Tumgik
#Hence why I hedged my bets above
the-busy-ghost · 4 years
Text
In other news I still have very strong feelings about Christian Bruce’s whole story. Because she may well have been at Kildrummy when it fell in 1306 (alternatively she might have fled north to Ross with the queen and the rest of the ladies shortly before, but at least one source indicates she was still in the castle even after they left). Her brother Neil, who had been in charge of the Kildrummy garrison, was hanged, drawn, and quartered in Carlisle and then, after their capture, Christian and the other women were shipped off to captivity in England for several years, while the earl of Atholl, who had accompanied the queen to Tain, was also executed. Christian was placed in a nunnery and the queen was put under house arrest, but Mary Bruce and Isabella of Fife were famously imprisoned in “cages” and Marjorie Bruce was initially going to be held in a similar device in the Tower of London before she was sent to a nunnery in Lincolnshire instead. 
But as horrid as that story is it’s not really the main point of this post. Instead let’s jump forward nearly thirty years to 1335, when all of Christian’s brothers (and indeed Marjorie, and Queen Elizabeth, and probably Mary and Isabella too) were dead and gone, and war had broken out again and her nephew the young David II had had to be sent away to France for his safety while others fought in his name. Only a few castles remained in the Scots’ hands and one of those castles was Kildrummy. When the earl of Atholl (the executed one’s grandson) was laying siege to the castle on behalf of Edward Balliol (supported by Edward III of England), it was Christian, now probably in her fifties at least, who was in charge of Kildrummy’s defence.
And this time she held the castle. At least, she managed to hold out in Kildrummy long enough until the garrison were relieved by the forces of her husband, Andrew Murray (Guardian of Scotland and the posthumous son of William Wallace’s co-commander at Stirling Bridge) after his victory at the Battle of Culblean on St Andrew’s Day, 1335. And for all that these people were imperfect (and many of them downright nasty pieces of work) and in a complex situation, and for all that we could argue about whether the Bruces were in the right or not, it’s a bit difficult not to be relieved and happy for her.
I just think about that a lot.
5 notes · View notes
blondepomeranian · 6 years
Text
so, hear me out...
I’m not wholly convinced the figure at the end of the teaser trailer is Solas.
In fact, I’m almost convinced that it’s definitely not Solas.
(That said, I’m a baby at persuasive meta, so believe what you will, but here’s my reasoning.)
First, let’s get the purely aesthetic reasons out of the way.
Tumblr media
Yes, the figure does seem to have a mage staff, the tell-tale fur, and appear to be bald. But that does not an egg make. What throws me most are the skin tones, the pattern on the outfit, and the staff.
So what the fuck is the white part on the head? At first glance it looks like a helmet, similar to the one the ‘canonical’ image of the inquisitor wears, minus the nose piece (which could be omitted at the right angle). If we are assuming the white part of the head is depicting a helmet, that does not match with Solas’ typical presentation (excepting Halamshiral but that was pure petty spite) nor does it fit with the fact that the figure is presented as a mage (staff) when mages typically wear crowls, hoods, or other headgear that is not a helmet. IF it is believed to be a helmet and the darker skin (inconsistent with Solas’ white-washed complexion) beneath it to be, well, just that, it does not explain necessarily why the hands are of a similar color besides ??gloves??gauntlets??. Artistically speaking, I think it was important to have the hands stand out and so to do those with a darker color given the bg may not have had as much of an impact, so I’m willing to give those an artistic pass, but the white of the helmet I’m not so sure on. If it is a helmet, it clashes not only with presenting as a mage but also what Dalish elf wears a helmet?? An alienage/tevinter/former slave elf, on the other hand... But if it’s not a helmet, then is it... hair? fenris? A representation of baldness in that manner would not be consistent with other representations, like that of the sentinels (which I have a theory that Solas modeled his hobo/Inquisition-appearance after, but that’s another post). For now, I’m gonna give a big ol’ IDK to what it is exactly, except to say that I don’t think it lends credence to the figure being Solas. If anything, its vagueness casts more doubt, and scatters credence to other theories, hence this post.
The pattern on the outfit: from the moment I saw it something pinged it as familiar. I cannot for the life of me find exactly what I’m looking for, but the patterns that come to mind are, particularly,
Tumblr media
those of grey warden armor (mage armor close up, seen here). Although I will admit that could be a total crapshoot, as the style in the fresco gives more a noble, cloak like appearance while that is very much not the typical style of more functional grey warden armor. Still, there is no consistency with any of Solas’ attire except perhaps in the sleeve over the bicep (before it’s weirdly cut off by an armlet??) if compared to his outfit from the romanced tarot card. But I’m really just grasping at straws here to find anything that matches.
Lastly, the staff held there is, imo, a glaring error that that figure is probably not the Egg. While we do not see him wield a staff in Trespasser, the only time we see him canonically wield a staff (uninfluenced by equipment) is in his original (unromanced) tarot card, in which I will 100% admit that staff looks exactly the same as the one in the trailer. HOWEVER, given his duplicity and the artistic nature of tarot cards, I’m hedging my bets that that staff was used to [mis]guide the player into Solas’ leaning towards the Elven hobo Mage image, and hence why I’m more or less brushing it aside. Besides, the other time we see him wield an uninfluenced staff is in the journey to Skyhold, where he is shown to hold a very specific kind of staff that I am currently blanking on, but
Tumblr media
that. Which, if anything, appears to be Tevene in origin, based on the heavy metallics and the dual dragon iconography. Either that, or it’s Elvhen sentinel, though in-game skins don’t entirely support it but the general style isn’t a far jump. And even if I’m wrong in what it appears to be, what I’m getting at is IT SURE AIN’T DALISH, which is entirely the style of the staff held by the figure. If anything it looks suspiciously like the staff a Dalish Keeper would typically wield...
Tumblr media
Which brings me to my next point of contention...
Tumblr media
The tree the figure stands in front of, in a protective stance. And not just any tree, a Vhenadahl, by the looks of it. The symbol of the [Dalish] people. Now I’m not saying Solas isn’t, in a twisted way, trying to protect his people (the Elvhen), but he’s outright stated how he’s willing to sacrifice the Dalish in order to bring back the Elvhen, so the imagery here would be a complete mismatch. (But you know what wouldn’t be? An alienage/tevinter/former slave elf...) And given that he’s doing so in opposition to the rendering of the Dread Wolf, it portrays a very Dalish image--unwilling to submit, even when everything you know and love is nearly lost, against the very villain of the Dalish folklore. IIRC, the imagery shown in places like the Temple of Mythal and other ruins from the time of the Elvhen always seem to have more of a grandeur with their warriors in aggressing stances, not the a ragged, last-stand, protective kind that threads through Dalish history (but that could be because I’m leaning heavily on (foggy memories of) the sentinel imagery from the temple of Mythal and in trespasser).
As for the overall composition of the piece...
