rb

It's not the Trump supporters who are comparing him to Hitler. The question was whether Obama would implement martial law.

It is a ridiculous question to start with. Of course it won't happen. The only place where such a proposition would be plausible is in the imagination of the most ardent Trump supporter who is convinced that everything is rigged and that the almighty and all devious Obama will steal Trump's victory.

So the Republican Party chose Donald Trump to be its presidential nominee to punish America because it didn't vote for Romney?

That is comical! Does anyone know if that ever happened?

I'm with 2 cities here. It looks like you're taking a particular example to make a general point. Firstly, prop taxes at 1.2% of value seem very high even for California, but I don't know enough about the property market there to speak too much about it. Secondly, in the context of Real Estate I'd look at property tax as a fixed cost not as a tax to be applied to profit before tax. For the investment you described I'd say that the 1,000,000 price for it is too high and not make it. Thirdly, in your example the bulk of the taxes you mention are local and state which are a different can of worms and don't really have anything to do with the federal election issues. Fourthly, as two cities said your example is not at all representative for America as a whole. Even if you include all taxes (federal, state, local) the ratio of total tax to GDP for the US is among the lowest in industrialized nations. Are taxes higher in certain jurisdictions and lower in others? Oh yea. But to say that it's highly taxed is a stretch.

I don't think that's unbelievable at all. It's actually quite a good point for him. The way I see it, there's not much that Trump can do as president that the Democrats can't fix when they come in to clean up the mess after 4 years. Though there are some things that would be unfixable: 1. Any use of nuclear weapons. 2. Undermining/Breakup of NATO or any similar foreign policy blunder. 3. Supreme Court Appointees. He gets at least 1, maybe 2, remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. Now I think that the first two terrify (as they should) most republicans who are not die hard Trump supporters. But keeping Hillary from appointing those justices is appealing to all republicans. Just as keeping Trump from appointing a couple of coo-coos to the supreme court is to the other side. So republicans may take they're chances with 1 and 2 to get 3 done.

Uccmal, I agree with a lot of what your wrote, but I think you're only partly right. The Republican party will probably get slaughtered during the election. Though that's far from a certainty. Just a week ago Trump was tied with Hillary, there's a long time to election and they call him teflon don for a reason. I disagree with the idea that the Republican party will remake itself after the election. I think that the party remade itself before the election. The party after will represent its members and based on that the Republican party right now is the party of Trump, not the party of Lincoln. This has been happening for a long time. You can draw a line Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Tea Party, birtherism, Trump. In order for the party to remake itself the Trump supporters would have to change their views and I don't see that happening. It's comforting for a serious conservative to believe that the party is going through some collective delusion or pharmaceutical mass trip, that they'll wake up after election day with a massive hangover and say never again. But i think that Ann Coulter is correct. This is the Republican party, they've finally found their voice, and Trump is their leader. It is up to the responsible conservatives to decide if the hold their nose and toe the new party line or leave. It'll be interesting to see how is shakes up.

So you would basically advise your candidate to tweet a 13 year old article written when the economic situation was much different than it is today. An article which ascribes the cause of the trade deficit to a wholly different issue as your candidate and which prescribes a completely different and opposite solution as your candidate. Yep. That sounds about right for Trump.

You just know that after today there's a gonna be tweet coming up and a new nickname for Warren. "Goofy Warren Buffett! That guy's a LOOSER! Believe me! Berkshire Hathaway used to be a textile company but he couldn't sell shirts and ties. He FAILED! He FAILED! I can sell shits and ties! And they're Great! They're great! Believe me! Nobody sells shirts and ties like Donald Trump!" Ha Ha just kidding, he doesn't know the word textile.

