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

[Liberty]

Trump's salesman way of speaking is becoming a literary genre:

 

"Juliet. Such a nasty woman. She made Romeo kill himself. And believe me he could have done better. Look at her." #TrumpBookReport

 

NOBODY, I mean NOBODY, has more pride than me.  And NOBODY has more prejudice. I have so much pride. And so much prejudice. #TrumpBookReport

 

;D

 

Also, looks like this is getting to him:

 

[DooDiligence]

 

There's no sense of personal responsibility with these types.

 

Hate, anger & divisiveness are the tools of the trade.

 

They'll blame the hammer after the thumb gets hit...

 

I hope he developes an incurable case of @55 cancer that pain meds won't touch...

 

 

Great juxtaposition. You couldn't make this stuff up.

I do hate Hillary, but I hate Trump as well.  Looking on this election without a horse in the race I see much more hate directed at Trump, by the very people who feel morally superior to Trump supporters and accuse them of being filled with hate.  It is a wonderful display of hypocrisy to sit back and watch.  Yes, Trump supporters are a pretty ignorant lot, but they have nothing on the left when it comes to hate.

 

Well deserved chastisement accepted.

 

And now a moment of Zen...

[rkbabang]

I don't exactly have a large enough following to move the needle.  Considering what is going on with this election  (the press spreading Trump=Hitler fears, the hate a lot of people other than me have for Hillary, etc), me spreading doom and gloom is like a drop of water in an ocean.  Also, I do hope I'm wrong.

 

Ever heard the phrase "Better to be roughly right than precisely wrong" . I suspect its the latter in your case.

 

I could be, maybe Hillary will surprise me. I've been wrong before.  I was certainly wrong about Obama.  I thought he was going to end all of Bush's wars.  I was silly enough to believe he actually meant what he said, but so did the Nobel Peace Prize committee, so I wasn't the only one.  I was actually thrilled when he was elected in 2008 as I thought McCain was a warmongering lunatic.  As it turns out Obama was worse than Bush, but still probably not as bad as McCain would have been. McCain scared me even more than Hillary does now.

 

[Jurgis]

I see much more hate directed at Trump, by the very people who feel morally superior to Trump supporters and accuse them of being filled with hate.  It is a wonderful display of hypocrisy to sit back and watch.  Yes, Trump supporters are a pretty ignorant lot, but they have nothing on the left when it comes to hate.

 

Hate? Nah, I love Trump. Just not in that way.  8)

[RichardGibbons]

I thought McCain was a warmongering lunatic.  McCain scared me even more than Hillary does now.

 

And this is how you describe Clinton's likely outcomes:

 

The best we can hope for is all out war in the middle east and a new cold war with Russia (nuclear arms race included).  The worst case would be the end of humanity (along with most of the other complex/large lifeforms on the planet).

 

So McCain was worse than this, and you seem pretty confident with each election cycle that we're teetering on the edge of a nuclear apocalypse. It makes sense to me now why you're a such a devout libertarian, viewing government as nothing but a problem, if you assess the probabilities of the end of civilization this way.

 

Have you ever considered that you're particular sensitive on this war issue, and might not be so good at estimating the odds of an apocalypse?  It sounds really stressful living in your head.

 

[valcont]

So McCain was worse than this, and you seem pretty confident with each election cycle that we're teetering on the edge of a nuclear apocalypse. It makes sense to me now why you're a such a devout libertarian, viewing government as nothing but a problem, if you assess the probabilities of the end of civilization this way.

 

Have you ever considered that you're particular sensitive on this war issue, and might not be so good at estimating the odds of an apocalypse?  It sounds really stressful living in your head.

 

This is not related to rkbabang's comment or to him/her. My wife and I get a kick out of watching these doomsday preppers show. Man these people are nutcases. At one time we thought about finding some just in case. But then we figured it would be so terrible to live among them that we abandoned our search.

 

Our favorite was this couple who were storing bunch of frozen food in the basement refrigerator.

