If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[rkbabang]

she's a war hawk and I hate that. Trump sucks but at least he's vehemently against interventions, and has the balls to say he's neutral on Israel. If he actually believes this...But, who the hell knows what he believes. All I know is that he's a dangerous demagogue.

 

 

With a few words snipped that is a excellent summary of this election.  The dangerous, corrupt, bloodthirsty, war hawk politician vs. the dangerous populist xenophobic demagogue that, well, who knows what he will do.

 

[Jurgis]

Then he spent hundreds of billions more chasing bin Laden

 

Hyperbole much?  ;)

 

Tough crowd here. Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking, recency bias, simplistic solutions that likely don't work.

 

Politics and war are even harder than business. You don't have full control, you do X expecting Y, Z comes out. And you can't do W because of a number of reasons even if you wanted.

 

We sometimes say that investing and business is unmeasurable. Talk about measuring politics and war. Might be good idea... Drop billions of US$ on Iran, not bombs (oops, was just done ;) ). No, but seriously - can this be measured objectively?

 

And yeah we can talk about how military is mismatched from the tasks they are trying to accomplish: not just shoot and destroy the enemy army, but police, counter-terrorist, rebuild, indoctrinate, train and teach, etc.

 

And yeah we can possibly agree that recent conflicts in Middle East were disasters because there was no long-term commitment to be there after initial shootout. But nobody really knows how to do that. Rebuilding takes a generation likely. Who has commitment to stay in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Egypt (?), etc. for generations not only policing but also pouring money to rebuild - what? it's not even clear what to rebuild. So sure, I could agree with non-interventionists and say: "Don't intervene". But then you have dictators and broken countries. It's not really true that leaving Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Egypt, Iran alone is good either. Maybe it's fine for a bit. But then these guys go and nuke it out between themselves or possibly their neighbors too. Is that a good future? Is it better or worse than the interventionist scenario?

 

Not trying to defend Obama or Bush.

[vox]

"Billionaire hedge fund manager Seth Klarman said on Wednesday he would work to get Hillary Clinton elected president of the United States because he finds recent comments by Donald Trump "shockingly unacceptable."

 

"His words and actions over the last several days are so shockingly unacceptable in our diverse and democratic society that it is simply unthinkable that Donald Trump could become our president," Klarman said of the Republican presidential nominee.

 

The president and chief executive of The Baupost Group told Reuters in an emailed statement that Trump's suggestion "that the election will be rigged is particularly dangerous."

 

"I will continue to find ways to support Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump,” he said.

 

On Monday, Trump told a town hall event in Columbus, Ohio, that he thought the November election might be "rigged." Trump's attacks on the Muslim parents of a decorated American soldier, Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq, have drawn sharp rebukes since Khizr Khan and Ghazala Khan appeared at last week's Democratic convention.

 

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Klarman, whose Boston-based investment firm manages $29 billion, is registered as an independent voter. But a review of filings showed that his political giving has largely benefited Republicans over the years, including donations this election cycle to political action committees that supported primary candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio.

 

He has also given to the campaigns of Democrats, including now-U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Mark Warner, according to the filings. He contributed $4,600 to Hillary Clinton's 2007 presidential race, while also giving to the campaigns of Republicans John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

 

In June, Klarman gave $5,400 to Clinton's campaign.

 

"He is completely unqualified for the highest office in the land," Klarman said in his statement, without specifying how he would further support Clinton."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-klarman-idUSKCN10E2TR

[Investor20]

If I were Trump I would just tweet this

 

America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling The Nation Out From Under Us. Here's A Way To Fix The Problem--And We Need To Do It Now.

By Warren E. Buffett Carol J. Loomis

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/11/10/352872/index.htm

 

Also, that article was written over 13 years ago and the circumstances of the US economy currently are very, very different.

 

Warren Buffett: Thriftville vs Squanderville, refers to 2007 tradedeficits. So, I would presume this is made in 2008. But I still don't think the timing matters that much.

 

 

 

 

 

[bargainman]

The thing that will make you understand what Trump is doing is this:  One of his mentors was Roy Cohn, look him up.  He was tied at the hip with Sen. McCarthy during the Communist witch hunt years.  He's actually very formulaic. He never addresses actual criticism, instead he attacks the person leveling the criticism or in the case of 'rigged elections' the system.  He's done this with Obama, Buffett, Romney, and many others.  Here's a fairly insightful article from a man who knows him well:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/10/opinions/donald-trump-biography-michael-dantonio/index.html

 

Roy introduced him around New York. He got him access to the private clubs, and he became Donald's lawyer and mentor, so much of what Donald practices today in terms of politics, and you can see it in the way that he tries to flip issues.

