If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[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.

 

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.  :)

 

"Chicago cop told me he can fix the crime situation in a month" -- Zero understanding of any policy, simplistic views on complex issues

Hiring Manafort without checking background and then letting him go --- Lack of judgement,easy to dupe

Insulting Khan's family, attacking Paul Ryan, McCain anyone who criticize him -- small ,can't take criticism

Tax returns ( This is the guy who asked Romney to release his) - Zero integrity,tell me there is something very damaging  in the returns.

Comfortable with bigots, racists  (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html?_r=0)

 

 

[DTEJD1997]

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.

 

Trump is not qualified to have his finger on the nuclear button because of his temper?

 

What about Hillary's temper?

 

What about all the stories about her throwing bibles, ashtrays, etc. at Billy when he was president?  That the secret service was afraid that they would have to intervene.  Spousal abuse IS NEVER COOL!  THAT IS A BIG "no no".

 

What about the stories of the temper of Hillary towards those working underneath her?  That she snaps at them?  That she has a TERRIBLE temper.  That she is vindictive?  That she does not get along well with others.  That the secret service considers protecting her as a punishment?

 

That she visibly gets riled up and upset at public events?

 

Seems like she has a temper problem too!

[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.

 

Trump is not qualified to have his finger on the nuclear button because of his temper?

 

What about Hillary's temper?

 

What about all the stories about her throwing bibles, ashtrays, etc. at Billy when he was president?  That the secret service was afraid that they would have to intervene.  Spousal abuse IS NEVER COOL!  THAT IS A BIG "no no".

 

What about the stories of the temper of Hillary towards those working underneath her?  That she snaps at them?  That she has a TERRIBLE temper.  That she is vindictive?  That she does not get along well with others.  That the secret service considers protecting her as a punishment?

 

That she visibly gets riled up and upset at public events?

 

Seems like she has a temper problem too!

 

I am not here to defend Hillary but its very clear who is composed, calm,strategic among these two. She is executing her campaign remarkably well while

Trump self destructs. The polls are validating that approach (unless you don't believe in them either).

[valcont]

 

 

I am not here to defend Hillary but its very clear who is composed, calm,strategic among these two. She is executing her campaign remarkably well while

Trump self destructs. The polls are validating that approach (unless you don't believe in them either).

 

And I definitely don't want this exchange to turn into bitterness and anger. Neither Hillary nor Trump is going to change my life. They are running to fulfill their own ego and ambition. I don't want to waste too much time thinking about them. But discussing and reading investment ideas with ALL the members on this board can be very helpful. I have friends who are Hillary supporters and who support Trump. I don't judge them because I know them. Its very hard to discuss politics with anonymous members but we all share one common trait that is investments so lets not forget that as a big picture.

[Packer16]

I think the fact set here is pretty sparce.

 

"Chicago cop told me he can fix the crime situation in a month" -- Zero understanding of any policy, simplistic views on complex issues

 

I am no expert here but what is being done is apparently not working & a cop had a suggestion to fix the situation & Trump listened and re-stated what he heard.  How does this show Trump has Zero understanding of any policy, simplistic views on complex issues?  I am not saying he does but there is not enough information here to say one or the other.

 

Hiring Manafort without checking background and then letting him go --- Lack of judgement,easy to dupe

 

Here again do we have enough information to make a call?  When he was hired he was suppose to moderate Trump's rhetoric & that did not work.  Trump's action was a good one once he saw Manafort was not improving Trump's prospects.  His recent change of approach at least gives him a fighting chance.

 

Insulting Khan's family, attacking Paul Ryan, McCain anyone who criticize him -- small ,can't take criticism.

 

I agree these were mistakes & Trump said as much a few days ago in NC.  He has been humbled by this & we will see if he will change.  My question about Clinton is will she say she has made a mistake about having a server in her house rather than continue to blame Colin Powell and state the FBI said I did not do anything wrong.  The question her IMO is who is willing to take responsibility and show humility vs. blame others when you make a mistake, this is playing out in real time.

 

Tax returns ( This is the guy who asked Romney to release his) - Zero integrity,tell me there is something very damaging  in the returns.

 

I agree he should release them but again the data is not here to say if there is or is not damaging info in the returns.

