Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ustrello wrote:

Actually I have been investing since right around when Obama was elected, and I have lost more money under trump. He took an absolute gift of a market and lost 3k points in a month, Obama took a housing market burst and raised it 14k points by the end.

Well if you've been investing in that time then you would be aware that the biggest criticism of Obama is that the rebound did NOT happen faster and stronger than it did. And he couldn't control everything anymore than Trump can. You give both too much credit. Its the Fed that controls interest rates and money, not the presidents.

Obama, Trump, as well as every President in the history of the Stock Market has gone through a 10% correction. They happen. That's why you own bonds and a diversified portfolio.

DOJ just announced 12 Russian officers indicted for hacking into DNC.

Clearly this is fake news.

 sebster wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Which stock market are you looking at? The US stock market exploded when Trump won election and blew past any peak under Obama and remains so.

This is gibberish analysis. Having a higher peak than a previous president just means the market has gone up. It could grow at a tenth of 1% and it would be higher than when that president took over. Your big claim there basically amounts to 'under Trump the market has gone up'. Which is an achievement managed by all except I believe two presidents in US history.

Not that any president should take credit for the stock market, because its really nothing to do with anything presidents actually do, but if you were to judge this you would do it by looking at the rate of growth. Under Obama the market grew 10.8% per year. Under Trump that has fallen to 8.8%.

If market growth was what you motivated your politics, and you believe presidents impact the market, then Obama is the clear pick.

Unless of course, hypothetically, speaking, you operate in a Trumpian haze, in which case I guess concluding 'the market is biggerer therefore Trump is gooderest' would probably work. Maybe leave that kind of thing to political arguments on wargaming boards though, please no-one invest money based on it.

So wait, then you must be agreeing with me then, since my comment was in response to someone else that the market capped out under Obama, which I correctly argued that it had not.

 Ustrello wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


Except the fact that the stock market took a huge loss and still has not gotten back to Obama numbers, despite the fact that there are corporate lobbyists starting to go against the tariffs as posted about earlier in the thread.

As for arm chair economists I would look into the mirror before speaking again

Which stock market are you looking at? The US stock market exploded when Trump won election and blew past any peak under Obama and remains so.

https://www.google.com/search?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&e=4112296&tbm=fin&biw=1847&bih=885#scso=uid_edRIW7f4BoLr_AaFur-QAw_5:0

There was a correction this year when things got frothy but so what? Corrections happen. Buying opportunity.

It kept the same trend it was going at under Obama and flopped under trump and is still not recovering. As Ouze said, its not going to get better

Did you look at my link? Look at the last 5 years on the Dow and tell me there were no dips under Obama.

Obviously you do not follow the market, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Actually I have been investing since right around when Obama was elected, and I have lost more money under trump. He took an absolute gift of a market and lost 3k points in a month, Obama took a housing market burst and raised it 14k points by the end.

It's almost like you are living in another world. While Obama was president. We saw unprecedented lows in the market. Growth was never slower. The market was flat out bad. Low labor participation rates.
In Trumps term what have record highs with very strong growth. It's not really trumps doing. People are more willing to invest when a Republican is in office. It's just the way it is.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate (look at the 10 year - during obama - millions of people stopped working - we will see if that turns around)
https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

 Frazzled wrote:
DOJ just announced 12 Russian officers indicted for hacking into DNC.

Clearly this is fake news.

1). No Americans
2). No evidence that these hacks changed a vote
3). Amazing that it took 2 years to get to this pointe
4). Really curious at the evidence they’ve acquired, since the DNC server was destroyed according to Brazil’s and that only Cloudstrike claimed it was the Russians hackers
5). Still zero “ collusion” related charges
6). And yes, this is coincidental prior to Trumps visit with Putin
7) I rewatched much of Strzok hearing... holy gak he didn’t look good. Also expect to see numerous memes material from that. Yikes!!

 whembly wrote:
Provided that the evidence is compelling its not worthless.

Grand jury approved the indictment. That doesn't ensure conviction but any speculation that 'oh maybe but only if there's really evidence' is politically motivated head in the sand foolishness.