A good example is if I say something racially insensitive and people start calling me a racist, I'll try to flip the issue around and say, "Oh, no, you're the ones who are racist for raising the issue, for noticing that I said something." This is classic Roy Cohn doublespeak and it's the way that he operated, and this fellow was Donald's mentor.

In fact, he was the mentor for Roger Stone, who is now Donald's friend and has advised him in politics since the 1980s. There's a whole crew of people who were attached to Roy Cohn, attached to, actually, Richard Nixon and his campaign, including Paul Manafort, one of Trump's top aides now.

All of these people worked together, understood each other, and understood a way of doing politics that was incredibly aggressive and no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoner approach to politics, and it's Joe McCarthy to Roy Cohn to Donald Trump.

 

You can see him doing this every day almost...

[loganc]

she's a war hawk and I hate that. Trump sucks but at least he's vehemently against interventions, and has the balls to say he's neutral on Israel. If he actually believes this...But, who the hell knows what he believes. All I know is that he's a dangerous demagogue.

 

 

With a few words snipped that is a excellent summary of this election.  The dangerous, corrupt, bloodthirsty, war hawk politician vs. the dangerous populist xenophobic demagogue that, well, who knows what he will do.

 

I find it fascinating that "war hawk" would be a pejorative for Hillary Clinton from the standpoint of the Trump supporter given that a consistent rhetorical position of Trump is that the military has been underfunded (good luck proving that based on military budget allocation through the Obama administration from actual data).  Further, a major talking point of Trump is something like knocking the hell out of ISIS (whatever that means - he apparently knows more about ISIS than the Generals) and encouraging increasingly brutal "enhanced interrogation."  How is increasing military spending, increasing military actions against ISIS, and encouraging more intense "enhanced interrogation" (plus, encouraging war crimes by "kill[ing] their families") not the actions of a bona fide war hawk? 

   

[Cardboard]

""Billionaire hedge fund manager Seth Klarman said on Wednesday he would work to get Hillary Clinton elected president of the United States because he finds recent comments by Donald Trump "shockingly unacceptable."

 

Such a smart man and a strong defender of Israel and of Jewish people...

 

He will do everything he can to elect Hillary Clinton so that she can continue the Obama/Clinton secretary of State policies of leading Israel to its inhalation: preventing them from bombing Iranian nuclear sites in 2014 and giving legally the bomb to Iran in a few years and that is they don't cheat.

 

Smart, real smart...

 

Cardboard

[Peregrine]

 

While you are mentioning that Trump is only going after this for ego, I am not sure that I agree. I do sense a genuine desire to help America but, he is talking a terrible route to get there.

 

 

This is where you and I differ. I don't believe that for an instant.

 

What drives Trump to say the things that he does? Is it really beliefs in policies and principles that will help his country? Time has shown again and again that he has no policies or beliefs or anything grounded in principle - in fact, he has regularly shifted from one to another. No, he does what he does to pander to the biggest group of people that he believes will support him. I don't even believe he's as racist as many think he is; he is, however, appealing to the worst instincts of his base of supporters, instincts that while largely latent have been brewing for some time.

[rkbabang]

she's a war hawk and I hate that. Trump sucks but at least he's vehemently against interventions, and has the balls to say he's neutral on Israel. If he actually believes this...But, who the hell knows what he believes. All I know is that he's a dangerous demagogue.

 

 

With a few words snipped that is a excellent summary of this election.  The dangerous, corrupt, bloodthirsty, war hawk politician vs. the dangerous populist xenophobic demagogue that, well, who knows what he will do.

 

I find it fascinating that "war hawk" would be a pejorative for Hillary Clinton from the standpoint of the Trump supporter given that a consistent rhetorical position of Trump is that the military has been underfunded (good luck proving that based on military budget allocation through the Obama administration from actual data).  Further, a major talking point of Trump is something like knocking the hell out of ISIS (whatever that means - he apparently knows more about ISIS than the Generals) and encouraging increasingly brutal "enhanced interrogation."  How is increasing military spending, increasing military actions against ISIS, and encouraging more intense "enhanced interrogation" (plus, encouraging war crimes by "kill[ing] their families") not the actions of a bona fide war hawk? 

 

Trump has said some hawkish things and also some very anti-war things as well.  Like I said "Who knows what he will do?"  He's a complete unknown, I don't think he knows what he will do if elected.  Also did you just call me a Trump supporter?  How many Trump supporters describe him as a "dangerous populist xenophobic demagogue"?

 

[Jurgis]

I don't even believe he's as racist as many think he is; he is, however, appealing to the worst instincts of his base of supporters, instincts that while largely latent have been brewing for some time.

