Political & Elections

pima · Guru

RE: Title of Obama's Speech: I, I, I, I

longprime · Guru

evileye

The R are very fortunate to have lost the 2008 elections. IMO World is in a structural restructuring and realignment. And each Political party say that their opponent's loss will mean the end of that party.

ARITHMETIC

longprime · Guru

wink

I made sure that I an PNG on CC.

john doe · Guru

"I bought SLV on Thurs morning. Think I'm gonna buy a bit more, then wait until it nears its last top."

sounds like you should be posting in the investment and gambling (perhaps it should just be called gambling) blog in cc.

catahoula · Guru

Math's hard for a lot of people but I'd guess a Rhodes Scholar can count the number of cigars he shared with his intern. Being they were special, and all.

Four years fighting over the implementation of Obamacare is what I'd guess, lp. The "BB", along with every other employer won't have a clue as to how things are going to go, just as they don't now.

I do think there's a real chance that if he gets another four, he's going to destroy Democrats as a party, though. Root and branch.

catahoula · Guru

I'm not sure exactly what sin I've committed that needs another four years of this to wash clean but...

Didn't buy gold but am damn sure I'm moving to whatever inflation hedges are still available. That and picking the pasture grass for the move off the grid.

john doe · Guru

This will only continue:

Obama Widens Lead Over Romney Despite Jobs Report

Published: Saturday, 8 Sep 2012 | 7:40 PM ET

Obama, picking up support following the Democratic National Convention, widened his narrow lead over Republican U.S. presidential challenger Mitt Romney in a new Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Saturday.

The latest daily tracking poll showed Obama, a Democrat, with a lead of 4 percentage points over Romney. Forty-seven percent of 1,457 likely voters surveyed online over the previous four days said they would vote for Obama if the Nov. 6 elections were held today, compared with 43 percent for Romney.

"The bump is actually happening. I know there was some debate whether it would happen ... but it's here," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark, referring to the "bounce" in support that many presidential candidates enjoy after nominating conventions.

Obama had leapfrogged Romney in the daily tracking poll on Friday with a lead of 46 percent to 44 percent.

The president's lead comes despite a mixed reaction to his convention speech on Thursday night in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Friday's government data showing that jobs growth slowed sharply last month.

Obama's lead over Romney is comparable to Romney's former lead over the president after the Republican National Convention finished last week, Clark said.

"We don't have another convention now to turn our attention to, so (Obama's bounce) may maintain," Clark said. "How big it'll be and how long it will last remains to be seen."

Obama increased his lead over Romney in certain favorable characteristics. Asked who was more "eloquent," 50 percent of the 1,720 registered voters questioned in the poll favored Obama, compared to 25 percent for Romney. Asked about being "smart enough for the job," 46 percent sided with Obama compared to 37 percent for Romney.

In fact, Obama led Romney in a dozen such favorable characteristics, such as "represents America" or "has the right values." The only such category in which Romney had an advantage was being "a man of faith," as 44 percent picked Romney, who is Mormon, compared to 31 percent for Obama, who is Christian.

The Democratic National Convention itself received a rather muted response in the poll. Of those registered voters who had heard, seen or read at least something about it, 41 percent rated it as "average" and 29 percent as "good."

The Republican National Convention that wrapped up Aug. 30 in Tampa, Florida similarly was rated "average" by 38 percent and "good" by 27 percent in Saturday's polling results.

The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.

longprime · Guru

I bought SLV on Thurs morning. Think I'm gonna buy a bit more, then wait until it nears its last top.

A warning, I hve also lost in GLD, AAPL (2x @$2000each time & when it was in the $70 range). Most of my trading money is now in cash, in IRA's and represents only a minor portion of our retirement. From my observation of BigBank where bro works (phd econ), BB never-ever, has known what will happen and has no idea what currently will happen in the near or longterm future and regardless of any politics.

I will say that ARITHMETIC will be very important, I think. evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Sunday 9th of September 2012 05:45:41 PM

longprime · Guru

I gather that repeated emoticons are not nice? Too much bandwidth?? evileye

longprime · Guru

longprime wrote:
I know (H.Hoover). He was raised not far from where I live. He was a great engineer-humanitarian. He could even do the ARITHMATIC but his Party and then regulations/laws wouldn't let him do anything. Sad. A Stanford graduate is no match to a Eastern college graduate.

john doe · Guru

Republicans Must Choose: Less Debt or More Jobs?