I agree on an absolute basis both of the candidates would be disqualified. What in your mind makes Clinton more fit be POTUS than Trump? I see her as bad as Trump but worse as she has rigged the Democratic primary (Trump at least did not do that) and then spread false statements (which the press ran with) that somehow Putin supported Trump. I got the distinct feeling she is deflecting the examining of her record by making stuff up and stooping to Trumps level when it comes to inuendo. I am more concerned about her actions than her words which have real consequences versus Trump whose words appear strange but his actions are more reasoned. Packer Right. NFL says it never sent a letter to Trump. Your interpretation: We don't know all the facts, maybe they never sent a letter but somehow there is a letter, a magical letter, that Trump received by raven and it contains the thoughts of the NHL. We just don't know the facts. Trump may be right. Second scenario: DNC's emails get hacked, multiple sources point to Russian state agents, DNC emails get leaked at an opportune time for Trump. Clinton campaign points that that's Putin helping Trump. Your interpretation: Hillary Clinton spread false rumors. Do you know all the facts? If you don't how, do you know they're false? Maybe Hillary has a magical message that she received from Putin, probably via Raven as well, saying he supports Trump. We just don't know, but sure looks like Russia helping Trump. Then there's the whole hey Russia if you're listening thing.... If any candidate in the past 60 years on the left or right would have uttered that line they would have been disqualified on the spot no matter who they were. Just for uttering those words. Imagine the seizure you would have if Hillary would say something like "Hey Russia, if you're listening.. please get us Trump's tax returns!". Those words would have been enough, without the candidate's campaign chairman having worked for a Russian client and being accused by the US ambassador of undermining US interests. This shit just boggles the mind. I understand, you support Trump. It's your right. It is a democracy (for now). But please spare us the mental contortions to purify the swill produced by his brain and ejected by his mouth. It insults intelligence.

This is why I am skeptical of the press reporting anything. If you read the article is says it appears that the group did not provide an invitation but later said the group would not respond to the direct question of whether an invitation was given. No direct facts but speculation. Call me from Missouri but I see there is as much possibility of Trump being right versus what the article appears to imply. Packer So when you have no evidence either way you choose to believe Donald Trump vs the press, now even WSJ, a Murdoch publication is not good enough. That's telling in itself. So maybe this one is a coin toss because you weren't in the room. What about the thousands of other times Trump did exactly the same thing and was proven?

I don't know if this helps your thinking at all but i think it's related. Basically I have mostly given up trying to reason with people that support Trump. If they still support him after all he's done and said and promised I don't think there's anything that he can do or anything I or anyone can say that'll change their minds. Let alone facts and figures. Sadly, Trump is right. He really can go and shoot people on 5th avenue.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see much bubble blowing in Canada RE after 2008. They didn't really put on the breaks either but that's not really bubble blowing. We talk a lot in this thread about Chinese money which is part of the problem - from what I read here it's a bigger problem in Van than Toronto. But there's the biggest part of this problem. Regular Canadians that are rushing in but buy real estate with no regard for the price. These are people that spend months researching the best deal on a $800 TV but make the biggest purchase of their life with no regard to price. Then there's the "real estate investors" who again pay whatever price and are convinced they're gonna make loads on that "fixer upper". These people are 100% convinced not only that real estate cannot go down, but it will continue growing at present rates. Some thing it'll grow even faster. These attitudes are blowing my mind since 2008 was quite recent, not some story that grandma tells. Now people have been doing dumb things with money since the world was young and normally I wouldn't give a hoot about the people making these dumb decisions cause they bring it on themselves. But when real estate crashes happen, unlike crashes in other markets, they spill into the general economy in a major way and innocent, responsible people pay the price. So I say that it's warranted to bring all the king's horses and all the king's men to stop this madness and let's hope we're not too far along the wrong path and the situation is still salvageable.

It's somewhat encouraging that they're at least trying to do something. But... 1. It'll be interesting to see what the definition of a foreign buyer is. 2. I have a feeling that a lot of trusts are about to be opened in BC.

You're right, this stuff is scary either way. However, from an investing standpoint I don't think there's any way that one could position himself. Since we're dealing with Trump one can't know if he's gonna do all he talks about, some of it, none of it, or whether he'll turn around and do a whole bunch of stuff he hasn't even mentioned. How do you position yourself for something like that?

Trumps unpredictability is scary stuff...to our enemies. And the world will be a safer place because of it. Obama's predictable pacifism, like post WWI Europe's, might feel good to a war-weary populace, but it's an illusion. Pacifism gives tyrants an easy opportunity to expand their empires. WOW! Yes, questioning America's commitment to NATO scares the crap out of our enemies.