[oddballstocks]

So McCain was worse than this, and you seem pretty confident with each election cycle that we're teetering on the edge of a nuclear apocalypse. It makes sense to me now why you're a such a devout libertarian, viewing government as nothing but a problem, if you assess the probabilities of the end of civilization this way.

 

Have you ever considered that you're particular sensitive on this war issue, and might not be so good at estimating the odds of an apocalypse?  It sounds really stressful living in your head.

 

This is not related to rkbabang's comment or to him/her. My wife and I get a kick out of watching these doomsday preppers show. Man these people are nutcases. At one time we thought about finding some just in case. But then we figured it would be so terrible to live among them that we abandoned our search.

 

Fascinating story related to this.  I was friends with a guy who was in the Air Force before he started a business.  While in the Air Force he trained pilots on how to survive behind enemy lines in harsh conditions and how to survive torture.  The stories he had were epic.  Air Force takes pilots in the desert, tells them to empty their water bottles and gives then a point some miles away that they're supposed to meet at in a few days.  Anyways his stories were always really cool.  He started a coffee shop, then did some telecommunications stuff.  Very boring career type things.

 

This prepper thing starts to become popular.  So this guy writes a book on a whim.  Basically a fictional account of someone surviving a terrorist attack in the woods.  He said he just wrote about his training in a fiction form, nothing more, nothing less.  The guy wasn't a great writer.  Anyways the book takes off, it became a cult favorite from these guys.  Suddenly he's an 'expert' and in demand.  So he does the natural thing, he starts a prepping company.  Sells training, sells getaway houses, the whole deal.  It's grown like crazy.  Now as expected his clients thought he should be a prepper as well I guess.  A year or two ago he moved "off the grid" to Central PA.  Now here's the irony with all this.  The guy completely plays into the stereotype his clients have.  But he grew up on a farm, and he's always wanted to get back to that.  So going 'off grid' to live like he always wanted with his family isn't much of a stretch.

 

This is one of those "right place right time" stories.  He happened to have this experience from the military when the whole scene was becoming popular and he had the foresight to cash in big on it.  Some buddies and I like to joke that we'd like to go into the woods with him and have him show us how to suck a rabbit's eyeballs out.  He said this was one of the first things the Air Force made these guys do, was a rite of initiation.  I guess compared to being waterboarded an eyeball isn't that bad.

[alwaysinvert]

Just remember, guys, you are not allowed to not accept the outcome of the vote before it has taken place. That is undemocratic as opposed to declaring the election results okay before the voting process is finished, which is clearly the democratic way. As of today it is undemocratic to withhold judgement on the democratic viability of an election until after it is over.

 

One time a candidate took weeks after the election to accept the results, because it wasn't exactly clear what they were. But that election was totally rigged. The guy who won was selected, not elected. There is no way this one is rigged though, because the correct candidate looks set to win. We're lucky that way this time.

[Jurgis]

Way OT.

 

If you go to Grand Canyon Caverns, they show you the food/water stored there for expected 2000 people bomb shelter from Cold War time. Not sure if the food/water is still any good - I think stories vary.

 

You can also book a room there for a night - in case you expect the big one to hit on certain day... Or just to sleep in complete darkness and silence.  8)

 

http://gccaverns.com/rooms-packages/the-grand-canyon-caverns-cavern-motel-room/

 

 

[Jurgis]

Some buddies and I like to joke that we'd like to go into the woods with him and have him show us how to suck a rabbit's eyeballs out.

 

Some friends from SciFi club/writing group talked about scenario where you get transported to human-uninhabited Earth (pick your own scenario why there are plants/animals, but no people: maybe it's prehistoric, maybe there was apocalypse, etc.). It's spring, you have clothes, maybe a knife (maybe not - depending on scenario). What would you do?

 

I'd just die.

 

Well, maybe with knife I wouldn't.

For couple days.