Illustration by Victor Kerlow

By Michael Kinsley Sep 4, 2012 6:30 PM ET

If you saw any of the Republican convention last week, or its garland of talk shows, you may be aware that President Barack Obama has run up deficits averaging about $1 trillion a year over his four years in office.

In case your math is weak, that’s $4 trillion added to the national debt -- a lot of money. But what would have happened if we hadn’t borrowed and spent that money?

Much of this $4 trillion was not borrowed for the usual purpose of spending in the reckless way Republicans suppose that Democrats borrow and spend money -- that is, for the purpose of shoveling out cash to poor people on the condition that they quit their jobs and go on welfare, and so on. Nor was this money spent for reasons Republicans might approve, such as subsidizing small businesses or building useless airplanes.

It was not borrowing in order to spend. It was spending in order to borrow, under the conventional Keynesian view that government deficits occasionally have to be used to stimulate demand in a recessionary economy. Even that part of the $4 trillion that wasn’t explicitly labeled “stimulus” was part of the calculation of how big the explicit stimulus should be. But in order for this trick to work, it must increase the size of the deficit. Cutting spending to pay for a tax cut, or raising taxes to pay for a spending spree, neutralizes the stimulus.

Stimulus Debate

Now, you can criticize this policy from many perspectives. You can say, with liberal economists like Paul Krugman, that the stimulus wasn’t big enough. The economy is still wobbly at best. We should have spent double or triple what we did. You can say (as I do) that the stimulus will lead to disastrous inflation unless we offer a more convincing plan about how we’re going to pay it all back in the long run. You can say, as the Republicans do, that we should have cut taxes more and increased spending less. You can get a similar bounce either way.

But you can’t say with any hope of being taken seriously that the stimulus of $4 trillion of deficit spending destroyed jobs.

This doesn’t mean that the deficits were necessarily a good idea. We have lots of goals for our economy, of which more jobs is only one. We want low inflation. We want capital formation. We want long-term growth. We want clean air and water. We would like our Social Security checks, please. We wouldn’t like to overburden our children with debt.

Deficit spending is bad for most of these other goals. All things considered, it’s not clear that this strategy was the right idea.

The Republicans, however, are not considering all things. They have decided to concentrate on one economic statistic: jobs. In his nomination acceptance speech, Mitt Romney made a joke of it, ridiculing Obama’s professed concerns about the environment and global warming. None of that pansy stuff for Romney. He promised to focus on “jobs. Lots of jobs.” And jobs in the very short run: People now await the release of the monthly unemployment number like news of the path of a hurricane.

So pop quiz: Would there be more U.S. jobs or fewer today if the government had run a balanced budget, or even just a smaller deficit, for the past four years? All else being equal, it is obvious beyond dispute that there would have been fewer jobs, not more.

As I say, this is far from the whole story. But it’s the only part Republicans are telling, and they’re getting it exactly wrong.

The Republican Party’s enthusiasm for curbing the national debt has waxed and waned, as has its alarm about what happens if we don’t. These days conservatives are quoting again from Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address: the famous passage about how you and I have to pay our bills, so what makes us think the government doesn’t? At that moment, the Republicans pretty much had a lock on fiscal responsibility as an issue. In the public mind, whatever their other faults, Republicans were prudent; Democrats were spendthrift.

Record Deficits

Of course, Reagan famously ignored his own sermon and ran up record peacetime deficits. Because it was axiomatic that Reagan could do no wrong, deficits came back into Republican fashion. New theories arose. Republicans started saying that if you cut taxes first, spending would automatically follow. That didn’t happen.

During the Clinton years, temporary agreement between the parties, with help from the economy, actually did wipe out the deficit briefly. Then came President George W. Bush and his war in Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney, concerned that alarm about the return of huge deficits might spoil the fun, declared that “deficits don’t matter.” Republicans began dismissing concern about the national debt as “Rubinomics,” a reference to Bill Clinton’s Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. It was not intended as a compliment.

