At this point, I'll just take one more judge.

«13

Replies

  • Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior Member Posts: 1,049 Senior Member
    I say get him out as quickly as possible.

    From the story:

    "It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    "The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities."

    So, the post knows these secret details?
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,006 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    "The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities."

    So, the post knows these secret details?

    Yes. the reporters know what Trump said. But they are more sensitive about divulging information than say, oh, the head of the executive branch.

    I have decided that Trump told one thing that was the truth in the last two years. Just one. He really could murder somebody on Fifth avenue and his supporters would say that Hillary was still worse, and Republicans in Congress would furrow their collective brows and express their "concern" and Fox could run a story about Sharia law or some other distraction.

    Anthony Kennedy. . .retire. Now.
  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,897 Senior Member
    Question, if the US press was barred from the meeting with the Russian ambassador and only Russian press was allowed, how is it that the Post knows of the classified info?
    I really don't know how his supporters can continue to burry their heads in the sand.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,973 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »

    I hope you trust your financial advisor more than I trust the Donald.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,533 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    I hope you trust your financial advisor more than I trust the Donald.

    You won't have a financial advisor (well you might being a gentleman farmer and all).

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,973 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    You won't have a financial advisor (well you might being a gentleman farmer and all).

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    This gentleman farmer has a 15' by 25' vegetable patch that he tills and then turns over to his wife until the following Spring. :)

    And it's true that I do not have a financial advisor, having chosen three good mutual funds and been satisfied with beating the market over the past four decades. :):):)

    But I still cannot understand why Republicans think it is unbearable gubbmint interference to require that financial advisors place their client's interests before their own. In other words, they shouldn't invest they clients' money in their cousin's fly-by-night Ponzi scheme. Why should that be legal?
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,952 Senior Member
    Yup consistency is good

    100 plus days in....still a dumpster fire
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Yes. the reporters know what Trump said. But they are more sensitive about divulging information than say, oh, the head of the executive branch.

    I have decided that Trump told one thing that was the truth in the last two years. Just one. He really could murder somebody on Fifth avenue and his supporters would say that Hillary was still worse, and Republicans in Congress would furrow their collective brows and express their "concern" and Fox could run a story about Sharia law or some other distraction.

    Anthony Kennedy. . .retire. Now.

    If the WAPO knows these super-secret details, that’s an even more serious threat to our intelligence community, isn’t it?
    Maybe if these news outlets, which are clearly left leaning in this case, didn’t release an article almost daily, that is going to be the bombshell that will impeach their archenemy Trump. Maye then his supporters would take it more serious. So far, they are all (and there have been so many) based on some sort of evidence that has yet to be proven. Or some unnamed source,,,, blah blah blah. We live in the age of misinformation. Until I see tangible evidence that proves these allegations, I’ll hold off on passing judgment. Hell hath no fury like a media scorned…
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,129 Senior Member
    Translation, until Sean Hannity tells me, I won't believe it.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,533 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »

    But I still cannot understand why Republicans think it is unbearable gubbmint interference to require that financial advisors place their client's interests before their own.

    That's not really the issue. The issue is how do you craft the rules to make this happen while still allowing for commissions (under ERISA, fiduciaries aren't allowed to charge commissions hence exemptions need to be carved out)? But even then, the really big issue is enforcement.

    The Department of Labor has no enforcement capability so it created the Best Interest Contract Exemption. Under the BICE, the fiduciary must sign a contract pledging best interest to the customer. However, this creates a breach of contract claim that can be used as the basis of class actions. In a sense, the DOL has farmed out enforcement to the plaintiff bar and nobody wants that tsurris.

    Historically, brokerage clients have had to sign mandatory arbitration forms. This will no longer be allowed. The vast majority of insurance complaints are handled through the various state insurance departments.

    What's the big deal, right? Just keep the client's best interests in mind, and nobody will have to worry about the lawyers. The problem is that hindsight is 20/20 and even if your brokerage has documented every reason why it thought certain investments were in the best interests of its customers, there's no guarantee that the courts will see it that way.

    The easy solution is not to charge commissions (which can create conflicts of interest) but rather charge an annual fee based on assets which is the same no matter what the client holds. The problem with this is that fee-based small accounts aren't profitable for brokerage houses so small investors will be (and already have been) jettisoned.

    In addition, fee-based accounts can be very expensive for buy and hold investors. Suppose you bought your three mutual funds 30 years ago. Were you better off paying 6% up front or 1% annually for the last thirty years?

    Another way to comply with the rule is levelizing commissions. The brokerage arranges that no matter what it sells, the commission it receives from the mutual fund companies or insurance company is the same (if it's all the same, no conflict). If this is the case, all else equal, your advisor is incented to sell the product that's easiest for him to sell. Products that actually may serve the customer better, say variable annuities for those afraid of living too long, can get short shrift since they are more difficult to understand and explain to the customer. If the broker is going to get the same no matter what, why should he bother?

