LaxPower Back-Up Stick

njbill wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:31 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:19 pm Wish we could put the Hopkins-Loyola thing aside and just focus on the thread topic.

Moving on, this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... p-dilemma/

"Iowa resident Amy Haskins asked Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) an important question about President Trump on Thursday.

“Where is the line?” Haskins asked at a town hall. “When are you guys going to say, ‘Enough,' and stand up and say, ‘I’m not backing any of this?’”

I don’t mean that this was a good question in a moralistic way, as if it’s beyond time for Ernst and her GOP colleagues to take a stand. (People are welcome to make that call for themselves.) I mean it quite literally as “Where is the line?” — because Republicans need to start asking themselves just how far Trump will go if they don’t start setting boundaries.

The past week or so has shown the peril of the GOP’s see-no-evil approach to Trump. After a rough transcript showed the president suggestively talking about how good the United States is to Ukraine before asking Ukraine’s president for investigations that carry political benefits for him, Republicans offered a muted response. A handful — most notably Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), and even Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) to an extent — said the call was bad. But the vast majority of elected GOP officials basically stayed silent."

This is the template: citizens cannot leave it to the right wing Trumpian howler-class to push Senators into a corner. Constituents need to let this jury pool know that, for them, there is a line. The Republicans have a Child King who knows no boundary. If this is OK, then what?

sc, just got back from watching the new Where is my Roy Cohn? movie. (That’s what we retired guys can do: go to a movie in the afternoon while you working stiffs continue to pay into Medicare and Social Security for us. Thanks. ) In it they showed a clip of the famous Joe Welch “have you no sense of decency” scene. Somewhat similar to the question asked of Joni Ernst.

At the end of the movie they said that after Cohn had been disbarred and was dying of AIDS, Donald Trump, who had used his services for many years, dumped him; he stopped using him as his lawyer, he stopped going to his parties, and he cut off all connections to him. Class guy that Donald, that is, class without the “c” and the “l.”

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:39 pm Sure, not much to absorb, if I just swallow your spin.

"And, by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with — with Ukraine."

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:19 pm Wish we could put the Hopkins-Loyola thing aside and just focus on the thread topic.

Moving on, this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... p-dilemma/

"Iowa resident Amy Haskins asked Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) an important question about President Trump on Thursday.

“Where is the line?” Haskins asked at a town hall. “When are you guys going to say, ‘Enough,' and stand up and say, ‘I’m not backing any of this?’”

I don’t mean that this was a good question in a moralistic way, as if it’s beyond time for Ernst and her GOP colleagues to take a stand. (People are welcome to make that call for themselves.) I mean it quite literally as “Where is the line?” — because Republicans need to start asking themselves just how far Trump will go if they don’t start setting boundaries.

The past week or so has shown the peril of the GOP’s see-no-evil approach to Trump. After a rough transcript showed the president suggestively talking about how good the United States is to Ukraine before asking Ukraine’s president for investigations that carry political benefits for him, Republicans offered a muted response. A handful — most notably Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), and even Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) to an extent — said the call was bad. But the vast majority of elected GOP officials basically stayed silent."

This is the template: citizens cannot leave it to the right wing Trumpian howler-class to push Senators into a corner. Constituents need to let this jury pool know that, for them, there is a line. The Republicans have a Child King who knows no boundary. If this is OK, then what?

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:41 am How dare you. Only people who served understand anything about honor, chain or command, etc. no one else should be allowed to speak of such things.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:50 am One (or at least I) expects better out of the military types. Really disappointing.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:37 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:19 pm Wish we could put the Hopkins-Loyola thing aside and just focus on the thread topic.

Moving on, this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... p-dilemma/

"Iowa resident Amy Haskins asked Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) an important question about President Trump on Thursday.

“Where is the line?” Haskins asked at a town hall. “When are you guys going to say, ‘Enough,' and stand up and say, ‘I’m not backing any of this?’”

I don’t mean that this was a good question in a moralistic way, as if it’s beyond time for Ernst and her GOP colleagues to take a stand. (People are welcome to make that call for themselves.) I mean it quite literally as “Where is the line?” — because Republicans need to start asking themselves just how far Trump will go if they don’t start setting boundaries.

The past week or so has shown the peril of the GOP’s see-no-evil approach to Trump. After a rough transcript showed the president suggestively talking about how good the United States is to Ukraine before asking Ukraine’s president for investigations that carry political benefits for him, Republicans offered a muted response. A handful — most notably Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), and even Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) to an extent — said the call was bad. But the vast majority of elected GOP officials basically stayed silent."

This is the template: citizens cannot leave it to the right wing Trumpian howler-class to push Senators into a corner. Constituents need to let this jury pool know that, for them, there is a line. The Republicans have a Child King who knows no boundary. If this is OK, then what?

Ernst totally blew the question. Just another example of how republicans with military backgrounds are no better than your run of the mill Trump lover. Courage is rare in Washington.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:23 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:50 am One (or at least I) expects better out of the military types. Really disappointing.

