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

[ccplz]

If we're talking about the smell test, you can say Hillary's actions smell fishy- OK fine.

 

Trump's actions on the other hand definitely ARE fishy, but are we ignoring that? Because everyone seems to equate the two.

 

My stance is both don't pass the smell test, but Trump doesn't pass the ears mouth and eyes test either.

 

+1

[muscleman]

"There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with the approval process however State did approve it while she was Secretary of State."

 

Of course there would be no evidence. If there would be any, the most likely place to be is in her 33000 deleted emails.

But $140 million+ donations into Clinton Foundations later came from these related parties.

 

This is an investing board. Usually we are not short sellers. We look for things that don't smell well and avoid taking long positions on these stocks.

But in terms of Clinton, most people here don't apply this mentality. Instead people defend them just like company's IR department defending against a short seller. I don't understand.

 

The genesis of this story comes from Peter Schweizer, author of the book Clinton Cash, and president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI). GAI is funded by the Mercer Foundation which donated $1 million to GAI in 2013. Rebekah Mercer sat on the Board of GAI and has been a top donor to Ted Cruz in the primary campaign and later Donald Trump (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/07/rebekah-mercer-takes-helm-of-pro-trump-pac-extending-familys-influence-in-campaign/). The other large contributors to the GAI include the Franklin Center, a Koch brother funded organization and Donors' Trust, headed by current Chief Executive of Donald Trump's campaign Stephen Bannon. Those two organizations donated $3.5 million to GAI in 2012/2013. GAI's total revenues were  $2.2 million in 2012 and $2.6 million in 2013, so of the $4.8 million received for those years, $4.5 million came from three right wing funding sources.

 

Your investigation of the Uranium One donations isn't like a critical examination by a short seller, it's analogous to someone touting research from a stock promoter that's been paid by the company to write a favorable analysis.

 

If you think that Hillary Clinton exerted inappropriate influence in the approval of the transaction, then presumably she would be e-mailing her colleagues at the State Department, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, etc. Yet, somehow, there is no evidence that any person on the receiving end of such an e-mail had any such conversation with Secretary Clinton.

 

 

I bet the evidence is in the 33000 deleted emails, but without seeing those, there is no way to know.

We see five of Clinton staffers getting immunity deals and claiming the 5th. Does anyone think that's not suspicious?

 

 

 

[Investor20]

If we're talking about the smell test, you can say Hillary's actions smell fishy- OK fine.

 

Trump's actions on the other hand definitely ARE fishy, but are we ignoring that? Because everyone seems to equate the two.

 

My stance is both don't pass the smell test, but Trump doesn't pass the ears mouth and eyes test either.

 

I posted earlier and all of you guys ignored.  Every BIll Clinton speech fees above 500K (11 of them) are from foreign countries while Hillary was Secretary of State.  How come suddenly Bill became so famous in places like Nigeria and United Arab Emirates but not in America.  This is well beyond smell.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/

 

It is not just one or two to ignore.  It is 11 of 11 speeches that are paid above 500K during Hillary tenure as state secretary are from foreign countries.  It does not end there:

 

"So in the time Clinton left the White House in January 2001 and when his wife stepped down from secretary of state in February 2013, Clinton indeed gave 13 speeches for which he made more than $500,000. Eleven of those occurred since January 2009, when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. Only two happened before then."

 

That is he not only became famous exclusively in foreign countries during 2008-2012, he was not that famous the 8 years before that.

 

 

[rb]

Ok, this is pretty funny. When someone challenges you guys with facts on some of your assertions. Your reaction is to disregard facts and go back to conspiracy and innuendo. Somehow facts must be wrong.... you know, fishy smells, emails, speeches, Bill!, Bill!.

 

By the way, by looking into Bill's speeches, I'm starting to think that he damn good at that since even the die hard republicans are paying him for speeches. Businesses associated with the Ricketts paid him about 2 million in speaking fees. Anthony Scaramucci paid him for a speech in 2010 and declared that he's a stud. I soget a feeling that Trump won't be paid by hired by the Soros foundation to give a speech.

[LC]

I bet the evidence is in the 33000 deleted emails, but without seeing those, there is no way to know.

We see five of Clinton staffers getting immunity deals and claiming the 5th. Does anyone think that's not suspicious?

 

I posted earlier and all of you guys ignored.  Every BIll Clinton speech fees above 500K (11 of them) are from foreign countries while Hillary was Secretary of State.  How come suddenly Bill became so famous in places like Nigeria and United Arab Emirates but not in America.  This is well beyond smell.

