If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[Mephistopheles]

I like Gary Johnson except that he's a believer in the 2nd amendment which I hate. I'm attracted to Clinton/Kaine as it's a strong anti-NRA ticket.

 

 

Well, if this is true, I think Gary Johnson is solid. Does he believe in separation of power or does he think a president can do whatever he wanted to do, like Obama/Hillary? He used veto 750 times so I am worried if he is more like Obama who believes he can do whatever he wanted to do.

 

The veto is in the power of the President/Governor. It's one of the powers granted in the separation of powers.

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

The drug dealers in jail are probably no more violent than the people who step up to take their place (the large underground economy needs suppliers, and when you lock one up another one fills the "job opening").

 

Violence is a requisite for the job due to the lack of support from the courts.

 

You'll never lock up the last drug dealer -- it's whack-a-mole.

 

Need a more intelligent approach.

I'll use that as my shameless introduction of Gary Johnson to this two party discussion. Only candidate who recognizes the war on drugs doesn't work. I like him mainly because of economic track record. He started a construction company in NM, grew it to 1000 employees, sold it, and became Republican governor of New Mexico (a mainly blue state).  As governor he used the veto ~750 times, cut taxes 14 times and left office with a budget surplus. His running mate, Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts, has a similar track record. They've promised a balanced budget within 100 days and are the only candidates willing to discuss entitlements (they suggest raising the social security age and having a means test). They want to eliminate all income taxes (corp and personal) and replace them with a sales tax, with the main benefit being it would make the US a much more competitive place to have a global company. They recognize that small businesses are really what drives job growth (especially as small businesses become big businesses) and want to make it as easy as possible to start a company. Also the only candidates who support free trade. Main concern with them so far has been that they "can't win" but with the two main candidates as polarizing and scandal-ridden as they are, it seems a bit early to make that call. Anyways, that's the end of my plug. Here's Patrick Byrne (Overstock CEO) with the rest:

 

 

Well, if this is true, I think Gary Johnson is solid. Does he believe in separation of power or does he think a president can do whatever he wanted to do, like Obama/Hillary? He used veto 750 times so I am worried if he is more like Obama who believes he can do whatever he wanted to do.

 

Libertarians in general believe in limited gov't. Basically, the approach is less is more when it comes to gov't. Keep the Republicans out of your bedroom and the Democrats out of your wallet, maximize personal liberties while doing no harm to others. Basically the Libertarian mantra at the moment.

 

I also tend to like them because they appear to have some integrity and stick to their policies/guiding principles as opposed to flip-flopping and pandering to the electorate just to get votes to do whatever the hell they want.

[Cardboard]

The libertarian platform is attractive but, only to a minority of the population or those who take responsibility for their own future.

 

Look at the answers from a lot of posters. They prefer a government that tells them what to do, what is right, what is wrong, that gives them a cheque once in a while. They like to be slaves, not free.

 

Cardboard

[muscleman]

The drug dealers in jail are probably no more violent than the people who step up to take their place (the large underground economy needs suppliers, and when you lock one up another one fills the "job opening").

 

Violence is a requisite for the job due to the lack of support from the courts.

 

You'll never lock up the last drug dealer -- it's whack-a-mole.

 

Need a more intelligent approach.

I'll use that as my shameless introduction of Gary Johnson to this two party discussion. Only candidate who recognizes the war on drugs doesn't work. I like him mainly because of economic track record. He started a construction company in NM, grew it to 1000 employees, sold it, and became Republican governor of New Mexico (a mainly blue state).  As governor he used the veto ~750 times, cut taxes 14 times and left office with a budget surplus. His running mate, Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts, has a similar track record. They've promised a balanced budget within 100 days and are the only candidates willing to discuss entitlements (they suggest raising the social security age and having a means test). They want to eliminate all income taxes (corp and personal) and replace them with a sales tax, with the main benefit being it would make the US a much more competitive place to have a global company. They recognize that small businesses are really what drives job growth (especially as small businesses become big businesses) and want to make it as easy as possible to start a company. Also the only candidates who support free trade. Main concern with them so far has been that they "can't win" but with the two main candidates as polarizing and scandal-ridden as they are, it seems a bit early to make that call. Anyways, that's the end of my plug. Here's Patrick Byrne (Overstock CEO) with the rest:

 

 

Well, if this is true, I think Gary Johnson is solid. Does he believe in separation of power or does he think a president can do whatever he wanted to do, like Obama/Hillary? He used veto 750 times so I am worried if he is more like Obama who believes he can do whatever he wanted to do.

