Jump to content

Mudguard

Members
  • Content count

    1,924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mudguard

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Santa Clara, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,456 profile views
  1. Mudguard

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    Yeah, I don't see the problem with Bloomberg running in the Democratic primary. If anything, it probably would lessen Biden's chances at winning the nomination and improve Warren and Sanders chances. I don't think Bloomberg has a realistic chance at winning the nomination, but who knows. Need to see some new polling data. That said, if he runs third party, I would have a big problem with that.
  2. Mudguard

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    The wealth tax is an interesting idea, but only in a theoretical sense because it has essentially a zero percent chance of passing in the US. For the record, I do share some of the same concerns that Free Northman Reborn and Ran have, depending on the implementation of such a wealth tax (i.e. taxation of shares using present value vs. cost basis).
  3. Mudguard

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    Regarding the wealth tax and founders of companies, my guess is that taxpayers can use the cost basis of the shares of the stocks, rather than the present value of the shares, for the purpose of the wealth tax calculation. The cost basis of the shares when a company is initially founded is usually extremely low, so this would effectively allow founders to shield most of their stock from the wealth tax, and should make it relatively easy for them to pay whatever wealth tax they owe with their cash/cash equivalent holdings.
  4. Mudguard

    US Politics: A Mickey Mouse Operation

    When I heard that news, I wondered for a bit if that hinted at a third party run. I agree that there's a very good chance she is angling for a media gig, like Fox News, where she can join Donna Brazile as the resident Democrat sellouts. Running for the Democratic nomination has helped raise her national profile, and running as a third party candidate could help even more, which could be helpful to her when negotiating a contract with Fox. Maybe Clinton was right about Gabbard. Not sure yet, but we should know by the middle of next year. I can see Gabbard refusing to drop out until the convention and then announce a third party run, if her goal is to raise her profile in advance of a job at Fox. But a third party run would likely end her political career, and her support is so low right now anyway I'm not sure she can drum up enough support for a third party run, so maybe she just ends her campaign at the convention, or maybe earlier when she can't qualify for the debates.
  5. Mudguard

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    My concern that by setting the bar for evidence so low where twitter bot support and mentions on RT news is sufficient to prove to some democrats that one of their own members is a Russian/Putin stooge, it will be all too easy to make the same charge against a serious Democratic candidate in the primary or against the democratic nominee in the general. All Putin needs to do is get some of his bots to support one of the candidates and have RT news put out some puff pieces, and then start putting out pieces that "connect the dots." Hey, we've found another Putin stooge! It's been well proven that people fall for this crap all the time, and the New York Times and Clinton aren't even random low information idiots. If the economy holds, it's probably going to be a close election, and stupid things like this could potentially be used to suppress democratic turnout. It could be another close election. I'm certain that the Russian disinformation effort will be in full force for the general election, if not before. I'm really confused by Clinton. Does she want Trump to win again? Maybe she just doesn't give a fuck at this point who wins.
  6. Mudguard

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    In the 2018 Democratic primary election, Gabbard faced two Democrats and won in a landslide by getting 83.5% of the vote. She went on to beat the Republican in the general election by a 77 to 23 margin. So she's super popular in her district, and doesn't appear to be in any danger of getting primaried. Makes zero sense to run as a third party candidate. I'm very surprised that the New York Times ran their piece on this, and also surprised that Clinton would engage is such a conspiracy theory. If they have real evidence, they should put it up or shut up. As Solo mentioned, accusing a sitting member of Congress of being Putin's stooge is a highly defamatory and reckless charge unless there is very strong evidence, which no one has produced.
  7. Mudguard

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    If, and it's a very big if right now, Gabbard runs as a third party candidate, I would be much more willing to believe that she's somehow a Putin stooge. But until that happens, I'm filing this along with all the other conspiracy theories. There's virtually no evidence providing a direct link between Gabbard and Putin/Russia. Twitter bots and mentions on RT news and meeting with Assad isn't close to enough proof to establish that she is Putin's stooge.
  8. Mudguard

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    Well, according to Clinton, it's because she's Putin's stooge and will be doing his bidding during the general election. As to what benefit Putin could give her that would make career suicide worth it? No idea. The whole allegation is bizarre. We'll see soon enough though. I don't think her campaign is going to last that much longer, and presumably, she would announce her third party candidacy shortly after dropping out of the race of the democratic nomination. Does anyone know how safe her position is in Hawaii? If she's lost support of the Democratic party in Hawaii and was planning on running as an independent in the next election, I guess running as a third party candidate might make sense. But if her job is safe in Hawaii, then running as an independent would be career suicide.
  9. Mudguard

    US politics - When the Barr's so low.