[vox]

Please read the reference before commenting

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-great-brain-robbery-china-cyber-espionage/

 

Few points: (John Carlin is assistant attorney general of National Security)

You are talking about individuals but it is not what John Carlin says:

John Carlin: They're targeting our private companies. And it's not a fair fight. A private company can't compete against the resources of the second largest economy in the world.

 

John Carlin: These were officers in uniform and their day job was to get up, go to work, log on, and steal from a range of American companies.

 

You are talking about American laws that are applicable in America:

 

Lesley Stahl: You know, it feels like a pinprick, your indictment. They're never going to be extradited. Is there talk of putting any sanctions on the way we did with Russia when they went into the Ukraine?

 

John Carlin: The bottom line I think has to be that we continue to increase the costs until the behavior changes. If it doesn't change, then we need to keep thinking of additional actions, whether they're trade actions or sanctions that change the behavior.

It is not small as you say:

 

"is costing U.S. corporations hundreds of billions of dollars and more than two million jobs"

 

Lesley Stahl: Do you have a number of U.S. companies that have been hit?

John Carlin: It's thousands of actually companies have been hit.

Lesley Stahl: Thousands of U.S. companies?

John Carlin: Of U.S. companies.

 

Emphasis in bold has been added.

 

Here is John Carlin's white paper regarding national security cyber threats: https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/2016/Carlin%20FINAL.pdf

 

On pg. 428, he writes:

 

On April 1, 2015, the President issued an Executive Order (EO) that will allow the use of America's economic power against the foreign cyber threat. EO 13,694, entitled "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities," authorizes the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to impose targeted sanctions on and block the assets of individuals and entities whose "malicious cyber-enabled activities" originating from outside the United States contribute to a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, economic health, or financial stability of the United States. Among other things, this EO allows the U.S. government to target certain companies that benefit from trade-secrets theft. Specifically, if a foreign individual or entity receives or uses a trade secret misappropriated through cyber-enabled means, knows the trade secret was misappropriated, and meets certain other criteria, then they could be subject to sanctions under the EO. Economic sanctions carry severe consequences: access to company property in the United States is blocked and U.S. individuals and firms are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions or dealing with the company. This EO has the potential to successfully deter foreign companies and individuals outside our jurisdiction. The types of narrowly tailored sanctions authorized by the EO have the potential to "make clear that the United States and its partners are willing to take a more forceful stance to uphold the norms of good conduct in cyberspace," without eliciting the damaging impact on the U.S. and world economies that broad-based sanctions might.

 

There is no reason to believe that Donald Trump would be tougher or more successful in preventing commercial espionage other than your predisposition towards him.

[Liberty]

Just remember, guys, you are not allowed to not accept the outcome of the vote before it has taken place. That is undemocratic as opposed to declaring the election results okay before the voting process is finished, which is clearly the democratic way. As of today it is undemocratic to withhold judgement on the democratic viability of an election until after it is over.

 

One time a candidate took weeks after the election to accept the results, because it wasn't exactly clear what they were. But that election was totally rigged. The guy who won was selected, not elected. There is no way this one is rigged though, because the correct candidate looks set to win. We're lucky that way this time.

 

I think there's a difference between questioning things based on evidence (I think the Bush v. Gore election was on its face a very special case) and spinning conspiracy theories to try to excuse that he's losing based on the fact that many people don't like very much the person that they've been exposed to during this campaign (petty vindictive volatile narcissistic elitist billionaire liar who sexually assaults women and is hostile to minorities isn't the most winning ticket, even if you have a slick salesman).

 

When a moderator at a presidential debate asks this question, the context matter. He's basically asking if you'll respect the will of the voters in the democratic spirit. He's not asking: "If there's evidence that the election's outcome was changed through illegal means, what will you do?". I think it's pretty implicit that if there's evidence of this kind of stuff, that you don't have to shut up and swallow it.

