US Politics

[DanH]

Past or present performance is not indicative of future market results. Markets are inherently unpredictable. So your guess is as good as mine 👍🏻

That’s like saying predicting the outcome of any football match or horse race is a completely random event and you should ignore any previous form or current facts.

It’s just completely wrong.

 

[eaglesdare]

That’s like saying predicting the outcome of any football match or horse race is a completely random event and you should ignore any previous form or current facts.

It’s just completely wrong.

No. You can predict the market based on trends. However it's not a sure thing and the market can go up or down hence my point. Future or current market is not an indicator of future results.

I'm sure a lot of people predicted us to hammer Southampton during the week what with both teams previous forms 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[DanH]

No. You can predict the market based on trends. However it's not a sure thing and the market can go up or down hence my point. Future or current market is not an indicator of future results.

I'm sure a lot of people predicted us to hammer Southampton during the week what with both teams previous forms 🤷🏻‍♂️

So you’re agreeing with me, great.

You lot seemed to be advocating ignoring the markets and anyone who might just happen to know what they’re talking about and just carry on with blind faith in your Orange Oracle.

 

[eaglesdare]

So you’re agreeing with me, great.

You lot seemed to be advocating ignoring the markets and anyone who might just happen to know what they’re talking about and just carry on with blind faith in your Orange Oracle.

I watched during the "killer" virus years shares tumble and I bought a lot back then. I then watched them rise to a peak in January and then have tumbled again not bad as back then for now. I'm am sure they will rise again towards the end of the year and into next.

However that performance I have watched is not indictive of future results it could bounce back or it could get worse.

 

[DanH]

I watched during the "killer" virus years shares tumble and I bought a lot back then. I then watched them rise to a peak in January and then have tumbled again not bad as back then for now. I'm am sure they will rise again towards the end of the year and into next.

However that performance I have watched is not indictive of future results it could bounce back or it could get worse.

The fact you’re still using “killer” all these years later just shows how seriously you should be taken.

 

[eaglesdare]

The fact you’re still using “killer” all these years later just shows how seriously you should be taken.

Enjoy your Sunday Dan 👍🏻

 

[DanH]

Old this, but not read anything that nails why the vast majority of British people have no time for him. Also see some of these characteristics in some of his cheerleaders on here.

“A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of s***. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

‘My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a t*** was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

 

[eaglesdare]

Old this, but not read anything that nails why the vast majority of British people have no time for him. Also see some of these characteristics in some of his cheerleaders on here.

“A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of s***. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

‘My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a t*** was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

Sounds more like someone with TDS having a rant to me. It is a bias opinion piece not factual. It may capture some sentiment that may exist among some British people but not all.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Old this, but not read anything that nails why the vast majority of British people have no time for him. Also see some of these characteristics in some of his cheerleaders on here.

“A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of s***. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

‘My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a t*** was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

The left always attack people's character because they never have any coherent argument to debate policy.

 

[DanH]

Sounds more like someone with TDS having a rant to me. It is a bias opinion piece not factual. It may capture some sentiment that may exist among some British people but not all.

I know it is. Just perfectly captures him though.

 

[DanH]

The left always attack people's character because they never have any coherent argument to debate policy.

There’s plenty of coherent argument debating his tariff policy in the form of market data and experts, but they’re not to be trusted are they.

Plus some could argue the character of the US president is extremely important, as that seems to be largely informing policy.

 

[ASCPFC]

Old this, but not read anything that nails why the vast majority of British people have no time for him. Also see some of these characteristics in some of his cheerleaders on here.

“A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of s***. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

‘My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a t*** was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

We don't like him because he's not David Niven? Brilliant.

Have you looked around London, Birmingham, Manchester for people with these quintessentially English gentleman traits recently? Good luck with that. Chris Eubanks springs to mind.

 

[Eaglehamster]

The left always attack people's character because they never have any coherent argument to debate policy.

You assume all critics of Trump are on the left. Wrong.
Your criticisms also always seem to apply Trump. You think Trump's tariffs show a coherent policy?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Old this, but not read anything that nails why the vast majority of British people have no time for him. Also see some of these characteristics in some of his cheerleaders on here.

“A few things spring to mind.

My god, is this what you lot spend your time reading?

What a load of tarts!

And you have the gall to accuse others of being in a bubble!

 

[Penge Eagle]

There’s plenty of coherent argument debating his tariff policy in the form of market data and experts, but they’re not to be trusted are they.

Plus some could argue the character of the US president is extremely important, as that seems to be largely informing policy.

I'm referring to your debating skills (or lack of). 🙂 You really think character is more important than ability?

 

[Stirlingsays]

We don't like him because he's not David Niven? Brilliant.

Have you looked around London, Birmingham, Manchester for people with these quintessentially English gentleman traits recently? Good luck with that. Chris Eubanks springs to mind.

It's a well made point.

There are certainly criticisms that are valid about Trump's gruff and often rude character....David Niven he is not, but the policies are actually what's important not the window dressing. Instead these plonkers go way over the top and are way too obsessed with the guy's personality.

They don't seem to understand that most people don't care that much about that over other considerations. Trump was literally elected after audio about grabbing women by their private parts.....but the Democrats are so bad as an alternative that people preferred Trump to them.

Instead of learning lessons about their policies the Democrats and the left in general can only double down and instead spend their time hating the guy who beats them....oh and if it wasn't for Covid would have probably won in 2020 too.

Frankly it's childish and immature....a little like Trump himself.

 

[Penge Eagle]

You assume all critics of Trump are on the left. Wrong.
Your criticisms also always seem to apply Trump. You think Trump's tariffs show a coherent policy?

It was a general point about leftists I have noticed for a while. I'm old enough to remember that people who voted for Brexit or Trump were labelled as racist. And every Republican president is stupid or a warmonger.

I have no idea if his tariff policy will work because I don't have a crystal ball like others it seems. On this thread, I have coherently explained reasons he is going with this policy, given an example of one of his instant wins and why markets should not to be solely used for government policy, all using facts and data. It would be nice if there was a counter argument using facts and data. Instead, it's name calling and media soundbites! Shouting markets, experts and Orange Man bad is not a coherent argument.

 

[DanH]

It was a general point about leftists I have noticed for a while. I'm old enough to remember that people who voted for Brexit or Trump were labelled as racist. And every Republican president is stupid or a warmonger.

I have no idea if his tariff policy will work because I don't have a crystal ball like others it seems. On this thread, I have coherently explained reasons he is going with this policy, given an example of one of his instant wins and why markets should not to be solely used for government policy, all using facts and data. It would be nice if there was a counter argument using facts and data. Instead, it's name calling and media soundbites! Shouting markets, experts and Orange Man bad is not a coherent argument.

No one has a crystal ball but we are literally using the historic data available from previous similar policies, the opinion of those who are experts in their field, and the reaction of the financial markets and economic indicators into how wider opinion of how these policies will play out.

How can you get any more coherent than that?

 

[Penge Eagle]

No one has a crystal ball but we are literally using the historic data available from previous similar policies, the opinion of those who are experts in their field, and the reaction of the financial markets and economic indicators into how wider opinion of how these policies will play out.

How can you get any more coherent than that?

I am willing to bet with you the markets will recover. Are you in?

 

[DanH]

I am willing to bet with you the markets will recover. Are you in?

Over what time frame?