Powered by TypePad

« Lessons Learned | Main | The Ongoing Powerlessness of Positive Thinking »

April 14, 2016



Foist? .. . because that’s what the GOPe will do to get their candidate nominated.


I hate the GOP anyways, so a bombastic pile on is fine by me.

After Priebus's Debating With The Stars Dog and Pony show, he should be ashamed.

Thanks to Trump we found out how the debate audiences were stacked and not representative of the communities that hosted them. To me, it isn't too much of a stretch to believe that even if Trump invested time and a good ground game in goofy CO, it would have still turned out in the Cruz-stablishment's favor.

James D

Trump is getting endless free media (and sucking all the air out of the room) for Colorado. He spent no money there, and had nobody working in the state, and won no delegates, but somehow he is the only story (and the guy who won all the delegates isn't even having his name mentioned).

Maybe he actually does have a strategy, and maybe it isn't nearly as stupid as some think it is.

It isn't a strategy that will work in the general election, but right now his goal is (presumably) winning the GOP nomination, while spending as little money as possible. I'd say it's working about as well as he could possibly hope at the moment.

Centralcal on iPad

TM: Bonus Query: With this hapazard a conventional effort, what would a Trump third-party run look like?

More frightening still, what would a Trump Presidancy look like?



There is Trump the persona, and Trump, the real guy. The real Donald Trump knows he fouled up, and probably because he never thought things would get this far, and probably because his sentiments were much like TK's -- Colorado was a likely lost cause so why invest his scarce resources. No business enterprise is 100% successful, and Trump has certainly learned to mange the impact of failure in his career.

So Trump the real guy is animating Trump the persona to be in a state of high dudgeon because that changes the narrative from Cruz won/Trump lost to Cruz stole another election, evil establishment. He pretty much has to do that because a critical part of the Trump persona is always winning (unless someone else isn't playing fair).

I am through with underestimating this guy. He's better than I am at tactics, and he is setting himself up for a thunderous comeback in New York.

This said -- the one problem I don't see the Donald solving is that he inspires revulsion in a lot of people, and I think he will fine it difficult to charm that away.

Barry Dauphin

It was a foregone conclusion that the Donald would eventually say that the RNC has "not been nice" to him. If it weren't this, it would be something else. I was never sure he really wanted to win the nomination let alone spend 4 dismal years in the Oval Office. He already has better perks as the Donald. I keep wondering if his escalating series of outrageous comments were a way to intentionally self destruct, claim he was treated unfairly, threaten to run third party, not run but find a way to monetize his not running and attract more attention.


So is Trump going to show up in CO tomorrow in a velour suit with a bullhorn?

Oh well, I hear he has a hot wife. He'll let you know about it too, at the expensive of others.


Good point, James.

Everyone here is on topic because they want to talk about Trump.


I've come to the conclusion that whining is a NY value (look at Yankee fans), so it has little to do with whether Trump is a genius or moron.

Kasich is the loon at this point.

James D

OK, henry, you crossed a line there!

Yankee fans do NOT whine.

We may comment, pointedly and loudly, when reality does not meet our entirely reasonable expectations, whether due to cheating on the part of our opponents, or simply bad luck that is probably the result of demonic pacts by those same opponents, but that is hardly "whining."


I was equally offended with the loon comment, James.

Kasich is an insult to the rest of us.

Captain Hate

The major positive of this endless campaign is to reveal what Ahians have endured for the last six years.

buccaneer morgan

Zaphod removing all doubt at Langley is more worthy of the thread.


the one problem I don't see the Donald solving is that he inspires revulsion in a lot of people

What matters is that their revulsion for Donald is less than their revulsion for the grifter and the unicorn lover.

whining is a NY value (look at Yankee fans)

Sorry, henry, true Yankee and Rager fans don’t whine; they sulk: “Wait ’til next year.”

