If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[Investor20]

The Russell 2000 P/E is "NIL" (the small cap index).  It really means of course the total earnings of small 2000 companies is negative.

 

It is not surprising that small companies are suffering, from Obamacare, Dodge Frank everything made complicated so that the small guy suffers.  The more complicated, the more lawyers, accountants that only big guys can afford.

 

Why do progressives who claim to want to help the small guy wants to continue these policies that are evidently hurting the small guy?

 

http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3021-peyield.html

[dwy000]

What I find difficult to understand is it looks like Trump seems to have utterly low opinion of his own supporters. He must be assuming they are some of the dumbest idiots in the world.

 

I tried to honestly see if I can vote for him, given my preference for someone other than Mrs. Clinton as I do not like the dynastic aspect of it. Even if he has extreme views that conflict my own, if he behaved/talked in a manner that makes sense I would have supported him.

 

Take for example his comments on meeting with Koch Brothers:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/30/koch-brothers-network-of-donors-meets-without-donald-trump/

 

Mr. Trump tweeted on Saturday “I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!”

 

It seems more likely that they have not invited him but he outright lies about it. Now I am not sure about this particular one, but if you have looked at his comments over the last few months, there are so many instances where they are unbelievable and objectionable.

 

So why does he do that? Why does those who support him dont seem to care? If a person can lie so easily and repeatedly, how can one believe that he is even remotely telling the truth on the positions that are popular with his supporters (trade, immigration, etc)?

 

Vinod

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

 

Why would you tweet about turning down a meeting with people you don't want support from?  Unless you were trying to save face for not actually being invited?  He doesn't tweet about every meeting he turns down does he?

[Investor20]

Vinod "So how can you trust a person who lies so easily and so often?"

 

I am confused whom you are supporting.  There is only one candidate certified by FBI to be lying.

[Packer16]

I spent 45 minutes taking Trump's side in a debate with my wife. After that I tried to find out a little bit more that would support him. What I found repulsed me away from him. So I can honestly say I was pretty open minded going in, but even the most basic research suggests that Trump is not a person fit for any public office, must less POTUS.

 

Vinod

 

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

[rb]

I spent 45 minutes taking Trump's side in a debate with my wife. After that I tried to find out a little bit more that would support him. What I found repulsed me away from him. So I can honestly say I was pretty open minded going in, but even the most basic research suggests that Trump is not a person fit for any public office, must less POTUS.

 

Vinod

 

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.

[JBird]

What in your mind makes Clinton more fit to be POTUS than Trump?

 

Merely being Secretary of State and a Senator. I don't know that she accomplished a damn thing, but I think that alone makes her more fit.

 

Trump consistently demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of the world:

 

HABERMAN: What kind of change could you make in terms of Nafta without fully withdrawing from it? How could you?

 

TRUMP: You’ve got to be fair to the country. Everyone is leaving. Carrier just announced they’re leaving. Ford is building a massive plant. I have a friend who builds plants, that’s what he does, he’s the biggest in the world, he builds plants like automobile plants, computer plants, that’s all he does. He doesn’t build apartments, he doesn’t build office space, he builds plants. I said to him the other day, “How are you doing?” He goes, “Unbelievable.” Oh, great, that’s good, thinking about the United States, right, because he’s based in the United States. So I said, “Good, so the country is doing well.” He said, “No, no, not our country, you’ve got to see what I’m doing in Mexico.” He said: “The business there is unbelievable, the new plants we are building. People moving from the United States.” That’s what he does. One-story plants. You understand?

 

Trump wants to be President the same way kids want to be Tom Brady. For the image.

 

NY Times: But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

 

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

 

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

 

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

 

Trump in 2013, "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest–and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault."

 

That is not exactly the type of humility I'm looking for in someone meant to be negotiating with congressman and foreign heads of state.

 

 

[Investor20]

 

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.

 

.............It insults intelligence.

 

Yes, it insults intelligence to say this is a scandal.  The quote is "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you can find Hillary's 30,000 missing emails".

 

Hillary claims each one of these emails were reviewed to make sure they are not work related before they are deleted. They were not to be found by our own FBI after a ""thorough"" investigation. Why would intelligence agencies would be interested in yoga classes or wedding plans Hillary claims they are about?

 

How can someone hack deleted emails on offline/dismantled server and not to be found by FBI? Did Russia develop time machine that they can go back in time, before the server was taken offline, before the emails were deleted?

 

The comment was clearly sarcastic about the security of the server, not to hack them now (to be clear the server or emails are not there to hack them now and intelligence agencies would not be interested in yoga classes).