 

But so far Trump hasn't done much more than state as fact that the election is rigged, with the implied conclusion that this is why he's going to lose. But if he loses, it'll probably be because he's not someone that most voters want as president.

 

Any election where tens of millions of people vote will have irregularities, and he's set things up so that after he loses, he can point to some of them and claim that this is just part of some much bigger conspiracy and that he's really a winner, but the system's against him... He just can't ever admit that he lost, his ego won't allow it. He's running for president and he's bitter about the Emmy's, for crying out loud!

 

I mean, if what Trump did here was such a logical thing to do, why was it never done before (afaik, or almost never)? Because he's the only politician who cares about electoral fraud? You think Teddy Roosevelt would've kept his mouth shut and done nothing if he had been aware of a rigged election? This is the US, not a third world country.

 

Further proof that this isn't about some high minded ideals about fair elections: He came out and said he'd accept the result... if he wins.

[rkbabang]

Some buddies and I like to joke that we'd like to go into the woods with him and have him show us how to suck a rabbit's eyeballs out.

 

Some friends from SciFi club/writing group talked about scenario where you get transported to human-uninhabited Earth (pick your own scenario why there are plants/animals, but no people: maybe it's prehistoric, maybe there was apocalypse, etc.). It's spring, you have clothes, maybe a knife (maybe not - depending on scenario). What would you do?

 

I'd just die.

 

Well, maybe with knife I wouldn't.

For couple days.

 

It depends, do I have books to read?  If not, yeah I just die.

 

[rkbabang]

I thought McCain was a warmongering lunatic.  McCain scared me even more than Hillary does now.

 

And this is how you describe Clinton's likely outcomes:

 

The best we can hope for is all out war in the middle east and a new cold war with Russia (nuclear arms race included).  The worst case would be the end of humanity (along with most of the other complex/large lifeforms on the planet).

 

So McCain was worse than this, and you seem pretty confident with each election cycle that we're teetering on the edge of a nuclear apocalypse. It makes sense to me now why you're a such a devout libertarian, viewing government as nothing but a problem, if you assess the probabilities of the end of civilization this way.

 

Have you ever considered that you're particular sensitive on this war issue, and might not be so good at estimating the odds of an apocalypse?  It sounds really stressful living in your head.

 

 

It is stressful.  I can't imagine what the inside of someone who doesn't care about war's head is like.  We may be evolved from apes, but that doesn't mean we have to behave like them.  We supposedly have rational faculties which can override our primal instincts.  I listen to the "support-the-military-conservatives" sometimes and it just makes me almost sick to my stomach.  If you look at the industry that has sprung up around death and destruction and you realize that most of the politicians are bought and paid for by it, it is overwhelming to think about.  It baffles me that most people just don't care.  Is it tribalism? Racism? Xenophobia? Or just plain old lack of empathy? We've come a long way as far as cultural evolution goes, but we still have a long, long, way to go. 

 

 

[Jurgis]

If you look at the industry that has sprung up around death and destruction and you realize that most of the politicians are bought and paid for by it, it is overwhelming to think about.  It baffles me that most people just don't care.  Is it tribalism? Racism? Xenophobia? Or just plain old lack of empathy?

 

Talking about empathy. I am biased. But if Russia decides to invade Lithuania, I'd rather NATO retaliated. And I'd rather NATO kept retaliation options strong (which in your mind is new nuclear Cold War).

 

Yeah, my most emphatic choice would be that Russia woke up from living under nationalist dictator, became a modern democracy with less corruption and all Russians and the rest of the world lived in peace.

 

But that's not an option right now and it's unlikely to be an option the things are going for quite a while.

So my second best option is something that might lead to WW3.

 

OTOH, assume we disarm NATO and do nothing when Russia invades Lithuania. Don't you think that would lead to the same or even larger scale conflict later? I don't know. Maybe appeasing aggressors and hoping they will come to their minds at some point is the solution... especially if you're USA and don't care much that parts of Europe get trampled. Tough to say.

