Donald Trump

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

Winston Churchill said "the best argument against democracy is 5 minutes with the average voter"....i think your expectations of others to "vote rationally" are....irrational....I think your expectations for others to be rational are....irrrational....people act according to what they think is in their best  interests and who they think represents their interests....shit i do it. Its not a secret.

 

 

I'm coming to this same conclusion...

 

The more I think about how broken and messed up the system is, and what possible solutions are, I always wind back up at the voter. We get the politicians we deserve collectively as a society. Want change? Find a way to change the voters and the change in politicians will follow naturally.

 

I have yet to come up with a fool proof plan to get citizens to be motivated to vote, informed on their choices, logical in their assessment, all while demanding that their politicians adhere to a higher standard of ethics and integrity.

 

 

 

 

[oddballstocks]

Edit: Hillary actually has the most votes of any candidate on a per basis but we just talk about Trump....like hes the most popular...hes not.

 

OK let's talk about her then.

 

 

 

I always hate when people compare to others like that......you sit there and bitch about politicians but i dont see you out there trying to change things...Its almost as if you feel this is your contribution...to bitch....at least Hillary(any politician ) has the stones to enter the maelstrom. If you dont like the candidate then get out there and try to become one.

 

And I get it. I'm a coward...I'd rather stick my head down and be in my accounting book...and go to the gym and maybe have time to spend with a high schooler teaching hi/her mathematics then enter the politics....but if you should really try to change the world instead of just bitching about it......it does no one good and doesn't help change the situation.

 

People act like voting is the most important thing they can do to change the world....news for you anyone can vote...its not that hard. Actually doing something...like sitting down and teaching is much harder.....and as a whole much more beneficial.

 

be the change you wish to see in the world

 

Let me guess, you're in your early 20s?  Everyone is out to change the world right?  If you can't change it then what's your purpose..

 

I think that concept is silly, the world is not static, and everything we do is changing something.  Unless you're a hermit who lives in the woods and never interacts with anyone you're always doing something.

 

It's cool that some people have this desire to build a grand legacy, but I think only a few get there.  And the ones who get there are power hungry and can create legacies no one wants.  My own view on this is I am building three legacies in my house, my three kids.  I get to raise them and influence their character and how they look at the world.  For some reason this is undervalued.  It's lauded to ignore ones family and 'change the world' while your own kids are blowing up, makes no sense to me.  Get things right at home first then work from there.

 

I consider politics the Great American State Religion.  Every few years people are worshiping some person with the idea that this person is going to change everything and solve all of their problems.  This political savior will either reduce their taxes and make their business successful, or will somehow eliminate their poverty, or blow up some boogeymen they're afraid of.  They will come in and completely revolutionize the system.  It never happens, and it never will.  But people still live and die by this.  America has religious roots and as people go to church less they're turning on CNN and Fox more, they've just shifted their focus.  I've met people who are so fervently political it would make the most devout nun blush.  And they're political for what?  Part of what makes the US work is that we have this giant machine that continues to move forward regardless of what the figure head is.  I've heard the genius of our system is that it's impossible to get anything done, and because of that we only get incremental changes.  No one can come in and sweep things away.  Locked in incremental changes create stability.

 

I rarely vote, the system is the same regardless.  But if you do want to make a change ignore national politics and focus on your local school district and township.  Those people have the ability to truly impact your life.  And yet most people could care less about local politics but instead are focused on some abstract national thing that rarely changes. 

[rkbabang]

So in your view:

 

Humans have always had a "concept" of government or "the state" (although there really is no such thing as these things)

This concept of "government" has waxed/waned in strength over the course of human civilization (presumably depending on humanity's "need" for it)

But this "concept" is totally useless and will eventually be seen to be unnecessary.

 

I never said useless.  People create organizations, concepts, and sytems in an attempt to best meet their needs.  Governments and religions are created in an attempt to meet the need of not being afraid.  Religions are a response to the fear of death and the unknown, it gives people comfort to "know" that there is something after this life and to "know" why we are here and where we came from, who created us, etc. 

Governments are a response mostly to the fear of the other.  Historically outside tribes of funny looking people who speak in strange tongues who want to raid and kill us.  Many of these fears are justifiable.  Death is scary, the unknown/unknowable is troubling, the history of humanity is full of instances where outsiders did raid, rape, pillage, and murder otherwise peaceful peoples.  I am not saying these concepts come from no where and are foolish.  I am saying that there are other ways of accomplishing the same goals, especially in an ever shrinking world where travel, communication, trade, and an increasingly lower language barriers.

Knowledge, communication, familiarity, and trade kill fear and fear fuels religion and statism.