However from a legal standpoint this is a show as Russian citizens has constitutional protection from extradition... unless thes GRUs can be apprehended elsewhere...

It isn't a show. It's part of a necessary process. Obviously it is. On the most basic level when someone attacks you democracy you don't think 'oh but they live over there and we can't get at them so what's the point let's never talk about it again'. I mean for feth's sake, was Reagan's first draft 'Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall. Or don't I guess. You live over there. I can't make you. So I guess we should talk about something else'.

The second part is that those Russians colluded with people, some of whom are in the US, and in places that do have extradition treaties with the US (Mr Assange you have leave that embassy some day). When court proceeding are brought against those people, then it just wouldn't fly for Mueller to say 'oh they did all this stuff with these Russian guys but we didn't bother to indict them because oh what's the point it's like five pages you have to fill out'.

And lastly, yeah part of this is political theatre. I mean just look at the timing. But think about what that theatre is. It is getting Trump and the Republicans to face the evidence of Russian interference and start acting like they accept the last election was targeted by a Russian dirty ops campaign. How fething disgraceful is it that the government of the country has to prompted to face up to that?

 whembly wrote:

7) I rewatched much of Strzok hearing... holy gak he didn’t look good. Also expect to see numerous memes material from that. Yikes!!

And yet not quite as bad as the pathetic Republican hacks.....

Not just 'prompted' but dragged to it, kicking and screaming and crying that "It's totally not fair and those guys are lying and I WANT MY DADDY!"

Jeebus.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

Lots of investigations waste resources true. What difference does it make? I'll tell yah - Benghazi cost American lives.

Judging by the goal post moving, and repetition of disproved points, it's safe to say there are still plenty of posters here who are posting in bad faith. Just don't engage them and give them any validation to their "points". Think of them as NK. Engaging them only serves their purpose.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

Not wasted as we found out about Clinton’s email server from those investigations.

Furthermore, Obama and company really fethed up prior/during/post to this event and largely escaped accountability.

 whembly wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

Not wasted as we found out about Clinton’s email server from those investigations.

Furthermore, Obama and company really fethed up prior/during/post to this event and largely escaped accountability.

Is there a big pending investigation about Trump giving out his unencrypted, personal phone number? Genuine question.

 whembly wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

Not wasted as we found out about Clinton’s email server from those investigations.

Furthermore, Obama and company really fethed up prior/during/post to this event and largely escaped accountability.

By Xenos criteria, that is still a waste of resources as it didn't lead to an indictment, let alone a conviction.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

Lots of investigations waste resources true. What difference does it make? I'll tell yah - Benghazi cost American lives.

And that is the reason for the increasingly partisan attempts at pinning it personally on Hillary?

C'mon, you gotta be able to do better than that....

This is no better than when President Trump once again whines about "Hillary's emails", and cries like a little girl about how there should be an investigation.
Even worse is the ignorant uncritical people who cheers at that nonsense.

US Politics have really become so unhinged that we can not even agree on what color the sky is in our world.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Provided that the evidence is compelling its not worthless.

Grand jury approved the indictment. That doesn't ensure conviction but any speculation that 'oh maybe but only if there's really evidence' is politically motivated head in the sand foolishness.

Ever hear the term that a prosecutor can indict “a ham sandwich”?

Furthermore I doubt we’ll ever see the evidence as this won’t go to trial.

However from a legal standpoint this is a show as Russian citizens has constitutional protection from extradition... unless thes GRUs can be apprehended elsewhere...

It isn't a show. It's part of a necessary process. Obviously it is. On the most basic level when someone attacks you democracy you don't think 'oh but they live over there and we can't get at them so what's the point let's never talk about it again'. I mean for feth's sake, was Reagan's first draft 'Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall. Or don't I guess. You live over there. I can't make you. So I guess we should talk about something else'.