Tumblr media
I went to school for a degree in English and Psychology; I’m no art historian or critic. My weaknesses with his piece are that while I’m vaguely familiar with the symbolism of the circles behind heads and understand the general connotations behind certain colors, I have to say the pale red behind the figure leaves me a bit stymied. The only other instance of this in my tarot/fresco scan is in Blackwall’s original picture, which could suggest power, strength, conflict, blood, or duplicity. These could thematically fit with Solas as the Dread Wolf, but given the contradictions above and my bumbling guesses with what it’s supposed to represent at all, it doesn’t end up warranting much of a claim. There is also, of course, the obvious in this picture that it could be something to do with red lyrium, but I personally don’t have enough information to make any kind of real stab at incorporating that into a guess.
So anyway, leaving the details where they are, we see a mage-ly figure in front of a burnt tree standing up to a recoiling or circling Dread Wolf. The figure is clearly leaning forward, perhaps mid-step forward, while the Dread Wolf appears to be backing away or at least keeping an even distance from the figure (at least for the moment) as they encroach. Given Bioware’s set up for Solas/Fen’Harel to become the (currently known) villain of DA4, this figure opposite the Dread Wolf is set up in the composition as the protagonist of this piece. Who they are, exactly, is unknown for the moment, but I believe it is safe to say, at least, who they are not: Solas.
(please interact with this--I’d love to hear input or other opinions but pleeeease be civil and courteous. As said earlier, I am still a baby in terms of dragon age lore and meta.)
3 notes · View notes
preciousmetals0 · 4 years
Text
How to Survive 2020’s Stock Market Panic
How to Survive 2020’s Stock Market Panic:
Investor Insights:
We have the highest budget deficits ever outside of wartime or a financial crisis.
A house of cards like this makes investors nervous … and nervous investors sell.
But one cluster of firms at the center of all this is going to get a big boost.
I have a big prediction for next year.
In 2020, the U.S. government’s outrageous budget deficits are finally going to matter.
That could be bad news for the stock market.
But it’s likely to be great news for stocks in one hated sector that’s been underperforming the market for years.
It’s no secret that stock market bulls have been feeding on low interest rates for the last decade.
If you don’t believe me, consider that on two occasions when the Federal Reserve tried to raise them, markets tanked.
One was 2013’s “taper tantrum.”
The other was exactly one year ago … when Fed Chairman Jerome Powell made some loose comments about raising rates in 2019, and Santa Claus nearly brought all of us a sack of coal.
The stock market loves low rates for a simple reason — and it’s not because they make borrowing, capital investment and job creation cheaper.
It’s because they allow big institutional investors to reap huge profits from financial engineering.
A big bank with a couple hundred billion dollars’ worth of U.S. Treasury bills can borrow against them at next to nothing and use that to speculate on the latest growth stocks.
A cash-rich company with nothing profitable to do with it can justify stock buybacks because the next best use of the money — putting it in a bank account — pays next to nothing.
But cheap money comes at a cost.
You’ll be shocked when you learn about it … and the resulting opportunity!
Don’t Fear the Cheaper (Dollar)
The federal budget deficit matters … but not for the reasons we’re usually given.
For years, old-school financial commentators have told us budget deficits will cause massive inflation and the collapse of the dollar.
Bet it’s been a while since you heard that one!
The U.S. government has been running massive budget deficits for the last few years … but the dollar just keeps getting stronger. The Fed is desperate for a little inflation.
The old theories have been thrown on the garbage heap where they belong.
Inflation and a dollar collapse aren’t the things to fear when deficits soar.
It’s worse than that.
Uncle Sam’s Lenders
Every cent the U.S. government spends beyond what it takes in from taxes must be covered by a Treasury bill sold to a creditor.
For decades, foreigners have been more than willing to buy those Treasury bills, financing our debt splurge:
But as the chart above shows, federal debt held by foreigners began to level off in 2013.
From then on, foreigners — especially central banks — have been net sellers of U.S. Treasurys.
That’s because they realized from the Fed’s reaction to the taper tantrum that it wasn’t going to raise interest rates. Yields on Treasurys would thus be too low to make them worth buying.
So, if deficits are rising and foreigners are cutting back their purchases of our government’s debt, who’s taking up the slack?
The big Wall Street financial houses have bought nearly all the Treasurys foreigners have left on the table since the middle of the decade.
They have an incentive to hold them. You see, to “too big to fail” goliaths such as commercial banks, hedge funds and mutual funds, Treasurys are equivalent to cash in two ways:
In the repo market. When big financial institutions lend each other money in the short term, U.S. Treasurys are the standard collateral. Short on cash, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon? Simply transfer some Treasurys to Goldman Sachs Senior Chairman Lloyd Blankfein for a week or two and promise to repurchase them then (hence “repo”).
As Fed-required reserves. Systemically important financial institutions — think JPMorgan Chase or Goldman Sachs — must keep reserves at the Fed equal to a fixed proportion of their liabilities. Those reserves can be held either as cash … or as Treasurys.
Backdoor Money Printing
As Clint Lee’s Chart of the Week shows, federal deficits are rising rapidly.
Congress slashed corporate taxes and income taxes for the wealthy dramatically in 2018, but didn’t cut spending.
The federal government is now running the highest budget deficits ever outside of wartime or a financial crisis.
And since foreigners are unwilling to buy all the debt the government is issuing, Wall Street has had to step in to buy it instead.
But as we saw in September, because so much of Wall Street’s Fed reserves have been converted to Treasurys, there hasn’t been enough cash left over to meet the demand for short-term repo loans.
To conceal this, the Fed has been injecting billions of dollars of liquidity into the market by buying Treasurys from Wall Street.
Now, if you step back and look at what’s happening, I’m sure you see the problem:
Bigger deficits → Wall Street buys more Treasurys → the Fed buys them for cash = printing money to fund the deficit
Fundamentally, U.S. government debt is just passing through Wall Street institutions on its way to the Fed’s balance sheet.
The Fed could just create money and pay it to the U.S. Treasury, avoiding the whole charade. But that would send a terrible signal to global markets.
“The U.S. financial system, the U.S. economy and much of the global economy are being funded by dollars created out of thin air by the Fed. What will happen when they stop?”
A Nervous Year Ahead of Us
A house of cards like this makes investors nervous.
Nervous investors have a hair trigger that says “sell.”
It’s likely to go off if they suspect the Fed is going to turn off the money tap.
That sets up the stock market for a potentially sharp downturn if everyone panics at once.
There is, of course, one solution: Raise interest rates.
That would force up the yields on Treasurys and encourage foreigners to start buying again.
But that would also send the stock market into a panic, just as it did in 2013 and at the end of last year.
That’s why 2020 will be the year when the Fed accepts that Treasury yields and interest rates high enough to attract foreign buyers are the price of the enormous debts being run up by Washington politicians.