 

I don't quite see how A&B lead to C. Here's another interpretation

 

Perhaps this concept of government is a part of the human condition and part of the nature of human society, and will always exist in one form or another. Perhaps it is both useful in some cases (like making sure our food doesn't have lead chips in it and our old sick citizens can afford rent), and useless in other cases (like wasting resources on corrupt defense contractors or bailing out corrupt politician's bankers).

 

It's like an old grandmother. She makes sure all the kids are fed, bandaged up when they fall, and generally don't break themselves. But she still gives everyone $100 on some holidays depsite the fact that her one grandkid is kind of a dick and probably doesn't deserve it.

 

Perhaps instead of blowing up something to which all evidence points to as being entwined with human society and will never disappear, a more mature solution would be to try and limit the useless aspects and enhance the useful aspects. Don't blow up grandma.

 

You are hung up on the words "government" and "anarchy", I don't care if the systems people create in the future to fulfill their needs for safety and justice are still called governments, just like no one cares if the cotton plantations are still called cotton plantations as long as they no longer utilize slave labor.  There will always be systems of justice and protection in a civilized society, whether you want to call those "government" or not is just semantics and besides the point.  As long as they don't operate utilizing theft for funding or by initiating violence against otherwise peaceful individuals, I don't really care what you call it.

 

[orthopa]

I like trump and I think the reason he has so much support is because he puts it out there the way it is and ALOT of Americans have hidden behind political correctness because they were embarrassed to seem "racist" "prejiduce" etc. I think there are many people who in public willnot  say they do not like " radical muslims", "mexicans" etc but will vote in a manner that limits the freedom they have to abuse immigration etc.

 

Some very general statements I think many Trump supporters agree with but as a society we have danced around because it wasnt "PC" include.

 

1. If your overweight your fat and its your fault. Thats it, unless you have a medical condition (I would be well aware of it, and there aren't many) its your fault because you have chosen the diet and put the food in your mouth. If you cant fit in a seat at the ER because its too small, the hospital doesnt need to get a bigger one, YOU need to lose weight. You should also pay more for healthcare because your costing the system more.

 

Anyone who doesn't agree with above, know anyone who has been force fed into obesity? I dont.

 

2. We should take care of the disabled, retarded, etc but everyone else should have limited access to life long social programs. If your able bodied get out and work and get off the system. These people who abuse the system should be harassed, not coddled.

 

3. If you come into the country illegally against the law leave. Anyone have a good reason to tolerate illegal immigration? If you have skills and are beneficial to the country great, if not and doing it illegally makes it even more intolerable.

 

4. All lives matter, We are all human. Black, white, brown, asian etc doesnt matter. Get over it. Blacks kill more blacks then anyone else. Don't give these people a stage.

 

5. If you have been greatly wronged by society( don't exactly know what this would be ) then you should get help to get on you feet. Otherwise you have had access to a free education up to grade 12 that has in most cases allowed you to take as much advantage as you may have wanted. You also had an opportunity to further your life either in trade/college loans/scholarships etc.  If your in your late 20's/30's and things arent going your way the first person to look at is yourself.

 

6. No one "deserves" anything free. Yes help those in legitimate need. Any suggestion it is being abused and it is taken away.

 

7. If you want the privilege of public assistance then you have to take a drug test/prove your looking for work/no criminal record etc. If not its stealing from those who aren't of public assistance.

 

8. If China/Russia are abusing us in trade/politically we become less tolerant. Not turn and look the other way and hope it goes away.

 

9. Taking from haves and giving to have nots doesn't work.  First maybe as I person I should figure out why I am a "have not". Its unlikely its someone else's fault.

 

10. Being successful isn't evil and should be a goal. Instead of criminalizing successful people, question those who have a problem with others success and position.

 

Not necessarily my views but I think this is a small sample of why Trump resonates with many of people.

[rkbabang]

Everyone is out to change the world right?  If you can't change it then what's your purpose..

 

I think that concept is silly, the world is not static, and everything we do is changing something.  Unless you're a hermit who lives in the woods and never interacts with anyone you're always doing something.

 

It's cool that some people have this desire to build a grand legacy, but I think only a few get there.  And the ones who get there are power hungry and can create legacies no one wants.  My own view on this is I am building three legacies in my house, my three kids.  I get to raise them and influence their character and how they look at the world.  For some reason this is undervalued.  It's lauded to ignore ones family and 'change the world' while your own kids are blowing up, makes no sense to me.  Get things right at home first then work from there.

