If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Sept. Edition)

[Cardboard]

Glad that we still have guys like Tim who are logical. He didn't fully say if he would vote for Trump or Clinton but, weighing both based on his judgement. I like that and respect him either way he will vote.

 

"IMO one of the variables you forgot is that one candidate is pretty predictable, while the other isn't. I wouldn't mind it so much if I also thought he was honest, put the interests of others above his own, wasn't entangled in conflicts of interest, wasn't belligerent, etc. But unpredictable + these things gets pretty scary.."

 

If someone is truly honest, the same applies to Hillary.

 

I watched the debate as most. Worst that I have ever seen. Even Hillary looks like a fool and you could tell that she was steaming. She could smile at the beginning but, lost it in the end. You truly believe that she will hold her control if attacked? She has demonstrated nothing but, bad judgement in all her actions as Secretary of State. Why is she less dangerous than Trump with the nuke codes?

 

Her husband for President? Sure. Her? No way!

 

Cardboard

[adesigar]

[LC]

For all you guys out there who have small hands, take a note:

 

 

Trump on global warming

http://i.imgur.com/fd1Icjc.jpg

 

Trump on charity

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

 

Trump on 9/11 (Hillary on 9/11 for context)

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-hillary-clinton-september-11-911-attacks-nyc-214236

 

Trump on honesty in politics

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/09/27/donald-trump-said-34-false-things-at-first-presidential-debate.html

 

Trump on real estate

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/trump-apartment-tenants/

 

 

[vox]

The USA Today endorses not Trump.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

 

"In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

 

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

 

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

 

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

 

We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:

 

He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.

 

He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”

 

He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.

 

Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.

 

His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.

 

He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.

 

He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.

 

He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.

 

He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.

 

We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.

 

Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.

 

Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.

 

Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.

 

Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.

 

Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump."

[cwericb]

I am amazed that some very astute and respected members of this board hold such animosity towards Hillary Clinton that they are somehow blind to the shortcomings of Mr Trump and admire and defend him despite all logic.

 

Surly at some point supporters have to stop making excuses for him. Is this the person you envision representing you and your country to the rest of the world?

 

Does he personify the image you have for President?

 

Do you aspire to be like him?

 

Is he a role model for your children - a rude, vulgar, vindictive buffoon who simply can not tell the truth?

 

Do you really believe that a person who has gone bankrupt six times and has stiffed thousands of people is “a successful businessman”? Warren Buffet and Prem Watsa are successful businessmen, how many times have they gone bankrupt? Did they start by inheriting $300 million 20-30 years ago?

 

Do you not ask yourself why Vladimir Putin is doing everything he can to support him. Only the delusional would believe he has the best interests of the US in mind.

 

I’m sorry if I am stepping on some toes here, but I can see no circumstances where Donald Trump would qualify for a Boy Scout leader, let alone the President of the United States of America.

 

USA Today pretty well sums up the situation. I only wish that some of Trump’s brighter supporters would take a step back, think outside the box for a minute, cast your political prejudices aside and really look closely at who they are supporting.

 

Hillary may not be ideal, but Mr. Trump is an embarrassment.

[muscleman]

I am amazed that some very astute and respected members of this board hold such animosity towards Hillary Clinton that they are somehow blind to the shortcomings of Mr Trump and admire and defend him despite all logic.

 

Surly at some point supporters have to stop making excuses for him. Is this the person you envision representing you and your country to the rest of the world?

 

Does he personify the image you have for President?

 

Do you aspire to be like him?

 

Is he a role model for your children - a rude, vulgar, vindictive buffoon who simply can not tell the truth?

 

Do you really believe that a person who has gone bankrupt six times and has stiffed thousands of people is “a successful businessman”? Warren Buffet and Prem Watsa are successful businessmen, how many times have they gone bankrupt? Did they start by inheriting $300 million 20-30 years ago?

 

Do you not ask yourself why Vladimir Putin is doing everything he can to support him. Only the delusional would believe he has the best interests of the US in mind.

 

I’m sorry if I am stepping on some toes here, but I can see no circumstances where Donald Trump would qualify for a Boy Scout leader, let alone the President of the United States of America.

 

USA Today pretty well sums up the situation. I only wish that some of Trump’s brighter supporters would take a step back, think outside the box for a minute, cast your political prejudices aside and really look closely at who they are supporting.

 

Hillary may not be ideal, but Mr. Trump is an embarrassment.

 

 

I disagree when you say Trump had six investees that went chp 11 so he must be no good. He had over 100 investees and bankrupted 6. Not a bad record.

Buffet had his defeat moments too. Dexter shoes and a few others.

I think every investors on this board had a few defeat moments.

 

I wouldn't bother to point out other disagreements with you. This is an investing board so I hope you can at least get the above explanation.

 

 

 

[onyx1]

The USA Today endorses not Trump.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

 

In this election cycle, media opinions like these only further embolden Trump supporters.

[cwericb]

"He had over 100 investees and bankrupted 6. Not a bad record."

 

Seriously???

 

Obviously you have never been on the wrong side of a bankruptcy.

