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.
(Unrelated story) The WSJ reported Wednesday that the FBI and NSA (and possibly CIA) have withheld information from President Trump regarding an ongoing investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence agencies. Apparently, the investigation began before he took office. The reasoning, according to the story, is that if one is the subject of a criminal investigation, investigative agencies shouldn't share information with that person. No way to confirm the WSJ report. - Broadly Speaking:
(1) Do Dan or others accept/believe that President Trump made the statements attributed to him in the (UK) article originally linked?
(2) Do Dan or others accept/believe that as Commander in Chief Trump's designation of America's enemies should be taken literally (rather than metaphorically)?
(3) Because the President has identified the NYT an enemy of the American people, if I link an article from the NYT (or other so-designated news organization) on this discussion board and encourage others to read it, does that not also make me, by extension, an enemy of the American people?
This guy acts like an entitled schoolyard bully expecting everyone else to clean up after his mess after having daddy fight his battles for him while he's in the corner telling people how awesome he is at fixing things.
@DanHardy. What I am talking about is our intelligence agencies found it prudent to leak info on what Trump / aides are doing. Dismissing it as partisan IMHO is missing the point. If Obama used the FBI, then Comey messed up Hillary. Our intelligences agencies are there to save our country. Policy is dictated by the person in power. And our intelligence is leaking dirt on *this* president. That's my point.
Please do let me know if there is any precedent for this.
" What I am talking about is our intelligence agencies found it prudent to leak info on what Trump / aides are doing."
Is that really the proper course to take? Leaking to the NYT and Wapo? If they felt it was so important to tell someone then they should go through the proper channels. The bigger issue is that names were attached when usually they are redacted.
In the coming days and weeks I hope the houses get cleaned out. Too many loyalists to the previous administration are purposely pulling these stunts. That is the kind of stuff banana republics thrive on.
I just wanna know if I'm on the Trump shit list if I subscribe to, read, or quote from one of these "un-American" publications? What's with this enemies of the American people list? What's that all about? That's all I was seeking clarity over. Doesn't have to get involved.
I know a woman who, in the '50s working in the government, was accused of being a commie symp. Part of the "evidence" used was that she and her husband subscribed to two newspapers. (Each of them preferred a different paper.) How subversive. It took two hearings dealing with this nonsense for her to clear her name.
How things have changed. Now, if you subscribe to even one paper instead of getting info directly from our fearless leader, you're being duped by an enemy of the people.
I agree and echo Maurice's comments. This is the FIRST political thread I've been involved in that didn't jump into ad hominem personal attacks or noise. I pray this is a good sign for this MFO thread, and hope we didn't just jinx things by making the observation.
First I want to thank all the board members who posted for being civil to one another. I've had at least one relative who has put me on the Dead To Me list for saying something positive about then candidate Trump. I want Pres Trump to succeed because I want the USA to succeed. If that is "Un-American", then so be it.
@DanHardy. What I am talking about is our intelligence agencies found it prudent to leak info on what Trump / aides are doing. Dismissing it as partisan IMHO is missing the point. If Obama used the FBI, then Comey messed up Hillary. Our intelligences agencies are there to save our country. Policy is dictated by the person in power. And our intelligence is leaking dirt on *this* president. That's my point.
Please do let me know if there is any precedent for this.
I respectfully answered your question to me. You have not returned my respect by answering my question.
Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear. Alan Corenk I hadn't seen this one before, but I came across it while looking for the author of "In a democracy everyone gets the government the majority deserve", which, unfortunately is attributed to a Frenchman, but there is a debate as to which Frenchman. Equally unfortunate, in this election, as in several others, it wasn't even a majority of the electorate. (Check out Tilden.) But, hey, you could be in (I had a list of about 70 other countries in the world), where you could be in a seriously oppressed minority. My recent favorite is Swaziland, where my daughter was a Peace Corp volunteer, where the appellation of "The Peaceful Kingdom" is justified, because all dissidents are in South Africa or in jail. Sooo... let's end this thread. It just irritates people whose beliefs won't change, and, even tho it's off topic, it seems to have little investment value.
I hate to break this to you but no one under 75 subscribes to a newspaper anymore.
I live in a condo development and the paper carriers (I guess they still exist) leave the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal in our lobby every morning. The snow birds who go to Florida every winter subscribe to the newspapers, and they are in their 70s, no doubt. I can't remember the last time I saw someone under 50 reading the newspaper.