 

Of course it's suspicious. The difference between Clinton and Trump is with Trump you have actual evidence, or words directly from his own mouth, of the bullshit he's done. With the Clintons, all you have is suspicion. This is what I mean when I say they both fail the smell test but Trump fails every other test as well.

[EliG]

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

 

Clinton Holds 41-Point Lead Over Trump Among Asian-American Voters: Survey - NBC News

 

 

[Investor20]

Ok, this is pretty funny. When someone challenges you guys with facts on some of your assertions. Your reaction is to disregard facts and go back to conspiracy and innuendo. Somehow facts must be wrong.... you know, fishy smells, emails, speeches, Bill!, Bill!.

 

By the way, by looking into Bill's speeches, I'm starting to think that he damn good at that since even the die hard republicans are paying him for speeches. Businesses associated with the Ricketts paid him about 2 million in speaking fees. Anthony Scaramucci paid him for a speech in 2010 and declared that he's a stud. I soget a feeling that Trump won't be paid by hired by the Soros foundation to give a speech.

 

Getting paid above 500K only in foreign countries 11 of 11 times and zero times in US coinciding with the time Hillary as secretary secretary of state is consipiracy and innuendo?

 

And you may be missing the big picture here.  People are supporting Trump because he does not need the 500K speaking fees and he is not taking money from ultrarich (which comes with favors). People are fed up with this money games where ultra rich fund the elections and after elections everything is against the small guy. That is why Bernie would have won the primary but not for the games DNC played.

 

Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html

 

 

[muscleman]

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

 

Clinton Holds 41-Point Lead Over Trump Among Asian-American Voters: Survey - NBC News

 

 

this only proves the polls are rigged. I am Chinese and I have not seen a single Chinese nearby supporting Hillary.

 

[RichardGibbons]

this only proves the polls are rigged. I am Chinese and I have not seen a single Chinese nearby supporting Hillary.

 

That's the conclusion you take from this?  That the most likely explanation is that all the polls are rigged?  Interesting.

[ccplz]

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

 

Clinton Holds 41-Point Lead Over Trump Among Asian-American Voters: Survey - NBC News

 

 

this only proves the polls are rigged. I am Chinese and I have not seen a single Chinese nearby supporting Hillary.

 

Is this guy serious?

[vox]

I'd strongly encourage anybody interested in politics and media to read this background story on Steve Bannon.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/

 

"Bannon is the executive chairman of Breitbart News, the crusading right-wing populist website that’s a lineal descendant of the Drudge Report (its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, spent years apprenticing with Matt Drudge) and a haven for people who think Fox News is too polite and restrained.

...

And he’s devised a method to influence politics that marries the old-style attack journalism of Breitbart.com, which helped drive out Boehner, with a more sophisticated approach, conducted through the nonprofit Government Accountability Institute, that builds rigorous, fact-based indictments against major politicians, then partners with mainstream media outlets conservatives typically despise to disseminate those findings to the broadest audience. The biggest product of this system is the project Bannon was so excited about at CPAC: the bestselling investigative book, written by GAI’s president, Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. Published in May by HarperCollins, the book dominated the political landscape for weeks and probably did more to shape public perception of Hillary Clinton than any of the barbs from her Republican detractors.

...

In 2012 he became founding chairman of GAI, a nonpartisan 501©(3) research organization staffed with lawyers, data scientists, and forensic investigators. “What Peter and I noticed is that it’s facts, not rumors, that resonate with the best investigative reporters,” Bannon says, referring to GAI’s president. Established in Tallahassee to study crony capitalism and governmental malfeasance, GAI has collaborated with such mainstream news outlets as Newsweek, ABC News, and CBS’s 60 Minutes on stories ranging from insider trading in Congress to credit card fraud among presidential campaigns. It's essentially a mining operation for political scoops that now churns out books like Clinton Cash and Bush Bucks.

...

For Bannon, the Clinton Cash uproar validated a personal theory, informed by his Goldman Sachs experience, about how conservatives can influence the media and why they failed the last time a Clinton was running for the White House. “In the 1990s,” he told me, “conservative media couldn’t take down [bill] Clinton because most of what they produced was punditry and opinion, and they always oversold the conclusion: ‘It’s clearly impeachable!’ So they wound up talking to themselves in an echo chamber.” What news conservatives did produce, such as David Brock’s Troopergate investigation on Paula Jones in the American Spectator, was often tainted in the eyes of mainstream editors by its explicit partisan association.

