...again, who feel like because it is digital communication...not face-to-face...they have the right to gang up and offend whoever has the temerity to disagree. Just because I have a different viewpoint does not mean I am ignorant and I respectfully disagree with anyone who thinks so.
I have friends who are liberal, friends who are conservative and friends who keep their political views so private, that I don't know what their persuasion is. We enjoy each other's company because although we disagree (a lot), we are always respectful and don't try to convince each other to change our positions!
Don't be like my 90-year-old aunt, who despite having a great long life, can't stop complaining about her neighbor's fence!
There are a handful of Republicans who represent the intellectual base of true conservatism like David Frum and Bill Kristol who recognize the threat he really poses to our democratic institutions: https://nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/politics/republicans-democrats-coalition-trump.html
But the base remains diehard loyalists and the thing is so what if the economy is doing well? Economies have done well under other corrupt regimes. It doesn't paper over every other sin, and there is no real historical equivalent--certainly not the Clintons--with this kind of behavior. If the Clintons or Obama had behaved in this way during their tenure with this Congress they would not only have been impeached. They would be in jail right now.
nope
As far as false equivalency, would that be like the "diehard loyalists" on the Democrat side comparing Trump to Hitler?
Whitewater, Travelgate, Lewinsky, Troopergate, Clinton Foundation and misappropriation of funds, Benghazi, Bill giving speeches while Hill was Secretary of State...conflict of interest.
"Overall, 54% of women voted for Clinton, much higher than the 42% of women who voted for Trump. But when the women’s vote is divided by race, it becomes clear that black women actually largely drove the so-called gender gap against Trump. The majority of non-college educated white women (64%) voted for Trump.