The second part is that those Russians colluded with people, some of whom are in the US, and in places that do have extradition treaties with the US (Mr Assange you have leave that embassy some day). When court proceeding are brought against those people, then it just wouldn't fly for Mueller to say 'oh they did all this stuff with these Russian guys but we didn't bother to indict them because oh what's the point it's like five pages you have to fill out'.

And lastly, yeah part of this is political theatre. I mean just look at the timing. But think about what that theatre is. It is getting Trump and the Republicans to face the evidence of Russian interference and start acting like they accept the last election was targeted by a Russian dirty ops campaign. How fething disgraceful is it that the government of the country has to prompted to face up to that?

Great.... with these indictments... now what? Use it as a pretext to apply more sanctions???

 Xenomancers wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

Lots of investigations waste resources true. What difference does it make? I'll tell yah - Benghazi cost American lives.

So? Lots of things have cost American lies and not received 7 investigations.

How many investigations did Flint receive? That switch in water supply killed 12 people. It was 3 times as lethal as Benghazi when you count american casualties.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

Not wasted as we found out about Clinton’s email server from those investigations.

Furthermore, Obama and company really fethed up prior/during/post to this event and largely escaped accountability.

By Xenos criteria, that is still a waste of resources as it didn't lead to an indictment, let alone a conviction.

Well I honestly believe that the findings in Benghazi investigations were enough to prove criminal negligence - everyone involved in that chain of command should have been removed from duty and had no chance at a political career. That is my opinion though. You don't have to share that. Investigations went to far though at some point - there is nothing left to learn.

These indictments can't possibly produce results. Russia is not going to hand over their men. Nothing will happen. So there will be no trial. It just looks harder than releasing info to the public that "yeah there were some hacks" - "yeah they really didn't do any damage" "yeah this stuff is basically going on all the time and it shouldn't have taken us 2 years to get here"

 whembly wrote:
2). No evidence that these hacks changed a vote

Sure, they beat the guard in to unconsciousness, cracked open the vault, and fled, but unless you can prove their was money in there before my clients opened it, what crime did they commit?

3). Amazing that it took 2 years to get to this pointe

The guy who followed Benghazi breathlessly for four years just made this complaint.

4). Really curious at the evidence they’ve acquired, since the DNC server was destroyed according to Brazil’s and that only Cloudstrike claimed it was the Russians hackers

More of this half truth nonsense. The FBI received copies. The FBI was happy to work with Crowdstrike. The Crowdstrike findings of FBI operation were consistent with other evidence, such as the reports of operations from Dutch intel.

This is just another of the wingnut conservative media talking points. It rots people's brains.

5). Still zero “ collusion” related charges

Obviously that's the end game. You can't pretend you don't understand that. You're actually trying to claim that there's a big mystery around why Mueller wouldn't drop the collusion charge against Trump and then expect to carry on investigating and building his case without any response from the president. Come on.

7) I rewatched much of Strzok hearing... holy gak he didn’t look good. Also expect to see numerous memes material from that. Yikes!!

And we finish with just one last bit of partisan derangement. whembly just watched a GOP lunatic claim he knows body language because he was a dentist, and watched Gowdy walk in to an absolute hammering from Strzok over the sheer idiocy of the GOP charge against him... while questions came for hours which never once actually pointed out a single attempted allegation of Strzok committing an act of bias... and he concludes Strzok came out bad.

This stuff is beyond a joke.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

Not wasted as we found out about Clinton’s email server from those investigations.

Furthermore, Obama and company really fethed up prior/during/post to this event and largely escaped accountability.

By Xenos criteria, that is still a waste of resources as it didn't lead to an indictment, let alone a conviction.

Well I honestly believe that the findings in Benghazi investigations were enough to prove criminal negligence - everyone involved in that chain of command should have been removed from duty and had no chance at a political career. That is my opinion though. You don't have to share that. Investigations went to far though at some point - there is nothing left to learn.

These indictments can't possibly produce results. Russia is not going to hand over their men. Nothing will happen. So there will be no trial. It just looks harder than releasing info to the public that "yeah there were some hacks" - "yeah they really didn't do any damage" "yeah this stuff is basically going on all the time and it shouldn't have taken us 2 years to get here"

This is not the end result. As Sebster already pointed out, this is part of a process. Assuming the "arc of the universe bends towards justice" is true, prepare for quite a few of Trump's inner circle to go to jail.

nfe wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.