Now, in the latest chapter, Republicans have decided that deficits are heinous once again. No doubt they will continue to believe that for as long as there is a Democrat in the White House

john doe · Guru

I suggest that you read Hoover's biography a bit more carefully than just skimming the first paragraph in wiki. Please explain to me how Bain made money and how they financed their deals?

In regards to the 1981 comment vs 1929, the point is that the economic conditions considering everything from much higher tax rates before 1981 to a completely different cause for this recession means that the methods that worked in 1981 are not applicable today. We do not have high tax rates either compared to most of the rest of the world or from a historic standpoint here in the US.

If God was president, it wouldn't have made any difference with anybody's house values. They were artificially inflated and not worth what people were paying and quite honestly won't before for many years even though we have a fed who is trying to once again artificially inflate the housing market with ridiculously low mortgage rates. The demographics do not support increasing home prices. I have a recollection that you said your house was worth > 750k. Tell me what young people have that kind of money to put into a house??? and what older people are going to spend that kind of money when they're saving for retirement or are in retirement. The housing prices became absurd. I have 3 houses and their values were completely out of whack with reality.

And if people want to keep spending higher and higher sums of money for college - good luck to them. I'm also one of those people and spent more than 50 k a year on colleges for my kids. This has nothing to do with who's president. The costs have been going up for years and will until market forces stop them as was the case in housing.

I don't side with Obama. I find him more forthcoming and am in more agreement with his ideas than Romney. I completely disagree with Romney and Ryan who I had respected until I learned a bit more about him. Obama's problem is that he couldn't implement his ideas. He's a weak president who has allowed himself to run over by an intractable Republican party. I may not vote but I certainly wouldn't vote for Romney and I have voted Republican in every election from Nixon to Reagan to Dole to McCain.

john doe · Guru

I don't think Romney as a business man knows anything about turning the economy around. How did Bain Capital make money? GWB and Herbert Hoover were businessmen - how did the economies under those administrations turn out? Since Obama is president, I think he has a better understanding of how our government works. That being said, right now they both stink. I'm not sure who to vote for and may not vote at all. The Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with their embracing of the lunatic right. This should have been a crushing defeat for Obama, instead you've got Romney who I doubt has much chance at all contrary to the signs you folks see on your yards.

catahoula · Guru

jd, Kinsley's smarter than that so when he say's something like this...

Now, you can criticize this policy from many perspectives. You can say, with liberal economists like Paul Krugman, that the stimulus wasn’t big enough. The economy is still wobbly at best. We should have spent double or triple what we did. You can say (as I do) that the stimulus will lead to disastrous inflation unless we offer a more convincing plan about how we’re going to pay it all back in the long run. You can say, as the Republicans do, that we should have cut taxes more and increased spending less. You can get a similar bounce either way.

But you can’t say with any hope of being taken seriously that the stimulus of $4 trillion of deficit spending destroyed jobs.

... he looks like he's trying to sell something. It'd be fun to ask him a few questions, such as:

- Why would Paul Krugman want to indict Obama and Christine Romer as either idiots or liars.. or both?

- What plan other than taxing the middle class, which democrats dare not admit to, will ever pay it back?

- If you'll get a similar bounce either way, why did we spend most of a trillion dollars to keep state spending at unsustainable levels and indulge an infatuation with green energy?

That last is kind of bizzare, too - I'm not aware of the argument against the stimulus ever being that it would or did destroy jobs in the short term. That the debt and misallocation would be a drag later on, yes.

-- Edited by catahoula on Saturday 8th of September 2012 06:21:10 PM

-- Edited by catahoula on Saturday 8th of September 2012 06:30:53 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

I do agree that there isn't a whole lot that the Fed or our elected officials can do to change the economy. I think it is a pipe dream for them to think they actually have control over it.

That said, I think this prolonged recession is completely fear based. Companies don't want to hire because they are afraid of higher employment and health care costs, plus they don't know if they will have increased customer base to support expansion. People are afraid and saving their money, because they are worried about the future. Will they have a job, will the stock market crash, what about inflation and health care costs. Will our taxes get raised massively, will the country be bankrupted by massive debt. We are all living in fear.