For true whining, you have to go to Syracuse basketball.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), another architect of ObamaCare, hailed the law as a historic achievement and strongly disagreed with Schumer and Harkin. “Healthcare has been a subject of debate in this country for a hundred years, and when you had the opportunity to rationalize the system and to get people covered who were never covered, you have to take that opportunity,” he said.
Indeed, based on the CBO’s own numbers, it seems possible that Obamacare has actually reduced the number of people with private health insurance. In 2013, the CBO projected that, without Obamacare, 186 million people would be covered by private health insurance in 2016—160 million on employer-based plans, 26 million on individually purchased plans. The CBO now says that, with Obamacare, 177 million people will be covered by private health insurance in 2016—155 million on employer-based plans, 12 million on plans bought through Obamacare’s government-run exchanges, and 9 million on other individually purchased plans (plus a rounding error of 1 million).

In other words, it would appear that a net 9 million people have lost their private health plans, thanks to Obamacare—with a net 5 million people having lost employer-based plans and a net 4 million people having lost individually purchased plans.

Schumer, meanwhile, in 2010 said, “I predict … by November those who voted for healthcare will find it an asset; those who voted against it will find it a liability.”


Try to think outside the box Tom. It is not possible for a man named Reince Priebus to ever be right about anything.



JM Hanes

"With this hapazard a conventional effort, what would a Trump third-party run look like?"

This pretty much IS a third party run. Trump is just destroying the GOP from the inside, instead of threatening it from the outside, the traditional way.

On the other hand, he's does seem like a typical shoot-me-in-the-foot GOPe candidate. When Obamacare is their opponents' biggest weakness, Republicans run the author of Romneycare. When Clinton's biggest weakness is cronyism, Republicans nominate....a crony!


I think it has been mentioned that some GOP politicians won't be attending the convention.
For instance,our 2nd District Congressman Bruce Poliquin, hasn't endorsed a candidate and won't be a delegate. I just assumed that the elected officials in a state are delegates.
Apparently some Republicans in tight re-election races are being told by leadership to skip the convention so they can avoid what is sure to be a chaotic convention. Another New England politician who won't attend is Kelly Ayotte. I though these people were supposed to be our "representatives." They are all running scared.

Captain Hate

For true whining, you have to go to Syracuse basketball.

Boeheim needs to be trapped in a burning Carrier Dome. And throatslashed to make sure.


"Bonus Query: With this hapazard a conventional effort, what would a Trump third-party run look like?"

It would probably be a train wreck, but still good enough to swing a close win by Cruz over Hillary to a Hillary win.



Captain Hate

Apparently some Republicans in tight re-election races are being told by leadership to skip the convention so they can avoid what is sure to be a chaotic convention. Another New England politician who won't attend is Kelly Ayotte. I though these people were supposed to be our "representatives." They are all running scared.

There go my plans to construct a RINO guillotine in my yard. Next you'll tell me there won't be an NR cruise in Lake Erie.


Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter

Cruz willing to use every scheme to block Trump delegates from convention,but can't fathom how to block Muslim immigrants from the country.

Captain Hate

Coulter looks and sounds like she's already been hung by the neck.


TK's birther obsession chased away fewer JOMers than his Trump fetish.


Yankee fans Whine? OF COURSE THEY DO. as much or more than any other US sports fans; it comes out of that whole entitlement mentality. This is beyond contestation.


More from Skeletor:


..Another misconception sweeping the nation is that when state Republican parties disregard the voters and give all their delegates to Cruz, they are merely following THE RULES, and Trump is an idiot for not knowing THE RULES. 

That's what the Colorado GOP did, what the Tennessee and Louisiana parties are trying to do -- and what many other states may do, all under the careful tutelage of Tracy Flick Cruz.

I keep asking someone to send me a copy of THE RULES that direct state parties to ignore the voters and pick their own slate of delegates, but no one can cite such a rule. So I read through "The Rules of the Republican Party" myself -- and guess what? There's no rule instructing state parties to ignore the voters! 