 

I think we are closer regarding Middle East: the issue there is that there are pretty much no good actors involved and IMO there are no solutions at this point. So probably no action is better than involvement. Even though it breaks my heart when people die there. And I'm sure some of the fighters/rebels/etc. feel that they are doing the right thing for better future of their families, citizens, countries.

 

Edit: BTW, most Lithuanians believe that NATO will do nothing if Russia invades. So looking from that side appeasement and no-WW3 is probably more likely no matter who gets elected in USA. Which may or may not comfort you.

[rb]

I just don't understand this obsessive fear of all nuclear war with Russia. Yes both countries are nuclear armed. Yes Regan was terrified by the flimsiness of the process of starting nuclear war. But this fear also assumes that Russia is this country that doesn't care about anything and is just itching to start a massive war with the US at the slightest provocation. Like a mental patient with nothing to loose.

 

The reality is that the US has an incredibly mighty military for which Russia has a healthy respect. A nuclear strike on the US basically guarantees that your country is wiped out. Russians also like their country and would prefer it without nuclear fallout and will do everything they can to keep it that way. They do not relish a major conflict with the US just like the US does not relish a major conflict with Russia.

 

Case in point: Turkey shoots down Russian jet. Russia huffs and puffs but basically lets it go.

[Jurgis]

I just don't understand this obsessive fear of all nuclear war with Russia. Yes both countries are nuclear armed. Yes Regan was terrified by the flimsiness of the process of starting nuclear war. But this fear also assumes that Russia is this country that doesn't care about anything and is just itching to start a massive war with the US at the slightest provocation. Like a mental patient with nothing to loose.

 

The reality is that the US has an incredibly mighty military for which Russia has a healthy respect. A nuclear strike on the US basically guarantees that your country is wiped out. Russians also like their country and would prefer it without nuclear fallout and will do everything they can to keep it that way. They do not relish a major conflict with the US just like the US does not relish a major conflict with Russia.

 

Case in point: Turkey shoots down Russian jet. Russia huffs and puffs but basically lets it go.

 

We all hope you're right. :)

But "case in point": Russia invades Baltics (unrealistic? IMO not so much after Ukraine). What does the NATO do? ;) As I said, most likely nothing, because they also don't want WW3 and nuclear. But then NATO is kaput... what's next?

 

Anyway, I think your point is fine: right now the probability of nuclear WW3 is still pretty low. But if before Putin it was maybe 0.004%, now it's possibly 0.06%. But, no I can't substantiate the numbers. ;)

[Uccmal]

I just don't understand this obsessive fear of all nuclear war with Russia. Yes both countries are nuclear armed. Yes Regan was terrified by the flimsiness of the process of starting nuclear war. But this fear also assumes that Russia is this country that doesn't care about anything and is just itching to start a massive war with the US at the slightest provocation. Like a mental patient with nothing to loose.

 

The reality is that the US has an incredibly mighty military for which Russia has a healthy respect. A nuclear strike on the US basically guarantees that your country is wiped out. Russians also like their country and would prefer it without nuclear fallout and will do everything they can to keep it that way. They do not relish a major conflict with the US just like the US does not relish a major conflict with Russia.

 

Case in point: Turkey shoots down Russian jet. Russia huffs and puffs but basically lets it go.

 

We all hope you're right. :)

But "case in point": Russia invades Baltics (unrealistic? IMO not so much after Ukraine). What does the NATO do? ;) As I said, most likely nothing, because they also don't want WW3 and nuclear. But then NATO is kaput... what's next?

 

Anyway, I think your point is fine: right now the probability of nuclear WW3 is still pretty low. But if before Putin it was maybe 0.004%, now it's possibly 0.06%. But, no I can't substantiate the numbers. ;)

 

I agree with RBs stance.  There's is a reason Russia would like to see Trump in the Whitehouse.  He is weak.  Like her or hate her, Clinton is not seen as weak.  She is respected and no one will try to test her.  This is important right now with the EU in apparent disarray and weak leadership in the U.K. And France. 