...

“It seems to me,” says Brock of Bannon and his team, “what they were able to do in this deal with the Times is the same strategy, but more sophisticated and potentially more effective and damaging because of the reputation of the Times. If you were trying to create doubt and qualms about [Hillary Clinton] among progressives, the Times is the place to do it.” He pauses. “Looking at it from their point of view, the Times is the perfect host body for the virus.” It wasn’t the only one. In June, when the Clinton Cash frenzy hit its apex, Bannon said: “We’ve got the 15 best investigative reporters at the 15 best newspapers in the country all chasing after Hillary Clinton.”"

[shalab]

This topic is not worth as much time as it is given - there are more serious topics where one can add value in a better way:

 

        - buy a tesla and help an american company

              - you are acting like a venture capitalist

        - support a local small business by spending a few dollars on it

        - help another person whichever way we can

 

 

At the end of the day, you will feel a lot better than this discussion.

[cwericb]

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

 

Clinton Holds 41-Point Lead Over Trump Among Asian-American Voters: Survey - NBC News

 

 

this only proves the polls are rigged. I am Chinese and I have not seen a single Chinese nearby supporting Hillary.

 

Is this guy serious?

 

Of course those polls are rigged against “The Donald”.

 

In fact the whole system is rigged against him.

 

We know this because The Donald himself has has told us so.

 

And we know that Donald Trump always tells the truth.

 

[Investor20]

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

 

Clinton Holds 41-Point Lead Over Trump Among Asian-American Voters: Survey - NBC News

 

 

this only proves the polls are rigged. I am Chinese and I have not seen a single Chinese nearby supporting Hillary.

 

Is this guy serious?

 

Of course those polls are rigged against “The Donald”.

 

In fact the whole system is rigged against him.

 

We know this because The Donald himself has has told us so.

 

And we know that Donald Trump always tells the truth.

 

And the press is fair to Trump?  The press coverage of Trump is "shocking" even for DNC! Read it for yourself:

 

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13830

From: Miranda, Luis

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:42 AM

To: Helmstetter, TJ; Regional Press

Subject: RE: Tv coverage of protest great

 

Yes, but 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:

.........

 

Three person protest outside the RNC. Sad!

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiQZmmEUgAAyeKl.jpg]

............

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Helmstetter, TJ

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:38 AM

To: Regional Press

Subject: Tv coverage of protest great

 

Shockingly good coverage despite abysmal turnout. CNN and MSNBC using prominently. Fox News covering new developments in Benghazi.

 

Note: Emphasis in bold added

 

[vox]

And the press is fair to Trump?  The press coverage of Trump is "shocking" even for DNC! Read it for yourself:

 

I agree that most members of the press favors Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. But the important question to ask is, why is that the case. I think there are a number of reasons.

 

1. There's a visceral distaste for conspiracy theories that Trump has propagated. He claims that the election will be rigged, but only if he loses. The idea that there's wide spread in person voter fraud in the US has been countered by every piece of research that's been conducted on the issue. His attempt to pivot away from being a leader of the birther movement by saying he was satisfied after he forced Barack Obama to release his birth certificate in 2011 is farcical when there are multiple tweets and sound bites of him stating that he did not believe President Obama was born in the United States through 2016. His endorsement of a theory that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy is outlandish.

 

2. Similarly, Trump's lies are often easily verifiable as false. As Brian Stelter of CNN points out, "Whether Hillary Clinton was truthful about her emails is such a complicated and almost insidery story that it requires a multi-thousand-word PolitiFact explanation. Donald Trump calling Obama the founder of ISIS can be fact-checked in a chyron." The Atlantic's Jame Fallows writes "the things Trump says are demonstrably false in a way that's abnormal for politicians. When he says he got a letter from the NFL on the debates and then the NFL says, 'No, he didn't,' it emboldens the media to treat him in a different way."

 

3. Trump maintained a blacklist of reporters and media outlets prohibited from receiving credentials to his events. The list has included the National Review, the Des Moines Register, Univision, BuzzFeed, the Daily Beast, Fusion, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, etc.