To the contrary, the rules were recently rewritten so that delegate selection would "reflect the results of statewide presidential preference elections," according to a statement by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus. (The nerds will tell us, that's "legislative history," not THE RULES.) 

Apparently, what people mean by THE RULES is that there is no RNC rule specificallyprohibiting a state party from giving all the delegates to a single nominee, even if that is demonstrably at odds with the will of the voters. 


I'm sure someone here can tell her the "rule."



Thomas Collins

Many would like to "wipe the slate clean" at some point in their lives, but this gentleman may have taken that thought a little too far.


James D

NK, we are NOT entitled! We just deserve to win the World Series every year.

I really don't see the need for such perjorative words.

buccaneer morgan

Now it's the getman's turn to deny the nuclear connection.

James D

TC @ 10:21

Maybe President Cruz/Trump/Kasich can hire that guy to work at the IRS!


9 MILLION fewer persons on private insurance since ObummerCare. Yep, it's a REAL jobs with benefits killer. medicaid? that's UP 21MILLION since Obummer became POTUS, about 40% increase. This was always about a big payoff to SEIU and Big Hospitals, and create a bigger Serf Class. Obummer was and is and always wil be a poverty pimp.


JamesD.. just so... beyond contestation. :)

Thomas Collins

With our luck, James D, he would only delete the files on refunds!


Not so fast TC-- hiring a code writer to delete the IRC, there is definitely something to this.


Obama will probably hire him to service the Whitehouse Xerox Multitask Workcenter on Obama's last day, TC and James.

From the article:

Mr Marsala confirmed that the code had even deleted all of the backups that he had taken in case of catastrophe. Because the drives that were backing up the computers were mounted to it, the computer managed to wipe all of those, too.

In a seminar for the relatively simple Point of Sale software my business used, the tech guy was very brief about backing up data.

Hiding in a different room of burning building won't do you any good.


...of a...

I smell smoke.

That was no theatre, that was my back-up drive.

Torque they got.

Heh, thanks for 'Pious'.


Lewandosky (?spelling) "battery" case won't be prosecuted!

Miss Fields agreed an apology would suffice. Cory L hasn't had to agree though

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

As much as I dislike Trump, I have a hard time seeing how he is destroying the Republican party from within.
It's quite true he is not running a conventional campaign and it is true he is not the most conservative person imaginable and it is true he has some pretty high negatives.
People have done or been all those things before and some have even run real third party campaigns.
The difference this time seems to be that a lot of GOP guys are willing to abandon or destroy their party in reaction to Trump.

I don't remember nearly this much vitriol aimed at John Anderson, a sitting Republican congressman who, when it was clear he couldn't win the GOP nomination, ran as an Independent in all 50 states and who was, if anything, decidedly more liberal than Trump.

If all it takes is a flamboyant, big mouth who's not too informed on the issues to swank about like a a cock-of-the-rock, shoot his mouth off and be an ignoramus to kill the GOP then it seems it was a big hollow husk just waiting to be blown over by a big mouth in the first place.

If the GOP dies it will be because it was hollowed out from within long before Trump came along by real con men who convinced people they were serious when in fact they were just parasites. Trump is a symptom of the disease not the pathogen.

The infectious agent is the go-along-to-get-along bloc of powerbrokers who value power, money, graft and prestige over Constitutional governance and who would rather switch than fight.

The most difficult to understand crowd in this is the conservative one that has meekly complained about the GOPebola causing their party to bleed from every orifice but has never really done anything substantial or useful about the thousands of viral agents causing the problems.

But now comes one dorky dude with a marmoset on his head who embarrasses them and they're ready to climb into their Zeros and kamikaze the GOP to stop the GOP from being harmed by Trump.
'We had to destroy the party to save it' will presumably be the political epitaph.


ScottInSC tweets this:

My premiums are as expensive as my mortgage payment. #DemocraticWhores

The trending topic right now.