 

I consider politics the Great American State Religion.  Every few years people are worshiping some person with the idea that this person is going to change everything and solve all of their problems.  This political savior will either reduce their taxes and make their business successful, or will somehow eliminate their poverty, or blow up some boogeymen they're afraid of.  They will come in and completely revolutionize the system.  It never happens, and it never will.  But people still live and die by this.  America has religious roots and as people go to church less they're turning on CNN and Fox more, they've just shifted their focus.  I've met people who are so fervently political it would make the most devout nun blush.  And they're political for what?  Part of what makes the US work is that we have this giant machine that continues to move forward regardless of what the figure head is.  I've heard the genius of our system is that it's impossible to get anything done, and because of that we only get incremental changes.  No one can come in and sweep things away.  Locked in incremental changes create stability.

 

I rarely vote, the system is the same regardless.  But if you do want to make a change ignore national politics and focus on your local school district and township.  Those people have the ability to truly impact your life.  And yet most people could care less about local politics but instead are focused on some abstract national thing that rarely changes. 

 

Beautifully stated.  I "vote" everyday in a thousands ways in almost everything I do.

 

[Edward]

and just to reiterate no practicing muslim who follows our prophet would EVER condones any of the terrible attacks. (You should spent 10 minutes to read about his life and see how peaceful and humble he was and try to focus on the jews who lived in Madina (Yatrib) in harmony and respect)

 

Hello there friend. About those jews in Madina... let me just quote Ibn Ishaq:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#Demise_of_the_Banu_Qurayza

 

“ Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off."

 

That's some harmony and respect right there. I suggest you read the Hadith again to refresh your memory.

 

-Muslim population is 1.3-1.7B world wide so 300-500m of us support terrorism? Are you kidding me?  I personally don't know 1 Muslim individual who supports any kind of terrorism.

 

Plenty of subject matter right here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

 

[LC]

There will always be systems of justice and protection in a civilized society, whether you want to call those "government" or not is just semantics and besides the point.  As long as they don't operate utilizing theft for funding or by initiating violence against otherwise peaceful individuals, I don't really care what you call it.

I don't care about the semantics so I'll use your terms.

 

-Where will the resources which provide for these systems of justice and protection come from, if not from taxes (or theft as you put it)?

-Do you disagree with universal healthcare as a concept, or is your disagreement with how it's funded? Or both?

 

[Cardboard]

"Donald Trump may personally turn out to be harmless, but his supporters are anything but."

 

I wonder why so many people point quickly to any violence made by the right but, always turn a blind eye to the violence committed by the left?

 

In Chicago last week, there were clearly radical elements of the left trying to disrupt a peaceful rally of Trump supporters. The media blames entirely Trump because his message enrages the left. Why is the right not doing the same thing at any Sanders rally?

 

We saw the same in Ferguson, Baltimore and many more places.

 

I cannot recall violence of that magnitude by any element from the right in the U.S.

 

Cardboard

[Edward]

Because violence by the right is a crime against humanity while violence by the left is just resistance in the face of evil. It's called hypocrisy.

[rkbabang]

I don't care about the semantics so I'll use your terms.

 

-Where will the resources which provide for these systems of justice and protection come from, if not from taxes (or theft as you put it)?

 

When you have a situation where almost everyone has a demand for a product, I don't think there should be any trouble finding the funding for that product.  Whether it is safety, fire protection, insurance protection, education for oneself and children.  Maybe insurance companies would require fire protection contracts to insure against fire and police protection contracts to insure against theft.  Once people no longer believe that they have a right to forcibly extract resources from their neighbors, force a one size fits all product or service on them, and prohibit all competition then entrepreneurs will try to meet those needs which will still be there as much as they ever have.

 

-Do you disagree with universal healthcare as a concept, or is your disagreement with how it's funded? Or both?

 

I'd love for everyone to have good healthcare (if they want it, I disagree with mandating someone buy something), I just disagree with funding it by force.

 

[rkbabang]

Because violence by the right is a crime against humanity while violence by the left is just resistance in the face of evil. It's called hypocrisy.

 

It's just tribalism.  Go Team!!!

[adesigar]

Stop feeding the dumb libertarian trolls.

[RichardGibbons]

When you have a situation where almost everyone has a demand for a product, I don't think there should be any trouble finding the funding for that product.  Whether it is safety, fire protection, insurance protection, education for oneself and children.  Maybe insurance companies would require fire protection contracts to insure against fire and police protection contracts to insure against theft.

 

Exactly.  How can you not understand, LC?  It's very simple.  In rkbabang's Libertarian nirvana, might makes right. Really, it's not much different than college students who believe that Marxism is the solution to everything.

