If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[sys]

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.

 

this is true, but it seems like every time i see some story about the media attention paid to civilian deaths in x, y and z countries, they ignore the news value of the story.  a group of people dying in an attack in a war zone or politically unstable country is dog bites man, the same in a politically stable country is man bites dog.

[EliG]

Former US Ambassador to Russia:

 

"As U.S. voter, I'm appalled by Russian meddling, want it investigated & stopped. As long-time analyst of Russia, Im impressed; they're good"

 

 

[EliG]

In case you missed it:

 

Trump & Putin. Yes, It's Really a Thing

[rkbabang]

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.

 

this is true, but it seems like every time i see some story about the media attention paid to civilian deaths in x, y and z countries, they ignore the news value of the story.  a group of people dying in an attack in a war zone or politically unstable country is dog bites man, the same in a politically stable country is man bites dog.

 

I don't see why this is true, but it appears that it is. I must be missing the tribalism and xenophobia genes, which allow you all to justify slaughtering human beings as if it's no big deal.

[muscleman]

Wiki leaks unleashed the Hillary emails that FBI previously said there was no evidence of hackers acquiring them.

 

Checkout how she plays dirty! This is far better than house of cards!

 

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

[sys]

Wiki leaks unleashed the Hillary emails that FBI previously said there was no evidence of hackers acquiring them.

 

different emails.

[vox]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-democratic-ticket-scott-pelley/

 

Scott Pelley: Alright. Do you think you blew it on the emails?

 

Hillary Clinton: Oh, I've said I did. Absolutely. I made a mistake. I should've had two accounts, one for personal and one for office. And I didn't, and I take responsibility for that.

 

Scott Pelley: Why did you do that? Have the private email servers?

 

Hillary Clinton: You know, Scott, other people did have-- other secretaries of state, other high-ranking members of administrations, plural-- and it was recommended that it would be convenient, and I thought it would be. It's turned out to be anything but.

 

Scott Pelley: Would there be a private email server in the White House?

 

Hillary Clinton: I'll tell ya one thing, that is one lesson I have learned the hard way, and there will not be any such thing in the White House. Although, I am quick to add, there's no evidence that it was ever hacked. And unfortunately, you can't say that for a lot of the government.

[RobBob]

She can't get through a brief interview without telling multiple lies.

[meiroy]

 

So I had a couple of Mojito watching this thing, standing on the outside looking inside and I have to (read: I want to, because) say two things: 1.  as a supposedly value investor it is absolutely splendid and joyous to see that massive irrational and emotional decision making by the economically ignorant masses; more for me! 2. The singularity must be really much closer than we think because it sure ain't a high hurdle to pass!

 

Cheers!

 

[meiroy]

as a supposedly value investor it is absolutely splendid and joyous to see that massive irrational and emotional decision making by the economically ignorant masses; more for me!

 

God, you could cut the arrogance with a knife in these forums. Rising tides raises all boats.

 

Btw....Trump is still the underdog and its a long way to November.

 

Did you use a random nonsense generator to post this or you're just into strong EMH?  I guess in your eyes calling Mr. Market a manic is also a form of arrogance.

 

And next time try not to involve any gods in lame random posts, it's really not necessary.

 

 

[EliG]

A detailed account of Russian involvement in the DNC leaks:

 

All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack

 

As a Canadian, I don't get to vote in the American election. Looking from the sidelines, it's puzzling that Trump polls as high as he does, given his obvious bromance with Putin. How on earth is it not a huge red flag?

[EliG]

A lifelong Republican wrote an op-ed in LAT:

 

Trump's opposition research firm: Russia's intelligence agencies

 

Putin may just be getting started in his campaign to elect Trump. Bloomberg reported in June the Clinton Foundation was breached by Russian hackers. The Russians may also have acquired the emails that Hillary Clinton sent as secretary of State. Putin might be holding back explosive material until October, when its release could ensure a Trump victory.               

 

Such a development ought to alarm all Americans, even Republicans. The idea of a hostile foreign power interfering in a U.S. election is a threat to our democracy, one that Republican leaders would be condemning if they hadn’t checked  their principles at the gate in exchange for tickets on the Trump Train.

 

[Cardboard]

"Such a development ought to alarm all Americans, even Republicans. The idea of a hostile foreign power interfering in a U.S. election is a threat to our democracy, one that Republican leaders would be condemning if they hadn’t checked  their principles at the gate in exchange for tickets on the Trump Train."

 

Lol! There was stronger interference than that by the Obama administration during the latest Israel election. And what about Hillary being in the back pocket of Saudi Arabia or the largest exporter of Islamist extremist ideology? Hostile foreign power anyone???

 

The U.S. interferes all around the world so don't you expect other countries to try the same?