If you want to look at wasted resources in investigations look no further than 7(?) different increasingly desperate attempts at pinning Benghazi on former Secretary of State Clinton personally.

Not wasted as we found out about Clinton’s email server from those investigations.

Furthermore, Obama and company really fethed up prior/during/post to this event and largely escaped accountability.

Is there a big pending investigation about Trump giving out his unencrypted, personal phone number? Genuine question.

If true that’s bad... but not the same as Clinton’s email server. POTUS can declassify anything at will... Clinton cannot and is subjected to the same laws as you and I when handling classified information.

Doesn’t excuse Trump though if he’s using unclas cellphone imo, because we can’t know if he’s disciplined enough to only use it personally.


,

 Easy E wrote:
US Politics have really become so unhinged that we can not even agree on what color the sky is in our world.

Here in Texas it's white and vaguely orangish. It's so hot here we must be near the surface of the sun.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
US Politics have really become so unhinged that we can not even agree on what color the sky is in our world.

Here in Texas it's white and vaguely orangish. It's so hot here we must be near the surface of the sun.

Texas. So close to New Mexico, so far from God.

 whembly wrote:

Doesn’t excuse Trump though if he’s using unclas cellphone imo, because we can’t know if he’s disciplined enough to only use it personally.
,

No. We do know that he is not disciplined enough to only use it personally. This is the man who isn't disciplined enough to not commit sexual assault by his own admission

 Xenomancers wrote:

Well I honestly believe that the findings in Benghazi investigations were enough to prove criminal negligence

It is nice that you believe that.
Must be a blow that those Senators and Representatives doing the actual investigations with insight into all the data and evidence disagrees with you.
But I am sure that reputable news sources (like Fox News) reported the findings of those investigations soberly and dispassionately, didn't lie and twist the facts at all or interjected their personal opinions in their news reporting.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
2). No evidence that these hacks changed a vote

Sure, they beat the guard in to unconsciousness, cracked open the vault, and fled, but unless you can prove their was money in there before bowingmy clients opened it, what crime did they commit?

This is laughable seb.

If they did influence anything... how would you go about proving it?

3). Amazing that it took 2 years to get to this pointe

The guy who followed Benghazi breathlessly for four years just made this complaint.

You cannot seriously compare the two as the Benghazi investigations was stonewalled at every step of the way. Or you can simply say that the “ wheel of Justice moves slowly”.

4). Really curious at the evidence they’ve acquired, since the DNC server was destroyed according to Brazil’s and that only Cloudstrike claimed it was the Russians hackers

More of this half truth nonsense. The FBI received copies. The FBI was happy to work with Crowdstrike. The Crowdstrike findings of FBI operation were consistent with other evidence, such as the reports of operations from Dutch intel.

This is just another of the wingnut conservative media talking points. It rots people's brains.

Witch is fething laughable... copies of what? The image of the server? The data files after the DNC/Cloudstrike scrubbed the server?

Point being the FBI didn’t have the server in their possessions... so any defense attorney will be able to insert doubt here.

5). Still zero “ collusion” related charges

Obviously that's the end game. You can't pretend you don't understand that. You're actually trying to claim that there's a big mystery around why Mueller wouldn't drop the collusion charge against Trump and then expect to carry on investigating and building his case without any response from the president. Come on.

Collusion itself isn’t a crime...we’ve been over this. At best he could provide Congress with enough evidence to remove him from office.

7) I rewatched much of Strzok hearing... holy gak he didn’t look good. Also expect to see numerous memes material from that. Yikes!!

And we finish with just one last bit of partisan derangement. whembly just watched a GOP lunatic claim he knows body language because he was a dentist, and watched Gowdy walk in to an absolute hammering from Strzok over the sheer idiocy of the GOP charge against him... while questions came for hours which never once actually pointed out a single attempted allegation of Strzok committing an act of bias... and he concludes Strzok came out bad.

