If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[rkbabang]

well I don't think either of them answered a single question she asked them.

 

This can't be the first time you've seen a politician being interviewed?

 

Seriously - every politicians go-to when answering a question is either "bury them with bull sh*t" or "answer a different question that's more favorable to you."

 

No one every directly answers questions - not in interviews, not in debates, not in anything. The purpose isn't for the general populous to have an idea of who they're electing. The purpose is to get them elected.

 

The politician interview technique is that they use the pauses in between questions to say what it was they planned in advance to say regardless of whatever the questions happen to be.

[doughishere]

Hillary was on Charlie Rose last night.

[Guest longinvestor]

well I don't think either of them answered a single question she asked them.

 

This can't be the first time you've seen a politician being interviewed?

 

Seriously - every politicians go-to when answering a question is either "bury them with bull sh*t" or "answer a different question that's more favorable to you."

 

No one every directly answers questions - not in interviews, not in debates, not in anything. The purpose isn't for the general populous to have an idea of who they're electing. The purpose is to get them elected.

 

Trump is not a politician, no? Not politically correct and all that?

[EliG]

Putin must be salivating in the anticipation of Trump's presidency. Scary stuff.

 

[Cardboard]

That is not good. Although, if they did fulfill their obligations as he mentioned, I think that he would honor the NATO agreement.

 

At the same time, have you noticed that Barrack Obama did not honor America's pledge to defend Ukraine if it was attacked or a condition for them to give up their nuclear arsenal? They are not part of NATO but, the U.S. still signed on the dotted line.

 

Have you also noticed that he did not honor his threat regarding the red line with Assad on the use of chemical weapons?

 

Scary stuff. Actually, because of Obama's lack of backbone, we are already experiencing the "dangerous stuff" with Russia invading and threatening, China taking over a good chunk of ocean and terrorists attacking everywhere.

 

Maybe that Hillary will be better and turn things around but, I have serious doubts. So far she has demonstrated no allegiance to anyone other than to herself.

 

Cardboard

[onyx1]

Scary stuff.

 

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.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

well I don't think either of them answered a single question she asked them.

 

This can't be the first time you've seen a politician being interviewed?

 

Seriously - every politicians go-to when answering a question is either "bury them with bull sh*t" or "answer a different question that's more favorable to you."

 

No one every directly answers questions - not in interviews, not in debates, not in anything. The purpose isn't for the general populous to have an idea of who they're electing. The purpose is to get them elected.

 

Trump is not a politician, no? Not politically correct and all that?

 

He follows the same playbook. Just doesn't come off as a politician so as to capture the "angry at the establishment" vote that has worked so well for support in bother parties (i.e. Bernie).

 

 

 

 

That is not good. Although, if they did fulfill their obligations as he mentioned, I think that he would honor the NATO agreement.

 

At the same time, have you noticed that Barrack Obama did not honor America's pledge to defend Ukraine if it was attacked or a condition for them to give up their nuclear arsenal? They are not part of NATO but, the U.S. still signed on the dotted line.

 

Have you also noticed that he did not honor his threat regarding the red line with Assad on the use of chemical weapons?

 

Scary stuff. Actually, because of Obama's lack of backbone, we are already experiencing the "dangerous stuff" with Russia invading and threatening, China taking over a good chunk of ocean and terrorists attacking everywhere.

 

Maybe that Hillary will be better and turn things around but, I have serious doubts. So far she has demonstrated no allegiance to anyone other than to herself.

 

Cardboard

 

Was there every any evidence suggesting it was Assad? At the time, I remember there were whispers that it might have been the rebels because they were the only ones with anything to gain from the U.S. getting involved. Further, it's these very rebels who defected to ISIS from the FSA after receiving U.S. arms and training...so I wouldn't have put it past them to kill a few of their own to further their agenda.

 

And calling Obama a pacifist is hard for me to understand. Maybe he hasn't been as "active" as Bush (whose invasion of Iraq may have been the largest foreign policy failure in my lifetime), but he's pushed for military intervention in Syra and Lybia and continues drone-bombing all throughout the middle East (including a wedding and a hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders).

 

Further, there is some evidence to suggest the U.S. had a hand in orchestrating the violence in Ukraine which resulted in the overthrowing of a pro-Russian gov't and replacing him with a pro-U.N. individual instead. I'm not trying to justify Russia's eventual invasion, but it certainly makes A LOT of sense within the context of being defensive in response to the encroachment of foreign powers into a country that was intended to serve as a borderland between East and West - especially when you have a "West" that has been as eager to "intervene" in other countries' affairs as we have been in the past.

 

So drone bombing countries, militaristic actions in Syria and Lybia, training/arming/funding rebel armies that eventually defected to ISIS, supporting an uprising that led to an eventual invasion/war...these aren't the actions of a pacifist or someone with a passive foreign policy. If anything, he's been far too active for my tastes.

[rb]

Scary stuff.

 

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.

[onyx1]

Scary stuff.

 

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.

 

 

Maybe yes, maybe no.  But you can be sure the NATO dues checks won't be late!