 

The truth of the matter is that Hillary and her servant Debbie Wasserman got caught with their pants down and that is pretty much all there is to it. Bernie's supporters should have actually been much more outraged by this super delegate system than a few e-mails talking him down.

 

Cardboard

[TwoCitiesCapital]

A lifelong Republican wrote an op-ed in LAT:

 

Trump's opposition research firm: Russia's intelligence agencies

 

Putin may just be getting started in his campaign to elect Trump. Bloomberg reported in June the Clinton Foundation was breached by Russian hackers. The Russians may also have acquired the emails that Hillary Clinton sent as secretary of State. Putin might be holding back explosive material until October, when its release could ensure a Trump victory.               

 

Such a development ought to alarm all Americans, even Republicans. The idea of a hostile foreign power interfering in a U.S. election is a threat to our democracy, one that Republican leaders would be condemning if they hadn’t checked  their principles at the gate in exchange for tickets on the Trump Train.

 

I've got friends pushing this philosophy on me, but I don't agree with it. Of course the Russians have a motive. Of course they're doing this to influence the elections.

 

But if a politician does some heinous stuff that wouldn't prevent them being elected if revealed, and it's revealed, then I don't blame the person doing the revealing (even if they have motive). It's still the fault of the person who did the heinous stuff and the identity of the person revealing it is totally irrelevant to the outcome of the election. If anything, we should thank the Russians if they have particularly damning evidence that is released that prevents an unfit person from becoming president...

[vox]

A lifelong Republican wrote an op-ed in LAT:

 

Trump's opposition research firm: Russia's intelligence agencies

 

Putin may just be getting started in his campaign to elect Trump. Bloomberg reported in June the Clinton Foundation was breached by Russian hackers. The Russians may also have acquired the emails that Hillary Clinton sent as secretary of State. Putin might be holding back explosive material until October, when its release could ensure a Trump victory.               

 

Such a development ought to alarm all Americans, even Republicans. The idea of a hostile foreign power interfering in a U.S. election is a threat to our democracy, one that Republican leaders would be condemning if they hadn’t checked  their principles at the gate in exchange for tickets on the Trump Train.

 

I've got friends pushing this philosophy on me, but I don't agree with it. Of course the Russians have a motive. Of course they're doing this to influence the elections.

 

But if a politician does some heinous stuff that wouldn't prevent them being elected if revealed, and it's revealed, then I don't blame the person doing the revealing (even if they have motive). It's still the fault of the person who did the heinous stuff and the identity of the person revealing it is totally irrelevant to the outcome of the election. If anything, we should thank the Russians if they have particularly damning evidence that is released that prevents an unfit person from becoming president...

 

I disagree for two reasons.

 

One, there's a distinction between acts/statements that are bad politically and ones that are bad morally. For example, if Hillary or Donald sent an internal e-mail affirming that she/he would be inclined to push TPP through after the election, I think that is a rational economic decision that can be justified based on policy grounds, but it would undoubtedly harm/his her popularity among the electorate. However, it wouldn't show that she/he is somehow morally unqualified to be President.

 

Second, you presume that the foreign government doesn't have equally or more damaging information about the alternate candidates that it will not disclose. The purpose of their release of information isn't to embrace transparency by revealing all wrongs, but to selectively release data that furthers their agenda.

[rkbabang]

A lifelong Republican wrote an op-ed in LAT:

 

Trump's opposition research firm: Russia's intelligence agencies

 

Putin may just be getting started in his campaign to elect Trump. Bloomberg reported in June the Clinton Foundation was breached by Russian hackers. The Russians may also have acquired the emails that Hillary Clinton sent as secretary of State. Putin might be holding back explosive material until October, when its release could ensure a Trump victory.               

 

Such a development ought to alarm all Americans, even Republicans. The idea of a hostile foreign power interfering in a U.S. election is a threat to our democracy, one that Republican leaders would be condemning if they hadn’t checked  their principles at the gate in exchange for tickets on the Trump Train.

 

I've got friends pushing this philosophy on me, but I don't agree with it. Of course the Russians have a motive. Of course they're doing this to influence the elections.

 

But if a politician does some heinous stuff that wouldn't prevent them being elected if revealed, and it's revealed, then I don't blame the person doing the revealing (even if they have motive). It's still the fault of the person who did the heinous stuff and the identity of the person revealing it is totally irrelevant to the outcome of the election. If anything, we should thank the Russians if they have particularly damning evidence that is released that prevents an unfit person from becoming president...

 

I disagree for two reasons.