It’s going to take the punch bowl away from the stock market … not because it wants to, but because printing money is an unsustainable solution, and everyone knows it.
That’s going to lead to a temporary correction as Wall Street adjusts to the new normal of higher interest rates.
But one cluster of firms is going to get a big boost out of those higher rates: U.S. banks and other financial institutions.
That’s because higher interest rates mean they can raise rates on their own lending, increasing their margins and fattening their profits.
So, as you can see, the U.S. banking system is at the center of all of this.
That’s why my stock recommendation to get ready for 2020 is the Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSE: XLF).
After all, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
Kind regards,
Ted Bauman
Editor, The Bauman Letter
P.S. If you’re looking to increase your income in 2020, you should check out my new book, Endless Income: 50 Secrets to a Happier, Richer Life. It’s full of income-boosting secrets that anyone can take advantage of. I’d like to send you a FREE copy as soon as possible, so click here to claim yours now.
0 notes
goldira01 · 4 years
Link
Investor Insights:
We have the highest budget deficits ever outside of wartime or a financial crisis.
A house of cards like this makes investors nervous … and nervous investors sell.
But one cluster of firms at the center of all this is going to get a big boost.
I have a big prediction for next year.
In 2020, the U.S. government’s outrageous budget deficits are finally going to matter.
That could be bad news for the stock market.
But it’s likely to be great news for stocks in one hated sector that’s been underperforming the market for years.
It’s no secret that stock market bulls have been feeding on low interest rates for the last decade.
If you don’t believe me, consider that on two occasions when the Federal Reserve tried to raise them, markets tanked.
One was 2013’s “taper tantrum.”
The other was exactly one year ago … when Fed Chairman Jerome Powell made some loose comments about raising rates in 2019, and Santa Claus nearly brought all of us a sack of coal.
The stock market loves low rates for a simple reason — and it’s not because they make borrowing, capital investment and job creation cheaper.
It’s because they allow big institutional investors to reap huge profits from financial engineering.
A big bank with a couple hundred billion dollars’ worth of U.S. Treasury bills can borrow against them at next to nothing and use that to speculate on the latest growth stocks.
A cash-rich company with nothing profitable to do with it can justify stock buybacks because the next best use of the money — putting it in a bank account — pays next to nothing.
But cheap money comes at a cost.
You’ll be shocked when you learn about it … and the resulting opportunity!
Don’t Fear the Cheaper (Dollar)
The federal budget deficit matters … but not for the reasons we’re usually given.
For years, old-school financial commentators have told us budget deficits will cause massive inflation and the collapse of the dollar.
Bet it’s been a while since you heard that one!
The U.S. government has been running massive budget deficits for the last few years … but the dollar just keeps getting stronger. The Fed is desperate for a little inflation.
The old theories have been thrown on the garbage heap where they belong.
Inflation and a dollar collapse aren’t the things to fear when deficits soar.
It’s worse than that.
Uncle Sam’s Lenders
Every cent the U.S. government spends beyond what it takes in from taxes must be covered by a Treasury bill sold to a creditor.
For decades, foreigners have been more than willing to buy those Treasury bills, financing our debt splurge:
But as the chart above shows, federal debt held by foreigners began to level off in 2013.
From then on, foreigners — especially central banks — have been net sellers of U.S. Treasurys.
That’s because they realized from the Fed’s reaction to the taper tantrum that it wasn’t going to raise interest rates. Yields on Treasurys would thus be too low to make them worth buying.
So, if deficits are rising and foreigners are cutting back their purchases of our government’s debt, who’s taking up the slack?
The big Wall Street financial houses have bought nearly all the Treasurys foreigners have left on the table since the middle of the decade.
They have an incentive to hold them. You see, to “too big to fail” goliaths such as commercial banks, hedge funds and mutual funds, Treasurys are equivalent to cash in two ways:
In the repo market. When big financial institutions lend each other money in the short term, U.S. Treasurys are the standard collateral. Short on cash, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon? Simply transfer some Treasurys to Goldman Sachs Senior Chairman Lloyd Blankfein for a week or two and promise to repurchase them then (hence “repo”).
As Fed-required reserves. Systemically important financial institutions — think JPMorgan Chase or Goldman Sachs — must keep reserves at the Fed equal to a fixed proportion of their liabilities. Those reserves can be held either as cash … or as Treasurys.
Backdoor Money Printing
As Clint Lee’s Chart of the Week shows, federal deficits are rising rapidly.
Congress slashed corporate taxes and income taxes for the wealthy dramatically in 2018, but didn’t cut spending.
The federal government is now running the highest budget deficits ever outside of wartime or a financial crisis.
And since foreigners are unwilling to buy all the debt the government is issuing, Wall Street has had to step in to buy it instead.
But as we saw in September, because so much of Wall Street’s Fed reserves have been converted to Treasurys, there hasn’t been enough cash left over to meet the demand for short-term repo loans.
To conceal this, the Fed has been injecting billions of dollars of liquidity into the market by buying Treasurys from Wall Street.
Now, if you step back and look at what’s happening, I’m sure you see the problem:
Bigger deficits → Wall Street buys more Treasurys → the Fed buys them for cash = printing money to fund the deficit
Fundamentally, U.S. government debt is just passing through Wall Street institutions on its way to the Fed’s balance sheet.
The Fed could just create money and pay it to the U.S. Treasury, avoiding the whole charade. But that would send a terrible signal to global markets.
“The U.S. financial system, the U.S. economy and much of the global economy are being funded by dollars created out of thin air by the Fed. What will happen when they stop?”
A Nervous Year Ahead of Us
A house of cards like this makes investors nervous.
Nervous investors have a hair trigger that says “sell.”
It’s likely to go off if they suspect the Fed is going to turn off the money tap.
That sets up the stock market for a potentially sharp downturn if everyone panics at once.
There is, of course, one solution: Raise interest rates.
That would force up the yields on Treasurys and encourage foreigners to start buying again.
But that would also send the stock market into a panic, just as it did in 2013 and at the end of last year.
That’s why 2020 will be the year when the Fed accepts that Treasury yields and interest rates high enough to attract foreign buyers are the price of the enormous debts being run up by Washington politicians.
It’s going to take the punch bowl away from the stock market … not because it wants to, but because printing money is an unsustainable solution, and everyone knows it.
That’s going to lead to a temporary correction as Wall Street adjusts to the new normal of higher interest rates.
But one cluster of firms is going to get a big boost out of those higher rates: U.S. banks and other financial institutions.
That’s because higher interest rates mean they can raise rates on their own lending, increasing their margins and fattening their profits.
So, as you can see, the U.S. banking system is at the center of all of this.
That’s why my stock recommendation to get ready for 2020 is the Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSE: XLF).