 

In the circles I deal in, people usually do not go bankrupt if they have the funds in other businesses to pay out their creditors of the failed business. I have also had several cases where the bankrupt later paid out creditors when they became more successful and had the ability to pay.

 

Some might view that as poor business while others consider it a matter of ethics. It is also about your personal reputation.

[cwericb]

PS

 

"Buffet had his defeat moments too. Dexter shoes and a few others."

 

And did he go bankrupt and stiff his suppliers? Or did he take the honorable route and and pay his creditors?

[rkbabang]

The USA Today endorses not Trump.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

 

In this election cycle, media opinions like these only further embolden Trump supporters.

 

Exactly.  Here is a good story on the backfire effect ( http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ )

 

And that is with facts. If people dig in and hold to their beliefs even more strongly after hearing opposing facts, I would think the effect would be even larger after hearing opposing opinion.  I've never understood newspaper endorsements anyway.  Aren't these news publications supposed to at least try to give the appearance of impartiality (as impossible as that is to achieve in the real world)?

[muscleman]

"He had over 100 investees and bankrupted 6. Not a bad record."

 

Seriously???

 

Obviously you have never been on the wrong side of a bankruptcy.

 

In the circles I deal in, people usually do not go bankrupt if they have the funds in other businesses to pay out their creditors of the failed business. I have also had several cases where the bankrupt later paid out creditors when they became more successful and had the ability to pay.

 

Some might view that as poor business while others consider it a matter of ethics. It is also about your personal reputation.

 

 

I don't think you get it. You are saying Buffet should keep funding the Hathaway mills instead of shutting them down, and you are saying that Buffet should keep funding Dexter shoes even after billions of dollars invested in it already went into the drain. It is all about personal reputation. Therefore Buffet should rather keep losing money on these investees than take the lose and move on?

 

I am sure you will disagree on that, but when the same thing is applied to Trump, you demonize him and make he look like an evil?

 

 

 

 

[vox]

The USA Today endorses not Trump.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

 

In this election cycle, media opinions like these only further embolden Trump supporters.

 

I agree. On the other hand, 65% of Trump supporters think President Obama is a Muslim (13% think he's a Christian), so they may be impervious to reality.

 

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/05/gop-quickly-unifies-around-trump-clinton-still-has-modest-lead.html

[Cardboard]

Which % of Hillary supporters think that Obama is Kenyan?

 

Cardboard

[muscleman]

The USA Today endorses not Trump.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

 

In this election cycle, media opinions like these only further embolden Trump supporters.

 

I agree. On the other hand, 65% of Trump supporters think President Obama is a Muslim (13% think he's a Christian), so they may be impervious to reality.

 

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/05/gop-quickly-unifies-around-trump-clinton-still-has-modest-lead.html

 

 

I don't know whether Obama is Muslim but I think we can clearly agree that he is alt-pro-Muslim.

Look at his veto for the 9-11 bill, which got overturned by Congress by a margin of 97-1. This is one of the most shameful moment in his legacy.

 

 

 

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

You know the very funny thing about the USA Today "Not Trump" endorsement?

 

They point out several disconcerting items about Mr. Trump.  Several of which are probably true.  Then they go on to say that Hillary is not ideal either and has "trust issues".  Their criticism of her is something like two sentences.

 

If you want to criticize Mr. Trump, fine & good...but what about the alternative?

 

Criticism of Bill & Hillary can fill two books.

 

Mr. Trump certainly SAYS some very "bad" comments....no doubt.  What about what Bill and Hillary have DONE?  In my book, actions speak louder than words.

 

The way I see it, the country has a CHANCE with Donald Trump.  You can argue what the chance of success is maybe 10%, 20%, 50%?  Under a Hillary regime, the odds are near zero.

 

Therefore, I would rather roll the dice and see what happens.

[cwericb]

"He had over 100 investees and bankrupted 6. Not a bad record."

 

Seriously???

 

Obviously you have never been on the wrong side of a bankruptcy.

 

In the circles I deal in, people usually do not go bankrupt if they have the funds in other businesses to pay out their creditors of the failed business. I have also had several cases where the bankrupt later paid out creditors when they became more successful and had the ability to pay.

 

Some might view that as poor business while others consider it a matter of ethics. It is also about your personal reputation.

 

 

I don't think you get it. You are saying Buffet should keep funding the Hathaway mills instead of shutting them down, and you are saying that Buffet should keep funding Dexter shoes even after billions of dollars invested in it already went into the drain. It is all about personal reputation. Therefore Buffet should rather keep losing money on these investees than take the lose and move on?

 

I am sure you will disagree on that, but when the same thing is applied to Trump, you demonize him and make he look like an evil?

 

You completely miss my point. If the business isn't working, you pay your debts and shut the business down. You don't just declare bankruptcy, walk out and stiff your creditors like Trump has done six times.

[cwericb]

"Look at his veto for the 9-11 bill, which got overturned by Congress by a margin of 97-1. This is one of the most shameful moment in his legacy."