 

[alwaysinvert]

What I find difficult to understand is it looks like Trump seems to have utterly low opinion of his own supporters. He must be assuming they are some of the dumbest idiots in the world.

 

I tried to honestly see if I can vote for him, given my preference for someone other than Mrs. Clinton as I do not like the dynastic aspect of it. Even if he has extreme views that conflict my own, if he behaved/talked in a manner that makes sense I would have supported him.

 

Take for example his comments on meeting with Koch Brothers:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/30/koch-brothers-network-of-donors-meets-without-donald-trump/

 

Mr. Trump tweeted on Saturday “I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!”

 

It seems more likely that they have not invited him but he outright lies about it. Now I am not sure about this particular one, but if you have looked at his comments over the last few months, there are so many instances where they are unbelievable and objectionable.

 

So why does he do that? Why does those who support him dont seem to care? If a person can lie so easily and repeatedly, how can one believe that he is even remotely telling the truth on the positions that are popular with his supporters (trade, immigration, etc)?

 

Vinod

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

 

Why would you tweet about turning down a meeting with people you don't want support from?  Unless you were trying to save face for not actually being invited?  He doesn't tweet about every meeting he turns down does he?

 

That should be completely evident for anyone following political discourse with even half an eye. The Koch brothers are basically the devil incarnate to the left of America. Trump is obviously making an appeal to Bernie supporters.

[vinod1]

I spent 45 minutes taking Trump's side in a debate with my wife. After that I tried to find out a little bit more that would support him. What I found repulsed me away from him. So I can honestly say I was pretty open minded going in, but even the most basic research suggests that Trump is not a person fit for any public office, must less POTUS.

 

Vinod

 

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

 

Trump repeatedly ignore facts - his net wealth, soliciting campaign contributions, etc. when he makes statements. I mean he lies repeatedly on things that are obviously not true.

 

I dislike Mrs. Clinton and many of her actions. But Trump, lying seems to be ingrained. His actions - with his lawsuits, etc all point to a person who is closer to say Putin style of governance. That seems far more dangerous.

 

It is really who can do the least damage as POTUS. Viewed this way, I ruled out Trump. He can really mess up big time in so many ways.

 

Vinod

[Investor20]

 

Trump repeatedly ignore facts - his net wealth, soliciting campaign contributions, etc. when he makes statements. I mean he lies repeatedly on things that are obviously not true.

 

all point to a person who is closer to say Putin style of governance. That seems far more dangerous.

Vinod

 

The issues Hillary lied about and there is ample EVIDENCE to show she lied (unlike your assertions) are for example

A) Benghazi where she lied to fallen soldiers parents and all of america that it is about a video when it is about mishandled security preparations

B) Each and every assertion about email was found by FBI to be a lie.

 

The issues Hillary lied about are issues DIRECTLY related to her job as public servant unlike what Trump thinks his tower is worth which two people can disagree. What is so astonishing about Hillary is her logic that if she takes public information home it some how becomes private information and hence out of FOI. FOI is an important right of people and she intends to defeat it. Imagine a CEO taking a folder home and hence claims that it need not be disclosed to SEC.

 

To me this alone, trying to defeat Freedom of Information act, an important public right is good enough to disqualify her from any further consideration to be president or any public position.

[vinod1]

I can understand if one has to hold the nose and vote for either of these candidates - Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

 

Trump at least brought out into the open issues that others would not talk about - that immigration is a problem that is directly impacting a lot of people with lower incomes, trade terms are more favorable for other countries, etc. So if you feel strongly about these issues and have to hold your nose to vote for Trump, I sympathize with you. I can understand.

 

What I dont get is the ardent supporters of Trump. I have a very low opinion of these people, enough to give them a wide berth.

 

Vinod

[valcont]

The support for Trump is more nuanced than the broad brush he is being painted in the media. There is definitely a racist, xenophobic element in it but if I have to sum up the support in couple words it'll be "F*U Establishment" .

 

Look at the issues here. Immigration is so out of control that it is considered a right not a privilege anymore. A corporate tool driven by greed and corruption and sold to the public as unavoidable. We don't need pre 1965 immigration policy but we definitely can do better than the mess we are in. And it doesn't help that any call to reform is branded as xenophobic.

 

And why does a US taxpayer has to protect the Europeans and Japanese so they can take 2-3 months of vacation in peace and quiet. If Germany needs our soldiers they better pay us. Would you buy your friends free lunch every time?

 

There is a lot of grey in his support but I suspect no matter who wins it'll be a one time term if the opposing side presents even a slightly better candidate

than what we have now.