After all, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
Kind regards,
Ted Bauman
Editor, The Bauman Letter
P.S. If you’re looking to increase your income in 2020, you should check out my new book, Endless Income: 50 Secrets to a Happier, Richer Life. It’s full of income-boosting secrets that anyone can take advantage of. I’d like to send you a FREE copy as soon as possible, so click here to claim yours now.
0 notes
valuewalkposts · 7 years
Text
The Biggest Lie In The Investment Business
By LoicLeMener
The idea of excessive diversification is madness” - Charlie Munger
Also read:
Q2/H1 Hedge Fund Letters - Letters, Conferences, Calls, And More
Baupost Letter Points To Concern Over Risk Parity, Systematic Strategies During Crisis
AI Hedge Fund Robots Beating Their Human Masters
Our top free investor case studies
Tumblr media
The famous investment saying that “diversification is the only free lunch” might, in a sense, be the biggest lie in the investment industry. There are no free lunches; beware of anyone who offers you one. When it comes to investing, some managers (particularly mutual fund managers) pitch a diversified portfolio that eliminates single stock risk while simultaneously delivering outperformance. But such a portfolio rarely fulfills its promise.
There are so many conflicting opinions in the investment business, it’s tough to separate the signal from the noise. I’ve developed a three-part model for myself that my highest conviction ideas seem to follow:
It’s a rational idea (i.e., it makes logical sense). When Charlie Munger was asked why he and Buffett have been so successful, he responded, “We’re rational.” While that may be an obviously desired trait, many people let biases and emotion affect their opinions. If you can truly think through why 1 + 2 = 3, you might be onto something.
It’s seconded by other investors. There are many brilliant investors out there. I look for strategies that have been used by several of the most successful investors in history.
It aligns with academic evidence that supports the idea.
If all three of these items are in agreement, you can feel fairly confident that you have something with the potential to be successful.
The Logic of a Concentrated Portfolio
If financial markets are mostly “efficient,” as many academics claim, opportunities to outperform should be hard to find. A “great” idea in the world of investing is akin to a miner finding gold; it’s infrequent and takes skilled and relentless pursuit. The best way to develop a great idea is to have an informational edge, meaning you know more about a company (in the case of a stock) then the people selling the stock to you. In this case, your competitors have stepped over a nugget of gold without realizing it. Given limits on people’s time, memory and intellect, no single person can come up with an abundant amount of great ideas at any one time.
Put yourself in the shoes of a fund manager. You are paid millions (if not tens of millions) of dollars to beat the market. You log hundreds of hours of analysis to get to know your best ideas and have conviction in them…and then you’re going to turn around and put 2% of your fund into your best idea? That means the manager is putting 98% of the fund in less-than-best ideas.
This point is so simple that it’s almost embarrassing to bring up. If you have fund manager A who spreads his capital across 30 stocks and fund manager B who spreads his capital across 100 stocks, fund manager B is challenged to come up with more than three times the number of good ideas as fund manager A. If you believe that high conviction ideas are rare, this is a very tall task. It’s also extremely unlikely that fund manager B’s 97th best idea is anywhere close to fund manager A’s 25th best idea.
In short, if you want your portfolio manager to outperform while also finding you a lot great ideas such that you can be very diversified, you’re just asking for too much.
What the “Greats” Say About a Concentrated Portfolio
Many great investors over the decades have used a concentrated approach to outperform. Rather than casting a wide net and investing in a large number of companies about which they have only average knowledge, concentrated investors scour the market for the rare company that they understand and can offer a wonderful risk/return tradeoff. Concentrated investors may only find one or two of these prime investments per year, and when they do, they bet big.
Bill Nygren of Oakmark pointed out in 2014 that the average stock mutual fund holds 121 stocks. Wow – do some people really think they can have a competitive edge on 121 stocks? Recalling a panel discussion in which a manager proposed heavy diversification as a guarantee against any single mistake hurting the portfolio, Nygren wrote, “My response was not well-received: ‘If mistakes don’t matter, doesn’t that mean successes don’t matter either?’ They are ‘closet indexing’ with the goal of not underperforming by enough to get fired.”
Compare this to the philosophy of one of the best portfolio managers in the business, Allan Mecham, who typically has most of his portfolio in his top 10 ideas. He said, “We buy stocks the way we buy toilet paper: high quality, on sale, and in bulk sizes.” When he says in bulk size, he means it. Allan often has more than 20% of his portfolio in his best ideas. In a sense, he’s setting a low bar for himself. He has said, "If I find two new ideas a year, that's phenomenal." Find two phenomenal ideas a year, keep them on average for 5 years so you have a 10-stock-or-so portfolio over time and set yourself up for success.
This “two ideas a year” resonates with the Berkshire Hathaway model as well. Charlie Munger explains: “If you look at Berkshire and you take out 100 decisions, which is 2 a year, the success of Berkshire came from two decisions a year over 50 years…we may have beaten the indexes but we didn’t do it having big portfolios of securities.”
Warren Buffett seeks out this philosophy when he’s looking for portfolio managers as well. Speaking about his lieutenants Todd and Ted (who together manage billions of Berkshire’s money and at the time held only 14 stocks between the two of them), Buffett stated, “They’re smart, so they put their capital behind their best ideas. I wouldn’t care if they held a lot less.”
While two a year may be extreme (hence Berkshire’s and Mecham’s extremely good results), it is reasonable to assume that an individual trying to find 50 good ideas a year is at an extreme disadvantage.
The Academic Evidence
Many academic studies support the notion of concentrated investing:
A Harvard study from 1991 to 2005 of U.S. Equity manager’s “best ideas” beat their index by 7% 1
A 2003-2013 analysis of large and mid-cap U.S. managers holding fewer than 35 stocks outperformed their benchmark by 44%.2
Focused managers outperform their more broadly diversified counterparts by approximately 30 basis points per month, or roughly 4% 3
Harvard and MIT professor Randy Cohen sums up these findings by writing: “The poor overall performance of mutual fund managers in the past is not due to a lack of stock-picking ability, but rather to institutional factors that encourage them to over-diversify (emphasis added).”
What Cohen is saying is that most portfolio managers can find some good ideas and do tend to put more of their money behind those best ideas; however, due to “institutional factors” (meaning not being willing to concentrate so as to never underperform too much), they over-diversify and their non-best ideas weigh the portfolio down so much it ends up underperforming as a whole.
If It’s So Obvious, Why Don’t More People Do It?
The main issue that keeps concentrated investing from being more popular among managers is what’s called “benchmark risk.” This is the risk of underperforming your benchmark in any given year. The more different you look from your benchmark, the higher the chance you’ll deviate from it, and eventually you’re going to deviate in the wrong direction (i.e., underperform). Clients can tolerate many years of mediocre performance, but if you underperform significantly, even over a short period, a lot of your investors are going to get scarred and run.
Given the dynamic above, if you’re worried about a client firing you, you have to balance the risk of being wrong on a meaningful position versus the certainty of having most of your portfolio in your non-best ideas. I believe the industry routinely overweighs the latter.