 

Libertarians in general believe in limited gov't. Basically, the approach is less is more when it comes to gov't. Keep the Republicans out of your bedroom and the Democrats out of your wallet, maximize personal liberties while doing no harm to others. Basically the Libertarian mantra at the moment.

 

I also tend to like them because they appear to have some integrity and stick to their policies/guiding principles as opposed to flip-flopping and pandering to the electorate just to get votes to do whatever the hell they want.

 

Yeah I totally feel like Clinton is doing whatever she can to get votes. Totally untrustworthy.

Trump is being honest. He is consistent in his style to attract one group of voters. Just like value investing, you stick with one style and you attract one investor base LOL. So I like him.

Gary seems to be good too.  :)

 

 

 

[JayGatsby]

I like Gary Johnson except that he's a believer in the 2nd amendment which I hate. I'm attracted to Clinton/Kaine as it's a strong anti-NRA ticket.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment.

[EliG]

Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey

 

 

[Mephistopheles]

I like Gary Johnson except that he's a believer in the 2nd amendment which I hate. I'm attracted to Clinton/Kaine as it's a strong anti-NRA ticket.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment.

 

Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us.

[JayGatsby]

I like Gary Johnson except that he's a believer in the 2nd amendment which I hate. I'm attracted to Clinton/Kaine as it's a strong anti-NRA ticket.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment.

 

Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us.

See, I'm not sure of that. Most commentary on the intent of the amendment seems to be that it was some combination of maintaining a strong standing militia (similar to what Switzerland has) and preventing government tyranny. That would imply to me that it was written to allow for military-grade weapons. I think there's a good argument that military-grade weapons have progressed to the point where we no longer wish for people to have them (or at the very least be able to easily obtain them), but I think that's a change of direction from how it was intended and should be enacted through an amendment. I'd vote for that amendment, but I wouldn't want it done a different way. The problem is once we start allowing loose interpretations the whole document basically just becomes symbolic.

 

That's where I really diverge from Hillary/Obama though. My biggest issue with Obama's presidency is the use of military force without a declaration of war as I think is required by the constitution. Part of the benefit of that is it requires the president to come to congress, say "hey here's my rationale and my plan", and then thoroughly debate both parts. Hillary rushed Obama off to war (at least in Libya) without taking the time to go through Congress and now we're suffering the consequences (see tail risks post above re EU disintegration). The Germans took their time, thoroughly debated the question of "what happens when Gaddafi is gone", and decided to abstain from the bombing. Obviously congress isn't always right either, but it helps.

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

I like Gary Johnson except that he's a believer in the 2nd amendment which I hate. I'm attracted to Clinton/Kaine as it's a strong anti-NRA ticket.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment.

 

Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us.

See, I'm not sure of that. Most commentary on the intent of the amendment seems to be that it was some combination of maintaining a strong standing militia (similar to what Switzerland has) and preventing government tyranny. That would imply to me that it was written to allow for military-grade weapons. I think there's a good argument that military-grade weapons have progressed to the point where we no longer wish for people to have them (or at the very least be able to easily obtain them), but I think that's a change of direction from how it was intended and should be enacted through an amendment. I'd vote for that amendment, but I wouldn't want it done a different way. The problem is once we start allowing loose interpretations the whole document basically just becomes symbolic.

 

That's where I really diverge from Hillary/Obama though. My biggest issue with Obama's presidency is the use of military force without a declaration of war as I think is required by the constitution. Part of the benefit of that is it requires the president to come to congress, say "hey here's my rationale and my plan", and then thoroughly debate both parts. Hillary rushed Obama off to war (at least in Libya) without taking the time to go through Congress and now we're suffering the consequences (see tail risks post above re EU disintegration). The Germans took their time, thoroughly debated the question of "what happens when Gaddafi is gone", and decided to abstain from the bombing. Obviously congress isn't always right either, but it helps.

 

There hasn't been a declaration of war since before Vietnam. While I agree with you that it's unconstitutional, basically every president spanning the last 4 to 5 decades has done it...

[muscleman]

I like Gary Johnson except that he's a believer in the 2nd amendment which I hate. I'm attracted to Clinton/Kaine as it's a strong anti-NRA ticket.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment.

 

Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us.

See, I'm not sure of that. Most commentary on the intent of the amendment seems to be that it was some combination of maintaining a strong standing militia (similar to what Switzerland has) and preventing government tyranny. That would imply to me that it was written to allow for military-grade weapons. I think there's a good argument that military-grade weapons have progressed to the point where we no longer wish for people to have them (or at the very least be able to easily obtain them), but I think that's a change of direction from how it was intended and should be enacted through an amendment. I'd vote for that amendment, but I wouldn't want it done a different way. The problem is once we start allowing loose interpretations the whole document basically just becomes symbolic.