 

Comfortable with bigots, racists  (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html?_r=0)

 

To use data from 1970s when times were different is a stretch.  How many of his friends are racist now?  Has his view changed?  How many Hillary's friends from the 1970s were racist?  Does that make her a racist?  Does she call out the Black Panthers who support her? 

 

I think my main point is the lack of information to make these conclusions is large.  This is a persuational game being played by both candidates with few facts supporting the implications.  Scott Adams has documented this quite well in his blog if you are interested.

 

Packer

 

 

 

 

[valcont]

I think the fact set here is pretty sparce.

 

"Chicago cop told me he can fix the crime situation in a month" -- Zero understanding of any policy, simplistic views on complex issues

 

I am no expert here but what is being done is apparently not working & a cop had a suggestion to fix the situation & Trump listened and re-stated what he heard.  How does this show Trump has Zero understanding of any policy, simplistic views on complex issues?  I am not saying he does but there is not enough information here to say one or the other.

 

Comfortable with bigots, racists  (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html?_r=0)

 

To use data from 1970s when times were different is a stretch.  How many of his friends are racist now?  Has his view changed?  How many Hillary's friends from the 1970s were racist?  Does that make her a racist?  Does she call out the Black Panthers who support her? 

 

I think my main point is the lack of information to make these conclusions is large.  This is a persuational game being played by both candidates with few facts supporting the implications.  Scott Adams has documented this quite well in his blog if you are interested.

 

Packer

 

If a doctor tells me that he can find a cure for AIDS in a month, I would be skeptical and at least ask him how rather than relaying it to everyone. Trump didn't do that because he believed the cop since that fits with his simplistic notions about the complex national issues like crime or immigration( another

area where he is learning slowly).

 

I don't really want to defend Clinton. She thinks she can get away with murder because they are Clintons . There is no excuse for having a private server

other than to control the information that the public has a right to know. I would have gladly supported Rubio/Kasich/Bush against her.

 

You are right , the data is old and the people can change. I didn't say he is racist. He is more cynical than that. He thinks that his base love bashing minorities so he tries to take advantage of that sentiment.

 

I have read some of Scott Adam's articles since I loved his book. Honestly he doesn't strike me as a persuasion expert. Here is a cartoonist who is trying to find his second coming by becoming a political expert. He found some traction with his Trump prophesy and now he believes that he has skills. He reminds me of Saddam Hussein's 'spokesman' during the Iraq war who told all these tales of great victory. IMO he should stick to drawing cartoons.

[muscleman]

The polls are validating that approach (unless you don't believe in them either).

 

What's the difference in the reasoning between:

"The polls are validating that approach", so the majority must be right

 

AND

 

Market efficient hypothesis: The stock price always reflect all fundamentals. If you think the stock is undervalued or overvalued, you must be wrong. The market must be right.

 

 

So why are you on this value investing board?  :)

[rkbabang]

The polls are validating that approach (unless you don't believe in them either).

 

What's the difference in the reasoning between:

"The polls are validating that approach", so the majority must be right

 

AND

 

Market efficient hypothesis: The stock price always reflect all fundamentals. If you think the stock is undervalued or overvalued, you must be wrong. The market must be right.

 

 

So why are you on this value investing board?  :)

 

+1

 

The market in the short term is a voting machine and in the long term a weighing machine.  Unfortunately the democratic process is always a voting machine and works as well as you would expect.

[valcont]

The polls are validating that approach (unless you don't believe in them either).

 

What's the difference in the reasoning between:

"The polls are validating that approach", so the majority must be right

 

AND

 

Market efficient hypothesis: The stock price always reflect all fundamentals. If you think the stock is undervalued or overvalued, you must be wrong. The market must be right.

 

 

So why are you on this value investing board?  :)

 

Oh well since you mentioned..

 

I believe that the market is right MOST of the time but it does misprice an asset from time to time. It may be due to regulations,protection, tax loss harvesting,mass hysteria , biases or an investor base. Value investing is just a framework to analyze these opportunities. Trend following is another where the traders captures fat tails of the deviation.

 

Elections is a popularity contest decided by voting. There is no weighing machine here.  I hope you don't think that Clinton and Trump are the most eligible for the President's job. Its an apples and orange comparison.