I've come to the conclusion that whining is a NY value

Hey, that's not fair, and really mean!! And not true!! How could you say such a thing?!

Uh, never mind.


Jimmy is originally from Detroit.

~ Editors


Isn't it too late to run a 3rd party campaign? Meaning too late to get on the ballot in lots of states as a 3rd party candidate? I suppose he could do write-in, but that seems pretty futile (even if it worked for Murkowski).


NK, I have been a resident of NY State for 30 years. I have earned my right to whine.


'right to whine'? we can start a political party with that name. We will pull in mega voters, OK we won't like our voters, ...


What Trump is doing is similar to greenmail.

He is not and never was a republican.

Chariot race.

Three powers; better a pair or a troika?


Ig --

I agree completely that Trump is the symptom and not the disease. But he is not the cure either.

The problem, which Trump exposed but did not cause, is that the donor faction and the populist faction of the GOP do not agree on some fundamental things. The donors want free trade and relatively lax immigration enforcement. The populist wing does not.

You consistently describe the divide as between the "soft" faction which does not want to get their togas dirty or chip their well manicured nails and the fighting faction who sees the fight against Rodham (or Bernie) as a twilight existential struggle and therefore is willing to get down and dirty and belligerent and has nothing but scorn for those who see this as just another election, to be followed by another election after that.

I respectfully disagree with that characterization. I think that the donor faction (or moderate faction if you will) of the Republican Party simply sees things differently, including the stakes of this election. They believe, sincerely and honestly, that a Trump nomination would be worse for the party in the long term than a Rodham win this fall. It is not that they are too soft to fight; they simply have a different view of the stakes here and what is in the long term best interests of the party.


Saul Alinsky tactic:

Population loses faith in election process!


They believe, sincerely and honestly, that a Trump nomination would be worse for the party in the long term than a Rodham win this fall.

Different feeling. Like all romantics, a belief.

A source of disaster since 1789.


My process is more scientific. Karl Popper says science is a process that prunes away what is demonstrably false.



Some scientist are better than others.


Theo,sincerity and honesty hasn't worked out so great for the "moderate" faction. For instance,Ace of Spades has a thread about New Balance,which was promised a defense contract for American made footwear for the military. Shoe factories used to be the lifeblood of small town New England and New Balance is one of the few remaining. Susan Collins is a serious,sincere and honest person,I really don't dislike her. But working in good faith hasn't meant anything,especially with this administration.
Another instance of working in good faith which will probably mean nothing is the proposed National Monument or National Forest in northern Maine. President Pen and Phone will very likely sign an EO to make it so. The Congressional delegation has tried to work with the administration to understand the concerns of the local residents and the relationship the people have with the North Woods. I should say,except for the Democrat 1st District Congresswoman Pingree,she and all the beautiful people in southern Maine think it is a swell idea. The National Park Service Director hasn't visited the area,despite the pleas of both Senators. The spokesman for the pro-National Forest idea actually said,I have more people in my neighborhood in Portland than there are in Piscataquis County.
And everyone wonders why people are on OL's Ledge!


sbw --

I am not sure what point you were trying to make in your 12:04 post. But the one thing that I am very sure of is that the donor faction of the GOP are not a bunch of "romantics." They simply see their interests -- and the country's -- differently than the populists in the party do.


Theo, Robespierre was a romantic. Marx was a romantic. Hitler was a romantic. Obama is a romantic. Bernie and Hillary are romantics. Followers of Bernie and Hillary are romantics.

Romanticism in political theory is one who selectively chooses “facts” to fit beliefs, ignoring those that are contradictory.


Romanticism was a response to Kant whose early 1700s views on logical thought were unacceptable ... or at least politically inconvenient to those who wanted control.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--I respectfully disagree with that characterization.--

Then you are wrong.
We are in the position of Lincoln after a long succession of McClellens and Burnsides. We need a Grant;
"I can't spare this man; he fights!"

