Tiger337

I'm not very young, but I'll say that it was not taught at all to me growing up - not by schools or family. It should be. What little I know, I picked up mostly on my own. I had an advisor for several years. He was expensive (mostly because of the companies he worked for), but pretty honest. He taught me not to be afraid of stock investing, which has turned out to be mostly good for me. I also learned that having an advisor is ridiculously expensive, so I now I just do it on my own. I keep it very simple. The Bogle book was very instructive and I think his ideas would work for most people.

I didn't realize until recent years how many women have been victims of sexual assualt. We probably all know people who have been through it. The vast majority of men have never sexually assaulted anyone, so most of the attacks have been made by serial predators. Because most men don't do stuff like that, they might find it hard to believe how common it is, so they think the stories are made up.

They don't bring it up until years later because they fear they won't be believed and that they'll get mocked. And people that do believe them with blame them for it.

If he is telling the truth, then he is describing a crime.

Expecting people to wait patiently for hours is one thing that will never work in 21st Century America!

Trump has brought it all on himself. He has used Nazi rhetoric and promoted violence on many occasions. He is nothing even close to Hitler at this time, but he sure seems fascinated with the idea. He has also accused Harris of being fascist and communist **** him!

People in populated areas don't like him.

There is almost never evidence in sexual assault cases. Nobody is going to see it happening and unless it is reported immediately there isn't going to be physical evidence. It's usually going to be the man's word versus the woman's word, which is why so many men get away with it, often repeatedly. In Trump's case, it is virtually impossible for me to believe that he has not sexually assaulted women. It fact, he has bragged about doing so. I think even most of his supporters know he has done stuff although I think a lot of them are OK with it because "they probably deserved it".

Trump himself bragged about forcibly kissing women and grabbing their pussies. It sounds to me like he was admitting to crimes even though he doesn't think such crimes pertain to him. Just this week, there was a video of him trying to kiss a teenage girl on the lips and then seemingly pulling her hand into his crotch area. She pulled away from him.

An editorial written by an individual giving a nuanced view on a paticular issue is educational. An editorial saying that the entire newspaper is supporting Harris just makes the newspaper look unbiased. I'd prefer not to see it even if I agree with it.

Of course they aren't. They both have different groups of people they court and thus different issues that they pretend to care about. Most of the Blacks I know don't think either party respects them, but they know they at least have a chance at status quo with the Democrats.

I have no problem with the Washington Post not allowing the endorsement. That is not the job of newspapers. Their job should be to report unbiased news. A stupid endorsement is not going to change anything anyway. I like Amazon Prime and will continue to use it.

Black unemployment was very low under Trump too and it had little to do with either one of them.

I have no doubt that he has been sexually assaulting women his entire life. He has no morals nor inhibitions and has always had access to beautiful women his entire life due to his family wealth. Why do people think he bought three beauty pageants? That doesn't mean that all the accusations are true, but it means I don't feel bad for him either way.

I'm on your side Cecil. Just not so fanatic.

I am confident that Blacks know that neither side gives a **** about them and that they'll continue to vote for the side which is not openly hostile. The problem there is getting them to vote at all.

Yes, I've noticed that you are consistnt in not trusting polls. I probably shouldn't have used you as an example.

This forum in general.

Young men love Trump and they probaby didn't vote in the last election.

"Bad data for my preferred candidate, so not paying attention"

Yes, I thnk that Trump has probably sexually assaulted many women, but posters like Krassenstein are not believable and only weaken the case against Trump.

Of course they are, but if we are trying to predict who is going to win the election, the number of donors might be relevant.

I didn't say they were the violent side. I said the violence MAY be instigated by the left. If we get a right wing sweep, there won't be much reason for the right to get violent. It will start out as protests, but protests can get violent. It won't sit well with a lot of people that the President atempted a coup four years before. Lots of people on the left have weapons. 20% of Democrats own guns, and it only takes a fraction of a percent to make trouble. But there is one reason we might not have much violence. Men are the violent ones and the majority of the men in the country will be thrilled by a Trump presidency.

What was dismissed was the level of right wing violence you predicted. There have been pockets here and there, but nowhere close to what you predicted. Not yet anyway. I think the next four years are going to be ugly if Trump wins, but the ugly stuff may be instigated by the left. I wouldn't blame them, but just saying.

He is great for billionaires if they can manipulate him which seems not very difficult. They might not like him so much if his chaos starts to affect them negatively.