 

I really hope you don't believe that markets gets it wrong MOST of the time. Efficient market hypothesis is not correct but that doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

 

 

[muscleman]

The polls are validating that approach (unless you don't believe in them either).

 

What's the difference in the reasoning between:

"The polls are validating that approach", so the majority must be right

 

AND

 

Market efficient hypothesis: The stock price always reflect all fundamentals. If you think the stock is undervalued or overvalued, you must be wrong. The market must be right.

 

 

So why are you on this value investing board?  :)

 

+1

 

The market in the short term is a voting machine and in the long term a weighing machine.  Unfortunately the democratic process is always a voting machine and works as well as you would expect.

 

That's true. If election happens today, Hillary will most likely get the crown seat. But in the next two months, it is a bit hard to say how things will evolve and whether this voting machine will evolve to that weighing machine.

 

 

[muscleman]

The polls are validating that approach (unless you don't believe in them either).

 

What's the difference in the reasoning between:

"The polls are validating that approach", so the majority must be right

 

AND

 

Market efficient hypothesis: The stock price always reflect all fundamentals. If you think the stock is undervalued or overvalued, you must be wrong. The market must be right.

 

 

So why are you on this value investing board?  :)

 

Oh well since you mentioned..

 

I believe that the market is right MOST of the time but it does misprice an asset from time to time. It may be due to regulations,protection, tax loss harvesting,mass hysteria , biases or an investor base. Value investing is just a framework to analyze these opportunities. Trend following is another where the traders captures fat tails of the deviation.

 

Elections is a popularity contest decided by voting. There is no weighing machine here.  I hope you don't think that Clinton and Trump are the most eligible for the President's job. Its an apples and orange comparison.

 

I really hope you don't believe that markets gets it wrong MOST of the time. Efficient market hypothesis is not correct but that doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

 

I think George Soros's book has a better understanding of this than traditional value investors.

Traditional value investors think the market is right most of the time, and price always evolves around value, so when undervalued stocks are discovered, they buy, and hope it will go back to value quickly.

 

Soros takes it to the next level, saying that under or overvaluation can sustain for an extended period of time, and the under/overvaluation itself can reenforce itself. For example, VRX was overvalued, and that can be used as an acquisition currency to increase per share value, which reenforces the market's view that the stock is good. This game can sustain for a long time.

 

I want to apply that understanding to election here. Assuming a stable population, people can get unhappy with a party in power and vote for the other party in the next election (just like classic value investing: price evolves around value), or the current administration can bring in massive amount of illegal immigrants and influence the judges to void the voter ID laws. Each person, intelligent or not, only has one vote. So once these guys started to vote and break the balance, the balance may be broken forever.

 

From an unverified source, there are 6% of votes casted by illegal immigrants. I don't want to involve in the discussion of whether this figure is correct or not, but in theory, assuming it is, this may become a self-reinforcing trend.

 

 

 

 

[muscleman]

https://t.co/2UYBfPyfv9

Page 28. Clinton foundation donation only 5 Million in 2014. Paid 35 Million salary!

 

As a foundation, aren't they supposed to donate at least 5% of their assets each year? How come the salary is a monstrous 35 M?

[Packer16]

I sit on a non-profit board & these numbers are incredible.  For every $1 they raise 85% goes to non-program activities?  Included in the program activities is the Clinton Library & Park (3rd largest cause). 

 

Packer

[Cardboard]

When politicians or other public workers accept bribes it is done in the dark.

 

For the Clintons, they do it in the open for everyone to see and then they claim that the Foundation is doing charitable work. Yes some  ::)

 

Cardboard

[onyx1]

For the Clintons, they do it in the open for everyone to see and then they claim that the Foundation is doing charitable work. Yes some  ::)

 

Then they add you're a heartless child-killer to suggest shutting down the Clinton Foundation.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292323-carville-shutting-down-clinton-foundation-would-kill

[EliG]

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

 

Charity Watch rating: A

 

Program Percentage: 88%

 

Cost to raise $100: $2

 

Should I trust Charity Watch or a bunch of GOP partisans on COBF? I dunno, I am just a dumb Canadian.

 

[DonFanucci]

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

 

Charity Watch rating: A

 

Program Percentage: 88%

 

Cost to raise $100: $2

 

Should I trust Charity Watch or a bunch of GOP partisans on COBF? I dunno, I am just a dumb Canadian.

