Election 2016 Thread

[Svartalf]

Says what all? That he's a sociopath with a rich daddy?

same can be said of hillary, and likely bill too, for that matter, they just hide it better.

[pErvinalia]

At least they are higher IQ sociopaths!

Actually, that's arguably more scary...

[Forty Two]

double-wide.

As has been pointed out, if he simply invested his money that was gifted to him by daddy into the S&P500 index, he'd have a lot more money today. The guy is a loser, in both monetary terms and behaviour.

That's a good argument for privatized retirement funds instead of social security. Any idiot can just invest a few dollars a month starting at age 18 and be set up for retirement and then some. Or, why doesn't the government just put Americans' money paid in for social security into the "S&P index?" Everyone paying in would be rich.

If you can let me know which fund will go up by a factor of 40 in the future, that would be great. And, I wonder what funds the writers of those articles that say "all trump had to do was invest in the S&P index" would recommend for the next 30 years. I mean, we can all do better than Trump, if they'd clue us in to what is obvious now, just like what must have been obvious in 1982 when Trump should have just invested his money in a fund....

[Forty Two]

Wikileaks says Hillary Cliton armed ISIS -- http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07 ... sis-syria/

[pErvinalia]

double-wide.

As has been pointed out, if he simply invested his money that was gifted to him by daddy into the S&P500 index, he'd have a lot more money today. The guy is a loser, in both monetary terms and behaviour.

That's a good argument for privatized retirement funds instead of social security. Any idiot can just invest a few dollars a month starting at age 18 and be set up for retirement and then some. Or, why doesn't the government just put Americans' money paid in for social security into the "S&P index?" Everyone paying in would be rich.

If you can let me know which fund will go up by a factor of 40 in the future, that would be great. And, I wonder what funds the writers of those articles that say "all trump had to do was invest in the S&P index" would recommend for the next 30 years. I mean, we can all do better than Trump, if they'd clue us in to what is obvious now, just like what must have been obvious in 1982 when Trump should have just invested his money in a fund....

Well funds like that are good as they always have the strongest companies in them. Underperforming companies are replaced by better ones.

[Forty Two]

double-wide.

As has been pointed out, if he simply invested his money that was gifted to him by daddy into the S&P500 index, he'd have a lot more money today. The guy is a loser, in both monetary terms and behaviour.

That's a good argument for privatized retirement funds instead of social security. Any idiot can just invest a few dollars a month starting at age 18 and be set up for retirement and then some. Or, why doesn't the government just put Americans' money paid in for social security into the "S&P index?" Everyone paying in would be rich.

If you can let me know which fund will go up by a factor of 40 in the future, that would be great. And, I wonder what funds the writers of those articles that say "all trump had to do was invest in the S&P index" would recommend for the next 30 years. I mean, we can all do better than Trump, if they'd clue us in to what is obvious now, just like what must have been obvious in 1982 when Trump should have just invested his money in a fund....

Well funds like that are good as they always have the strongest companies in them. Underperforming companies are replaced by better ones.

Of course, that's why many stock traders don't invest everything they have in them. Doing 10 times as good as Donald Trump, with no real risk, isn't good enough?

Come on, man...

This whole line of attack is utter and complete horseshit, meant to feed a financially illiterate mass of Trump bashers. That shit about Trump underperforming since the 1980s as compared to the S&P is just political bullshit. It assumes he just cashed out and invested everything (ignoring cash flow out), and it ignores the basic fact that the S&P's earnings have not bee uniform over time. Up until 1988, Trump was outperforming the S&P by a good margin, but in 1988 bullish times of the S&P began, and the S&P essentially outperformed itself until the 2000s. So, what douchebags like Chris Matthews and the rest of the gang banging this stupid-ass drum are saying is that Trump should have known to cash out his fortune in 1982 and go sit in a hut on the beach and he'd have $2.7 billion dollars today. Basically, you can roughly say that Trump outperformed the S&P from 1974 through 1987, underperformed from 1988 through 1999, and slightly outperformed since then.

Oh, jeez, Trump, a billionaire, would have still been a billionaire if he had perfect market timing. And, let's get on the Democrat bandwagon, which says that people shouldn't build things like buildings and operate businesses that employ people (because they may fail), but rather, everyone who doesn't just invest in the S&P 500 (i.e., everyone should just invest in the 500 companies that Standard and Poor's say you should invest in) is just an idiot. I mean, fuck, why don't the companies in the S&P 500 just cash out and invest in an S&P 500 indexed fund....

Someone needs to call these fuckwits out on this stupid-ass "he shoulda just invested in the S&P" argument, because it is about the dumbest thing anyone has said thus far in this election, to the point of being embarrassing. Anyone who takes it seriously is either hyper-partisan, or is a complete and utter ignoramus.

[pErvinalia]

No one is saying that he should have invested in the s&p. You seemed to have wholly missed the point of the comparison.

[Forty Two]

No one is saying that he should have invested in the s&p. You seemed to have wholly missed the point of the comparison.

Noone? This whole line started with dopes like Chris Matthews and other MSNBC Hillary Clinton-anus-lickers saying he should have invested in an S&P indexed fund in the 1980s and he'd have more money today than he has as a result of building and developing real estate and other business ventures.

But, do go ahead and clarify the point of the comparison. State it. Don't just allude to it. Don't just say I missed it. Write it down so everyone can see how dumb it is.