 

I suspect NATO has contingency plans to handle Russia that are well known to Russian operatives should Russia try to invade a NATO country.  Crimea has no doubt woke them up. 

 

Rb mentions the Russian plane being shot down and Russia huffing and puffing.  Russia didn't want to engage Turkey.  Turkey is modern, militarily powerful, and its leader is respected.  Russia engaging Turkey in any way other than Cold War type potshots is in no way in Russia's interest.  Respect is a powerful thing. 

 

 

[rb]

Guys, I know we're not disagreeing here. But Uccmal, you mention that maybe Russia didn't want to engage Turkey because they have a modern military so they weren't comfortable with that. If that's so, how do you think they feel about the US military? I also think that the part of Turkey being a NATO member and NATO Article 5 is out there may have played a part. Maybe they didn't want to really test the resolve of the NATO big brother.

 

This brings me to Jurgis. I understand your thinking about NATO's resolve. I also have family in NATO EE. But you can't really compare NATO territory with Ukraine. Ukraine had a chance to join NATO but they turned it down. They figured they have a better chance with the Russians. Well bad mistake. But it gets down to respect and sanity. If Russia invades the Baltics or any NATO nation what do they gain? Not much. NATO may show up or they may not. If Russia doesn't have a death with why should they risk everything for not much at all?

 

There's a massive difference between Ukraine and NATO territory. Plus Russia didn't even annex all of Ukraine. I may very well be very wrong, but I don't think Russians have a death wish or they want to test NATO's resolve. Of course if they get a guy like Trump who breaks NATO they would be very pleased with the result.

 

BTW, in opposition to Jurgis I think that the risk of nuclear war is lower with Putin in charge than otherwise.

[DooDiligence]

I worked in the UAE & Egypt for a few years & although I don't consider myself a cultural or political expert, I think I may have a middle east peace solution.

 

If we were to send a massive sortie of B52's to drop pallets of bacon, baby backs & beer (the tension would disappear...)

 

A follow up wave of even mildly attractive, scantilly clad eastern European hookers would seal the deal (Trump could broker this portion!)

[rb]

Well DD that is a supremely stupid idea since they're not allowed to fornicate, drink, or consume pork.

 

On the other hand if you can persuade the US Air Force to conduct that air drop in my back yard I promise you that I will persuade the ME leaders to embrace peace. Believe me!

[Investor20]

Please read the reference before commenting

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-great-brain-robbery-china-cyber-espionage/

 

Few points: (John Carlin is assistant attorney general of National Security)

You are talking about individuals but it is not what John Carlin says:

John Carlin: They're targeting our private companies. And it's not a fair fight. A private company can't compete against the resources of the second largest economy in the world.

 

John Carlin: These were officers in uniform and their day job was to get up, go to work, log on, and steal from a range of American companies.

 

You are talking about American laws that are applicable in America:

 

Lesley Stahl: You know, it feels like a pinprick, your indictment. They're never going to be extradited. Is there talk of putting any sanctions on the way we did with Russia when they went into the Ukraine?

 

John Carlin: The bottom line I think has to be that we continue to increase the costs until the behavior changes. If it doesn't change, then we need to keep thinking of additional actions, whether they're trade actions or sanctions that change the behavior.

It is not small as you say:

 

"is costing U.S. corporations hundreds of billions of dollars and more than two million jobs"

 

Lesley Stahl: Do you have a number of U.S. companies that have been hit?

John Carlin: It's thousands of actually companies have been hit.

Lesley Stahl: Thousands of U.S. companies?

John Carlin: Of U.S. companies.

 

Emphasis in bold has been added.

