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

[vox]

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.

 

A person's place of birth should not matter, but the Constitution is difficult to change.

[rkbabang]

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.

 

I'm a "natural born Citizen" of the US and I don't get it either.  The constitution says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

 

Why is someone who is born outside of the US definitely not a "natural born Citizen" of the US?  As long as one of your parents is a US Citizen doesn't that make you a "natural born Citizen" regardless of your place of birth?  Obama's mother was born in Kansas, that should be the end of the whole issue.

 

[rkbabang]

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.

 

A person's place of birth should not matter, but the Constitution is difficult to change.

 

No need to change the constitution.  The wikipedia page summarizes it well: "The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning."

 

Nothing in the constitution says that you must be born in the US on US soil.  A common language interpretation would be that if you are a US citizen from birth then you can be president.

[rb]

I never understood the whole natural born citizen thing either. It didn't bother me too much to try to decode it because I didn't think that Obama was not eligible to be president. I believe that the US government has mechanisms in place to determine if someone can be president or not.

 

I think that it's a bit more complicated than at first sight. For example, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and was eligible to become president.

[vox]

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.

 

A person's place of birth should not matter, but the Constitution is difficult to change.

 

No need to change the constitution.  The wikipedia page summarizes it well: "The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning."

 

Nothing in the constitution says that you must be born in the US on US soil.  A common language interpretation would be that if you are a US citizen from birth then you can be president.

 

Sure, but my belief is that even those who are not born a US citizen should not be prohibited from becoming president. For example, if a child were born in a different country and adopted by a U.S. family, they would be constitutionally excluded.

[Liberty]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121

[KinAlberta]

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.

 

I'm a "natural born Citizen" of the US and I don't get it either.  The constitution says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

 

Why is someone who is born outside of the US definitely not a "natural born Citizen" of the US?  As long as one of your parents is a US Citizen doesn't that make you a "natural born Citizen" regardless of your place of birth?  Obama's mother was born in Kansas, that should be the end of the whole issue.

 

Well, it's not certain but part of my father's family tree may go back 300+ years in the US (so that should count for something) but my dad was born in Canada to an American parent, and so was I born in Canada, but apparently I could still apply and get US citizenship due to grandfathering of some old legislation.

 

So folks, when I run I promise to be nothing like your current two candidates.  :-)

 

 

[cwericb]

 

 

TwoCitiesCap...

“Maybe it's different if I had another company,”

 

Yes, that was the point, Trump had numerous other successful companies yet he made no effort to pay the bills of the ones that were failing. he simply walked away let the people who were good enough to trust him take the hit. They supplied labor and materials for him to build and operate the companies but when he found them not to be profitable he walked away without paying his bills and filed for bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy there is often no assets left for the unsecured creditors and they get nothing. That creates a domino effect where many of those small companies and individuals then can’t pay their bills and end up with their own financial problems.

 

“...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.”

 

Absolutely right. You may have an ethical obligation to pay your debts if you are able to, but there is no legal obligation.

 

There is really is little difference between a hold up and a bankruptcy. In both cases someone takes things and does not pay for them.

[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?

 

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.

 

That's wrong. If this is the case then what's the point of having an LLC?

 

BTW do you even know what LLC means and what legal rights and protections you have?

 

John Malone said it is important to compartmentalize the debt. Do you even understand what he means?

 

BTW, how long have you been doing investing? I can't imagine such words coming out of an investing veteran.

 

[Tim Eriksen]

"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.

 

That's wrong. If this is the case then what's the point of having an LLC?

 

BTW do you even know what LLC means and what legal rights and protections you have?

 

John Malone said it is important to compartmentalize the debt. Do you even understand what he means?

 

BTW, how long have you been doing investing? I can't imagine such words coming out of an investing veteran.

 

cwericb,

Do you believe the same way about those walked away from their mortgage in the housing crisis?  What about bankruptcy for medical bills?  If you don't, isn't that hypocritical.  If you do, your candidate would be appalled, and you are morally requiring something that is not legally required.  Non-recourse debt is just that and is priced higher for a reason.

 

You know the saddest part about reading these discussions isn't that someone has radically different views, it is that so many are blind to the same problems in their own candidate/party.  How can a a Trump or Hillary supporter adopt the rationale that the other candidate is unqualified for lying while saying their candidate isn't?   

 

I know we are all susceptible to bias, but we should be diligent about reducing it in our lives.