 

One, there's a distinction between acts/statements that are bad politically and ones that are bad morally. For example, if Hillary or Donald sent an internal e-mail affirming that she/he would be inclined to push TPP through after the election, I think that is a rational economic decision that can be justified based on policy grounds, but it would undoubtedly harm/his her popularity among the electorate. However, it wouldn't show that she/he is somehow morally unqualified to be President.

 

Second, you presume that the foreign government doesn't have equally or more damaging information about the alternate candidates that it will not disclose. The purpose of their release of information isn't to embrace transparency by revealing all wrongs, but to selectively release data that furthers their agenda.

 

Oh please.  I typed a longer reply to this, then deleted it, because this tweet says it all.

https://twitter.com/Flames_Baldwin/status/757548590495625216

 

[vox]

My post was not about the release of the DNC's emails. I don't think those had any impact other than on Debbie Wasserman Schultz's career and those of a few other minor political operatives.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

A lifelong Republican wrote an op-ed in LAT:

 

Trump's opposition research firm: Russia's intelligence agencies

 

Putin may just be getting started in his campaign to elect Trump. Bloomberg reported in June the Clinton Foundation was breached by Russian hackers. The Russians may also have acquired the emails that Hillary Clinton sent as secretary of State. Putin might be holding back explosive material until October, when its release could ensure a Trump victory.               

 

Such a development ought to alarm all Americans, even Republicans. The idea of a hostile foreign power interfering in a U.S. election is a threat to our democracy, one that Republican leaders would be condemning if they hadn’t checked  their principles at the gate in exchange for tickets on the Trump Train.

 

I've got friends pushing this philosophy on me, but I don't agree with it. Of course the Russians have a motive. Of course they're doing this to influence the elections.

 

But if a politician does some heinous stuff that would prevent them being elected if revealed, and it's revealed, then I don't blame the person doing the revealing (even if they have motive). It's still the fault of the person who did the heinous stuff and the identity of the person revealing it is totally irrelevant to the outcome of the election. If anything, we should thank the Russians if they have particularly damning evidence that is released that prevents an unfit person from becoming president...

 

I disagree for two reasons.

 

One, there's a distinction between acts/statements that are bad politically and ones that are bad morally. For example, if Hillary or Donald sent an internal e-mail affirming that she/he would be inclined to push TPP through after the election, I think that is a rational economic decision that can be justified based on policy grounds, but it would undoubtedly harm/his her popularity among the electorate. However, it wouldn't show that she/he is somehow morally unqualified to be President.

 

Second, you presume that the foreign government doesn't have equally or more damaging information about the alternate candidates that it will not disclose. The purpose of their release of information isn't to embrace transparency by revealing all wrongs, but to selectively release data that furthers their agenda.

 

Agreed with your point 1 - except this is a body that was presumably supposed to be unbiased and not going out of it's way to support or dismiss a specific candidate. If you find out that the "unbiased" body IS biased, while denying any bias when accused, that IS morally reprehensible and suggests a corrupt party establishment that does what they want as opposed to what they're supposed to (which is represent their electorate and follow the rules they set for themselves).

 

Point 2 - you're absolutely right. If they did have info on Trump, and failed to release it, you would be correct in suggesting that this was an event that tainted an election. But that's only if you're right. So far, there's 0 evidence to suggest that is the case and until there is evidence, you're only speculating into the possibilities with nothing supporting them. I can't prove the absence of the information, but for this argument to be valid, you MUST prove the existence of such evidence that would support this argument.

 

 

[Packer16]

An interesting perspective on trade deals and negotiations:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/29/we-need-a-tough-negotiator-like-trump-to-fix-us-trade-policy-commentary.html

 

This IMO is the tangible reason I support Trump despite his numerous flaws as a candidate.  No one else has a reasonable strategy to deal with trade.  He is using Ronald Reagan cold war strategies (walk softly but carry a big stick) in trade that others are afraid to use.

 

Packer

[bearprowler6]

An interesting perspective on trade deals and negotiations:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/29/we-need-a-tough-negotiator-like-trump-to-fix-us-trade-policy-commentary.html

 

This IMO is the tangible reason I support Trump despite his numerous flaws as a candidate.  No one else has a reasonable strategy to deal with trade.  He is using Ronald Reagan cold war strategies (walk softly but carry a big stick) in trade that others are afraid to use.

 

Packer

 

Sadly many Americans believe that Trump is the answer to their societal problems. The rest of the world does not agree---Trump's "walk softly but carry a big stick" policy will fail because the rest of the world will be too busy laughing at the US to engage in discussions of any kind never mind those related to the renegotiation of the trade deals should he get elected as the President. So sure go ahead and vote for Trump---we need a good laugh.