It has become apparent that the overwhelming number of those in politics, however high their original intentions, wind up personifying a "politician".

The government has forced my industry down a very slippery slope... to go from being called a "stockbroker" which had no "fiduciary" obligation to an "advisor", which requires acting as a "fiduciary".

Trump should be impeached solely for not acting in the best interests of those he serves...I would be banned for life - unable to earn an income. Many times over the past 2 years.

Removal from office is the real deal. Get all the facts out there and vote your conscience. Let history determine and best of luck going forward.

Beyond FUBAR.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:23 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:23 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:50 am One (or at least I) expects better out of the military types. Really disappointing.

It has become apparent that the overwhelming number of those in politics, however high their original intentions, wind up personifying a "politician".

The government has forced my industry down a very slippery slope... to go from being called a "stockbroker" which had no "fiduciary" obligation to an "advisor", which requires acting as a "fiduciary".

Trump should be impeached solely for not acting in the best interests of those he serves...I would be banned for life - unable to earn an income. Many times over the past 2 years.

Removal from office is the real deal. Get all the facts out there and vote your conscience. Let history determine and best of luck going forward.

Beyond FUBAR.

Well it started with unregulating trading commissions in the 70s but if you guys had a higher bar than a series 7 and hadn’t become asset aggregators just charging a point to put people in mutual funds maybe there wouldn’t be a need as fiduciary. By comparison i/we got 0.75% for helping refinance Tarp for a bank in NJ with subordinate unsecured holding company debt in a relatively thin market for such assets, flew to board meetings landing in philly at 2am and driving over to sleep for an hour before pitching a board with a partner to win amongst a group of four firms invited and had to get it all done a week before Christmas. So something is flipped in that math IMO.

I know a lot of brokers that are just salespeople in a relatively commoditized business. The good ones ether add value through thought leadership (execution is a commodity unless your dealing in OTC or micro cap stocks where thought leadership is even more critical) and/or they manage their entire financial position like private bankers. The latter should have some fiduciary responsibilities.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:31 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:23 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:23 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:50 am One (or at least I) expects better out of the military types. Really disappointing.

It has become apparent that the overwhelming number of those in politics, however high their original intentions, wind up personifying a "politician".

The government has forced my industry down a very slippery slope... to go from being called a "stockbroker" which had no "fiduciary" obligation to an "advisor", which requires acting as a "fiduciary".

Trump should be impeached solely for not acting in the best interests of those he serves...I would be banned for life - unable to earn an income. Many times over the past 2 years.

Removal from office is the real deal. Get all the facts out there and vote your conscience. Let history determine and best of luck going forward.

Beyond FUBAR.

Well it started with unregulating trading commissions in the 70s but if you guys had a higher bar than a series 7 and hadn’t become asset aggregators just charging a point to put people in mutual funds maybe there wouldn’t be a need as fiduciary. By comparison i/we got 0.75% for helping refinance Tarp for a bank in NJ with subordinate unsecured holding company debt in a relatively thin market for such assets, flew to board meetings landing in philly at 2am and driving over to sleep for an hour before pitching a board with a partner to win amongst a group of four firms invited and had to get it all done a week before Christmas. So something is flipped in that math IMO.

I know a lot of brokers that are just salespeople in a relatively commoditized business. The good ones ether add value through thought leadership (execution is a commodity unless your dealing in OTC or micro cap stocks where thought leadership is even more critical) and/or they manage their entire financial position like private bankers. The latter should have some fiduciary responsibilities.

You completely missed the point..surprisingly.

"you guys". Also surprising.

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:14 pm Please listen...CAREFULLY...to U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's (R-Florida) fascinating comment.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... a-vpx.wfor

ggait wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:46 pm

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:14 pm Please listen...CAREFULLY...to U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's (R-Florida) fascinating comment.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... a-vpx.wfor

The ultimate bull shirt.

"Russia -- if you can hear me, please hack the Democrats."

That's illegal. Per Rubio, though, it isn't. Because it wasn't a real request. It was just a joke. So it doesn't count.

Only problem is that the Russians (and the Ukes and the Chinese) didn't think/know it was a joke. They all acted in response to the "jokes." Why? Because the "jokes" look exactly like what "real" stuff would look like.

Much of the racist/crazy/stupid/gross/illegal stuff Trump says is later excused because he was just "joking." Even though no one except Trumpsters can tell the difference.

For some reason, only Trump toadies have the secret de-coder ring (which only works if the cover-up mode has been activated) to tell when the leader of the free world is in stand-up comic mode. Such a modern meta problem we have. Trump is just so tragically mis-understood.

The even better one is Chris Christie.

Before the Uke transcript comes out, Christie on ABC TV tape says it would only be a problem if Trump said something like "could you do me a favor?" After the transcript comes out, Christie says the "favor" line would only be a problem if Christie himself said it, because Christie would never talk that way. But Trump's a business guy, so no problem -- "that's just the way Trump talks and does business."

https://www.nj.com/politics/2019/09/chr ... talks.html

What the heck Chris?