President Donald Trump

[Hornsby]

White House to issue an EO rolling back a large part of Dodd-Frank...also rolling back regulations on financial advisors on retirement accounts having to work in the best interests of their clients. What could possibly go wrong with rich guys and corporations having less restrictions?

[revo]

White House to issue an EO rolling back a large part of Dodd-Frank...also rolling back regulations on financial advisors on retirement accounts having to work in the best interests of their clients. What could possibly go wrong with rich guys and corporations having less restrictions?

In regards to the DOL Fiduciary rule, any Republican winner was going to 86 it. It seems silly to think a law needs to be put in place that says a financial advisor must place his client's needs over his own, but it's true -- mainly because many "advisors" (mainly insurance company reps) steered unsuspecting people to buy annuities with their 401k rollovers (thus buying a tax-sheltered product within an already tax-sheltered vehicle).

But the DOL screwed it up by making it way overcomplicated. In any event, as a financial advisor who was already the highest level of fiduciary, I'm all for it.

[cardboardbox]

White House to issue an EO rolling back a large part of Dodd-Frank...also rolling back regulations on financial advisors on retirement accounts having to work in the best interests of their clients. What could possibly go wrong with rich guys and corporations having less restrictions?

I have to honestly say, these orders are coming so fast that I dont have enough time in my life to figure out if I like them or not. I probably used to have an opinoin on this but forgot it.

One thing I'm sure of is I wish EO's were far less common. I'd feel a lot better if congress came up with something and the president signed it into law.

[Hornsby]

In regards to the DOL Fiduciary rule, any Republican winner was going to 86 it. It seems silly to think a law needs to be put in place that says a financial advisor must place his client's needs over his own, but it's true -- mainly because many "advisors" (mainly insurance company reps) steered unsuspecting people to buy annuities with their 401k rollovers (thus buying a tax-sheltered product within an already tax-sheltered vehicle).

But the DOL screwed it up by making it way overcomplicated. In any event, as a financial advisor who was already the highest level of fiduciary, I'm all for it.

What about Dodd Frank? I'd trust your take on it if you have one...always nice to have someone knowledgeable in a particular field to chime in.

[nullnor]

White House to issue an EO rolling back a large part of Dodd-Frank...also rolling back regulations on financial advisors on retirement accounts having to work in the best interests of their clients. What could possibly go wrong with rich guys and corporations having less restrictions?

i was reading this book by sonia shaw called pandemic. it's like historical non-fiction. it's pretty good book. and i read in 1832 manhatten really had problems with cholera. but these two dudes figured out a way to tap the bronx river which was upstream. but Aaron Burr ended up winning the contract, but it was really about get rights to form a bank not clean water. and there was a cholera epidemic. so then Alexander Hamilton said a bunch of stuff about him and Burr challenged him to a duel. he formed something called the manhatten company which later became jp morgan chase.

the more of the book i read the more i realized that when epidemics hit, it's really in the ppl with money involved to cover it up at first, there's lots of reasons. mostly to do with losing money. it sounds like a conspiracy theory but it's really not. cholera, sars, even ebola. one of the wacky things is the victims will almost always start blaming the ppl trying to help them. it also made me think that by the time you hear about an epidemic, it's already in the middle to late stages.

so look on he bright side, nobody's died of cholera from Trumps presidency. so we've got that going for us.

[revo]

What about Dodd Frank? I'd trust your take on it if you have one...always nice to have someone knowledgeable in a particular field to chime in.

Obviously as you already know, the GOP always hated Dodd Frank, so again, it's no surprise that a Republican president is eviscerating it. I'm not sure exactly which parts he wants removed (from his own mouth he was concerned about parts that stopped his buddies from profiting, lol), but this rule also put an end to predatory practices on consumers, which now may return, as well as creating some major oversight organizations, which the GOP is never a fan of.

Whatever he does, one thing is for certain with these two EOs -- Wall Street is in the pocket of the GOP, period. It's clear they chose to donate to Hillary because they expected her to win, but for anyone who thought this was the permanent reverse, they just don't know what they're talking about.

[Bernie Brewer]

White House to issue an EO rolling back a large part of Dodd-Frank...also rolling back regulations on financial advisors on retirement accounts having to work in the best interests of their clients. What could possibly go wrong with rich guys and corporations having less restrictions?

Excellent News!!!

[Hornsby]

Obviously as you already know, the GOP always hated Dodd Frank, so again, it's no surprise that a Republican president is eviscerating it. I'm not sure exactly which parts he wants removed (from his own mouth he was concerned about parts that stopped his buddies from profiting, lol), but this rule also put an end to predatory practices on consumers, which now may return, as well as creating some major oversight organizations, which the GOP is never a fan of.

Whatever he does, one thing is for certain with these two EOs -- Wall Street is in the pocket of the GOP, period. It's clear they chose to donate to Hillary because they expected her to win, but for anyone who thought this was the permanent reverse, they just don't know what they're talking about.