[Cardboard]

"And calling Obama a pacifist is hard for me to understand. Maybe he hasn't been as "active" as Bush (whose invasion of Iraq may have been the largest foreign policy failure in my lifetime), but he's pushed for military intervention in Syra and Lybia and continues drone-bombing all throughout the middle East (including a wedding and a hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders)."

 

You are correct, Obama stayed in the business of dictators removal but, was more hypocrite about it. Encouraging, supporting these Arab springs with only behind the scene involvement created a huge mess and I also believe like yourself that they were not far behind in the uprising in Kiev.

 

Cardboard

 

 

 

[doughishere]

The guy who co-wrote The Art of the Deal.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

[Guest longinvestor]

All right, we need to be worried like hell. That's the bad news...

 

The good news, it's for just a few short months.

 

On January 17, all problems will be trumped. Street violence gone, ISIS will lay down arms and there'll be no more taxes collected........ we will all be rich again!!

[Liberty]

[Zorrofan]

Another horrific event, possibly terrorist related.  And it follows an attack a few days ago on a train (again in Germany) where a 17 year-old Afghan attacked passengers with an ax.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36870874

 

You just know this will be used by both sides......my question is why can't people get along?

 

 

[rkbabang]

Here's another brutal act of terrorism leaving 85 innocent people dead.  Just horrible.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-least-85-civilians-feared-dead-after-us-air-strike-mistake-1571600

 

[cubsfan]

The guy who co-wrote The Art of the Deal.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

 

Now THAT was entertaining. I can't stand Hillary, but if this article is half true, I can't stomach Trump either.

And I was just starting to come around....

[ERICOPOLY]

Here's another brutal act of terrorism leaving 85 innocent people dead.  Just horrible.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-least-85-civilians-feared-dead-after-us-air-strike-mistake-1571600

 

It's not terrorism unless it is a deliberate targeting of civilians for political or military gain.

 

So you could correctly label the firebombing of Tokyo a terrorist strike, or the Hiroshiima and Nagasaki attacks... or bombing of London, or bombing of Dresden, etc...

 

But this one you cited looks like the civilians were not the target.

[EliG]

Slate:

 

Putin’s Puppet

 

"Vladimir Putin has a plan for destroying the West, and it looks a lot like Donald Trump."

[Mephistopheles]

Here's another brutal act of terrorism leaving 85 innocent people dead.  Just horrible.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-least-85-civilians-feared-dead-after-us-air-strike-mistake-1571600

 

 

How can two people see so eye to eye on this issue, but total opposites on the 2nd amendment? Not trying to start another argument but I just find it fascinating.

 

Anyway +1 for pointing it out. Terrorism or not (as per Eric above), targeted civilians or not, those lives are every bit as important as the ones lost in France - but won't deliver a blip in the media. And God forbid we apologize. Obama wouldn't even apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Pathetic.

[EliG]

I am not a fan of Krugman, but this is an important column.

 

Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/donald-trump-the-siberian-candidate.html?_r=1

[rkbabang]

Here's another brutal act of terrorism leaving 85 innocent people dead.  Just horrible.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-least-85-civilians-feared-dead-after-us-air-strike-mistake-1571600

 

 

How can two people see so eye to eye on this issue, but total opposites on the 2nd amendment? Not trying to start another argument but I just find it fascinating.

 

Anyway +1 for pointing it out. Terrorism or not (as per Eric above), targeted civilians or not, those lives are every bit as important as the ones lost in France - but won't deliver a blip in the media. And God forbid we apologize. Obama wouldn't even apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Pathetic.

 

I see a distinction between self defense and murder. I carry a gun for self defense and would never dream of using it unless my life was in immediate danger. Dropping a bomb from a plane killing 85 people (whether or not they were your "targets") is as morally defensible as driving a truck over 85 people.  I agree with everything you said above except for your implying that you support gun control. I don't find it odd that two people can agree completely on one subject and disagree on another.

[meiroy]

 

 

1. Syria is clearly a war zone.  This is the result.  In every war civilians die, however, if one would look at the statistics they would see very low comparative percentage of civilian casualties by the coalition.

 

2. The purpose of a terror act is to instill terror in civilian population (which is not involved in a war).

 

3. We care more about people who resemble us. Who look like us. Who agree with us.  That's the way we are, no need to act surprised every time this happens.

 

 

So, anyway, it really looks like Trump is going to win.  This surely would increase volatility in a volatile world.  I've been happy to trade on volatility + value for a long time now but starting to think Gold these days.  Seriously this Trump stuff is scary, doesn't matter if he wins or not.

 

 

 

[rb]

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?

[Mephistopheles]

As much as he likes to say otherwise, from everything I've read about Trump, it seems he's able to be bought out. He cares about money and his brand, and that's it. I don't see him damaging our trade relations to any significant degree. The lobbying and donations will work on him, maybe more so than on other politicians. So from an investing standpoint, I think we will be fine. With trade in particular, protectionism is not only damaging to the country but also to his businesses, so I can't imagine him doing any harm there.

[vox]

The Economist's What If series imagines the first 100 days of a Trump presidency http://worldif.economist.com/article/12166/world-v-donald

 

They single out Boeing, Apple, Pfizer, GM, and Ford as vulnerable to trade disputes.

 

Even if Trump has no intention of damaging trade relations, it's not assured that other parties won't overreact to his bluster.