[valcont]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/09/30/donald-trump-tweet-storm-miss-universe-hillary-clinton/91314446/

 

Talk about strategy and focus. A presidential candidate of a major party is in a twitter fight with a model from Venezuela. This is hilarious!! I thought that the W. was their lowest moment but this party is a bottomless pit of the stupids.

 

[cwericb]

 

"That's wrong. If this is the case then what's the point of having an LLC?

BTW do you even know what LLC means and what legal rights and protections you have?

John Malone said it is important to compartmentalize the debt. Do you even understand what he means?

BTW, how long have you been doing investing? I can't imagine such words coming out of an investing veteran."

 

 

Well it seems Donald Trump may be a role model for you so my probably don't mean much to you. Moral, ethics and legalities, they are not the same and that is the point I tried to make.

 

I am well aware of the legal protection incorporation grants. If you want to hide behind legalities, that’s your choice, but there is always a certain moral or ethical obligation to pay one's debts. Some people have a sense of honor and I guess some do not.

 

Your raised the subject of Buffett and Dexter shoes. The company may have failed but did he put it into bankruptcy? Did he stiff his creditors? Or did he suck it up, keep his honor intact, and pay his obligations and move on?

 

Have you been in private business? How many bankruptcies have you had personal experience with?

 

Yes, there are situations where some have no choice but to declare bankruptcy because they or their company are broke and have simply exhausted all access to funds. But then there are the shysters who have lots of money and hide behind the bankruptcy act as a way to screw their creditors when that shyster F-up in his own business ventures. When that happens it is the poor people who provided honest work to the bankrupt who wind up getting hurt. Obviously, that wouldn’t bother you.

 

PS.

Since you bring it up, I would suggest that I have probably dealt with more bankruptcies than you have and have probably been investing a longer. I am by no means a great investor, but I have muddled through pretty well so far and seem to be able to hold my own.

 

 

 

“Do you believe the same way about those walked away from their mortgage in the housing crisis?  What about bankruptcy for medical bills?”

 

Tim, You may have missed part of this conversation. The point I am trying to make is that there is a vast difference between someone who inadvertently finds themselves in a financial hole and simply do not have the funds to recover and a billionaire who would stiff people simply because he started a company that failed. 

[Cardboard]

"Tim, You may have missed part of this conversation. The point I am trying to make is that there is a vast difference between someone who inadvertently finds themselves in a financial hole and simply do not have the funds to recover and a billionaire who would stiff people simply because he started a company that failed."

 

I don't really understand your logic. Say you start a business with 4 business partners and after a few years, it goes belly up. Is it your responsibility to bail the other 4 and to back whatever liability the business has undertaken because you are wealthier than the other partners?

 

The kind of bankruptcy that I find disgusting is where the business goes under because it paid too much dividends or contracted too much debt, then the original owner buys it under bankruptcy for pennies on the dollar since there are no other takers. Does not seem to be what Trump got involved with.

 

Cardboard

[Tim Eriksen]

 

“Do you believe the same way about those walked away from their mortgage in the housing crisis?  What about bankruptcy for medical bills?”

 

Tim, You may have missed part of this conversation. The point I am trying to make is that there is a vast difference between someone who inadvertently finds themselves in a financial hole and simply do not have the funds to recover and a billionaire who would stiff people simply because he started a company that failed.

 

I don't think I missed that at all.  I would agree with you if you are talking about stiffing contractors.  He seems to have repeatedly done that.  That is disgusting if true.  But that is not the main point of your comments as I understand them.  It is about stiffing lenders.  He didn't.  The lenders made a non recourse loan and took the risk of the business not being able to support the debt.  It wasn't planned by Trump or the lenders. He had no moral obligation to cover a debt that was non-recourse.  I think you know that.  (I get it that I too would feel obligated to pay it back, but that feeling is not necessarily correct.)  You know that due to having no recourse the loan is priced higher.  If the lender wanted recourse they would have demanded it or else not made the loan.  The lender chose not to.  The business under performed.  It happened.  I think there is no meaningful difference between him and most mortgage borrowers who defaulted. 

 

Personally I think you are arguing your point based on animosity toward him.  I dislike him too.  But I think your argument fails a logic test.  Sorry to have butted in.  :)

 

 

[rb]

I would agree with you if you are talking about stiffing contractors.  He seems to have repeatedly done that.  That is disgusting if true. 

Here's an example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/28/i-sold-trump-100000-worth-of-pianos-then-he-stiffed-me/?utm_term=.74ae86d78048

[muscleman]

Even if this is true, how would this compare with Hillary's email scandals and a bunch of other scandals.