 

Maybe you should just read the foundation's public report that those GOP partisans linked to yourself.

[muscleman]

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

 

Charity Watch rating: A

 

Program Percentage: 88%

 

Cost to raise $100: $2

 

Should I trust Charity Watch or a bunch of GOP partisans on COBF? I dunno, I am just a dumb Canadian.

 

The link I included has the IRS tax report. That's the holy grail. Everything else they said on that annual report or any outside numbers are just bull shit.

 

 

[EliG]

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

 

Charity Watch rating: A

 

Program Percentage: 88%

 

Cost to raise $100: $2

 

Should I trust Charity Watch or a bunch of GOP partisans on COBF? I dunno, I am just a dumb Canadian.

 

The link I included has the IRS tax report. That's the holy grail. Everything else they said on that annual report or any outside numbers are just bull shit.

 

FactCheck.org

 

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

 

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.

 

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.

 

Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

 

...

 

In a Fox News interview, Fiorina was asked about a New York Times story about Sen. Marco Rubio’s finances, and Fiorina responded that she wished the New York Times would do more to investigate the Clintons’ finances, and particularly “what they’ve been doing with their donors’ money to the Clinton Global Initiative.”

 

Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”

 

That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.

 

Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”

 

“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”

[muscleman]

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

 

Charity Watch rating: A

 

Program Percentage: 88%

 

Cost to raise $100: $2

 

Should I trust Charity Watch or a bunch of GOP partisans on COBF? I dunno, I am just a dumb Canadian.

 

The link I included has the IRS tax report. That's the holy grail. Everything else they said on that annual report or any outside numbers are just bull shit.

 

FactCheck.org

 

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

 

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.

 

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.

 

Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

 

...

 

In a Fox News interview, Fiorina was asked about a New York Times story about Sen. Marco Rubio’s finances, and Fiorina responded that she wished the New York Times would do more to investigate the Clintons’ finances, and particularly “what they’ve been doing with their donors’ money to the Clinton Global Initiative.”

 

Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”

 

That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.

 

Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”

 

“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”

 

 

Instead of trusting these outside cover ups for the Clintons, why not just take a look at page 28 yourself? I assume most people on this board are financial detectives and financial report addicts.

 

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf

 

 

What does item 15 say? Salaries and employee benefits. 35 Million.

Item 17. Other expenses. 50 Million.

 

Then scroll down to page 37 for the breakdowns.

salaries and wages 24 Million.

Conferences, conventions, and meetings 12 Million.

 

Travel 7 Million.

Other employee benefits 4 Million

 

Payroll taxes 2.5 Million.

 

 

 

 

 

[Cardboard]

So you give to charitable organizations based on analyst recommendations without reading the financials?

 

How is that translating to the investment world? So you have two ways to approach a similar issue or how to deploy your money?

 

Cardboard

[vox]

So you give to charitable organizations based on analyst recommendations without reading the financials?

 

How is that translating to the investment world? So you have two ways to approach a similar issue or how to deploy your money?

 

Cardboard

 

You do know that Donald Trump literally invests without reading financials...

 

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]

So you give to charitable organizations based on analyst recommendations without reading the financials?

 

How is that translating to the investment world? So you have two ways to approach a similar issue or how to deploy your money?

 

Cardboard

 

People are defending Hillary just like Bruce Berkowitz defending his SHLD and ST Joe positions.  ;D

[muscleman]

So you give to charitable organizations based on analyst recommendations without reading the financials?

 

How is that translating to the investment world? So you have two ways to approach a similar issue or how to deploy your money?

 

Cardboard

 

You do know that Donald Trump literally invests without reading financials...

 

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.""

 

 

Uncle Carl Icahn will teach him and make good economic policies.

 

When I compare how people dislike Trump vs how people dislike Hillary, come one, the dirty points are not even in the same magnitude.

 

 

 

 

[Packer16]

This is an eye opener on charities & the watchdog organizations.  You read the comments from them and they say 88% goes to program & then you look at the details of program allocation of expenses and it includes all kinds of stuff that doesn't appear program unless your program is to train and administer the foundation (travel, conferences, salaries of officers).  Contrast that to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  They have about 90% in program also but all of the admin expense is not in program but in admin.

 

Packer