 

That's where I really diverge from Hillary/Obama though. My biggest issue with Obama's presidency is the use of military force without a declaration of war as I think is required by the constitution. Part of the benefit of that is it requires the president to come to congress, say "hey here's my rationale and my plan", and then thoroughly debate both parts. Hillary rushed Obama off to war (at least in Libya) without taking the time to go through Congress and now we're suffering the consequences (see tail risks post above re EU disintegration). The Germans took their time, thoroughly debated the question of "what happens when Gaddafi is gone", and decided to abstain from the bombing. Obviously congress isn't always right either, but it helps.

 

I agree. The whole ISIS mess stems from the US intervention into Libya, so Trump's claim that Obama and Hillary are the founders of ISIS aren't that exaggerated, though I know he is definitely joking. But the media picks this up as another sign that Trump is unfit and immature.

 

 

[Peregrine]

I like Gary Johnson except that he's a believer in the 2nd amendment which I hate. I'm attracted to Clinton/Kaine as it's a strong anti-NRA ticket.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment.

 

Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us.

See, I'm not sure of that. Most commentary on the intent of the amendment seems to be that it was some combination of maintaining a strong standing militia (similar to what Switzerland has) and preventing government tyranny. That would imply to me that it was written to allow for military-grade weapons. I think there's a good argument that military-grade weapons have progressed to the point where we no longer wish for people to have them (or at the very least be able to easily obtain them), but I think that's a change of direction from how it was intended and should be enacted through an amendment. I'd vote for that amendment, but I wouldn't want it done a different way. The problem is once we start allowing loose interpretations the whole document basically just becomes symbolic.

 

That's where I really diverge from Hillary/Obama though. My biggest issue with Obama's presidency is the use of military force without a declaration of war as I think is required by the constitution. Part of the benefit of that is it requires the president to come to congress, say "hey here's my rationale and my plan", and then thoroughly debate both parts. Hillary rushed Obama off to war (at least in Libya) without taking the time to go through Congress and now we're suffering the consequences (see tail risks post above re EU disintegration). The Germans took their time, thoroughly debated the question of "what happens when Gaddafi is gone", and decided to abstain from the bombing. Obviously congress isn't always right either, but it helps.

 

I agree. The whole ISIS mess stems from the US intervention into Libya, so Trump's claim that Obama and Hillary are the founders of ISIS aren't that exaggerated, though I know he is definitely joking. But the media picks this up as another sign that Trump is unfit and immature.

 

Lol.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

I like Gary Johnson except that he's a believer in the 2nd amendment which I hate. I'm attracted to Clinton/Kaine as it's a strong anti-NRA ticket.

I go back and forth on 2nd amendment / gun control, but I don't think it's within a president's power to modify. If there's political will / popular support against the 2nd amendment we should vote on an amendment. It makes me uncomfortable when presidents support hollowing out certain aspects of the constitution as it implies a disregard for the document they swear to protect. I think there's a very good argument that we should stop selling semi-automatic rifles, but I don't support doing that any way other than a constitutional amendment.

 

Well that depends on how literally you interpret it. I think having a strict, literal interpretation of the document does more harm than good and is not what it's intended to be. I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend on allowing the people to own semi-automatic weapons. I'm comfortable with having Executive/Legislature regulate our freedoms. If anything goes out of hand, we have the Courts to protect us.

See, I'm not sure of that. Most commentary on the intent of the amendment seems to be that it was some combination of maintaining a strong standing militia (similar to what Switzerland has) and preventing government tyranny. That would imply to me that it was written to allow for military-grade weapons. I think there's a good argument that military-grade weapons have progressed to the point where we no longer wish for people to have them (or at the very least be able to easily obtain them), but I think that's a change of direction from how it was intended and should be enacted through an amendment. I'd vote for that amendment, but I wouldn't want it done a different way. The problem is once we start allowing loose interpretations the whole document basically just becomes symbolic.

 

That's where I really diverge from Hillary/Obama though. My biggest issue with Obama's presidency is the use of military force without a declaration of war as I think is required by the constitution. Part of the benefit of that is it requires the president to come to congress, say "hey here's my rationale and my plan", and then thoroughly debate both parts. Hillary rushed Obama off to war (at least in Libya) without taking the time to go through Congress and now we're suffering the consequences (see tail risks post above re EU disintegration). The Germans took their time, thoroughly debated the question of "what happens when Gaddafi is gone", and decided to abstain from the bombing. Obviously congress isn't always right either, but it helps.