Some people think concentrated investing is arrogant. But which is more arrogant? Thinking you can come up with 60 great ideas or thinking you can come up with a few a year? Of course, a mistake on a concentrated position is extremely visible, whereas with a diversified portfolio it’s more akin to “death by a thousand cuts.” This differentiation of optics matters a lot in the investment business.
Realities of Implementing
The hard part of this strategy is sticking with a portfolio manager who is underperforming (but then again, isn’t that the hard part of any strategy?). If you’re going to use concentrated managers, you must do your homework and have conviction in them that goes beyond recent performance numbers. You have to understand the “why” of what they’re doing and qualitatively assess the fund’s strategy during the inescapable “performance winters.”
Alternatively, let’s say you agree with the logic of concentrated investing but know you can’t emotionally handle having all your money in concentrated strategies. No problem. You could index 80% of your stocks and then have 20% of your funds in a concentrated strategy. That way, you’re paying a lot lower fees than a closet indexer, and in my opinion, have a higher chance of success.
You can also buy as many high-conviction managers as you want; however, the rarity of “great managers” follows the same logic as finding a great stock. You’re likely to only find a few managers in whom you have high conviction at any one time.
For me, an ideal equity portfolio looks like this: finding roughly five managers who all put their money in their top 10 ideas. That way you have a moderately concentrated 50-stock portfolio with five different teams trying to come up with two to three good ideas a year. This is admittedly extremely hard to find but striving for something close to it is worthwhile. For those willing to do their homework, in this era of very expensive indexes, this is a methodology worth considering.
Sources:
1 “Best Ideas” Randy Cohen, Chris Polk, and Bernhard Silli. October 19th, 2008
2 Alliance Bernstein 2Q, 2015 Capital Markets Outlook
3 Fund managers who take big bets” Klaas Baks, Jeff Busse, Clifton Green, Emory University, March 2006
This information is for general use with the public and is designed for informational or educational purposes only.  It is not intended as investment advice and is not a recommendation for retirement savings. Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. and its representatives do not provide legal or tax advice. You may want to consult a legal or tax advisor regarding any legal or tax information as it relates to your personal circumstances.
Loic LeMener, CFA®, MBA, CFP® is a registered representative of Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. Securities and investment advisory services offered through Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp., a broker-dealer (member SIPC) and registered investment advisor.   Insurance offered through Lincoln affiliates and other fine companies CRN-1870472-081117. Opus Wealth Management is not an affiliate of Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp.
About the Author
Loic LeMener is the founder and President of Opus Wealth Management in Dallas, Texas, a boutique wealth management firm that specializes in personalized client solutions. Loic and his team provide their clients with a targeted needs evaluation to answer important questions that provide a better, more personalized experience. The team focuses on integrity and believes in the following “golden rule” – they won’t do anything for you that they would not do for themselves or their loved ones
Loic received his Masters in Business Administration from Southern Methodist University, studying Finance, Accounting and Portfolio Management. He also earned the Certified Financial Planner™ certification and the prestigious Chartered Financial Analyst® designation. In addition, he has been quoted in national publications such as Barron’s.
In his free time, Loic is a devout reader, with his favorite topic being “value investing.” His favorite investors are Warren Buffett, Ben Graham, Charlie Munger, Seth Klarman, Howard Marks, and Jeremy Grantham.
0 notes
patriotsnet · 3 years
Text
Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998
New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-trump-call-republicans-stupid-in-1998/
Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998
Tumblr media
This Meme About How Donald Trump Called Republicans The Dumbest Group Of Voters In The Country Is Fake
The fake quote has been floating around the internet since about the time Trump announced his presidential bid in 2015. It has been widely shared on Twitter and Facebook by people eager to expose the businessman-turned-politician as a hypocrite for leading a party he once, allegedly, mocked.
“If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican,” the fake quote reads. “They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”
People Magazine Quote Attributed To Trump Calling Republicans The Dumbest Voters Is False
Social media users shared a quote attributed to Donald Trump alleging that he said Republicans are “the dumbest group of voters in the country.” 
Trump’s alleged quote to People Magazine in 1998 reads, “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”
— Mrs McK #CorbynWasRight #BLM ???????????????? November 5, 2020
Speaking the truth for once… “@Lynneth1000000: Boris Johnson is our Trump. #GTTO#Elections2020pic.twitter.com/hy0rwkqvDP”
— David Rhodes November 5, 2020
“If I were to run I’d run as a republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country…” Donald Trump, 1998. @FoxNews@PressSec@DonaldJTrumpJr@realDonaldTrump@GOP@[email protected]/cHY2Mt9sWY
— Democracy Rules! November 2, 2020
In 1988 Oprah Asked Donald Trump If He’d Ever Run For President Here’s How He Replied
Donald Trump wasn’t always so sure he wanted to run for president.
Long before The Donald officially kicked off his polarizing2016run and became the Republican frontrunner, Oprah asked the business tycoon about his political aspirations on a 1988 episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show.”  Trump had originally appeared on the show to promote a new book and discuss his life as a businessman, but the conversation soon turned toward foreign policy and how Trump would take a tougher stance with America’s allies.
“I’d make our allies pay their fair share. We’re a debtor nation; something’s going to happen over the next number of years in this country, because you can’t keep going on losing $200 billion,” he said on “The Oprah Show” back then. “We let Japan come in and dump everything right into our markets… They come over here, they sell their cars, their VCRs. They knock the hell out of our companies. And, hey, I have tremendous respect for the Japanese people. I mean, you can respect somebody that’s beating the hell out of you, but they are beating the hell out of this country. Kuwait, they live like kings… and yet, they’re not paying. We make it possible for them to sell their oil. Why aren’t they paying us 25 percent of what they’re making? It’s a joke.”
The rant prompted Oprah to ask the question that people would ask for the next few decades.
Of course, he couldn’t help but hedge.
“I think I’d win,” Trump said. “I’ll tell you what: I wouldn’t go in to lose.”
Also On HuffPost:
Bette Midler Apologizes For Sharing Fake Trump Quote: But It Sounds So Much Like Him
Singer/actress refuses to take down the fictitious meme after her apology
Jon Levine
Bette Midler apologized on Monday after posting a fake quote attributed to Donald Trump where he purportedly disparaged Republican voters in a 1998 People Magazine interview.
“I apologize; this quote turns out to be a fake from way back in ’15-16. Don’t know how I missed it, but it sounds SO much like him that I believed it was true!,” the singer/actress said on Twitter.
I apologize; this quote turns out to be a fake from way back in ’15-16. Don’t know how I missed it, but it sounds SO much like him that I believed it was true! Fact Check: Did Trump say in ’98 Republicans are dumb? https://t.co/NY9s6V49el via @rgj
— Bette Midler June 3, 2019
In addition to her apology, Midler also included a link to the Reno Gazette Journal debunking the quote. It read, “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”
The photo accompanying the quote shows a younger Trump — around the time he was a real estate developer in New York City and long before he became a political candidate.