So I believe a Romney win will be all that it takes to relieve the fear, he doesn't even have to do anything. Obama doesn't relieve anyone's fear about those issues. Me and others I know are cutting back, putting things in cash, considering lowering our income just in case Obama gets re-elected (I think he is), getting ready to be slammed with taxes. Plenty of people at higher income levels are already paying a high tax rate, and I definitely think it makes a difference to penalize people for working more, based on their income. I don't know why they just don't go after making capital gains the same rate as income, instead of pegging it to a specific salary. But of course, we know it is about class warfare and not actually the miniscule amount of taxes they might raise.

pima · Guru

Okay john, than who are you voting for?

The guy that has not pulled us, or the guy that successfully turned the 02 Olympics around?

Would you not agree that presidents nominate people to run parts of or govt., such as Timothy Geithner? If so, don't you think a person like Romney has a better understanding from his business background on what needs to be done?

I agree part of the problem is the grid lock on the Hill, and I highly doubt it will change, but the other problem is appointees in high level positions that impact our economy. Obama doesn't get that!

john doe · Guru

In life there is always a certain amount of luck. While financially I've been fortunate, in many other areas that is not the case. I learned my lessons from the early 2000's as to how to handle financial decisions.

That being said, let's get to the heart of the discussion. This is the bottom line and you can delude yourself into thinking otherwise:

Nothing John McCain, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would have or will do will change what is going on in the economy. It is beyond anybody's control including the fed's. There was a credit bubble that will take many more years to play out and we can all bitch and moan about it but nothing is going to change. Reducing taxes on those earning 250k or more will do ****. Bush put these tax policies into place and Obama extended them - IT DID NOTHING. The whole argument about tax rates whether increasing them (Obama) or decreasing them (Romney) is a bull**** argument on both sides. The fed continuing operation twist or doing some other nonsensical thing will have no effect. Things will get better or worse, (most likely worse) regardless of who's president. This is not 1981 and what worked in 1981 will not work today.

longprime · Guru

evileye

•••••A R I T H M A T I C ••••• I'll wager that we will hear more of this concept. One party is going to be working OT. Both parties and candidates will be sure that their ARITHMATIC, sum up. evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Saturday 8th of September 2012 03:18:37 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Saturday 8th of September 2012 03:20:13 PM

pima · Guru

john doe,

I agree with busdriver and Samurai, you are incredibly fortunate. Our DS just graduated in May, fortunately for him because he commissioned AF he has a job, but at his college, and within his scholars program, the advisor told him days before graduation only 50% of the students had a job lined up. Kids are taking jobs out of college now that only require a hs diploma.

My mom's best friends grandchildren graduated from Harvard, Yale and Brown this yr. Only 1 has a job and that came through their parents connection...he is working in China!

It was on the news yesterday that only 69% of men are employed the lowest rate since 1948. 1 in 6 are now considered poverty one of the highest levels ever. With stats like that it only reinforces what bus, Sam, and I are feeling.

Our net worth has decreased because our largest asset is 30% lower 7 yrs later than what we paid for it. We are underwater, and yes, we put a hefty chunk of change down, we were not a 0, 5 or 10% down buyer. We were 20% down. At the same time with 2 kids in college we have seen their costs escalate. DS entered in 08; his cost was 28K, he exited in 12 and it was 41K. DD entered in 10 (IS) the cost was 13K, it is 19.6K this yr. Meanwhile in those 4 yrs our stocks that we invested to pay for college took great hits, and because Obama decided to convert contracting jobs to fed. jobs, we have not seen a pay raise since 2009. Bullet is fortunate that he served this country for 20 yrs in the AF, so he receives retirement pay, but also during these past 4 yrs., the COLA increase was 1%. Gas is up how much since 2008? Milk, meat, groceries are up how much?