 

The thing that amuses me about these discussions is that the people espousing these ideas don't recognize that they'd likely be among the first victims of such a system.  It reminds me of this guy, who says that rape should be legal on private property.  Does he think that if that happened, he wouldn't be one of the first ones targeted?

 

 

[wachtwoord]

Stop feeding the dumb libertarian trolls.

 

Nice going calling the only ones here that aren't thieves and believe in freedom trolls. Americans should really try to read their own constitution. Would do wonders.

[adesigar]

Ok back on topic to Donald Trump

 

Donald Trump is saying and doing what he feels is necessary to get the republican nomination. He has been successful at getting the delegates and also at getting record turnouts for the Caucus. I would wait to see if/how his tone changes if he gets confirmed as the republican nominee at the Brokered Convention.

[rkbabang]

When you have a situation where almost everyone has a demand for a product, I don't think there should be any trouble finding the funding for that product.  Whether it is safety, fire protection, insurance protection, education for oneself and children.  Maybe insurance companies would require fire protection contracts to insure against fire and police protection contracts to insure against theft.

 

Exactly.  How can you not understand, LC?  It's very simple.  In rkbabang's Libertarian nirvana, might makes right. Really, it's not much different than college students who believe that Marxism is the solution to everything.

 

The thing that amuses me about these discussions is that the people espousing these ideas don't recognize that they'd likely be among the first victims of such a system.  It reminds me of this guy, who says that rape should be legal on private property.  Does he think that if that happened, he wouldn't be one of the first ones targeted?

 

In your government nirvana might makes right. Do what we say or we will send armed men to kidnap you and throw you in a cage.  If you resist we will kill you.  What is democracy if not "There is more of us than there are of you, so do what we say or else".  It is the process of counting fists.  There are only two ways individually human beings can deal with one another.  Through voluntary cooperation or through violence.  Coercive government is the attempt to legitimize violence.  I'm not saying you can ever get rid of violence completely, but you can have a society where the vast majority holds the opinion that initiating violence against someone who has not done likewise is always wrong regardless of who does it.

 

Marx is the extreme case of what you want not me.  And some nut who wants to rape would never be very popular in any civilized society that I'd like to live in.  If your precious all knowing government passed a law which said that rape was legal in one's own property, would you rape?  I wouldn't.  I already rape and kill all of the people I wish to, which is none.  I wouldn't consider that law to be any more valid than the law which tells me which plants I can grow, or weapons I can own, or type of milk I can sell.

 

[adesigar]

Stop feeding the dumb libertarian trolls.

 

Nice going calling the only ones here that aren't thieves and believe in freedom trolls. Americans should really try to read their own constitution. Would do wonders.

 

Start a new thread for discussing your libertarian crap. I might even join in to point out how dumb it is. Stop polluting and trolling other threads with it. This is not the first or even the 10th thread that libertarians have taken off track.

[cwericb]

When I started this thread I expected that it would stimulate some good discussion. But seeing some of the comments here seriously shakes my confidence in the credibility of some board members.

 

Perhaps we could steer this discussion back towards the original point of the thread.

 

What impact do you think a Trump presidency would have on financial markets?

 

Personally, I doubt it would be positive. He started business as a multi millionaire. As a businessman, Trump has had four businesses file for bankruptcy while another is being accused of fraud. This record combined with outrageous promises that will never see the light of day will not impress the business community.

 

As for the rest of the world, his manner will not impress anyone. There is a saying going around:

 

"The US views this as an election. The rest of the world views it as an IQ test"

[rkbabang]

When I started this thread I expected that it would stimulate some good discussion. But seeing some of the comments here seriously shakes my confidence in the credibility of some board members.

 

Perhaps we could steer this discussion back towards the original point of the thread.

 

What impact do you think a Trump presidency would have on financial markets?

 

Personally, I doubt it would be positive. He started business as a multi millionaire. As a businessman, Trump has had four businesses file for bankruptcy while another is being accused of fraud. This record combined with outrageous promises that will never see the light of day will not impress the business community.

 

As for the rest of the world, his manner will not impress anyone. There is a saying going around:

 

"The US views this as an election. The rest of the world views it as an IQ test"

 

What real effects does a president's ability, or lack thereof, to "impress the business community" have on the economy or the stock market?  I don't really understand how one president can have a worse effect than another, based on who they are, or what successes/failures they have had in the past in business (which is completely unrelated to politics).  It would depend more on what bills he signs into law effecting the business environment through regulations or taxes.  Which bills are you afraid he will sign to have the negative effects you are expecting?

 

[cwericb]

It is more a matter of confidence in the leader's abilities to lead the country.

[augustabound]

How well can he work with other countries when he needs to? Or maybe a better question is, how willing will other countries be to work with him?

