Um...yea. What I do and what Madoff did, even when above board, aren't remotely similar.
Surprised no one is discussing the Comey firing.
- Thread starter PhyloeBedoe
- Start date
I disagree he has a real soft spot in his heart for Kim jong un; he was very sympathetic about him trying to rule as a young absolute monarch and empathized with him.
Like I said, you don't like some of his policies. There have been many presidents in the past where I disagreed with their policies. I didn't hate them. I hate Donald Trump and I don't throw the word around either. He personally insults and shames women constantly and everyone else he disagrees with. He's a horrible man and eventually he is going to pay the price.
I don't have a million dollars ... yet ... but I have done all that stuff without the aid of a financial planner/advisor for next to nothing. Yeah my company passes mandatory fees on my 401k to me.. What do I get for that? Visits two times a year from someone who hodBombarded with e-mails and phone calls on how they can take more of my money. Why would Joe need your advice to roll over 401K? I think the idea was to stop having people exploited by charlatans. I know you Trumpsters frown upon that.
Last edited:
Also I think some of those fiduciary regulations were already in place as company policy at some of the financial houses. Hard to imagine someone arguing against a rule that discourages conflict of interest.
So, you're saying you want Pence to become president?My dream scenario is that a 400# Russian guy living in a basement somewhere hacks Trump's bidness and steals all of his money. Then his hair falls out, and he dies penniless!
It's also important to distinguish between what the rule actually does, and what problems will be caused by how companies react to the rule. Jim mentioned some examples of bad outcomes in this thread, but I don't think any of them are outcomes spelled out in the rule itself; rather they are potential outcomes as a result of how brokerage houses and others respond to the rule, in order to minimize fiduciary relationships or situations in which a conflict of interest notice and waiver might be required. To me, that only highlights the potential reasons the new rule might be needed in the first place. If you're managing my money, and you have self-serving reasons to not want to be placed in a fiduciary role, then, well, I probably don't want you managing my money, anyway.
He couldn't possibly be as bad as the Donald. I think he's more involved than he lets on. He's always got his nose up Trumps ass.
Ever notice that even to answer a simple question, he launches into a big over-serious oratorical response?
I'm still waiting to hear one actual, legitimate defense of anything Trump has done his presidency so far. One thing. I'm fully aware Hillary lost. It doesn't mean Trump isn't an atrocious buffoon.
If I read this correctly, Jim is angry towards Obama because an agency, not Obama, passed a rule requiring people in the financial industry to be ethical towards clients? I don't even know how to respond to that. I don't think Jim is going to find too much sympathy from Goat or other attorneys, seeing is how attorneys, even though they take a beating from a lot of people, have to follow a lengthy ethical code if they want to continue practicing law. Welcome to the club, Jim!
Federalist Paper 68 is applicable and hitting pretty close to home these days. I don't think the goal of electing a qualified person of ability and virtue was met this past election. I also don't think the safeguard of electors performed the function of "protecting" the public from itself and preventing the public from electing somebody without said qualities. Say what you will about Hillary, but she was at least qualified for the job.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
Sorry Zeke, but if you can't see the humor in that cartoon you need to take a step back.
I have never understood why a head exploding is remotely funny to the Republicans? It always seemed really trite.
I understand, but what if the last frame was her frantically flipping through blank pages in a script (titled DNC playbook) to find THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE to chase after. Cliff Hanger! Would that appeal to your intellect a little more?
Have any of you guys who bet on sports bet on how long Trump is POTUS? What are the odds/over under on how long this goes on?
I originally said 24 months, up till now, but I feel like I've overestimated the Dems ability to actually impeach, (they are all bark and no bite), they're more interested in sound bites and innuendo than prosecutable evidence, so barring either the North Koreans or Soros finding a way to remove him I think he makes it thru his full term. Fasten your seat belts it's going to a bumpy ride!
Which part is supposed to be funny? The exploding head? Nothing before it made sense. Trump is Nixonian but Kissinger is in the office? Ok..ha ha.
Well maybe that's because it wouldn't be the Dems impeaching . They don't have the numbers . It has to be a GOP. Still under question whether there are enough of those with integrity to do anything about this.
I agree, it's fun to watch them make fools of themselves. Usually with little to no prompting.
Not every person that voted for Trump is a racist, but every racist that voted, voted for Trump.
Integrity? You're talking about Congress. I would estimate well over 75%, on both sides of the aisle, care only about being reelected.
Greg Popovich summed it up PERFECTLY:
Pop’s thoughts:
“Usually things happen and you go to work and you got your family and you do what you do. But to this day I feel like there’s a dark cloud, a pall over the whole country. It’s got nothing to do with the Democrats losing the election. It’s got to do with the way one individual conducts himself. And that’s embarrassing. It’s dangerous to our institutions, and what we all stand for and what we expect the country to be. But for this individual, he’s in a game show. And everything that happens begins and ends with him. Not our people or our country; every time he talks about those things, it’s just a ruse. That’s just disingenuous, cynical and fake.”
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/gregg...y-since-donald-trumps-election-193611505.html
Pop’s thoughts:
“Usually things happen and you go to work and you got your family and you do what you do. But to this day I feel like there’s a dark cloud, a pall over the whole country. It’s got nothing to do with the Democrats losing the election. It’s got to do with the way one individual conducts himself. And that’s embarrassing. It’s dangerous to our institutions, and what we all stand for and what we expect the country to be. But for this individual, he’s in a game show. And everything that happens begins and ends with him. Not our people or our country; every time he talks about those things, it’s just a ruse. That’s just disingenuous, cynical and fake.”
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/gregg...y-since-donald-trumps-election-193611505.html
Haven't a lot of states passed laws requiring the electors to follow the popular vote in tjose states?
Faithless electors are rare and many states have laws against it. Thus these men/women meeting to actually decide the election is really just a formality and an historical oddity. That's not one of the main issues with the electoral college. The main issues, it seems to me, are:
1) disproportionate influence of the less populated states.
2) all or none allocation, though some states do it differently, which is a problem of consistency
3) Most states are totally ignored in the campaiging process, since they are "so red" or "so blue" that they are not up for grabs
4) a few "swing states" get all the attention and all of the special promises. candidates are plugging special interests of regional voters rather than the broader interests of the country.
5) It disfavors third parties, and we have two parties in power that SUCK.
6) it really makes no sense in a society that claims to value democracy and the equality of individuals. Remember: the EC was put in, in part, so that "learned men" in all states would serve as electors and these elites could correct a situation where the supposedly ignorant masses voted "the wrong way"
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Do you think that it is at all possible that because of your hatred for Donald Trump you are mistaken? There is no evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. The President wanted to know about the ongoing investigation and Comey said the investigation is about Russian hacking and NOT ABOUT HIM.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Is it possible the President watches the news and since he is being told he is being investigated he wants to know if it's true. Of course I am not a lawyer,but isn't this possible?
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Bernie Sanders is the one who has a legit gripe. He didn't have a chance because of collusion between Clinton and Schultz.
Federalist 68:
"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?"