[LongHaul]

the question what is worse a narcissist or some one whose words or actions cannot be trusted?

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

 

Great find Sys - thanks for posting. 

Basically according to Politifact Trump lies ~70% of the time (the total % actually equals 101% FYI)

 

Clinton on the other hand lies ~28% of the time.

 

Mitt Romney for comparison was~42% of the time. 

 

Trump is basically full of you know what. 

[LongHaul]

Trump - I can't help but think he reminds me of the the old Tyrants of countries who do as they please and to hell with the citizens.

 

He also reminds me of used car salesman who exagerates and lies to make his point.  You never know when you can trust him. 

 

His Slogan is "Make America Great Again"

 

That implies that America is a bad or mediocre country to live in.  Is this true?  Have any Americans on this board given up their citizenship and moved to Bolivia, Uganda, Romania, China, etc?

 

I think the US is a great country now.  We have an incredible amount of freedom and opportunity and justice.  Of course it is not perfect but no country is.  So his main slogan is marketing garbage that does not reflect reality. 

 

I think Trump is mentally deranged.  He is very good at persuading people to his opinions though and a lot of people are falling for his BS.  I think if he wins he will be a dangerous president and will fully test the constitution.

 

Demagogue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#Ancient_demagogues 

[dwy000]

Regardless of your view of his policies (whatever they are), his "F-U" to the establishment, his tough talk on trade and immigration - this is simply not a person who should be representing America to the world.

 

I thought the comments on women and Mexicans were bad.  Then the making fun of the disabled journalist.  Then the racist comments about the judge.  Then the invitation to Russia to hack his competition.  But I'm sorry, the comments about the Khan family - and the refusal to apologize!?!?!?!?! I've sacrificed a lot because I've been very successful????  Shameful and embarrassing.  This is not a person with the temperament and disposition to be the global and public leader of America.  That's not what I want my kids growing up emulating, regardless of policy positions.

 

[EliG]

Twitter feed of Tony Schwartz, The Art of the Deal ghostwriter. He spent a lot of time up close and personal with Trump. Probably knows "real" Trump better than anyone else outside family.

 

 

 

 

 

[bearprowler6]

Regardless of your view of his policies (whatever they are), his "F-U" to the establishment, his tough talk on trade and immigration - this is simply not a person who should be representing America to the world.

 

I thought the comments on women and Mexicans were bad.  Then the making fun of the disabled journalist.  Then the racist comments about the judge.  Then the invitation to Russia to hack his competition.  But I'm sorry, the comments about the Khan family - and the refusal to apologize!?!?!?!?! I've sacrificed a lot because I've been very successful????  Shameful and embarrassing.  This is not a person with the temperament and disposition to be the global and public leader of America.  That's not what I want my kids growing up emulating, regardless of policy positions.

 

+1

 

This morning---11 Gold Star  family members penned an open letter to Trump demanding he apologize to the Khans for his "repugnant" remarks made in response to the Khan's appearance at the DNC. Mr. and Mrs. Khan both spoke on CNN this morning about their love of the U.S. and the character of son who made the ultimate sacrifice in service of his country. I invite all of you to watch the interview and attempt to connect with their grief as well as with their love of the U.S.

 

How can any active military person or veteran not be disgusted by Trump's comments. Why would anyone enter any branch of military service in the U.S. if Trump became President knowing that if you die in service that Trump would respond by ridiculing your parents in the time of their ultimate grief.

 

Trump is not fit to be President---I am not sure how any sane person can think or believe otherwise.

 

 

[Packer16]

I am surprised by the extrapolation some are making about Trump without evidence and even when contrary evidence is available ignoring it.  For example, has anyone thought of his statements as conversation starting points which can be changed over time versus actual ending points.  The focus is on words not actions.  The train of thought is what someone says not what they do should disqualify them.  They key assumption here is what they say they will do.  However, as we all know with Mr. Trump, this in many case may not be the truth. 

 

I feel bad that the Khan's have been duped by Clinton et. al. into this.  He appears to have jumped to the conclusion that Mr. Trump is a racist and hates Muslims, baited in part by the DNC.  What I fund puzzling is that the original issue (temporary ban on Muslims entering the US has been changed to those from areas with high high terrorist activities) was changed to not specifically ban Muslims (the original issue) but the manipulators continue with their Crusade.  This is the same thing the DNC has done with other groups to win there favor so it should be no surprise.  He is a patriotic man as his son gave the ultimate price but the Clinton's think folks will give him a "free pass" on his political views because of his sacrifice.  Similar to the "free pass" that they use based upon past abuses of minorities and women in the US to gain support. 