[Cardboard]

"How well can he work with other countries when he needs to? Or maybe a better question is, how willing will other countries be to work with him?"

 

On that one, I think very willing. The U.S. has too much to offer for people to just walk away because they find the new boss grumpy and loud.

 

Obama was all about "reconciliation" or what he perceived as necessary after the Bush years and honestly he has been abused by more than one country in his dealings. Think about Iran with their missile tests and then saying: "It is not in the nuclear agreement." Or Russia always poking at the U.S.

 

While I don't think being "friendly" is a bad thing, in business and into international politics, you have to be careful since each country has its own agenda and constituents. Again some of his dealings were good IMO such as with Cuba but, I would say that he was a little naïve as to how cooperative some countries would be.

 

Trump talks a lot to gain votes but, at the end of the day, I think he would simply be more: you give me this, I give you this.

 

Cardboard 

[RRJ]

I'll ring in just to say I agree with everything cardboard has said on this thread.  I think it is very arrogant to think that such a large number of your countrymen have no point and must be morons, and leave that as your explanation.  It takes a real intellectual snob not to at least see some reason behind the big swells of public opinion.  No one is so smart or so stupid as to be 100% right or 100% wrong all of the time.  Ask yourself, what need of the body politic is being filled by the Trump phenomenon?  It may not be your cup of tea, and it might not be pretty, and it might have no class, but it is reality and it is big, and if you add Sanders' votes to it, it is about double that number that are sick of the status quo, but who are more PC minded.  People are sick of the existing political elite shoving how they are supposed to think down their throats, on both sides.

 

Another way to put it:  we have a jury system that empanels 12 people to come to very difficult decisions.  It's imperfect, and it's often ugly, and often seems not to make sense, but if you know enough about what went on in the jury room, usually the jury has a valid reason for what they do.  A presidential election is in effect a jury of a hundred and fifty million people.  There is a deeper wisdom that, while not apparent to me, is there by its very nature.  This should not be dismissed or ignored.  To get back to value investing, that would be like ignoring the reality when your stock thesis turns out to have been wrong.  It never ends well for you.  Better to find out what element you are ignoring and face up to it and admit it too has some merit that you should have considered. 

[Brett]

I feel like I have made this argument to many of my friends on both sides of the aisle who are flummoxed by the rise of Trump.

 

People keep saying that they don't understand how anyone could logically support Trump.

 

Except that's just the thing. People aren't logically supporting Trump. Logic has nothing to do with it. Trump is a masterful emotional manipulator. He's hijacking people's System 1 and using that to just completely bypass people's System 2. It's why rational people outside of his vortex look at his supporters and think, "wtf?"

 

Well said. The vast majority of people don't vote rationally. Trump's taking advantage of this.

 

Also, the discussions on Trump's wealth vs. what it would be if he invested in the S&P ignores that he's lived like a king for most of his adult life. He's supported multiple wives, five kids, etc. I don't know how you properly account for that. I think he deserves quite a bit of credit for his business career.

 

People don't vote rationally?  Maybe...

 

But does is it such a STRETCH to think some people are fed-up with the system?  That a lot of people are angry with the direction the country is going?  That a lot of people remember the Clinton's first time in office and don't want a replay of that?

 

Is it outside the bounds of comprehension that some people do not want Hillary in charge, no matter what?  That Trump, while not a perfect candidate, offers a chance?  That faced with the prospect of Hillary that they are willing to give Trump a chance?

 

Well, I don't think people on either side votes rationally - not just Trump fans. There are certainly rational arguments for Trump. I hope you didn't interpret my post as putting down Trump supporters by implying they're emotional idiots - I think we're all emotional idiots. :) I didn't mean to single out a candidate.

 

However, my point was more to admire the way Trump has positioned himself on a variety of issues by understanding how many make decisions. His strongman rhetoric has led many to believe, even those who oppose him, that he will be the strongest on terrorism. But when you think about it, he has no record, no real knowledge of the complexities of operating a counter-terrorism strike. It's pure emotion-based thinking based on his alpha persona and rhetoric.

 

Again, there are plenty of rational reasons to support him or other candidates. Especially if you're sick of the status quo.

[JRH]

Has anyone linked to Scott Adams' (creator of Dilbert) blog yet in this thread?

 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

 

Note that post is from last August - he has been blogging consistently about Trump ever since.

 

His big-picture predictions have been really good, and his 'model' (if you want to call it that) sure seems right to me. I mean, I've been convinced it's the right model.

 

I think Merkhet alluded to 'emotional manipulation' earlier. Scott Adams calls Trump a 'master persuader'.