I am annoyed when Hillary brought up the "miss piggy" argument to attack Trump during a presidential debate. Keep in mind, "Miss piggy" was a porn star. How could she go so low........ Doesn't she have more decent arguments to make?

 

 

[muscleman]

 

"That's wrong. If this is the case then what's the point of having an LLC?

BTW do you even know what LLC means and what legal rights and protections you have?

John Malone said it is important to compartmentalize the debt. Do you even understand what he means?

BTW, how long have you been doing investing? I can't imagine such words coming out of an investing veteran."

 

 

Well it seems Donald Trump may be a role model for you so my probably don't mean much to you. Moral, ethics and legalities, they are not the same and that is the point I tried to make.

 

I am well aware of the legal protection incorporation grants. If you want to hide behind legalities, that’s your choice, but there is always a certain moral or ethical obligation to pay one's debts. Some people have a sense of honor and I guess some do not.

 

Your raised the subject of Buffett and Dexter shoes. The company may have failed but did he put it into bankruptcy? Did he stiff his creditors? Or did he suck it up, keep his honor intact, and pay his obligations and move on?

 

Have you been in private business? How many bankruptcies have you had personal experience with?

 

Yes, there are situations where some have no choice but to declare bankruptcy because they or their company are broke and have simply exhausted all access to funds. But then there are the shysters who have lots of money and hide behind the bankruptcy act as a way to screw their creditors when that shyster F-up in his own business ventures. When that happens it is the poor people who provided honest work to the bankrupt who wind up getting hurt. Obviously, that wouldn’t bother you.

 

PS.

Since you bring it up, I would suggest that I have probably dealt with more bankruptcies than you have and have probably been investing a longer. I am by no means a great investor, but I have muddled through pretty well so far and seem to be able to hold my own.

 

 

 

“Do you believe the same way about those walked away from their mortgage in the housing crisis?  What about bankruptcy for medical bills?”

 

Tim, You may have missed part of this conversation. The point I am trying to make is that there is a vast difference between someone who inadvertently finds themselves in a financial hole and simply do not have the funds to recover and a billionaire who would stiff people simply because he started a company that failed.

 

You lack the basic understanding of secured loans, unsecured loans, limited liability company etc. Period.

When I point to the law and order and you seem to have the lack of understanding of it, you climb to the peak of morale standards and try to win the argument from there.

I don't have anything else to say.

[bargainman]

"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

 

I'm not generalizing every comment.  He's making the comments over and over and over again, and over time it's pretty clear where he stands.  He's going to build a wall, deport families.  He has a long long history of womanizing.  3 wives, cheating, treating women badly.  It's not isolated, even if one comment is.. 

 

That said, actually the thing that nailed it for me was watching his rallies.  He incites violence in his followers.  Not just hatred, but violence.  He actually told people to throw others out or attack them.  Obama and Hillary would never use that sort of language, and I have watched comparisons of Obama dealing with hecklers.  He also lies over and over and over again, without shame and without reflection, and demonstrably so.  Fact checker sites confirm this, and actually put Hillary up as one of the most honest politicians.  He's a great divider and that's terribly dangerous.

 

He's spent his life in his own service and aggrandizement, not sure what makes anyone think he will now be a great advocate for the people.

[cwericb]

I guess I may not have made myself cleat. I was not talking about loans or financial institutions. I was referring to private individuals and small contractors who did not get paid for their services.

[bargainman]

I guess I may not have made myself cleat. I was not talking about loans or financial institutions. I was referring to private individuals and small contractors who did not get paid for their services.

 

Watch this video from the point of view of one of those contractors it's only a few minutes and quite elucidating:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2016/07/13/this-architect-says-trump-almost-destroyed-his-business-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-cant-get-coffee/#12f0d0806d9a

 

 

This is a pattern and it has happened over and over again if you do any research. Basically his strategy is one of a lack of integrity and trying to arbitrage the deal when he can get it.  It's basically a standard operating procedure it seems. He negotiates a deal, gets the other person to agree to a price, then gets other person to do the work, then when the other person does the work and sends the bill, then at that stage he doesn't pay it or he pays less than half.  Then he sends his lawyers out to the person and tells them that they can sue him and they will probably win if they sue him, but it's the lawyer's job to make their lives is so miserable and make the process so long and difficult that they would just be better off taking less than half or even less than that of what they are actually owed by contract. He has bankrupted his contractors many times over doing this… And hey sure it works…

 

This is why I brought up his earlier comments about the United States debt. He kind of made that flippant comment, about being able to renegotiate the debt. And yes we could definitely renegotiate the debt since we print the currency etc. But this isn't really about that. The fact that he goes in knowing that later on he's going to try to change/renegotiate the agreement, demonstrates an immense lack of integrity. And I'm certain this is something Buffett would never do.