@MFOMember: For better or worse, he's the only President we have at the present time. Enough already with the hand-ringing ! Time to close this thread ! Regards, Ted
First I want to thank all the board members who posted for being civil to one another. I've had at least one relative who has put me on the Dead To Me list for saying something positive about then candidate Trump. I want Pres Trump to succeed because I want the USA to succeed. If that is "Un-American", then so be it.
Same here. I don't agree with everything he says or does, but I do want him to succeed. I find it quite ironic and pathetic that the same people who accuse Trump of not acting like an "adult" or like a "bully" are the same people throwing around the "Nazi," "Fascist," and Germany references in their posts. People lose all credibility when they conduct themselves in the same manner as the person they are criticizing.
I will happily confirm I fall into the first category (bolded), but vehemently deny the second - I have never, not here, nor anywhere, made the Hitler/Nazi reference with regard to the current president. I want him - or any president - to succeed, but just do so in a more mature, well-conceived manner.
Same here. I don't agree with everything he says or does, but I do want him to succeed. I find it quite ironic and pathetic that the same people who accuse Trump of not acting like an "adult" or like a "bully" are the same people throwing around the "Nazi," "Fascist," and Germany references in their posts. People lose all credibility when they conduct themselves in the same manner as the person they are criticizing.
I will happily confirm I fall into the first category (bolded), but vehemently deny the second - I have never, not here, nor anywhere, made the Hitler/Nazi reference with regard to the current president. I want him - or any president - to succeed, but just do so in a more mature, well-conceived manner.
This wasn't directed at anyone in particular. But I've seen those references on this board in the recent past by others. Thankfully, some were removed. But we all know that these buzzwords and phrases are thrown about with abandon online and in the public arena nowadays. It cheapens the debate and brings up terrible memories for people who were actually affected by these events in the 1930s, 40s and beyond.
@JohnChisum Robert Mann was merely compiling what was already present on Politifact. You can see for yourself here how Politifact rates Trump: politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ How Politifact rates Obama: politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ The site does not allow for image copying of the graphs, but the stats break down as follows currently--(They shift with time with Trump as the new lies keep coming): 69% of what Trump says is False, Mostly False and Pants on Fire lies, according to Politifact. 26% of what Obama said was False, Mostly False or Pants on Fire lies, according to Politifact. Only 16% of what Trump says has been Mostly True or True, the remaining 14% is half true. That is an awful record, even for a politician.
< I live in a condo development and the paper carriers (I guess they still exist) leave the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal in our lobby every morning. The snow birds who go to Florida every winter subscribe to the newspapers, and they are in their 70s, no doubt. I can't remember the last time I saw someone under 50 reading the newspaper.
@Wilmatt72 - "Newspaper" today commonly refers to both the print and electronic versions. Hence, while I and some others here subscribe to various newspapers online it would be hard for you to detect what someone's reading on their iPad, Kindle, etc. - unless you asked them or were leaning over their shoulder looking at the content (not cool).
Here we get the CSM (full paper) and NYT (abbreviated format) delivered electronically daily. Also receive daily electronic summaries from Reuters' Business. For all 3 we pay a monthly subscription fee. Also receive 30-45 minute audio summaries from the WSJ daily (also for a fee). We have a local (print) newspaper delivered to our home daily and receive Barron's through the mail. (The latter appears to be a hybrid with characteristics of both newspaper and magazine.) While I enjoy reading Barron's print - I could also access it online if I wished.
From above: Electronically Delivered Daily Newspapers (including 1 audio edition): 4 Print Newspapers (counting Barron's): 2 Total Paid Subscriptions: 6
Perhaps being in my 70s makes my disposition towards established news gatherers irrelevant. Would love to hear what others read. Obviously there's a lot of information getting thrown around on the board. Curious where folks are getting it.
Hi @Hank. I guess I never thought much about it, but @Wilmatt72 could be right about the under 50 thing. I have 3 kids in their late 30's, early 40's and I never see a newspaper at their houses. Myself at the ripe old age of 63, I get the USA Today delivered weekday to my mailbox and Kiplingers and Money magazines come in the mail once a month. Old school for sure, but I prefer turning pages then scrolling on a computer screen.
@Hank- Subscribe to WSJ, SF Chronicle & The Economist, print & electronic editions. Follow electronic feeds from CSM (always thought this was a very good paper), WaPo, NYT, The Guardian, BBC & NPR.
Speaking of the Economist, I've been reading the same story from Africa, with sometimes differing country names & minor detail changes, for at least twenty years already. Hopeless. No wonder WAFMX can't make an honest nickel.
@willmatt72: With respect to references to history in the first half of the twentieth-century, necessarily involving specific countries and their principle actors, I suggest that you may need to revisit reality. History, as in real facts, not convenient alternative types.