[Packer16]

I never said and not many think Trump is the answer to societies problems but there are few important areas where his approach (like Ronald Reagan in the cold war) can make a difference.  The results of the trade deals is one & the terrorist threat is another & immigration the third.  Each of these areas has a common thread poor negotiating tactics by the US.  That is Trump's strength.  The first stage is developing a credible position so your opponent will believe you will do something damaging then use that as negotiating leverage. 

 

You appear to think the rest of the world runs the show and can dictate terms (just like the Dems thought about the USSR in the Carter era) but the truth is the opposite.  Access to the US market is very valuable and some have given access away as though it has little value.  Given the job loss data we have been hosed by other countries (treated like a chump) and have done nothing to stop it.  So the alternatives are to try something new or keep the status quo.  The status quo will kills over time & IMO is one reason for slow growth from the great recession.

 

As for immigration, the US is only country in the world that allows immigration based upon family relationships versus how much money/skills you are bringing to the country.  This is another negotiating point that we need to use.  If we want to keep the family based system, then we need add some conditions to make it more competitive the other parts of the world and add rules to prevent the free loader problem with such as system.  You may not like Trump's suggestions but there are no alternative suggestions to deal with the freeloader issue.  The other view is let the free loaders in as long as the net effect is still positive which does nothing to address the issue.

 

One additional item I think is cultural differences.  Many Americans are skeptics and rebels by nature.  Being different is looked upon as a positive attribute in most of America and not in many parts of the rest of the world.  So when you get a guy like Trump or Reagan, many non-Americans think the guy is nuts because there approach is unconventional.  Also, folks outside the US accept for the most part what the press reports but in large portions of the US this is not true. 

 

An example is the impression that Trump is racist, sexist and anti-immigrant.  If you look at his actions you can clearly see this is not true.  He is married to an immigrant and has had women in high-level roles in his organization way before others.  You can make the case he is against the freeloaders who take advantage of the system and wants portray an image of enforcing US immigration laws but what is wring with that?  He also is willing to attack the press when they distort what he says where others will manipulate the press versus directly attacking. 

 

Packer

[EliG]

Packer, I am a Canadian conservative who grew up idolizing Reagan and Thatcher. I am shocked that a level-headed person like you would draw parallels between Trump and Reagan. I think you are blinded by partisanship. Trump is insane. He should be facing a therapist, not the electorate.

 

Narcissistic personality disorder - Mayo Clinic

 

Definition:

 

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

 

Symptoms:

 

Many experts use the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association, to diagnose mental conditions. This manual is also used by insurance companies to reimburse for treatment.

 

DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

 

* Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance

* Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it

* Exaggerating your achievements and talents

* Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate

* Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

* Requiring constant admiration

* Having a sense of entitlement

* Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations

* Taking advantage of others to get what you want

* Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others

* Being envious of others and believing others envy you

* Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner

 

[Packer16]

You are correct in that the approach of Reagan is different than Trump and Trump is more of a narcissist than Reagan but the strategy which worked is the same.  I see Trump closer to Obama in narcissism but I think like Wilbur Ross that his strategy will work versus the alternative.  I would have preferred Marco Rubio or John Kasich to message this strategy.  I dislike Trumps approach but for three of the major issues it appears he has the best strategy.  So my alternative is to let the status quo prevail (do not vote) or vote for his approach on these three key issues.  Since I am typical American (our genius is compromise), I will vote for his approach on these key areas and rely on our de centralization of political power in the US system to neutralize the negatives he brings to table.

 

Packer

[cobafdek]

"As an entertainment journalist, I’ve had the opportunity to cover Trump for over a decade, and in all my years covering him I’ve never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president."

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/lizcrokin/2016/07/10/trump-does-the-unthinkable-n2190160

[dwy000]

You are correct in that the approach of Reagan is different than Trump and Trump is more of a narcissist than Reagan but the strategy which worked is the same.  I see Trump closer to Obama in narcissism but I think like Wilbur Ross that his strategy will work versus the alternative.  I would have preferred Marco Rubio or John Kasich to message this strategy.  I dislike Trumps approach but for three of the major issues it appears he has the best strategy.  So my alternative is to let the status quo prevail (do not vote) or vote for his approach on these three key issues.  Since I am typical American (our genius is compromise), I will vote for his approach on these key areas and rely on our de centralization of political power in the US system to neutralize the negatives he brings to table.

 

Packer

 

Packer I'm really surprised at this. For one of the more rational and researched investors on the Board I can't believe you are getting good pulled in this direction.  Trump has no substance behind these statements.  if you think he spent more than 5 minutes thinking about trade deals before the campaign I'd guess that was overestimating.  He will say whatever populist thing will keep him in the headlines regardless of the substance behind it.  I'm still convinced he doesn't really want to be President he just loves the spotlight and can't turn back now.

 

is it just me