I have less in my pocket today than I did 4 yrs ago. I am the norm, and according to our President I am considered wealthy. Yes, if he was making that money in NC, we would be wealthy. The avg median price of a home there is about 150K, in No VA try 2-3 times that for the same home, in the same type of neighborhood. To make a blanket statement that 200K is wealthy without looking at where the person lives is wrong. I know my SIL that works in NYC, lives in NJ, pays Fed, NY state, NYC and NJ state taxes does not consider herself wealthy and believes she is definitely paying her fair share of taxes. She doesn't live in NJ because she wants to commute hrs everyday, she lives in NJ because she can't afford to live in NY. She doesn't work in NJ because she loves commuting 4-5 hrs a day, she does because the job that pays enough for her to afford to live in NJ is in NY. She doesn't own a 3K sqft home with 2 car garage, on a 1/2 acre lot with an inground pool. She lives in an 1800sqft home, 1 car garage on a 1/4 acre lot with no pool. She drives a 6 yo car because like Bullet and I, and most people with college kids, the money she saves from not paying a car pmt is going to college tuition, and still her DD has to take college loans, and work a job so she can pay for her books and spending money for the yr.

I am glad for you, but I think you need a reality check. And please don't do they aren't working hard enough, they are busting their humps to make it week to week, month to month. When I was in NJ a couple of weeks ago this conversation was the topic of the afternoon. My SIL even agreed people are working harder now because they know one slip up and companies have 100 people waiting to take your job. My ILs have been dems their entire life, BC is their idol, along with JFK. At the age of 74 and 80 they will be voting for Romney because they did everything right, invested for 5 decades, own their home out right, but now with RE taxes going up higher than ever before, and the stock market finally coming back, that nest egg is much smaller. They see their children hurting, and their grandchildren in debt at 18 because of college loans. They see that nobody is better off now than they were 4 yrs ago.

They say that for 08, the way VA went was going to determine the president, and more precisely, Prince William county. I live in PW, and I can tell you there is not one Obama lawn sign, no Obama stickers. It is all Romney everywhere. Okay, I am sure there are some Obama stuff, but it is so rare to see it, you can't remember seeing them. I remember 08 it was the exact opposite, it was Obama everywhere, and McCain nowhere to be found.

pima · Guru

Seriously you are saying GWB was on the same level as Romney? He bought a flipping baseball team with investors and that is the extent of his business experience. Romney started Bain from ground up searching for investors. Romney took the Olympics from a defict to a profit in 6 months. He was not in charge of it until after 9/11. Winter Olympics are in Feb/March. He not only had to deal with that, but also the extra security programs to put into place because of 9/11.

Sorry the cobwebs in my mind can't remember Hoover's business experience, and honestly you just sat here and said it isn't 1981, now you want to go back to 1929? OBTW I just googled him...he was a mining engineer and an author...try again.

I don't disagree Obama has a better understanding of how our govt works, but Mitt already has that since he was a governor too!

I hate it when posters say the lunatic right or left. It is just BS in my mind, because at the end of the day the voters that matter are the I's. Left or right lunatics will vote for their party. The R's embracing the lunatic right, can just as easily be said about the lunatic left D's booing over the Jerusalem and God vote.

I would never say regardless of any R up this should be a crushing defeat against Obama. Too many people don't like to change course and are willing to give a benefit of the doubt to the incumbent. My point of yard signs is just to reiterate what the media is saying VA is a factor. Fairfax will go to Obama, they have always been a Dem stronghold. The southern counties has always been a R stronghold, PW straddles both, and is very populated, thus, PW becomes the make or break county. If those yard signs in PW county are a clue, VA is going from the Obama column (08) to the Romney column in 12.

My sister lives in OH. Her DH is voting Romney. Her friends too. They all voted Obama in 08. The reasons why:
1. Their small businesses took major hits.
2. Obamacare

BIL has a number 3.
Jerusalem.

Sisters friends have a number 3 too
GOD

4. Their houses are worth less today than 4 yrs ago...better off now resonates with them.

5. Their kids college education costs.

6. Their kids not getting jobs and living at home after spending 6 figures for a degree. Our DS asked why he had to walk for graduation, 4 days later he was being commissioned and that was his moment in his mind. I said because I have 135K reasons why. That was the cost of his school, luckily for us, the AF and the university picked up 80K of those reasons.

Let's face it Obama has a problem surfacing now, women are not flocking to him. They aren't flocking to Romney either. College kids, the same thing.

When the voter turn out is low, the D's tend to take the hit. You are illustrating that fact. You side with Obama, but not sure you are going to vote. The R's no matter how they feel about Romney will vote.