“Dumb and Dumber @GOP,” he said in a tweet before deleting. Narisetti is also an alum of the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and News Corp.
Trump ‘knows Republicans Are Stupid’ Jared Kushner Allegedly Said To Former Editor
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Greg Price U.S.Jared KushnerDonald TrumpRepublicans
One of the strategies Donald Trump employed as he began putting his name on the U.S. political map years ago was championing “birtherism,” the long-held conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. and hence should never have been elected. He often chastised Obama and demanded the president produce his birth certificate, revving up an anti-Obama base that eventually helped put Trump in the White House.
Evidently, Trump may have been using the so-called birthers only as a means to an end.
His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is also a senior adviser to the president, allegedly told a former editor of the newspaper he once owned that the billionaire real-estate mogul didn’t believe his own “birtherism” claims, and only made them to charge up Republicans because they are “stupid,” GQ reported.
During a discussion on how to cover Trump, the former New York Observereditor, Elizabeth Spiers, claimed she told Kushner that she had serious problems with Trump’s repeated claims that Obama was not born in the U.S., to which Kushner allegedly told her: “He doesn’t really believe it, Elizabeth. He just knows Republicans are stupid and they’ll buy it.”
Spiers told her Kushner anecdote in response to a question from a conservative blogger on Facebook, and then screenshotted the response and put it up on Twitter.
The Former Party Chair Says There Is Space For A Commonsense Coalition To Emerge
Mary C. Curtis
No one could question Michael Steele’s Republican credentials. During his one term as chair of the Republican National Committee from 2009 to 2011, the party broke fundraising records and presided over a big pickup of congressional seats in Washington and in statehouses across the country.
Today, Steele finds himself on the outs with his Republican Party because he has spoken out against former President Donald Trump’s racially divisive politics. But Steele has not abandoned his party and believes it can be restored to its pre-Trump self. He joined CQ Roll Call’s Equal Time podcast last month to explain how. An edited transcript:
Q. Why have you stuck with the Republican Party?
A. I have a number of analogies that I use to explain, maybe to rationalize, why I stay stuck on stupid with these folks. I always hew to the core of the party, of why those men and women in Ripon, Wis., decided to break away from the Whigs over civil rights, over individual liberties, and the rights of every citizen in the United States. That led to a great Civil War, and on the other side of that, those same stalwarts fought for my community. In fact, it is the political home for African Americans. It was for almost a hundred years. It isn’t today, for good reason. That’s why I call myself a Lincoln Republican. I still believe in those values and those principles.
Q.  Are you a voice in the wilderness?
Q. President Trump did make small gains with Black men. How did that happen?
Truth Behind The Donald Trump Quote From 1998 That’s Rapidly Going Viral
On Tuesday, Donald Trump was elected the next president. Soon after, an apparent quote from a 1998 issue of People Magazine went viral on the Internet:
In the quote, Trump calls voters the “dumbest group of voters in the country.” He continued, saying that they’d believe anything Fox broadcasts.
Trump’s alleged words began circulating the online sphere in October 2015, when Trump’s campaign was beginning to be taken seriously. It has a watermark for The Other 98%, a popular left-leaning Facebook page, though New York Magazine reports that the above photo has now been removed from the page.
RELATED: See Trump elected president
Fact Check: Trump Did Not Call Republicans The Dumbest Group Of Voters
5 Min Read
An old quote falsely attributed to Donald Trump has recently resurfaced online. The viral meme alleges Trump told People magazine in 1998 that Republicans are “the dumbest group of voters in the country”. This is false.
While the quote has been debunked several times since it apparently surfaced in 2015, users have recently been resharing it on social media. Examples can be seen here , here , here , here
The meme reads: “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific. – Donald Trump, People Magazine, 1998”
Snopes first wrote about the false quote here in October 2015 . Since then, the quote has been debunked multiple times .
People magazine has confirmed in the past that its archive has no register of this alleged exchange.
“People looked into this exhaustively when it first surfaced back in Oct. . We combed through every Trump story in our archive. We couldn’t find anything remotely like this quote–and no interview at all in 1998.”, a magazine spokesperson told Factcheck.org that year .
In December 1987, People published a profile on Donald Trump titled “Too Darn Rich”. The article quoted him saying he was too busy to run for president .
In 10 Republicans Believe Trump Will Be Reinstated As President: Poll
Approximately 3 in 10 Republicans say in a new poll they believe former President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump ally Adam Laxalt files to challenge Cortez Masto in NevadaOvernight Defense: Biden defends exit, blames Afghanistan leaders for chaos | US sending 1,000 more troops to Kabul as chaos reigns at airport | Taliban takeover scrambles U.S. evacuation effortsPelosi suggests Jan. 6 panel could investigate Jordan and BanksMORE will be reinstated this year.
The Politico-Morning Consult Poll on Wednesday found the vast majority of Americans dismiss the idea that Trump will be reinstated as president, including 61 percent of Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of GOP respondents, however, said they believe Trump will be made president again. 
More than 8 in 10 Democrats — 84 percent — and 70 percent of independents also dismiss the notion that Trump will be made president after it is proven President BidenJoe BidenBiden administration to announce booster shots for most fully vaccinated Americans: reportsAfghanistan falls in chaos: Five takeawaysTrump ally Adam Laxalt files to challenge Cortez Masto in NevadaMORE cheated in the election. 
New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman reported last week Trump has been pressuring conservative media to legitimize his conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election being “rigged” against him. 
The former president has also been telling people in his orbit he expects to be reinstated by August of this year. 
No Donald Trump Did Not Call Republican Voters Dumb In The 1990s
Donald Trump has made plenty of questionable claims over the years, but calling Republican voters dumb isn’t one of them.
Still, one political meme continues to spread across social media sites and claims he said just that.
The story goes that in a 1998 interview with People Magazine, Donald Trump said he was considering a run for president and would do so as a Republican because “They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.
The meme features a repurposed image of a younger Trump, with the quote billed as a statement he delivered in an interview with the magazine.
So did Donald Trump actually say that – or anything like it?
No, the quote is bogus.
The fabricated quote appeared on social media sites inOctober 2015, when Trump’s campaign started to gain steam. The meme has continually resurfaced over the years, though it has repeatedlybeendebunked.
We searched People’s archives, which date back to the 1970s, and found no Trump interviews in 1998 – or any other time – that feature that quote or anything resembling it.
Most of the magazine’s articles at the time that involved Trump discussed his celebrity and high-profile divorce from Marla Maples.
Featured Fact-check
People also issued a statement rebuking the quote’s authenticity.
Trump Did Not Disparage Gop In 1998 People Magazine Interview
CLAIM: “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.” — Donald Trump in 1998 People magazine interview.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The president did not make such a comment to People magazine. 