Yeah, I had to laugh about that one...sad trombone laugh. I believe that at least 5 execs from Goldman Sachs have joined, or are in the pipeline, to be Trump advisors. Anyone who thought that he's stick up for the little guy is a fool. And with things like the Wells Fargo scam happening while there were supposedly tighter regulations, I can only guess what the money lenders are going to do now...

[Hodor]

Yeah, I had to laugh about that one...sad trombone laugh. I believe that at least 5 execs from Goldman Sachs have joined, or are in the pipeline, to be Trump advisors. Anyone who thought that he's stick up for the little guy is a fool. And with things like the Wells Fargo scam happening while there were supposedly tighter regulations, I can only guess what the money lenders are going to do now...

Jesus will cast them out......

[Hornsby]

Jesus will cast them out......

This guy gets it...

[Hodor]

Trump is again attacking the judiciary branch of government on a personal level, but this time not as a candidate, but as POTUS. Disagreeing with the judge who put a retraining order on his ban isn't a surprise, nor is his implication that this Bush appointed judge isn't really a judge at all, because he dares to defy Trump. But it is still disheartening to see the executive branch try to discredit the judicial branch of government: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...2JP?li=BBnb7Kz

At least he didn't/couldn't discredit this judge based on ethnicity and heritage.

The appeal was rejected, the restraining order still in place.

The ban is banned.

For now.

[Hornsby]

The appeal was rejected, the restraining order still in place.

The ban is banned.

For now.

The administration appealed the order over night accusing the Judge of “judicial second-guessing” and an “impermissible intrusion” on presidential authority. The 9th Circuit denied a request for an immediate reinstatement of the ban and instead asked the state of Washington and the Trump administration to file more arguments by Monday afternoon. So the show continues, with the President continuing to throw shade at a GWB appointee that was confirmed 99-0.

Oh yeah, In a Fox interview that'll air today, O'Reilly pressed Trump on his relationship with Putin, saying that Putin is a killer...

In an interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, which will air ahead of the Super Bowl on Sunday, Trump doubled down on his “respect” for Putin — even in the face of accusations that Putin and his associates have murdered journalists and dissidents in Russia.

“I do respect him. Well, I respect a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I’ll get along with them,” Trump told O'Reilly.

O'Reilly pressed on, declaring to the president that “Putin is a killer.”

Unfazed, Trump didn't back away, but rather compared Putin's reputation for extrajudicial killings with the United States'.

“There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers,” Trump said. “Well, you think our country is so innocent?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/04/oreilly-told-trump-that-putin-is-a-killer-trumps-reply-you-think-our-countrys-so-innocent/?utm_term=.fc8e51d2879b

So the sitting President essentially praises Putin by saying he respects him, and tosses the US under the bus by saying that "there are a lot of killers" here...brilliant.

[Bernie Brewer]

From an Op Ed in the Washington Post. Kinda sums up my thoughts on a lot of the psts in this thread and on social media.

The president fired all the ambassadors! He’s issuing executive orders! He’s putting political cronies into trusted positions! He’s declaring his inauguration to be a special national day! Well, of course he is. It’s what presidents do in their first weeks in office. It’s what Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama did, too.

Much to the dismay (and perhaps even surprise) of his opponents, President Trump has charged into office determined to implement many of the policies he promised on the campaign trail. From dismantling the Affordable Care Act to changing the composition of the National Security Council, the president has fired off a series of decisions that have sparked major protests across the United States. There is no honeymoon with the press or the opposition, nor does the president seem to want one. (His approval ratings, predictably enough, are hitting historic lows for a new administration.)

http://https://www.washingtonpost.co....be3cb1d696fe#

[Hornsby]

From an Op Ed in the Washington Post. Kinda sums up my thoughts on a lot of the psts in this thread and on social media.



http://https://www.washingtonpost.co....be3cb1d696fe#

Your link is no good...

[Sour Masher]

From an Op Ed in the Washington Post. Kinda sums up my thoughts on a lot of the psts in this thread and on social media.



http://https://www.washingtonpost.co....be3cb1d696fe#

BB, you continue to want to draw attention to how Trump is similar to previous POTUSes. Of course, given the nature of the position, one can point to similarities. I could also point to similarities between myself and Tom Brady, in that we are both males of almost the same age, with similar hair color and complexions. But most of the world, in comparing us, would note the many significant differences between us, not our similarities. Likewise, I think it is important to note what marks Trump as different. Trying to normalize him is dangerous. Trump is not a normal president. He is abhorrent abomination with little regard for the rules on which we've founded our country, the decorum of his office, or the consequences of his words and actions for Others.

For every thing you want to point to that marks him as just another POTUS, I can point to two that mark him as different and worse. Your attempts to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisies in how Democrats respond to Trump would likely be valid in any other context, in relation to anyone else who could have won, as such biases exists naturally within both political parties, and should generally by pointed out. But they do not so neatly apply to Trump, because Trump isn't just another Republican--a fact that even most Republicans on here note. He may sometimes, in the right light, look like one, and occasionally act like one, but he is different, and his is dangerous. If you want me to expand on why, I'd be happy to, but I suspect you could anticipate many of the things I'd say.