 

I agree. The whole ISIS mess stems from the US intervention into Libya, so Trump's claim that Obama and Hillary are the founders of ISIS aren't that exaggerated, though I know he is definitely joking. But the media picks this up as another sign that Trump is unfit and immature.

 

There's actually evidence to suggest that a number of the very same Syrian rebels we armed and trained defected to ISIS. I would imagine that allowing as much collateral damage as we have over a decade worth of bombings has certainly not driven the younger generation is these countries to like the U.S. 

 

I wouldn't go as far to say that Bush/Obama/Clinton are the founders of ISIS - but I don't think that blaming U.S. foreign policy in Iraq/Syria/Lybia is a reach at all, and they've all had a hand in the disaster that it's become.

[JayGatsby]

 

There hasn't been a declaration of war since before Vietnam. While I agree with you that it's unconstitutional, basically every president spanning the last 4 to 5 decades has done it...

I didn't realize this. So the Iraq War Resolution that Hillary voted for basically delegated authority to declare war to George W? Kind of a loophole where congress didn't formally declare war? According to this, congress at least voted on something for Bush Jr's wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Declarations_of_war

[jeffmori7]

I will follow the candidates' position on science in this election: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donald-trump-s-lack-of-respect-for-science-is-alarming/

[Investor20]

I will follow the candidates' position on science in this election: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donald-trump-s-lack-of-respect-for-science-is-alarming/

 

The proof is in the pudding.

 

Look at the excel for non-defense budget of federal govt since 2008 in below link. 

 

The budget for non-defense R&D clearly increased during Bush years

 

Flat during Obama, though the budget increased from 2.8T to 3.8T during Obama.

 

A decrease from 2.2% to 1.7% of budgetary allocation to non-defense R&D during Obama.

 

As they say, the proof is in the pudding which party is pro-R&D.

 

Year Non Def R&D

2000 45.08

2001 48.10

2002 52.25

2003 57.01

2004 60.57

2005 60.15

2006 58.91

2007 60.65

 

2008 62.51

2009 63.54

2010 66.22

2011 69.36

2012 67.80

2013 64.26

2014 62.53

2015 62.30

2016 63.79

 

https://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

There hasn't been a declaration of war since before Vietnam. While I agree with you that it's unconstitutional, basically every president spanning the last 4 to 5 decades has done it...

I didn't realize this. So the Iraq War Resolution that Hillary voted for basically delegated authority to declare war to George W? Kind of a loophole where congress didn't formally declare war? According to this, congress at least voted on something for Bush Jr's wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Declarations_of_war

 

Sure - they voted to give Bush authority to invade AFTER soldiers were already on the ground in the country. The first special forces were sent in July 2002. American soldiers were on the ground in Iraq and executing on missions to execute Hussein and his generals for 9 months BEFORE Congress approved anything.

 

That's how every "war" has been. The president sends in troops, bombs the country, and 6-9 months later Congress basically has it's hands tied to vote in support of the use of force. What looks worse at that point - supporting our troops or the international embarrassment it would be for Congress to vote against is effectively saying, "we're not at war and the American people don't support this, but we've been bombing the shit out of you anyways. Sorry"

 

 

[jeffmori7]

I will follow the candidates' position on science in this election: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donald-trump-s-lack-of-respect-for-science-is-alarming/

 

 

 

https://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd

 

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

[muscleman]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-department-of-clinton-1472167746

 

Guys, how comfortable are you with this kind of ethics?

 

When I invest, the first thing I check is the related transactions and the DEF 14.

If the company CEO consistently steals from the shareholders, there is no way I would invest, even if it is cheap.

 

Why not the same rational for electing US president?

 

[DTEJD1997]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-department-of-clinton-1472167746

 

Guys, how comfortable are you with this kind of ethics?

 

When I invest, the first thing I check is the related transactions and the DEF 14.

If the company CEO consistently steals from the shareholders, there is no way I would invest, even if it is cheap.

 

Why not the same rational for electing US president?

 

Because you MUST understand she would be the FIRST female president!  Why are you opposed to that?  So what if there is warmongering, corruption, and incontinence & incompetence?

 

THE FIRST WOMAN!  That "trumps" all!

[onyx1]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-department-of-clinton-1472167746

 

Guys, how comfortable are you with this kind of ethics?

 

When I invest, the first thing I check is the related transactions and the DEF 14.

If the company CEO consistently steals from the shareholders, there is no way I would invest, even if it is cheap.

 

Why not the same rational for electing US president?

 

 

Because Trump says mean things!

[valcont]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-department-of-clinton-1472167746

 

Guys, how comfortable are you with this kind of ethics?