It's not a question of whether it can be produced and sold cheap. It's a question if whether it will. When i lived in the UK I could buy generic paracetamol (Tylenol) for 0.30 GBP. Over here a small bottle of Tylenol is $12. I recently bought a 120 pills of generic baby aspirin for $25 from a large pharmacy chain. These meds are produced very cheaply but still sold at high prices. If you need more evidence of how pharma charges high prices for cheap generics you can visit the whole Valeant fiasco or similar cases. On top of all of this you have to assume that the government would tax the shit out of any legalized drug which will also add to the price. A practical example of this i think it's weed in Amsterdam. The prices at the "coffee shops" are significantly higher than what one would pay at a dealer. my guess that for stronger drugs you'll get an even bigger discrepancy when you mix bad public opinion with government, pharmas, and pharmacies.

Nice thought... not gonna happen. I think that marijuana will eventually be legalized. That would probably lead to a lower incarceration rate (good). But there's no hope for legalization of the harder stuff in today's society. That would require a major shift in values and beliefs. Even if that happens I don't share your cartels will be out of business in 6 months view. Look at today's pharma state. What prescription can you get filled for $25? Even if you do get legalization, the cartels will probably be by far the low cost provider with the pharmas gaining only minor market share and the troubles will continue.

All contributions/withdrawals to/from the TFSA are recorded, & the individual reports it in their annual tax return. As a withdrawal this year does not increase your contribution room until next year; both the taxman, & your FI, will discourage you from using the TFSA as a tax free chequing account. Withdraw 50K when the life-time limit to date is 46.5K, & you will meet resistance. The FI would rather not have the exposure of a potential rule violation - & recommend delaying until Jan-01 (when the limit will be 51.5K). The taxman will also not give you extra lifetime credit for the extra 3.5K (46.5-50) withdrawn. SD I'm sorry but this is just flat out wrong. 1. You're allowed to withdraw any amount at any time even if it is over lifetime limit. Most institutions will have no problem with this. SD, if yours does maybe you should move your business elsewhere. 2. Any amount you withdraw gets added to your contribution limit next year. If your withdrawal is over the lifetime limit you do not loose any contribution space as SD suggested. 3. You do not have to report TFSA deposits and withdrawals on your tax return. Your FI reports the transactions to CRA. The penalties for over contributions are pretty stiff and you will receive a notice of assessment from CRA.

Right, a star of David plastered on top of a pile of money is not offensive to Jews at all. They love that. By the a cross in itself is not offensive to Christians, but if you set that cross on fire, some of us may take offense.

And here comes the double down! http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?_r=0 Pissing off the jews.... always a winning strategy!

well it's abit more complicated. Yes, your capital loss is a superficial loss and you cannot claim it right away. But when you liquidate your position (assuming at a gain) you can claim the loss and won't be taxed on the gain. So you're basically deferring the loss, but ur still entitled to it.

Me too!

The conspiracy power is strong today.

Aren't the central banks keeping long-term rates low? If all the central banks ended QE, wouldn't one possibility be that all interest rates rise, say, 2%? The 10-2 spread wouldn't change. But banks would be more profitable because deposits would no longer be pegged at 0? Interest rates are so low that the proper market clearing rates for insured deposits is negative. But there is psychological barrier against negative interest rates so banks cant charge -1%. -- I can't predict future interest rates, but I am pretty sure current central bank policy punishes financials (and savers and pensions). It benefits borrowers. Maybe I'm not very smart, but I don't see how artificially low interest rates can benefit both the borrowers and the lenders. Why do some people just assume that the central banks are keeping interest rates artificially low? Is it just because they heard it from the talking heads on CNBC? Let's do a bit of inversion here. Let's assume that the rates are artificially low. What should we see if that was the case? We should see lots of investment, low unemployment, and inflation. Is that what the world looks like today? No. I actually like US banks especially the well run ones. There has been a lot of deleveraging in the US and the balance sheets have been cleaned up. On top of that home ownership in the US is a bit low and that is like a coiled spring that gets a little more compressed as time goes on. It may not be released today or tomorrow but that doesn't mean it's not valuable. On top of that the valuations are really reasonable. Even more so when compared to everything else that's out there.