    The attacks by Clinton against Gabbard seem petty and stupid to me., and the evidence in support of the accusations is very, very thin right now. Gabbard has about a zero percent chance of winning the nomination, and bringing this up now just helps Trump by siphoning attention away from the latest idiotic things being done by the Trump administration, like Mulvaney's quid pro quo admission. Can the Democrats just focus on impeaching Trump and pause the intraparty squabbling for a bit? If Gabbard really runs as a third party candidate, which I find doubtful given her poor fundraising and polling numbers, then fine, bring it up then. But now isn't the time.
  10. Mudguard

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    The problem is that Democrats tend to penalize their own for moral corruption or the appearance of moral corruption, more than Republicans. See Clinton and Franken. If Biden wins the nomination but doesn't have a good rebuttal to this (one rebuttal would be that Hunter was well qualified and earned the job through his own merit), I think this issue could really hurt Biden in the general. I'm curious to see if this has an effect on the polls for Biden among Democrats. Most of the focus is on Trump's impeachment right now, so I don't think it's getting much airtime from the media yet. But after the impeachment process runs its course, I think the attention will turn to Biden.
  11. Mudguard

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    I'm getting sidetracked on what originally was a tangent point to begin with. It really doesn't matter whether the fund was 1.5 billion, 4 million, or whatever. I admit, my original post to Fragile Bird started as a nitpick of the $4 million dollar figure. The number just didn't make sense to me, and I also saw some early reporting that was saying similar things based on comments from Hunter Biden's lawyer, so I did some internet research and made my post. Obviously, Fragile Bird did not like my nitpicking and I can see how that would be annoying to her, but I'm a numbers person and that was bothering me. Regarding your points, I honestly don't know how to respond because they are often so off the point that I'm trying to make. What am I trying to "gin up"? Really, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not citing articles and trying to summarize them. I'm citing them to support a specific point (i.e. the dollar figure), which has nothing to do with many of your points. You keep citing portions of the article that I'm not arguing about and that I have no issue with and that are completely irrelevant to the argument that I'm making. At least Fragile Bird's arguments were responsive to mine. This forum is definitely an echo chamber for liberals. Any contrary point of view results in rabid, personalized attacks, even when presented in a neutral manner with citations. People are super upset that I'm criticizing Hunter Biden, but it's perfectly OK to criticize and make fun of Trump Jr. and Eric Trump? If Biden wins the nomination, Hunter is going to be dragged through the mud. And obviously, they'll try and drag Joe through too by association. I like discussing Trump/Republican talking points because the strategy behind it, and the response strategy from Biden/Democrats, is more interesting to me than railing against the next dumb thing Trump or the Republicans have done. That's gotten old a long, long time ago for me. When I'm doing this, I try to be as objective as I can. If you can't see the appearance of a conflict of interest in the Ukraine and China matters, and if you really think that being a JD qualifies you to run a $1.5 billion private equity fund, then there's really nothing further to discuss. I provide citations, but you attempt to disregard them as opinion pieces. Come on. The New Yorker article in particular was a heavily researched piece that included an interview with Hunter Biden. It covered his entire life from when he was a kid to present day. The author is also not a Republican hit job artist. His bio: Sure, just dismiss this article because it doesn't support your narrative. Again, if you have any better sources of information about Hunter, please share. Unsurprisingly, no one is providing better sources of information.
  12. Mudguard

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    I did read that, but I assumed that his job at MBNA was related to legal aspects, and not the business side. It's clear from the article that Hunter's interest is now on the business side and has been for a while now. It's clear from the article that Hunter is a great networker and very personable, which is a good business skill. It's how he keeps getting all these jobs all over the place. Did you read how that hedge fund that he bought with his uncle was a complete failure? Doesn't sound like he has much of a clue how to run a fund.
  13. Mudguard

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    And did that former martial artist work his way up like everybody else? How many years of experience did he have in the field before he got to the top? He must have demonstrated outstanding performance year after year to get to his position. Hunter has demonstrated none of this. It's possible to move from law to business, or from other jobs to business. I'm not disqualifying him just because he's a lawyer. I've read quite a bit about Hunter Biden, and nothing I've read has suggested that he was qualified to run a fund. He's certainly had interest before the getting in on the Chinese partnered fund. Can you point to any article that establishes any reasonable level of qualification for Hunter? I've posted plenty of articles on him. Please see the New Yorker article I posted above. It's the most in depth article I've found on him. All I can do is form an opinion based on the reporting that is out there, and there's quite a bit. If you have anything to the contrary, please share.
  14. Mudguard

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    He's qualified to practice as an attorney, assuming he still has a bar license. I don't think he's practiced much law in the last 10 years or so. Why would practicing law qualify him to run a fund? For a while now, he's been more of a business man, which is more relevant, but his results haven't been generally good. Certainly not to a level that is typical for a private equity fund partner. From a really long article on Hunter Biden in the New Yorker: I'm pretty sure that his Chinese partners didn't hire him on for his track record in running a fund.
  15. Mudguard

    US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.

    I've already explained in my original reply to Fragile Bird that the $4.2 million figure is the capital that was used to form and manage the joint venture, and that the $1.5 billion refers to the amount raised for the fund that was managed by the joint venture. If you still can't understand this, then it's clear you have no idea how private equity works. No one raises a $4.2 million private equity fund because you wouldn't be able to make any investments with it. It's completely nonsensical.
×