I'm 44 and read my daily news online. I get the Economist, Kiplingers, Foreign Affairs, and a few other mags in hard-copy, but in terms of "news" I read/subscribe to the NYT, FT, etc. for online only.
Comments
-
Broadly Speaking:
(1) Do Dan or others accept/believe that President Trump made the statements attributed to him in the (UK) article originally linked?
(2) Do Dan or others accept/believe that as Commander in Chief Trump's designation of America's enemies should be taken literally (rather than metaphorically)?
(3) Because the President has identified the NYT an enemy of the American people, if I link an article from the NYT (or other so-designated news organization) on this discussion board and encourage others to read it, does that not also make me, by extension, an enemy of the American people?
Answers to each of above most appreciated.
Wrong kind of bully.
Please do let me know if there is any precedent for this.
Is that really the proper course to take? Leaking to the NYT and Wapo? If they felt it was so important to tell someone then they should go through the proper channels. The bigger issue is that names were attached when usually they are redacted.
In the coming days and weeks I hope the houses get cleaned out. Too many loyalists to the previous administration are purposely pulling these stunts. That is the kind of stuff banana republics thrive on.
How things have changed. Now, if you subscribe to even one paper instead of getting info directly from our fearless leader, you're being duped by an enemy of the people.
His problem with the media is those pesky facts when we all know only truthiness matters.
I agree and echo Maurice's comments. This is the FIRST political thread I've been involved in that didn't jump into ad hominem personal attacks or noise. I pray this is a good sign for this MFO thread, and hope we didn't just jinx things by making the observation.
Go fish.
I respectfully answered your question to me. You have not returned my respect by answering my question.
'fake graph'? So now fake is the new meaningless insult, especially confused when applied to something in fact true?
Sadly weak.
Truth? "What difference does it make now?"
"You want your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Regarding ISIS, "we have contained them." Nov 2015.
Way too many more to post here. You can find them on the internet.
Alan Corenk
I hadn't seen this one before, but I came across it while looking for the author of "In a democracy everyone gets the government the majority deserve", which, unfortunately is attributed to a Frenchman, but there is a debate as to which Frenchman.
Equally unfortunate, in this election, as in several others, it wasn't even a majority of the electorate. (Check out Tilden.)
But, hey, you could be in (I had a list of about 70 other countries in the world), where you could be in a seriously oppressed minority. My recent favorite is Swaziland, where my daughter was a Peace Corp volunteer, where the appellation of "The Peaceful Kingdom" is justified, because all dissidents are in South Africa or in jail.
Sooo... let's end this thread. It just irritates people whose beliefs won't change, and, even tho it's off topic, it seems to have little investment value.
Regards,
Ted
I will happily confirm I fall into the first category (bolded), but vehemently deny the second - I have never, not here, nor anywhere, made the Hitler/Nazi reference with regard to the current president. I want him - or any president - to succeed, but just do so in a more mature, well-conceived manner.
politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
How Politifact rates Obama: politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
The site does not allow for image copying of the graphs, but the stats break down as follows currently--(They shift with time with Trump as the new lies keep coming):
69% of what Trump says is False, Mostly False and Pants on Fire lies, according to Politifact.
26% of what Obama said was False, Mostly False or Pants on Fire lies, according to Politifact.
Only 16% of what Trump says has been Mostly True or True, the remaining 14% is half true. That is an awful record, even for a politician.
Here we get the CSM (full paper) and NYT (abbreviated format) delivered electronically daily. Also receive daily electronic summaries from Reuters' Business. For all 3 we pay a monthly subscription fee. Also receive 30-45 minute audio summaries from the WSJ daily (also for a fee). We have a local (print) newspaper delivered to our home daily and receive Barron's through the mail. (The latter appears to be a hybrid with characteristics of both newspaper and magazine.) While I enjoy reading Barron's print - I could also access it online if I wished.
From above:
Electronically Delivered Daily Newspapers (including 1 audio edition): 4
Print Newspapers (counting Barron's): 2
Total Paid Subscriptions: 6
Perhaps being in my 70s makes my disposition towards established news gatherers irrelevant. Would love to hear what others read. Obviously there's a lot of information getting thrown around on the board. Curious where folks are getting it.
Speaking of the Economist, I've been reading the same story from Africa, with sometimes differing country names & minor detail changes, for at least twenty years already. Hopeless. No wonder WAFMX can't make an honest nickel.
@willmatt72: With respect to references to history in the first half of the twentieth-century, necessarily involving specific countries and their principle actors, I suggest that you may need to revisit reality. History, as in real facts, not convenient alternative types.