    Finally, some providers may lose shelf space at brokerage houses because they won't pay the levelized commission. Proving once again that karma is a ****, Vanguard's index funds have been kicked out of Morgan Stanley because it won't pay the levelized commission and MS doesn't want the perception of a conflict. Jack Bogle has been a huge supporter of the DOL rule. The reality is that the brokerage doesn't have to sell you the best product in the market for your particular circumstance but rather the best product for you it has on its shelf.
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    Translation, until Sean Hannity tells me, I won't believe it.
    Translation, I don't know anything about you so I'll project a stereotype on to you.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,006 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    If the WAPO knows these super-secret details, that’s an even more serious threat to our intelligence community, isn’t it?
    Maybe if these news outlets, which are clearly left leaning in this case, didn’t release an article almost daily, that is going to be the bombshell that will impeach their archenemy Trump. Maye then his supporters would take it more serious. So far, they are all (and there have been so many) based on some sort of evidence that has yet to be proven. Or some unnamed source,,,, blah blah blah. We live in the age of misinformation. Until I see tangible evidence that proves these allegations, I’ll hold off on passing judgment. Hell hath no fury like a media scorned…

    Well.

    Trump admitted doing it via Twitter this morning. He just claims he has the right to do it, not that he didn't do it. Which legally is true.

    Is that tangible enough?
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Well.

    Trump admitted doing it via Twitter this morning. He just claims he has the right to do it, not that he didn't do it. Which legally is true.

    Is that tangible enough?
    What exactly did he do? That’s the question. It was already known that he talked to them and that he broke no laws in doing so.

    In a brief statement in front of the White House, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster described the Post's story as "false."
    “The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation," McMaster said. "At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known."

    So it’s WAPO’s word against National Security advisor? But WAPO won’t substantiate the story because of security concerns (that they sure as hell shouldn’t know about). See my point?
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    Is this is the big secret that they discussed? Because that's been all over the web for days!
    https://www.google.com/search?q=no+laptops+on+planes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=laptops+banned+on+planes
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,426 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    But I still cannot understand why Republicans think it is unbearable gubbmint interference to require that financial advisors place their client's interests before their own. In other words, they shouldn't invest clients' money in their cousin's fly-by-night Ponzi scheme. Why should that be legal?

    Because my financial guy would drop me, along with all of his other small investors. I'm up **** creek, dabbling in something I know nothing about, and risking my own financial security and future.
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »

    "But here, too, we ought to be careful. The Post‘s sourcing is anonymous, and is the retelling of an overheard conversation. The words attributed to Trump betray such abject ignorance of the gravity of the matters he is dealing with that it’s impossible to rule out the possibility that this detail was maliciously leaked. This Administration is riven by so much mistrust and mutual suspicion that anything is possible. Just because it sounds right does not mean we ought to embrace the reporting quite yet."

    Seems to me that the sources behind this leak/story are just as guilty of negligence as he was (if he was negligent). If this turns out to be just another inflated story about nothing. Then the leaker should be found and dealt with accordingly. If it's true, and what he did was a violation of the President’s oath of office, then fire up the impeachment hearings and deal with him accordingly.
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    Well, McMaster just doubled down on what he said, and reiterated what I said. The real threat is the person leaking this information.
    Then he went on to say that Trump didn't know the source of the information, nor where, or how, it was obtained.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,006 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    Well, McMaster just doubled down on what he said, and reiterated what I said. The real threat is the person leaking this information.
    Then he went on to say that Trump didn't know the source of the information, nor where, or how, it was obtained.

    JFC.

    You're right. That's the problem. Not that the President is an erratic blowhard who can't keep his mouth shut.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,533 Senior Member
    I kind of agree with Mike.

    The fact that that the war between the President and the intelligence community continues unabated is very disturbing.
  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,964 Senior Member
    I'm liking my pool entry of 'forced by his own party to resign'
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    JFC.

    You're right. That's the problem. Not that the President is an erratic blowhard who can't keep his mouth shut.
    Yea but that's a separate issue. Look, I really don't like the guy either. He wasn't who I imagined when I thought of an ideal Republican POTUS. However, he's all we have, so I'm dealing with him, for now.
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    I kind of agree with Mike.

    The fact that that the war between the President and the intelligence community continues unabated is very disturbing.
    I feel like this is all part of the "resistance movement" in Washington. Party over country, and that's a very dangerous path...
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,952 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    I feel like this is all part of the "resistance movement" in Washington. Party over country, and that's a very dangerous path...

    Both sides play it so well though---maybe if there were more players

    One against one--hard to agree---add another one or two----You may be Forced into compromise
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,533 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    I feel like this is all part of the "resistance movement" in Washington. Party over country, and that's a very dangerous path...

    Ever see the BBC comedy "Yes, Minister?" It's reminiscent of that show. You've got the minister that wants something done, but it doesn't mesh with the worldview of the mandarins, so he's sabotaged every time.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,117 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    If this turns out to be just another inflated story about nothing.

    That's what most stories regarding Trump are.
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Because my financial guy would drop me, along with all of his other small investors. I'm up **** creek, dabbling in something I know nothing about, and risking my own financial security and future.
    I am sure the Buffmeister is more than able to handle his affairs, but IMHO, when it comes to ones savings, people should never dabble in something they know nothing about, either on their own or through a financial guy. I've had friends get wiped out in crashes because of the actions of their financial guy. One friend had all her money secretly transferred to dot.coms just before that crash.
    I have done just fine learning all about mutual funds and picking and choosing.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,117 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    I feel like this is all part of the "resistance movement" in Washington. Party over country, and that's a very dangerous path...

    This is why we have the Donald as prez and congress in control. Obama was so divisive the last 8 years and kept telling everyone that the R's put party over country.
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,037 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Ever see the BBC comedy "Yes, Minister?" It's reminiscent of that show. You've got the minister that wants something done, but it doesn't mesh with the worldview of the mandarins, so he's sabotaged every time.
    No but it sounds familiar. Question is, would it be any different with someone like Rubio? I doubt it.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.