 

4. Trump riles up his supporters by insulting the media. Katy Tur of NBC describes, "A few days earlier, at another Trump rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, I'd tweeted live as wave after wave of protestors stood up during his speech. "Now 10," I wrote from the scene, counting the interruptions. "Trump ends speech abruptly and leaves stage. Trump thought my tweets were "disgraceful" and "not nice!" according to a chastising note from his 26-year-old press secretary, Hope Hicks. In the hours that followed, Trump took his complaints public, trashing me and CBS News reporter Sopan Deb for the coverage. He demanded I apologize. I didn't, so Trump decided to go further in Mount Pleasant, pointing his finger squarely at me and launching a personal attack as millions of Americans watched at home. "What a lie it was," Trump said, referring to the claim that he had left the stage abruptly. "What a lie. Katy Tur. What a lie it was. Third. Rate. Reporter. Remember that." It wasn't until hours later, when Secret Service took the extraordinary step of walking me to my car, that the incident sank in. The wave of insults, harassment, and threats, via various social-media feeds, hasn't stopped since. Many of the attacks are unprintable. "MAYBE A FEW JOURNALISTS DO NEED TO BE WHACKED," tweeted someone with the handle GuyScott33, two weeks after Trump lashed out. "MAYBE THEN THEYD STOP BEI[N]G BIASED HACKS. KILL EM ALL STARTING W/ KATY TUR."" Chuck Todd tweeted about the incident: "The campaign rhetoric needs to be ratcheted back. This is outrageous and dangerous behavior." Megyn Kelly posted: "Enough. Seriously." Janice Dean responded: "This needs to stop."

 

5. Trump wants to "open up libel laws." He said, "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected... We're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

 

6. Trump has little support from institutional Republicans. This means that the media does not get much pushback from the political wonk class when it produces coverage critical of Trump. That may embolden reporters because they know that George Will is not going to harangue them at his next dinner party. It also means that being critical of Trump will not damage their long term relationship with other members of the Republican party. It does not jeopardize their personal or professional relationships.

[abcd]

I understand your agony. As an individual with very limited knowledge of financials but with a slightly better understanding of politics, I am thinking I can use this thread to calibrate a contributor (it is for my own personal consumption). Basically, if I disagree with poster xxx, I might attribute less weightage to his (or her) opinion on other threads.

 

This topic is not worth as much time as it is given - there are more serious topics where one can add value in a better way:

 

        - buy a tesla and help an american company

              - you are acting like a venture capitalist

        - support a local small business by spending a few dollars on it

        - help another person whichever way we can

 

 

At the end of the day, you will feel a lot better than this discussion.

[menlo]

Both candidates seem corrupt, so which candidate do board members believe is the least likely to lead us (drag us, push us, trick us...) into war?  I ask because I have two sons who are of draft age (yes, I know there's no draft).  This issue might be what decides my vote.

[rb]

Both candidates seem corrupt, so which candidate do board members believe is the least likely to lead us (drag us, push us, trick us...) into war?  I ask because I have two sons who are of draft age (yes, I know there's no draft).  This issue might be what decides my vote.

This is a difficult question to answer. While the US did not use best judgement engaging in military conflicts in the past sometimes military action is necessary. So I don't think one should be looking for a president that would park the military and forget they have it.

 

It seems that you are concerned with your specific situation namely sons of draft age, so I'm thinking that you are concerned about a large conflict that requires massive military deployment. While Hillary seems to be on the hawkish side and is definitely comfortable with American power I think that the conflicts she would engage in would be of the strategic/surgical type that won't require huge deployments and a larger military.

 

On the other side. While no one knows the future, I think there's a larger chance that Trump engages in a major conflict. Maybe not even intentionally but just because he doesn't know what he's doing. Some president somewhere says something bad about him and he invades xyz country and then you have Vietnam 2.

[tengen]

Getting paid above 500K only in foreign countries 11 of 11 times and zero times in US coinciding with the time Hillary as secretary secretary of state is consipiracy and innuendo?

 

It's a fact that Bill Clinton managed to squeeze hefty sums out of some foreign countries for his speaking engagements. The conspiracy and innuendo is where you suggest that the fees were payoffs to gain some sort of influence over the state department. There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

 

And you may be missing the big picture here. People are supporting Trump because he does not need the 500K speaking fees and he is not taking money from ultrarich (which comes with favors). People are fed up with this money games where ultra rich fund the elections and after elections everything is against the small guy. That is why Bernie would have won the primary but not for the games DNC played.

 

I'd like to see Trump's tax returns before concluding that he doesn't need money from the "ultrarich". Here's a little "conspiracy and innuendo" back at you: What if Trump owes a ton of money to Russian sources? That would explain why he keeps talking up Putin and why he won't release his tax returns.