 

 

[EliG]

Punch Card Research wrote a blog post about DJT, Trump's public company that went bankrupt:

 

A Cautionary Tale: Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts (DJT)

 

According to the blog, Trump used IPO proceeds to pay off his personal debt:

 

There are numerous instances of self-dealing and conflicts of interest over the brief history of DJT.  The disclosure of related party transactions in the 1996 S-1 goes on for 7 pages.  These events should have served as red flags to potential investors.

 

In sum, even when putting the facts in the best possible light, it is hard not to see the IPO itself as simply a scheme to shift Trump’s personal debt on to the shareholders. The transactions surrounding the World’s Fair are one good if convoluted example:

 

• As stated above, in June 1989, a partnership wholly owned by Trump acquired the Atlantis. Trump later re-named it the Trump World’s Fair.
  
• In August 1990, another Trump entity, Plaza Associates, leased the property and operated it as a non-casino hotel. They proceed to lose $14 million on this venture.
  
• In September 1992, a bank took over ownership of the hotel and Plaza Associates issued it a note for $17 million for back rent.
  
• In December 1993, the bank granted Trump an option to purchase: (1) the World’s Fair and (2) promissory notes totaling $65.8 million, including one issued by Trump personally for $35.9 million in 1987. This last loan is referred to as the “Trump Note.”  The notes were secured by certain real estate assets in New York wholly unrelated to the AC gaming ventures.
  
• In June 1995, using proceeds from debt issued in conjunction with the IPO, Trump paid off the $17 million note for back rent.
  
• Also in June 1995, using proceeds from the IPO, Trump acquired the World’s Fair for $58 million and transferred title to Plaza Associates. The S-1 then drily adds that in connection with this transaction “the Trump Note was canceled.”
  

 

It’s difficult to understand how repayment of Trump’s personal debt was justified as a use of Company funds.

[Investor20]

"He incites violence in his followers.  Not just hatred, but violence."

 

"Intern involvement with protests is mentioned twice in the leaked emails. DNC communications director Luis Miranda bemoaned photos of an empty anti-Trump protest in Washington, D.C. in one email chain.

 

Miranda said: “Going forward, when our allies screw up and don’t deliver bodies in time, we either send all our interns out there or we stay away from it.. we don’t want to own a bad picture.”"

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-emails-show-dnc-officials-planned-anti-trump-protests/#ixzz4LntZEb6Y

 

It is DNC that is inciting violence by sending people to disrupt a peaceful rally.  Why would anyone want to go to a peaceful rally and disrupt.  If they want they can have their own rally and see who gets more people.

 

[Cardboard]

"He's a great divider and that's terribly dangerous."

 

Obama is the greatest divider of all and had the opportunity to really bridge the gap in America. Why did you re-elect him in 2012?

 

He is doing nothing but, highlighting differences due to color and race instead of helping people get over this.

 

Trump on the other hand is a uniter. He is going to go after a very tiny percentage (terrorists, criminals) of the population to make the lives of all other better.

 

Cardboard

 

[muscleman]

"He's a great divider and that's terribly dangerous."

 

Obama is the greatest divider of all and had the opportunity to really bridge the gap in America. Why did you re-elect him in 2012?

 

He is doing nothing but, highlighting differences due to color and race instead of helping people get over this.

 

Trump on the other hand is a uniter. He is going to go after a very tiny percentage (terrorists, criminals) of the population to make the lives of all other better.

 

Cardboard

 

Totally agree.

Most Asian Americans like me support Trump because we think Hillary and Obama and their left wings are the racists.

We are outraged by the AB1726 bill passed in California, which explicitly discriminates Asian Americans.

 

Another example is the Supreme court's ruling on  Fisher v. University of Texas, which says the school can deny admission merely based on race.

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/05/13/elite-colleges-should-not-penalize-asian-applicants-essay

 

These are typical examples of how Obama administration emphasizes race and encourages conflicts between races.

We cannot let these racists continue to run the country for 8 more years!

 

 

Usually Asian Americans don't care much about politics and usually don't bother to go to vote. But this year most of the Asian Americans are motivated to go and vote for Trump. We are furious about what has happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[onyx1]

He incites violence in his followers.  Not just hatred, but violence. 

 

It's not the Trump supporters who are violent.