 

Here is John Carlin's white paper regarding national security cyber threats: https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/2016/Carlin%20FINAL.pdf

 

On pg. 428, he writes:

 

On April 1, 2015, the President issued an Executive Order (EO) that will allow the use of America's economic power against the foreign cyber threat. EO 13,694, entitled "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities," authorizes the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to impose targeted sanctions on and block the assets of individuals and entities whose "malicious cyber-enabled activities" originating from outside the United States contribute to a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, economic health, or financial stability of the United States. Among other things, this EO allows the U.S. government to target certain companies that benefit from trade-secrets theft. Specifically, if a foreign individual or entity receives or uses a trade secret misappropriated through cyber-enabled means, knows the trade secret was misappropriated, and meets certain other criteria, then they could be subject to sanctions under the EO. Economic sanctions carry severe consequences: access to company property in the United States is blocked and U.S. individuals and firms are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions or dealing with the company. This EO has the potential to successfully deter foreign companies and individuals outside our jurisdiction. The types of narrowly tailored sanctions authorized by the EO have the potential to "make clear that the United States and its partners are willing to take a more forceful stance to uphold the norms of good conduct in cyberspace," without eliciting the damaging impact on the U.S. and world economies that broad-based sanctions might.

 

There is no reason to believe that Donald Trump would be tougher or more successful in preventing commercial espionage other than your predisposition towards him.

 

Thank you for checking the information.  That is right - it is not xenophobics that brought in the discussion of trade sanctions.  The original discussion on this started when I posted stagnating wages. One poster here challenged me to give one policy of Trump that could help in wages.  Then I posted this - theft of IP and over 2 million high paying jobs that are lost.  So, who is better a different discussion.  The point is people are not xenophobics when they say certain things.  They are not against trade.  But does not mean one has to just sit and watch when 400 billion dollars worth of theft is happening each year.

 

I think Trump needs to be given a chance.  This theft is not new.  The IP commision linked below said in May 2013 - I presume the data is of 2012 or earlier.  So its been happening for a while.  Obama/HC had their chance to fix it.

 

IP Commission report: Co-chair: Dennis C. Blair, former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command

Co-chair: Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative

 

Hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

The annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia—over $300 billion. The exact figure is unknowable, but private and governmental studies tend to understate the impacts due to inadequacies in data or scope. The members of the Commission agree with the assessment by the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, that the ongoing theft of IP is “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.” (Emphasis in bold added)

 

Obama/Clinton had at least four years to fix it.

 

http://www.ipcommission.org/report/ip_commission_report_052213.pdf

 

[DooDiligence]

Well DD that is a supremely stupid idea since they're not allowed to fornicate, drink, or consume pork.

 

On the other hand if you can persuade the US Air Force to conduct that air drop in my back yard I promise you that I will persuade the ME leaders to embrace peace. Believe me!

 

Thanks for your kind consideration!

 

Given that the post was obviously done tongue in cheek I have to wonder who the idiot is here (in truth I don't wonder at all rb...)

[rb]

Well DD that is a supremely stupid idea since they're not allowed to fornicate, drink, or consume pork.

 

On the other hand if you can persuade the US Air Force to conduct that air drop in my back yard I promise you that I will persuade the ME leaders to embrace peace. Believe me!

 

Thanks for your kind consideration!

 

Given that the post was obviously done tongue in cheek I have to wonder who the idiot is here (in truth I don't wonder at all rb...)

Nevertheless, if you could still arrange for that airdrop at the aforementioned location  :) 8)

[DooDiligence]

Well DD that is a supremely stupid idea since they're not allowed to fornicate, drink, or consume pork.

 

On the other hand if you can persuade the US Air Force to conduct that air drop in my back yard I promise you that I will persuade the ME leaders to embrace peace. Believe me!

 

Thanks for your kind consideration!

 

Given that the post was obviously done tongue in cheek I have to wonder who the idiot is here (in truth I don't wonder at all rb...)

Nevertheless, if you could still arrange for that airdrop at the aforementioned location  :) 8)

 

One load of eastern European hookers comin' up!

 

See - tensions diffused...