[cwericb]

"I'd like to see Trump's tax returns before concluding that he doesn't need money from the "ultrarich". Here's a little "conspiracy and innuendo" back at you: What if Trump owes a ton of money to Russian sources? That would explain why he keeps talking up Putin and why he won't release his tax returns."

 

Absolutely. How many legitimate, major banks are lining up to lend money to a guy who has stiffed his lenders SIX times?

 

Trump's supporters need to ask themselves why does he refuse to release his tax returns. It is costing him millions of potential votes. Surely he is not too dumb to understand this. Therefore, he must feel that the incriminating information in those returns would cost more votes than not releasing them.

 

Of course there could be also an issue with his lenders not wanting any publicity and some of those people do not mess around. 

[ccplz]

I think it's worth noting that the GOP's lead prosecutor for the Senate whitewater committee has endorsed her in the presidential race. (Michael Chertoff, who went on to serve as Secretary of Homeland security under Bush 43). This in his statement about it, he basically says "maybe their judgment wasn't the best but we probably should have used the time/resources to fight terrorism instead."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article105624876.html

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/06/496749561/once-clintons-prosecutor-during-whitewater-now-a-clinton-supporter

 

Also maybe worth noting is the extent that the people who bring up Clinton scandals go to to make them look legit. I found this article while looking for the one above and it's seriously fascinating: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/among-the-hillary-haters/384976/ . The sheer number of people who started working years before Hillary announced she was running for POTUS on finding dirt on her is impressive. Also the amount of work they do to appear extremely legit, with focus groups and working to kick the "crazies" out. It also goes through some of the perceived "scandals" and how basically, as society has changed over the last twenty years they've become much less interesting to most people (like if Bill Clinton actually "inhaled" or not, most people aren't going to care).

 

[rkbabang]

Both candidates seem corrupt, so which candidate do board members believe is the least likely to lead us (drag us, push us, trick us...) into war?  I ask because I have two sons who are of draft age (yes, I know there's no draft).  This issue might be what decides my vote.

 

In order from least likely to lead us into a major war to most likely: Stein, Johnson, Trump, Hillary.

 

That is also the same order for least likely to win to most likely.

[EliG]

Peak Trump

 

 

In a deposition for Trump Plaza bankruptcy case, Trump's own lawyer testified they often met with him in pairs because Trump lied so much. :)

 

 

 

[rb]

Both candidates seem corrupt, so which candidate do board members believe is the least likely to lead us (drag us, push us, trick us...) into war?  I ask because I have two sons who are of draft age (yes, I know there's no draft).  This issue might be what decides my vote.

 

In order from least likely to lead us into a major war to most likely: Stein, Johnson, Trump, Hillary.

 

That is also the same order for least likely to win to most likely.

rkbababg, I know we've tangled on topics before and that our ideologies and ways of looking on things are different. Still I like reading your posts because you don't seem to have a problem with facts unlike others. So I'd like to hear your thoughts on this issue.

 

You have put Trump as less likely to start a major war than Clinton. Others here have expressed similar opinions of Trump the pacifist. Well if Trump is such a pacifist and unlikely to start major wars why is he constantly talking about investing in and expanding the military? The US military is already by far the biggest, most effective, rock out, death and destruction machine ever known to mankind. It already dominates the world. It is surely way too large already  to just protect the United States without massive force projection abroad. So if Trump as president wants to retreat from the world militarily and is not looking to start major wars, why does he need to expand the military?

[Investor20]

And the press is fair to Trump?  The press coverage of Trump is "shocking" even for DNC! Read it for yourself:

 

I agree that most members of the press favors Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. But the important question to ask is, why is that the case. I think there are a number of reasons.

 

..........

 

It is not a question about favoring but a question of honesty.  The press does not have any more right to give wrong information to favor a candidate than a doctor treats a patient on how much they like the person. 

 

I came to know about Border Patrol Agents union endorsing trump through a speech of Trump.  I came to know of National Immigration Officers Union and many police fraternies endorsing Trump during debates.  Are these endorsements not important when Immigration and National law & order is an important issue in the election. This is a black out of any positive news about Trump. 

 

Yet, the press highlights a fake protest that almost did not happen that so few turned up for protest.  This is like one of the communist country mouthpieces, not the fourth pillar of our democracy. If there is one thing I learnt in this election and the discussion, it is press can lie lot more than I ever imagined.

 

Look at this video of so called Trump protest where there are lot of press and few protesters.