THE FACTS: Singer and actress Bette Midler, who often speaks out against Trump, shared the false quote attributed to Trump on her Twitter account Sunday, with the comment that Trump “certainly knew his crowd.” Julie Farin, a People magazine spokeswoman, told The Associated Press that the magazine looked into the claim exhaustively when it first surfaced years ago but did not find anything remotely like it made by the president. 
The image used with the false quote shows Trump during a 1988 appearance on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” where he discussed running for president, but made no reference to Republicans being “the dumbest group of voters.” The quote first began circulating in 2015 and has been widely shared across social media platforms, including Facebook. It has been widely debunked since that time.
Here’s more information on Facebook’s fact-checking program: https://www.facebook.com/help/1952307158131536
___
This is part of The Associated Press’ ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of false stories on the platform.
Jeb’s Campaign Releases Video Of ‘the Real Donald Trump’
Jeb Bush’s campaign is ratcheting up its attacks on Donald Trump, releasing a video that paints the Republican presidential candidate as an unabashed liberal. And Trump is firing right back.
The spot, titled “The Real Donald Trump,” plays on two separate occasions a clip of the billionaire candidate saying that he “lived in New York and Manhattan my whole life” and that “my views are a little bit different than if I had lived in Iowa.”
“Liberal Things That Trump Says,” the text on screen reads before flipping to “Liberal Things That Trump Believes.” Trump has made a point of embracing his eclectic policy views in the past, something that Bush’s campaign is seizing upon in the latest spot.
Trump is shown in a 1999 “Meet the Press” interview telling Tim Russert that he is “very pro-choice,” though a dozen years later, Trump announced that he opposed abortion in most instances, except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the health of the mother.
The spot also highlights Trump’s praise of single-payer health care systems in Canada and in Scotland during last month’s GOP debate, though it does not include his qualifying statement that although he thought it was a good idea for the U.S. in the late 1990s, he does not believe that to now be the case.
Heres The Real Reason Everybody Thought Trump Would Lose
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Jonathan Chait
Why did almost everybody fail to predict Donald Trump’s victory in the Republican primaries? Nate Silver blames the news media, disorganized Republican elites, and the surprising appeal of cultural grievance. Nate Cohn lists a number of factors, from the unusually large candidate field to the friendly calendar. Jim Rutenberg thinks journalism strayed too far from good old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting. Justin Wolfers zeroes in on Condorcet’s paradox. Here’s the factor I think everybody missed: The Republican Party turns out to be filled with idiots. Far more of them than anybody expected.
Trump Said Id Run As Gop Because Repubs Are Stupid Quote
I joined reddit to try to find an answer to this. Before he ran I saw the video where he was interviewed in a Barbara Walters-style format about possibly running for office his response was that he’d probably run as a republican because theyr’e so ignorant and stupid they’d vote for anyone. I know other people have seen this, we had a thread a few yrs ago does Anyone have this footage??? Im sure trump bought the rights to it, but someone must have it on VHS or something. I know there is a meme that quotes it being from a magazine article, that is a red herring to make it seem illegitimate I SAW THE INTERVIEW
Fact Check: Did Trump Say In ’98 Republicans Are Dumb
Q:
Did Donald Trump tell People magazine in 1998 that if he ever ran for president, he’d do it as a Republican because “they’re the dumbest group of voters in the country” and that he “could lie and they’d still eat it up”?A: No, that’s a bogus meme.
FULL ANSWER
The meme purports to be a quote from Trump in People magazine in 1998 saying, “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”
We were alerted to the meme by a reader, A. Douglas Thomas of Freeport, N.Y., among others, who saw it in his Facebook feed, along with a message from someone who said, “I just fact-checked this. Google Donald Trump, People magazine and 1998. This is an actual quote by Trump.”
We’ll save you the effort. It is not an actual quote by Trump.
We scoured the Peoplemagazine archives and found nothing like this quote in 1998 or any other year.
And a public relations representative with People told us that the magazine couldn’t find anything like that quote in its archives, either. People‘s Julie Farin said in an email: “Peoplelooked into this exhaustively when it first surfaced back in Oct. We combed through every Trump story in our archive. We couldn’t find anything remotely like this quote –and no interview at all in 1998.”
There were several stories in the late 1990s about Trump’s flirtation with a presidential run.
The People Whom President Trump Has Called Stupid
Since he declared his candidacy for the presidency, no group has been deemed “stupid” by Donald Trump more frequently than America’s “leaders.” There are “stupid people” running the country, he said over and over and over again on the campaign trail — making stupid deals with Iran and stupid deals on trade. Everyone in charge was dumb and he wasn’t — except that he was stupid for self-funding his campaign. That, in broad strokes, was Trump’s rhetoric in 2015 and 2016.
arrow-right
But that wasn’t the full extent of it. When Trump tweeted disparagement of LeBron James and CNN’s Don Lemon Friday night, it was a reminder that Trump often divides the world into two groups: those who are stupid and those who aren’t. It was also a reminder that, of late, Trump has often chosen to describe as stupid people who are not white.
That wasn’t always the case. Before the presidential election, Trump mostly disparaged white people as stupid.
Of course, back then, his political opponents were mostly white people: those running against him in the Republican primary and the conservative establishment broadly opposed to his candidacy. He called Karl Rove, former George W. Bush adviser, stupid five times, including in interviews. Bloomberg’s Tim O’Brien, whom Trump once sued unsuccessfully for alleged libel, earned the description three times, as did television host Glenn Beck.
Since President Trump’s inauguration, though, that has changed.
James B. ComeyJames R. Clapper Jr.
It wasn’t Obama.
Nevertheless The Quote Has Been Roundly Debunked
Not only is there no evidence of a political profile or interview with Donald Trump in People’s online archives, or any evidence of these words whatsoever.
Furthermore, that reference to Fox News, while chronologically possible, seems out of place given that the network wasn’t as popular until the 2000 election of George W Bush, and then the 9/11 attacks.
However, Trump did appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show in 1988 and ended up discussing the possibility of a run for president.
And this foreboding fortuneteller of a quote is verified:
I think I’d win. I’ll tell you what: I wouldn’t go in to lose.
Kanye West: I’m Running For President In 2020
Bush has responded to the attacks by presenting himself as a true conservative who has the ability to survive a long-haul presidential race.
In the video Bush’s campaign released on Tuesday, Trump is also shown in a 2007 interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in which he mentions Hillary Clinton as someone “who would do a good job” negotiating a deal with Iran. Later in the video, Trump is shown in the same interview saying that he identifies more as a Democrat.
The video also shows Trump having warm words for the Clintons. He has donated generous sums to the family’s charitable foundation over the years, in addition to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns.
A chyron on the screen notes that Trump was a registered Democratic voter in 2001, though Trump has also defended his donations to Democratic candidates in the past, remarking that in New York, “everyone’s Democratic.”