 

Wait for the other shoe to fall on this. Opening the door to citizens to sue governments will create an interesting situation when we see how many lawsuits the US Government will now have to defend every time the US drops a bomb on a civilian. It was these ramifications Obama had in mind.

[bargainman]

Look at his veto for the 9-11 bill, which got overturned by Congress by a margin of 97-1. This is one of the most shameful moment in his legacy.

 

a vote they immediately regret for 'unintended consequences'.  Ie, they didn't read it or think about it before voting...

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawmakers-fret-over-sept-11-bill-day-after-veto-override-n657046

 

[vox]

Which % of Hillary supporters think that Obama is Kenyan?

 

Cardboard

 

I haven't seen a reputable poll that tracks this specifically among Hillary supporters. The NBC/Survey Monkey poll suggests that 5 - 10% of Democrats believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States. This of course is substantially lower than the percentage of Republicans that hold that belief.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persistent-partisan-divide-over-birther-question-n627446

[TwoCitiesCapital]

"He had over 100 investees and bankrupted 6. Not a bad record."

 

Seriously???

 

Obviously you have never been on the wrong side of a bankruptcy.

 

In the circles I deal in, people usually do not go bankrupt if they have the funds in other businesses to pay out their creditors of the failed business. I have also had several cases where the bankrupt later paid out creditors when they became more successful and had the ability to pay.

 

Some might view that as poor business while others consider it a matter of ethics. It is also about your personal reputation.

 

 

I don't think you get it. You are saying Buffet should keep funding the Hathaway mills instead of shutting them down, and you are saying that Buffet should keep funding Dexter shoes even after billions of dollars invested in it already went into the drain. It is all about personal reputation. Therefore Buffet should rather keep losing money on these investees than take the lose and move on?

 

I am sure you will disagree on that, but when the same thing is applied to Trump, you demonize him and make he look like an evil?

 

You completely miss my point. If the business isn't working, you pay your debts and shut the business down. You don't just declare bankruptcy, walk out and stiff your creditors like Trump has done six times.

 

Just out or curiosity, why not? Isn't that exactly what ch. 11 is? you restructure the debts or default on them and leave the creditors with the collateral/assets?

 

I'm just trying to understand the situation: if I own a company, it defaults, I declare bankruptcy and then give up all assets and cash to creditors, I'm not also going to work for the next 10 years slaving away to make those creditors whole.

 

Maybe it's different if I had another company, but I also don't feel like I would be automatically compelled to use earnings/assets from the second company to pay off another one that was already been legally disposed of and settled.

 

A related question: if you own a house and have a mortgage on it and property prices fall 50%, is it appropriate to just walk away from the house and let the bank repossess it? If not, why not? Is it morally wrong to operate within the confines of an agreement that both parties agreed to operate withing or is it still wrong to walk away from a house that you have the ability to pay for even though the mortgage agreement gives you that ability?

 

 

[bargainman]

His standard operating procedure is to get away with as much as possible, pretty clear from his 'renegotiating the debt' statement.  He loves court fights.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

 

“Trump could have settled it right off the bat, but they wanted to fight it out, that’s their M.O.”

 

In that case, the manager of the contractor behind the renovation testified that the painter was not paid because Trump had "already paid enough."

 

In his ruling, the judge noted that Trump's attorneys "visibly winced, began breathing heavily, and attempted to make eye contact" with the witness. Those attorneys have since filed a motion to delay the sale.

 

That said, his statements on women and minorities alone should disqualify this man from even running for president.  I'm not sure how anyone with a mom, sister, girlfriend or wife, or any hispanic friends could support him.

[Cardboard]

"I haven't seen a reputable poll that tracks this specifically among Hillary supporters. The NBC/Survey Monkey poll suggests that 5 - 10% of Democrats believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States. This of course is substantially lower than the percentage of Republicans that hold that belief."

 

5 to 10% of the superior minds believe that??? WOW!

 

Cardboard

 

[rb]

Ok, now you have the Republican Presidential Nominee tweeting about beauty queens sex tapes. This must be for all those values voters out there.

[Cardboard]

"That said, his statements on women and minorities alone should disqualify this man from even running for president."

 

So Hillary should disqualify for calling deplorables a much larger share of the overall population?

 

And regarding his comments, he made comments on minorities and women on specific elements of them. There are bad elements crossing the Southern border. Are they not Hispanic? He has never said that all Hispanic people are bad or tainted with the same brush.

 

Whatever he called Rosy O'Donnell, is not applied to the entire women population. And how do you think Hillary called Monica Lewinski, Paula Jones and others? Does that apply to all women???

 

Like I said before he is far from being a great candidate. But, please stop generalizing every comment.

 

Cardboard

[physdude]

Maybe I don't get it since I am not American, but why does the place of birth really matter for a president? I get it that the constitution says that the president should have been born in the US (or apparently at least a US military base as John McCain was born in Panama) but is that really an important qualification for a president particularly given that it is, by definition, something that is out of the hands of the candidate and can therefore never reflect on his/her suitability? It seems really weird if a fantastic candidate is rejected purely because he/she was born when the parents were on an overseas trip or such.