 

When I invest, the first thing I check is the related transactions and the DEF 14.

If the company CEO consistently steals from the shareholders, there is no way I would invest, even if it is cheap.

 

Why not the same rational for electing US president?

 

Would you buy a company whose CEO thinks his shareholder base is 'poorly educated' ,has a record of leveraging and then declaring bankruptcies multiple times, does not disclose his returns , hires incompetent people , claims that he doesn't need to learn about anything, is so poor in basic math that he thinks he can alienate 40% of the market and can still win.

 

[vox]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-department-of-clinton-1472167746

 

Guys, how comfortable are you with this kind of ethics?

 

When I invest, the first thing I check is the related transactions and the DEF 14.

If the company CEO consistently steals from the shareholders, there is no way I would invest, even if it is cheap.

 

Why not the same rational for electing US president?

 

Except that the Clintons have never drawn a salary or direct personal benefits from the Clinton Foundation. The most demonstrable incident of favor trading that the AP reported on was that she helped a Nobel prize winning economist (who has also won the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal) that pioneered microcredits for the poor defend against political persecution.

 

If you want to think of the Presidential candidates as investors, perhaps you should read through this article on Donald Trump's career as an activist investor: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/donald-trump-activist-investor/

 

"But while Trump's ability to establish a major position in these companies quietly was clearly strategic, his rationale for doing so appeared less so -- at least according to him. In fact, when it came to Bally, he got the idea of going after the company from a single conversation with a single analyst -- Dan Lee, his trusted confidante from Drexel Burnham, Trump told a Bally lawyer in a deposition reviewed by CNN.

 

In that deposition, taken during a suit filed by Bally after Trump amassed 9.9% of the company's stock, Trump said he hadn't even looked at the company's proxy statements before he shelled out millions. He finally held a meeting with advisers from Bear Stearns after he'd purchased his stake in the company. "I wanted to start to learn a little bit about the company," Trump said of that first meeting. "I figured it was not a bad time to start."

 

Over the course of the depositions and testimony CNN reviewed from the period, it was a regular theme from Trump -- one with familiar echoes to his presidential campaign. While Trump had close advisers, "Trump will do what Trump wants to do. And often he'll do it without telling them at all," one former Trump Organization executive, who was with the businessman during this period, said in an interview.

 

The executive, who requested anonymity so as not to harm his existing relationship with Trump, recounted how most activist investors had teams of lawyers, analysts and advisers poring over the details of a potential target. Trump, on the other hand, wasn't even aware Bally had had health clubs -- a significant line of the company's business -- when he first started buying the company's stock.

 

Trump, in his testimony in front of the casino commission, put it like this: "I just felt instinctively -- when I do research on things, they never work out well.""

[muscleman]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-department-of-clinton-1472167746

 

Guys, how comfortable are you with this kind of ethics?

 

When I invest, the first thing I check is the related transactions and the DEF 14.

If the company CEO consistently steals from the shareholders, there is no way I would invest, even if it is cheap.

 

Why not the same rational for electing US president?

 

Would you buy a company whose CEO thinks his shareholder base is 'poorly educated' ,has a record of leveraging and then declaring bankruptcies multiple times, does not disclose his returns , hires incompetent people , claims that he doesn't need to learn about anything, is so poor in basic math that he thinks he can alienate 40% of the market and can still win.

 

Trump bankrupted 4 of his companies. He has over 100 in total. Not that bad.

He does not disclose his returns but does Hillary disclose?

 

Focus on the big picture.

The concerns with Hillary is far more serious.

 

If you have ever been offended by anything Trump says, watch this. I am far more offended by this.

 

 

Lastly, as swing voter, I only argue with swing voters. I do not bother discussing this topic with die hard republican or democrats because they always vote for the same party regardless.  :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[valcont]

I am focussing on the big picture. I don't want to hand over the nuclear codes to an egomaniac with a temper of a 5 yr. old.

 

No fan of Hillary either. Her claim to presidency is as credible as any corrupt dynastic from a third world country.

 

I did like some of the Trump's policies and was willing to give him a chance but the last few weeks has convinced me that he is beyond repair.

[muscleman]

I am focussing on the big picture. I don't want to hand over the nuclear codes to an egomaniac with a temper of a 5 yr. old.

 

No fan of Hillary either. Her claim to presidency is as credible as any corrupt dynastic from a third world country.

 

I did like some of the Trump's policies and was willing to give him a chance but the last few weeks has convinced me that he is beyond repair.

 

So what did he say in the past few weeks that made you think so? Please list them out and let's compare it with Hillary's super-predator comments.  :)