In a 2011 interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Trump mused: “So, what am I going to do, contribute to Republicans? Am I going to contribute to, I mean, one thing I’m not stupid. Am I going to contribute to a Republican for my whole life when they get, they run against some Democrat. And the most they can get is one percent of the vote.”
Bush’s Twitter account shared the ad, tweeting, “Why are you a …The answer is, you’re not.”
Within a minute, Trump fired back with three tweets lambasting what he called a “weak hit by a candidate with a failing campaign.”
Donald Trump Memes And The Dangers Of Post
Trump
In 1998, Donald Trump told People Magazine “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country.”
That’s the meme, accompanied by the graphic at right. Rosemary Olsen posted it on Facebook and said “I fact checked this. It’s true.” 14,901 people shared it.
And it’s completely false.
It sounds like something Trump would say. The picture is from a 1998 interview on Oprah. But while Fox News existed in 1998, it wasn’t nearly as popular as it is now. And while People Magazine did plenty of Trump profiles, they never talked to him about running for president.
My readers, since they are more intelligent than all those dummies on the Internet, know enough not to believe what they read in memes. Except that several of my Facebook friends reposted this.
What does this tell us? It tells us the danger of lies.
Donald Trump appears to be sincere, more than any other candidate. His batshit candor guarantees coverage. His also spreads more fervent falsehoods than any other candidate.
Donald Trump is the archetypal leader for the post-factual era of politics.
There is danger for America in this attitude — leaders with a casual relationship with truth must not lead our country. But there is also danger for Trump himself. Because now any mischief-maker can attribute any statement to him, no matter how outrageous, and it seems plausible. Live by the lie, die by the lie.
Did Trump Say In 98 Republicans Are Dumb
Maravi Post ReporterDonald trumpRepublicans are dumb?
Did he really say it? Social Media is abuzz with a quote attributed to US President Donald Trump saying he would run as a Republican because they are all dumb.
Did Donald Trump tell People magazine in 1998 that if he ever ran for president, he’d do it as a Republican because “they’re the dumbest group of voters in the country” and that he “could lie and they’d still eat it up”?
CNN says that viral meme your friends keep sharing of Donald Trump calling Republicans “the dumbest group of voters in the country” is not true. It is not a thing. Stop sharing it.
While Donald Trump has said some questionable things, he never said anything even resembling this quote:
“If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They are the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they would still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”
It is easy to believe because Trump has said things in the past without thinking. His mouth is always ahead of his brain
List Of Nicknames Used By Donald Trump
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Jump to navigationJump to search
Former U.S. PresidentDonald Trump became widely known during the 2016 United States presidential election and his subsequent presidency for using nicknames to criticize or otherwise express commentary about media figures, politicians, and foreign leaders.
The list excludes commonly-used hypocorisms such as “Mike” for “Michael” or “Steve” for “Steven”, unless they are original to Trump. Nicknames that Trump did not originate are annotated with footnotes.
The list also includes nicknames used by figures associated with Trump, and nicknames he has promoted via retweeting.
What Motivates The Republican Party
The GOP seems wildly hypocritical and unprincipled, until you understand its guiding idea.
In the fall of 2014, the Obama White House was busy trying to stop the spread of Ebola. The administration sent advisers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assist the afflicted countries’ health ministries, and it sent troops to West Africa to build emergency hospitals. It began screening people arriving in the United States from at-risk nations. It isolated and treated several American medical personnel who contracted the virus abroad and brought it back home.
Toward the end of his new book, The Imposters, Steve Benen reminds us of what the Republican Party was doing while all of this was happening:
As Election Day neared . . . Kentucky Republican eagerness to exploit public anxieties started to spin out of control. Paul publicly questioned Ebola assessments from the actual experts, blamed “political correctness” for the Ebola threat, and traveled to battleground states questioning whether Obama administration officials had the “basic level of competence” necessary to maintain public safety.
He added soon after, describing a hypothetical flight, “If this was a plane full of people who were symptomatic, you’d be at grave risk of getting Ebola. If a plane takes twelve hours, how do you know if people will become symptomatic or not?”
The Impostors:How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politicsby Steve BenenWilliam Morrow, 384 pp.
Ed Kilgore
Of Donald Trump’s Wildest Quotes
March 18, 2016 / 11:08 AM / CBS NEWS
Since he announced his candidacy in June 2015, Donald Trump’s colorful one-liners have become the subject of intense media coverage and public scrutiny. Here are some of his most wild…
At a November 2015 rally, for example, Donald Trump stated that he watched the Twin Towers come down in Jersey City, NJ, and that thousands of Muslims there cheered what was occurring: “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations,” he told the crowd. “They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down.”
On His Past And Current Wives
In a November 1999 New York Times OpEd, in which Maureen Dowd tagged along with Donald Trump as he considered jumping into the 2000 presidential race, the real estate mogul is quoted as saying:
“I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I’m more honest and my women are more beautiful.”
On Negotiations With Asians
On August 26, 2015, during a campaign event in Iowa, Donald Trump did an impression of Asian negotiators for the crowd, using broken English. Many in the crowd found it funny. Many others did not.
“When these people walk into the room,” Trump began. “They don’t say, ‘Oh hello, how’s the weather? It’s so beautiful outside. How are the Yankees doing? They’re doing wonderful, that’s great.’ They say, ‘We want deal!'”
On John Mccain’s War Record
During a July 2015 campaign event at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, Donald Trump took on Senator John McCain’s reputation as a war hero.
“He’s not a war hero,” Trump explained, shocking the event’s moderator. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
Us Election: How The Trump
From ballot casting to legal wrangling, we followed the race live
CopyCopied
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Joe Biden has secured enough Electoral College votes to unseat President Donald Trump. Follow the transfer of power with us on our transition live blog.
Trump has rejected Biden’s win and taken the issue to court. But the his administration has also given the green light for the transition to proceed — granting the incoming team access to government buildings and millions of dollars in funds.
For all our coverage of the election, visit our U.S. Elections 2020 page.
For more on the U.S. election — and the Asian angle — read our in-depth coverage:
UPDATES CLOSED
Tuesday, Nov. 24
2:00 a.m. Taiwan says it has had good communication with Biden’s team, Reuters reports, as the self-ruled democracy claimed by China prepares for life without the enthusiastic backing of the Trump administration.
“The foreign ministry and our representative office in the United States have continued to maintain smooth communication and have good interactions with the Biden team via various appropriate means,” said Joanne Ou, a ministry spokeswoman.
“At the same time, we have also conveyed Taiwan’s sincere gratitude to the current Trump administration. The current Taiwan-U.S. relationship is at its best in history. We sincerely thank you.”
Monday, Nov. 23
He says his side is “moving full speed ahead” with its legal challenges and “will never concede to fake ballots.”
0 notes