 

If you look at this and other situations as Clinton and the DNC being the manipulators you can see that the danger is not with Trump and his mouth (everyone can see this) but with Clinton and her manipulation (which appears covert).  The Russia situation is another case in point.  Do you seriously think the Russians are more likely to hack because of Mr. Trump's statements?  Do his statements about having fair negotiations with our allies make it worse?  In the manipulative mind of the Clinton's it does.  I would rather deal with the loud mouth I can see (and who has changed his positions favorably, like the temporary Muslim ban to temporary regional ban) versus the manipulator I cannot and who has not changed but manipulates the situation.

 

One question I have about all the list items folks have as negative about Trump, what evidence do you have that any action was taken back up the offensive statements?  This is where the Nazi comparison falls apart.  Do not others use these words in a similar fashion that you would not call racist?  folks like comedians? 

 

The other missing piece is a comparison and contrast between Mr. Trump & Clinton which is what IMO should be done.  Rather just a test with the criteria manipulated by Clinton to disqualify Trump.  This is just shades of the democratic nomination all over again.  You can not approve of Trump's comments and still find the weight of evidence of him versus Mrs. Clinton tipping in his favor.   

 

Packer

[rkbabang]

He is angry that Trump said mean words, so he supports the party that sent his son to die.

 

[vox]

He is angry that Trump said mean words, so he supports the party that sent his son to die.

 

His son died in 2004. How did the Democratic Party send his son to die?

[rkbabang]

He is angry that Trump said mean words, so he supports the party that sent his son to die.

 

His son died in 2004. How did the Democratic Party send his son to die?

 

I missed that, I thought it was more recent.  OK, so not his son, but they are the party who has most recently sent other people's sons to die.  And Hillary is more of a hawk than Trump, so his support of one over the other makes little sense.

[dwy000]

no one is extrapolating his words.  They are quotes and tweets.  There's no twisting or lack of evidence.  And you should not have to extrapolate three layers deep to possibly find a way that horrible comments could possibly be taken as not horrible.  That is not presidential.

 

And rkbabang - I can see why you support Trump.  Off the cuff remark that sidesteps the issue being discussed and is actually completely wrong.  followed by no apology for being completely wrong but trying to twist it into something to save face. 

[rkbabang]

no one is extrapolating his words.  They are quotes and tweets.  There's no twisting or lack of evidence.  And you should not have to extrapolate three layers deep to possibly find a way that horrible comments could possibly be taken as not horrible.  That is not presidential.

 

And rkbabang - I can see why you support Trump.  Off the cuff remark that sidesteps the issue being discussed and is actually completely wrong.  followed by no apology for being completely wrong but trying to twist it into something to save face. 

 

I support Trump?  LOL  good God no.  I wouldn't support that xenophobic moron ever.  Not in this lifetime.  Sorry.  Also I admitted that I was wrong.  I'll apologize if it will make you feel better.  I'm sorry for being wrong.

[Packer16]

My focus is actions not words.  Words can change easily actions do not.  As seen by Trumps changes in his words on issues like the Muslim ban do change over time.  Actions have a tendency not to.  Also, no one is looking at Clinton's words & actions which IMO are much more dangerous.  Talk about no apology for statements by Trump to Khan about Khan's misunderstanding of Trump's words is one thing vs. denial of not doing anything wrong with classified information when that is clearly false.  The impact on the US is minimal for the first but not the second.  The triumph of the word manipulators over the actions of the candidates.

 

Packer

[Jurgis]

The thing that I'm wondering about this conversation is how I should allow it to affect my perspective on people's judgement.  For instance, it's very clear that neither Clinton nor Obama is a narcissist--anyone who spends any time at all listening to what either one says should realize this.

 

So, when someone says, "Obama is a narcissist", how do you let that affect your evaluation of their judgement?  Do you just say that "politics makes people think strange things", and not really judge their capacity for reasoning on it?  Or do you basically say, "This person can't do even basic evaluations accurately when it comes to politics, therefore I shouldn't take much of what they say in other domains seriously either?"  (And similarly, those people, if they are using the same criteria, shouldn't take anything I say seriously.)

 

I've been thinking about this a bunch since this campaign started, just because usually there's a wide margin of reasonable opinions.  But in this case, there isn't--the two candidates aren't even on the same page when it comes to reasonableness to be president.

 

So I'm curious. To what extent to people think that we should discount the ability of others to reason when they clearly aren't doing so in such a major, high-profile instance?

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.

 

+1. My ignore list is getting longer by hour. The contortions of some "respected" CoBF posters on this thread are completely disgusting.

 

At least Koch brothers are showing some rationality.