[pErvinalia]

Why don't you show us where people are actually (not rhetorically) saying he should have invested in the s&p?

It is a rhetorical point to counter the argument that Trump is some outstanding businessman. Or the even sillier argument made by the likes of Seth that he is suitable for president because he has a few billion dollars. I'm sure Seth would drop that argument like a hot potato if George Soros was running for prez.

[laklak]

Jesus 42 now I've got this picture in my head of Bill-n-Hill analingus. Thanks.

[Forty Two]

Why don't you show us where people are actually (not rhetorically) saying he should have invested in the s&p?

You said it -
You wrote "As has been pointed out, if he simply invested his money that was gifted to him by daddy into the S&P500 index, he'd have a lot more money today." What other 'index" are you referring to aside from an S&P indexed fund? And, if that isn't meant literally, then what the fuck are you talking about? Trump's an idiot because he didn't figuratively or "rhetorically," as you put it, invest his funds in some manner which cannot now be described?

It is a rhetorical point to counter the argument that Trump is some outstanding businessman. Or the even sillier argument made by the likes of Seth that he is suitable for president because he has a few billion dollars. I'm sure Seth would drop that argument like a hot potato if George Soros was running for prez.

It doesn't county the point that Trump is an outstanding business man, unless it refers to reality. And, even if it does refer to reality, it's fucking stupid, because saying he should have taken his entire net worth and invested it in the 1980s is the same thing as saying he should have cashed all his businesses out and done nothing but invest going forward. People have to eat and support their families and lifestyles.

Look - it's like telling a restauranteur that he's a fucking idiot for running a restaurant because they are notoriously high-risk endeavors with very high failure rates and very low profit margins (like 2% or so). That's why the argument is the argument of a fucking idiot. That's what Trump and others should slam the Democrat camp with - accuse them of insulting every mom and pop business, every restaurant and every startup -- by implying that they're all so stupid, they should just invest in the stock market or the S&P index and they'll make guaranteed money at a faster clip than even billionaire Donald Trump.....

Shit, the auto companies should just liquidate and invest in the stock market, because they'd do better - or if not better, at least there'd be no risk. And, fuck, the auto companies are all failures anyway - piss poor businesses -- because they all filed bankruptcy at one time or another.

And, Elizabeth Warren has been trumpeting this shit, so if you really knew anything about what's being said in the election, you'd know that.

She wrote: "He would be richer if he had invested in the stock market." Dope. Start in 1971: $1 million dollar loan from his father put into into S&P 500 => $20 million by January 2016 - or, maybe 1974: $40 million inheritance into S&P 500 => $800 million by January 2016 Even if we are still a bit pessimistic, and assume a net worth of only $4.5 billion dollars as per the low estimate by Forbes where they only partially consider his real estate assets, and go by the scenario where he got a loan of $1 million dollars, he still managed to outperform the stock market more than 200-fold. This is highly remarkable considering he made it in real estate, not banking, oil or technology. Even investing $40 million he didn't have because he couldn't liquidate his father's company, in an index that didn't exist until 1975, with 74-fold growth that didn't happen, and assuming he didn't spend a single penny in his life, it shields a sum short of $3 billion. That's still over $1.5 billion less than the low estimate given by Forbes of his net worth and that's the worst scenario you can come up with.

But, folks like Matthews have reported what the Associated Press wrote -- that if he had invested in the S&P 500 index fund he's be richer today.... http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/ It's such a mind-numbingly stupid argument, though, that I find it hard to believe anyone makes it with a straight face, rhetorically or otherwise.

[Tero]

Too bad he's such a bad businessman. Now he's looking for a new job. As a type of regulator.

[JimC]

And perhaps the real point is why being "good at business" is a suitable qualification for being a president.

[Tero]

And perhaps the real point is why being "good at business" is a suitable qualification for being a president.

He'll give all his contracts to his buddies. At least he knows they are crooks.

[pErvinalia]

Why don't you show us where people are actually (not rhetorically) saying he should have invested in the s&p?

You said it -
You wrote "As has been pointed out, if he simply invested his money that was gifted to him by daddy into the S&P500 index, he'd have a lot more money today." What other 'index" are you referring to aside from an S&P indexed fund? And, if that isn't meant literally, then what the fuck are you talking about?

God, why is it so hard to discuss simple concepts with you? I didn't say he should have invested in the s&p index. Do you understand what a rhetorical point is? I just explained this in the bit that followed what you quoted. It's a fucking comparison to show that he isn't as good with money as he claims he is.

Trump's an idiot because he didn't figuratively or "rhetorically," as you put it, invest his funds in some manner which cannot now be described?

It's been perfectly described. Everyone but you understands what a rhetorical point is. And I didn't say he "didn't rhetorically invest his funds..."

It is a rhetorical point to counter the argument that Trump is some outstanding businessman. Or the even sillier argument made by the likes of Seth that he is suitable for president because he has a few billion dollars. I'm sure Seth would drop that argument like a hot potato if George Soros was running for prez.

It doesn't county the point that Trump is an outstanding business man, unless it refers to reality. And, even if it does refer to reality, it's fucking stupid, because saying he should have taken his entire net worth and invested it in the 1980s is the same thing as saying he should have cashed all his businesses out and done nothing but invest going forward.

It's really not. Please look up what a rhetorical point is. I'm not reading the rest.