I said it before regarding my prediction, I believe Obama will win electorally, but popular vote it might go to Romney, just like in 00 with Bush and Gore.

OBTW just out of curiosity, how is Obama going to deal with the defense budget cuts regarding the work force? These members are coming home soon, and they will need jobs. Jobs in an economy where we have 8.1% unemployment rate. Samurai's DS is an example of how the military is tightening their belts and forcing people out into mainstream employment.

-- Edited by pima on Saturday 8th of September 2012 12:36:51 PM

-- Edited by pima on Saturday 8th of September 2012 12:44:19 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

Well, john doe, consider yourself fortunate, and I am glad that you have been blessed with riches in the last four years. I really am, and I'm sure that you have worked hard to get them.

But if you listen to samurai's story and that of many others, you probably realize that you are more the outlier than the norm.

Samurai, if karma really does exist in the world, it seems that you and your family should win the lottery very soon, as it just doesn't seem right that so much misfortune has fallen on such a wonderful family as yours.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Busdriver, We certainly wouldn't be opposed to the karma fairies blessing us with a lottery windfall. It is funny - I consider us very blessed and despite whatever financial setbacks we have faced the last few years, incredibly grateful for what we have. Clearly, it could be worse. I do think we are more the norm, these days, however.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Saturday 8th of September 2012 02:03:59 AM

john doe · Guru

"on those two people who will still are making some money."

I guess this is either an exaggeration or I'm one of those two people as I've added another 7 figures to my net worth since Obama has been president.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Consider yourself fortunate, john. After my husband was out of work for almost 20 months, me working part time jobs and my running my own business, since July 2009....our income is down by 30%...we work longer hours...have no emergency backup...have rung up more credit card debt and only now, after 3 years are the 401ks and Roth IRA even close to being what they were before the crash. Fortunately husband got a job, but at substantially lower pay. We are grateful he has work. During that time, husband fell off unemployment because he had audacity to start own business. When his brief work gig dried up, he was told he was in eligible. He got unemployment for 5 weeks. Total. Both of us have graduate degrees. Two sons are home and one of them is fighting a debt to government, after being released from ROTC in his scholarship program. He now owes government 150,000, all because he gained a few pounds. The funny thing is he was in compliance a few weeks later, but they wouldn't reweigh him. Love that government bureaucracy! It isn't student loan debt that can be stretched over multiple decades to repay, either. Lots of folks are dealing with silly little things like higher gas and food prices and no cushion. I have two college graduates living home again, trying to find full time employment and patching together whatever part time and temp jobs they can find. I don't see things getting better and improving economically with more government in our lives. I have no idea what a Romney administration will look like, except it has got to be better than what I am dealing with now.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Friday 7th of September 2012 06:47:42 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

"Did you notice he said last week the R's didn't put forth any plans on how they were going to accomplish their lofty goals...did I miss something, I never heard him put out any plans."

Oh, we know his plan. Tax the rich, and that will pay for everything. More entitlements, pay off the deficit, take care of all our problems. That's all we have to do, but it will be painful and call for patriotism and shared sacrifice on those two people who will still are making some money.

hope · Guru

I watched it out of duty. I cringed the whole time. blah, blah, blah, same ol', same ol'.

When he said "it's not about me" I thought my head would explode.

Peggy Noonan does a great job here on Barack, Democrat extremism, Joe, Bill, and Sandra Fluke:

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

And what's with all these husbands and wives declaring their love for each other on stage? When did this start? I don't remember RR slobbering over his love for Nancy on stage. Or Bill over Hillary (LOL). On both sides--it's ridiculous. There was a time people took it for granted that husbands and wives loved each other, I guess. Now they all have to out do each other over their "sweethearts" and "love of my life." Gag.

pima · Guru

Did you notice he said last week the R's didn't put forth any plans on how they were going to accomplish their lofty goals...did I miss something, I never heard him put out any plans.

longprime · Guru

I think MR and and the broader R got placed in an unflattering frame. They got boxed. Its gonna be interesting to see if MR and the R can breakout and go on the offensive.

FarmDad · Veteran Member

Did he really say, "It's not about me?" What comes next, "Trust me?"

FarmDad · Veteran Member

So far, a pretty pedestrian stump speech.