That Trump is not Grant is probably true, but that he is perceived that way explains 90% of his appeal, as it does Cruz's.
In a war, which we are most certainly in, absent fight, nothing else matters.

Unless and until the GOP understands that it will continue to lose until there is nothing left to lose.



"Make America great again" what is that?


sbw --

An interesting definition of "romantic." I think that it is quite common for people to hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.

I would not consider Rodham to be a romantic. I do not think that she is under some pie in the sky belief that what she stands for is right. I think that she is as cynical as they come and cares only about her own best interests and says whatever it takes to advance them. Same with most politicians, but her more than a lot of others. I suspect Bernie believes the bilge that he yammers.

I just do not see the GOP donor class as "romantic" in the sense of deluding themselves with some fantasy dogma. I think that they really want free trade, relaxed immigration enforcement and lower taxes. There is nothing unscientific about holding those positions. There is frankly nothing unscientific in holding opposing positions on each of those issues.

There are some issues where there is a clear "truth." But not many. Take free trade. It is demonstrably good for some people and demonstrably not so good for others. What is best for the country as a whole is not an easy question to answer and certainly is not something that can be clearly resolved by scientific inquiry.

Captain Hate

According to Mark Levin, if Rodham is elected at least 70% of federal judges will be appointed by her and 404. If true, barring Article V the Costitution will cease to even be partially in effect.

Captain Hate


Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

New Argentine Minister of the Economy;
"Argentina Is No Longer Lying About Its Statistics... It Used To Lie Obscenely"

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

101 years of the income tax.


Vote for Forrest Trump because he will hire the best people for every job. He might be ignorant on policy and maybe he is a liberal who does not recognize the role of the Constitution but that's okay because he will bring the greatest experts in every subject so all will be well.

He has big things planned for Joe Paterno.

His favorite Yankee is Thurman Munson.

He is planning for his inaugural gala to be headlined by Amy Whitehouse and Whitney Houston.

He visited OJ in jail because being the gentleman that he is he wanted to make sure that OJ is okay with him dating OJ's ex.



What complicates the equation is the global financial crises that is not being discussed openly but behind closed doors in the halls of power.


Ignatz --

I am not "wrong." I am simply pointing out that many others in the Republican party would not agree with your characterization of where things stand. They do not see this as a war that we must win in this election cycle or perish. They are indeed willing to fight, as your initial post on this topic indicates. They see Trump as the greater danger and are willing to fight him. They would prefer that Rodham not be elected -- and certainly would prefer a suitable alternative to her.

You may be "right" in the sense that if Rodham is elected the country is destroyed or whatever it is that you think. But I think you should acknowledge that not everyone feels that way and thus, to them, there is no need for a Grant.

My point remains -- the Republicans who do not see this as a "war" that must be won and must be won now are not "soft." They just see things differently. They are not unwilling to fight, but they are not going to fight to have Donald Freaking Trump elected, that is for sure.


Ig, I couldn't agree more with your 12"13 post. Interestingly I seem to remember that some of the same people argued for Romney as argue for dumping Trump.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Wretchard's latest; on the Russkie buzzing.



What are your thoughts on Trump's partner Marc Lasry?

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--I am not "wrong."--

Yes, you "are".

--They are indeed willing to fight, as your initial post on this topic indicates. They see Trump as the greater danger and are willing to fight him.--

You are correct. I forgot to mention they are willing to fight hammer and tong against any Rep who they're afraid might embarrass them by fighting Dems.


clarice --

It strikes me as entirely logical that Romney supporters would not be Trump supporters.

Romney very much was a part of the "establishment" or "donor" or "moderate" section of the GOP. Trump is very much a creature of the "populist" faction of the party. I am not only not surprised that Romney supporters would be anti-Trump, I would be surprised if there was a lot of overlap between Romney's core supporters in 2012 and Trump's core supporters in 2016.

James D

My point remains -- the Republicans who do not see this as a "war" that must be won and must be won now are not "soft." They just see things differently.