 

+1. Trump himself might be just a middling racist and xenophobe on the par of water-cooler brogrammers and jocks who just don't think it racist or misogynist to call someone n word or ho, bitch, etc. The problem is that he's running a campaign based on raising and supporting that hatred.

[rkbabang]

I don't even believe he's as racist as many think he is; he is, however, appealing to the worst instincts of his base of supporters, instincts that while largely latent have been brewing for some time.

 

+1. Trump himself might be just a middling racist and xenophobe on the par of water-cooler brogrammers and jocks who just don't think it racist or misogynist to call someone n word or ho, bitch, etc. The problem is that he's running a campaign based on raising and supporting that hatred.

 

 

I don't know if the fact that this strategy is working says a lot about our society or if it just shows how bad his competition is, both in the primary and now in the general election?  Whatever it means it isn't good.

 

[Peregrine]

I don't even believe he's as racist as many think he is; he is, however, appealing to the worst instincts of his base of supporters, instincts that while largely latent have been brewing for some time.

 

+1. Trump himself might be just a middling racist and xenophobe on the par of water-cooler brogrammers and jocks who just don't think it racist or misogynist to call someone n word or ho, bitch, etc. The problem is that he's running a campaign based on raising and supporting that hatred.

 

 

I don't know if the fact that this strategy is working says a lot about our society or if it just shows how bad his competition is, both in the primary and now in the general election?  Whatever it means it isn't good.

 

The USA is extremely pluralistic. A place like Texas would seem almost alien to those living in New York - and vice versa. In a largely heterogeneous country, differences and divisions are unavoidable. Some group or another will feel marginalized and it just takes one guy willing to exploit these real or perceived slights to build an unspoken feeling of animosity into widespread anger, resentment and hatred. Mob mentality is real and a strong facet of human nature.

 

As far as the latter? I'm not even sure if Trump supporters even know why they hate Hillary so much other than the fact that she represents the opposition.

[Guest MarkS]

I lot of people in this country - rightly or wrongly - FEEL that they have been ignored and that the government does not represent their interests. Trump, and/or people like him, are simply stepping in to fill a perceived need.  These rather negative feelings - mostly from lower middle class white males - are building. Even if Trump is defeated, the growing belief that this group has little to lose will continue to build unless addressed.  Hell! I'm a highly educated white male with far more opportunities/options available and even I have some of these feeling. In fact, I barely recognize my own country any longer. For example see:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/  Labeling these lower middle class white males as racist, ignorant,  or as described recently by Nancy Pelosi as white trash (implied) who hang on to their guns, god and gays is not going to help matters. And the political "elite" of this country better come to terms with this social phenomenon - and quickly.

[rkbabang]

I lot of people in this country - rightly or wrongly - FEEL that they have been ignored and that the government does not represent their interests. Trump, and/or people like him, are simply stepping in to fill a perceived need.  These rather negative feelings - mostly from lower middle class white males - are building. Even if Trump is defeated, the growing belief that this group has little to lose will continue to build unless addressed.  Hell! I'm a highly educated white male with far more opportunities/options available and even I have some of these feeling. In fact, I barely recognize my own country any longer. For example see:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/  Labeling these lower middle class white males as racist, ignorant,  or as described recently by Nancy Pelosi as white trash (implied) who hang on to their guns, god and gays is not going to help matters. And the political "elite" of this country better come to terms with this social phenomenon - and quickly.

 

 

I've tried to stay out of this as much as possible. But I think you're spot on Mark. I think of the last 8 years as difficult for everyone as it was the aftermath of the Great Depression. Right now we are about 8 years off the crash in 1929, that makes this the equivalent of 1937. The world was engulfed in war in political turmoil leading to WW2 with officially began in 1939 which doesn't officially end until 1945.

 

 

The next 4-8 years will be crucial a perhaps the most difficult.

 

I fear you both may be correct.  I know that history never repeats, but even if it rhymes with the late 1930's/early 1940's I don't want either of these two in the Whitehouse. <sigh>

 

[vox]

From Greg Mankiw (the guy who probably wrote your Econ 101 textbook):

 

"I have Republican friends who think that things couldn't be worse than doubling down on Obama policies under Hillary Clinton. And, like them, I am no fan of the left's agenda of large government and high taxes. But they are wrong: Things could be worse. And I fear they would be under Mr. Trump.

 

Mr. Trump has not laid out a coherent economic worldview, but one recurrent theme is hostility to a free and open system of international trade. From my perspective as an economics policy wonk, that by itself is disqualifying.