This stuff is beyond a joke.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yeah the claim is a big difference but to have a fair conversation with someone it is best to clarify an outrageously wrong claim. "Surely you mean oil and gas Mr. President because total energy from Russia is much closer the 20% - the 60-70% figure - you must mean Natural gas and Oil" "Yes, that is what i meant ofc."
That is how intelligent conversations go. I assure you - if you were in Trumps position and I was a reporter. I could take something out of context to make you look like an idiot too.

The problem here is that it isn't just Trump misspeaking, he is daily making outright false statements or making comments on things he is clearly not informed on, and often directly contradicts himself.

In such a light, it makes it hard to take the "he jus said the wrong word thing" as seriously. In most cases I try to not harangue him too much on those things I think are accidents, those do happen, but between Trump's track record of just saying "stuff", and the direness he is attempting to impress on this topic lead me to believe otherwise.

Totally relevant to the subject - when having a discussion it really helps to no assume everyone is an idiot. It's not nice to say things like "If you knew anything about the subject". Otherwise you just end up with conversations resulting in "I'm smarter than you" "No! I'm smarter than you".

When you reduce Russian actions to just "Facebook trolling", when there was clearly a coordinated attack on the elections process and infrastructure, and significant social engineering attempts by the Russian state through Facebook, it comes off as ignorance. I apologize for coming off too hostile, but that was a significant mischaracterization

I know about the subject. I hear about it constantly. Did any hacking attempts by Russia result in voter fraud or prevent anyone from voting?

Part of the problem is that we just dont know. That is something the Mueller investigation is looking into IIRC. I dont expect so mucb anything direct on that front, but they absolutely penetrated DNC servers and appeares for the purposes of influencing the campaign.

They posted misinformation on facebook. No different that fox news posting misinformation on facebook.

A foreign state posing as Americans and intentionally stirring up domestic drama and attempting to sway views is a different thing than a domestic organization doing so, and is a crime to boot. I cannot imagine that the reaction would be so muted if it were Iran or ISIL doing it.

Are you aware that every government is constantly trying to hack each other at all times? I can easily write off a Russian hacking attempt because it's happening constantly and we are doing it to. There is nothing we can do to stop it ether short of...shutting down the internet. Yeah - not happening.

Yes there is some level of stuff going on, but the scale of this is so much greater than in the past, and there's a reason why charges are being brought in this case and not others.

Curious. How does a US indictment against a Russian intelligence officer work? I assume it's going to go to some agency with no power - Russia will deny it's even happening and really the indictment is just an attempt to make the wasted resources in the investigation were worth while.
Again - I honestly have no idea how that works. How does it work?

Well, none of them will ever likely see a US courtroom, it's more about making the point and finding ways to prevent it in the future.

I am curious about something, and not trying to be inflammatory here.

Lets say that in a parallel universe, Trump is somehow well spoken, polite, PC, respectful, and so on. He still runs on the same platform and wins.

All that being said, if he announced that he:

1) wanted to put America first
2) re-negotiate NAFTA and other trade agreements as they were no longer fair to US workers
3) wanted to prevent illegal immigration, as well as block immigration from countries that cannot provide background checks
4) wanted NATO members to fulfill their obligations
5) make us less dependent on importing resources such as oil, as well as protect some industries from unfair trade practices like steel
6) wants the American economy to be strong

And he was able to say all that in a passionate and intelligent way. Would you be on board with that? I imagine most of you who oppose Trump because of how he acts and what he says, which is fully understandable, sometimes he pisses me off too. However, the things I listed above I want from every President. I do not want them to bend on those for the sake of others. I don't agree with the far right, but I also do not agree with the far left, but he is a republican president, and that goes with some things, like supreme court nominations. But still, if he was able to communicate and act more appropriately, would you still be raging mad about some of the policies he is following?

 whembly wrote:

If they did influence anything... how would you go about proving it?

The same way Fox went about proving to you that the Clinton foundation was a pay to play scheme.