Then they're wrong. It really is that simple.

The left is waging open war, whether the "moderates" want to see it or not.

Look at the John Doe raids in Wisconsin. Look at the use of the IRS as a partisan political weapon. Look at the way the EPA coordinates with leftist groups to attack businesses.

If the "moderates' think the left will stop once they're done with the "extremists" and the Tea Party; if they think that they won't be in the crosshairs soon enough, then they are complete idiots, willfully blind to an almost unbelievable degree, and reasoning with them is impossible.


James D hits the nail on the head.


Ignatz and JamesD.

I get your point. You think that what we need is to take testosterone injections and gird our loins and go out and go to WAR, even if it means rallying behind a doofus like Trump. You are certainly entitled to that view.

Others, however, disagree. You can call them names like "complete idiots" but that is not actually going to persuade anyone. There are honest to goodness sincere Republicans who think that this is not a WAR but an election contest in which the goal is to win over as many voters as possible, recognizing that 45% of the voters consider themselves "moderates." They believe that an embarrassment like Trump is going to lose that contest and is going to hurt Republicans all down the ballot and will continue to hurt Republicans in future contests. Why would anyone want to nominate a man who has a 70% unfavorable rating? The fact that he allegedly "fights" does not change the fact that he is not going to win votes.

I get where you guys are coming from. I think that you are misreading the situation and advocating a course of action that will not succeed. It is not a matter of "right" and "wrong" but of opinion and judgment.

Old Lurker

He did hit the nail, but his list was too short. We know how James thinks about "civil forfeitures" where the government gets to keep the loot they seize as long as they pay the "taste" up the chain, we know what he thinks about the billions and billions extracted from bank and other companies to "settle" claims but where they get to keep the cash and share it with Dem cronies, we know what James thinks about the abuse of BK procedures so that unions and other cronies jump ahead of others, and on and on and on.


what we need is to take testosterone injections and gird our loins and go out and go to WAR, even if it means rallying behind a doofus like Trump.

Gawd, I love how the characterization forwards the discussion.

I don’t care to play that game.



The "moderates" that run the biggest taxpayer scam of all time:

The most bullish on these high-risk investments are the people who, at least publicly, often denounce the domination of Wall Street: the leaders of America's government employee unions. When they say they want to occupy Wall Street, they apparently mean they want to occupy it with sacks of cash from the taxpayers who pay into government employee pensions.

The National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems—the self-proclaimed "Voice for Public Pensions"—is arguably at the forefront of this unsustainability lobby. This powerful trade association is run by public sector union executives from across the nation. Their president is also the treasurer of the powerful American Federation of Teachers. Their first vice president is a 30-year member of the Chicago Fire Fighters Union, IAFF Local 2. Their second vice president was union president of Fraternal Order of Police Queen City Lodge 69. And so it goes: Officers of government unions populate virtually every board position. Government unions run this organization.

As a side note, the DoL has just released the new "fiduciary" rules for broker-dealers and others in the financial services industry that will force more and more smaller investors into government-run "MYras" and other similar run state investment scams. Think these two things are NOT related? It's all part and parcel of James D's 1:15.

Old Lurker

Your mistake was reading him in the first place SBW.


Yes Lyle. It follows the ACA path on detroying the private sector part of retirement in order to save it via single [in this case payee -- the govt]


FTSAH, if anything written between 10:33 and now was signed "Threadkiller," it would have driven even more regulars away.

Carry on.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

We fought a Revolutionary War to establish self government and to that end became a Constitutional Republic in 1789.

The Democrat Party has usurped and destroyed nearly every aspect of that Constitution, if not all of it, and it will continue to do so until the job is done.
It has increasingly been willing to use explicitly illegal means to do so.

If a foreign enemy invaded the US to do overnight to our rule of law what the Dems have done over decades, it would universally be viewed as an act of war.
That is why you and those who view this as a mere political disagreement resolvable by earlier forms of political engagement are so tragically and blindly wrong.