 

And then there are issues of temperament. I am not a psychologist, so I cannot figure out what Mr. Trump's personal demons are. But he does not show the admirable disposition that I saw in previous presidents and presidential candidates I have had the honor to work for."

 

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-take-on-mr-trump.html

 

[alwaysinvert]

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad.

He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president.

I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html

[Cardboard]

Very good article Alwaysinvert and we see it here on this forum on a daily basis:

 

1- One basically told Ericopoly to shut up yesterday while posting about property taxes or any tax for that matter. Should I remind people that he is one of the most intelligent and successful investor ever on this site? There is even a post in the Strategy section called: "Ask Eric!"

 

2- Packer was discussing calmly about Trump and Clinton and basically some folks started to say that they would put him on ignore and that he was all of a sudden an irrational man. Once again, there is a post in the Strategy section called: "Ask Packer!"

 

3- While I don't consider myself at all in the same category as these two, I was told to go masturbate thinking about Ayn Rand???

 

Now these are just some of the comments that we read here on a daily basis by the NEO Socialist NAZIS. Imagine what is out there from people who don't read and are poorly informed about our world.

 

Cardboard

[muscleman]

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad.

He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president.

I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html

 

Thank you for the article. I was not aware that the media always sides with Democrats. I wasn't in the US until 2007.

[onyx1]

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad.

He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president.

I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html

 

 

It's the same, tired, old playbook used for decades.  Remember Ronald Reagan the "Warmonger"?  And they will keep using it as long as it works on the young and the gullible.

 

Here's the 2016 version:

[Jurgis]

Oh look, somebody's trying to whitewash Trump screwups and some conservative morons are eating it with a spoon.

 

Clearly, the Republican party "establishment" who are not comfortable with insane demagogue were bought by Liberals. Communist infiltration! Bring back McCarthy!

[onyx1]

Oh look, somebody's trying to whitewash Trump screwups and some conservative morons are eating it with a spoon.

 

Clearly, the Republican party "establishment" who are not comfortable with insane demagogue were bought by Liberals. Communist infiltration! Bring back McCarthy!

 

Further evidence the playbook is working.

[KJP]

1- One basically told Ericopoly to shut up yesterday while posting about property taxes or any tax for that matter. Should I remind people that he is one of the most intelligent and successful investor ever on this site? There is even a post in the Strategy section called: "Ask Eric!"

 

...

 

Now these are just some of the comments that we read here on a daily basis by the NEO Socialist NAZIS. Imagine what is out there from people who don't read and are poorly informed about our world.

 

Cardboard

 

I interpret your comment as saying that an unruly mob of leftists used illegitmate methods -- demagoguery (they're "Nazis"!) -- to try to silence Eric.   

 

I participated in that thread, and what I recall is Eric using the following terms to describe the people who disagreed with him:  "Idiotic" (post #61), "moron" (post #74), "deranged" (post #92), "depressed" (post #92), "not healthy" (post #94), "bitch" (post #97), "tool" (post #100).  I don't recall anyone debating him who used even a single epithet in response.  I also don't recall anyone besides Eric invoking misogynistic rhetoric, like analogizing people who disagree with to troublesome "old girlfriend" and calling them a "bitch". 

 

But I also acknowledge that I'm not the best judge of the legitimacy of my own methods of presenting an argument.  So, I'd like to know (i) what makes the rhetoric and methods of argument that Eric employed on that thread legitimate, and (i) what in the rhetoric and methods of argument employed by the people debating him showed them to be "Nazis"?

[Cardboard]

Well, I think that Eric just had enough of arguing with people who don't want to hear a thing or use logic for a second. And then he used the same words that leftists are using so commonly here.

 

I had a girlfriend like that too with whom you could argue for an hour to explain a very simple point and after an hour you realized that you had gone nowhere.

 

The Nazis which were socialists by the way, used the exact same methods in their ascension to power: silence the critics with whatever mean, control the media, ridicule any opposition, etc. This is exactly what the left is doing today. Even supporting the killing of law officers.

 

Cardboard

[Jurgis]

Oh look. Rightwing demagogues talking about logic. And calling others Nazis. And claiming that someone silenced them on the Internet forum while continuing to bloviate nonstop. Yeah, that makes sense. Probably someone used logic.

 

Poor guys. Maybe you need a better platform? More threads? More ideas on how to defend your insane candidate? Maybe we should pat you on the back every time you start bogus attacks and insults? You need love? Tenderness? Hey, come on over, I'll give you a hug. We love you. Truly. We want you to talk more. We appreciate your dedication and non-sequitur thread changes. You da guys. Just amazing. There.

[Cardboard]

Just like when you slammed your way through the Fairfax meeting in Toronto?

 

How do they call these people?