Old Lurker

and intentionally wrong, Iggy.



Well, of course.


Lyle and Henry,I'm really hoping the new fiduciary rules are the last straw for hubby and he'll retire. : )


james D

Anyone who thinks Trump will keep them out of the crosshairs "are complete idiots, willfully blind to an almost unbelievable degree, and reasoning with them is impossible."

Old Lurker

The Feds have two wet dreams about retirement funds. The first of course is to get their hands on as much of our private savings as they can so that they can direct the spending of it to places and people they want. The second, perhaps interim, goal is to consolidate the savings into as few funds that they can influence so that, while waiting to grab it outright, they can direct the "investment" into companies they want or to companies which will jump as the government votes the shares it has invested in.

Lyle's posted regs advance both goal.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

I may be alone in this but I'm not sure I have a problem with brokers/dealers being held to a fiduciary duty.
The guys who run the companies and funds the broker/dealer is selling have that duty.
The dopes directing non-profits, like me for years, do.
Cripes, even lawyers do.

Why shouldn't the guy selling investments for people's retirement be asked to place the interests of the investor first?
Investment advisors are, so why not broker/dealers?
What am I missing?



Don't forget the Dodd Frank bail-in as well.


OL, yes. the pension rules start a twofer: getting govt hands on private savings; plus getting govt ownership of private sources of production (pensions / 401ks own the Fortune 500).


Ignatz --

You say we are certainly in a war and that what the Dems have done should be viewed as an act of war.

Do you mean that literally? Are you suggesting that we respond as one would to an act of war and take up arms and shoot people?

Or is this just overheated rhetoric by which you mean we are in a political campaign that we should do our utmost to get the most votes?

I used to assume the latter. But the more I read your posts, I am not quite sure.

In my opinion, this is a political and electoral contest, not a war. The way to win an election is not the same way one wins a war. An election is about persuasion and a war is about coercion.

I think that it would be very difficult to persuade a sufficient number of Americans to vote for Donald Trump for president in order to win the election. I do not think it matters very much what strategy or tactics are employed if Trump is the candidate. I think that the Republican party would be better off with another nominee. This is not about a lack of willingness to "fight" (as a rhetorical metaphor and not meaning actual violence) but a lack of willingness to back a loser who would make a poor president.

I do think that this is just another election. Every four years people talk about this election being the most important in our lifetime. They are indeed all very important. But this one is just another one.


Ig, what you are missing is the exemption from fiduciary responsibility for the govt 401k plans (in particular the CA one), a subsidy of a sort favoring government control.

Old Lurker

But if you LIKE your IRA Manager, you can KEEP your IRA manager.

There's a creative slogan, huh?


Ig,Lyle probably can answer better,but I know that the compliance in the financial service industry is very strict,both in Maine and at the federal level. Believe me,the trust people put in their advisor is a bond that shouldn't be broken. Hubby should have been a social worker or a priest,ha.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--Ig, what you are missing is the exemption from fiduciary responsibility for the govt 401k plans...--

Isn't that an argument for compelling a fiduciary duty on them as well?

James D

I give up. I should have known better than to respond earlier to someone who's a troll and keeps moving the goal posts and deliberately misunderstanding what's being said to them.

Apologies to everyone other than the troll in question.


I have no problem with BD's being held to fiduciary rules. As an investment advisor for over 30 years, I think I have ALWAYS put my clients interests first and run my business as a fiduciary. And for the most part, the new rules won't affect much of my business. That said, the rules will very much affect investors with, say, <$100K in 401Ks (should they want to rollover) and IRAs and limit their options and access to real live financial advisors should they want to retain one. But if anyone thinks this move is some innocent, anodyne tweaking of the rules, I still have that oceanfront property in ID for sale. Limiting choices and squeezing out private business: just what the progs have always wanted.

The comments to this entry are closed.