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

[rb]

alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."

This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

 

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

 

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

 

This is the American election in a nutshell."

Except that there isn't even a malpractice suit, just a bunch of doctors from a rival hospital talking shit.

 

Still, a manager of Wendy's has no business performing open heart surgery.

I know, I was trying to make a point. That line about the doctor and the manager is trying to convey how ridiculous the comparison between Clinton and Trump is. But even a line that tries to point out how ridiculous the comparison is manages to understate the level of ridiculousness. That's how unreal this situation is.

[alwaysinvert]

The comparison is not so different to Germany in 1933.

 

I agree and Lampert is the new Buffett. No, Berkowitz is. No, Pabrai is. No, Fairfax is the new Berkshire and Prem is the new Buffett. No, Biglari is pretty clearly the new Buffett. And Dubya is the new Hitler. Wait no, Trump is the new Hitler.

 

"History is a great teacher" -Adolf Hitler

[cwericb]

And... He who ignores history is bound to repeat it.

[alwaysinvert]

I agree but let me be clear: the only situation actually worth knowing about is Nazi Germany and Hitler. You may not know this, but no other events in world history lend themselves to analogies.

[Gregmal]

Right, the president is just a hood ornament. That's why they're fighting so hard to win that position. Is it because the whole executive branch of government has no power thus the president as the head of the executive branch has no power?

 

I mean i find it hard to believe that someone that carries the title commander in chief of the most powerful military is really ornamental. But then what do I know? I'm probably one of those with the pea brain.

 

Btw, the hood ornament has a 54% approval rating. The rest of the car has an approval rating around 13%. Obviously there's the bigger problem is with the rest of the car. The rest of the car is on the ballot as well. However I don't see any of you "change the status quo" people advocating for a change in the rest of the car.

 

IDK, I learned in like third grade the pretty much anything the president does is reactionary to other avenues of the political spectrum. In fact, pretty much anything he does is subject to the veto power of congress. Many within the conservative circles hoped Bernie Sanders would win knowing that his views were so extreme nothing would ever get done because of this.

 

And approval rating? Polling results from asking regular people. Yea that controls public policy... My goodness

 

People fight hard to become president because of the status and wealth that come with it. Duh...

[Gregmal]

The comparison is not so different to Germany in 1933.

 

I agree and Lampert is the new Buffett. No, Berkowitz is. No, Pabrai is. No, Fairfax is the new Berkshire and Prem is the new Buffett. No, Biglari is pretty clearly the new Buffett. And Dubya is the new Hitler. Wait no, Trump is the new Hitler.

 

"History is a great teacher" -Adolf Hitler

 

There is a troubling trend of guys hitting it big, either on one investment (hello John Paulson) or having a decent enough period of performance to blow up AUM (Lampert, Ackman) and then going completely rogue. I guess when you are wealthy enough you can do whatever you want.

[ccplz]

The comparison is not so different to Germany in 1933.

 

I agree and Lampert is the new Buffett. No, Berkowitz is. No, Pabrai is. No, Fairfax is the new Berkshire and Prem is the new Buffett. No, Biglari is pretty clearly the new Buffett. And Dubya is the new Hitler. Wait no, Trump is the new Hitler.

 

"History is a great teacher" -Adolf Hitler

 

What are you talking about?

[rb]

I agree but let me be clear: the only situation actually worth knowing about is Nazi Germany and Hitler. You may not know this, but no other events in world history lend themselves to analogies.

I find it hard to tell from your posts if you're serious or sarcastic. Not your fault really, just a side effect of how crazy the conversation has become. I'll go with sarcastic.

 

Nazi Germany and Hitler is an easy go to because everyone knows about it. If you want to reference another lesser known situation then you have to give a whole history lesson because let's face it, history is not one of Americans' strong suit. I'll try to give a half assed shot below.

 

Hitler and Nazi Germany did not happen in a vacuum. Just like now there was a whole movement with fascism happening in multiple places: Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, Peron in Argentina, Ion Antonescu/Iron Guard in Romania just to name a few.

 

Now I agree that Hitler and Germany is not the best analogy. After all, Hitler despite being a despicable human being with no moral compass to speak of was not ignorant and quite capable (just a fact, not a fan, please don't send me hate mail). I think that Mussolini and Italy is a better comparison. A more ignorant and unfit leader, a large personality full of himself and hot air, that loved to give self-centered mumbling speeches to large adoring crowds (remind you of anyone?). One of his themes was also restoring Italy to the former greatness of the Roman province of Italia which controlled the Mediterranean basin. (Make Italy Great Again?).

 

It's not hard to see that Trumpism is a fascism or a derivative thereof. What's surprising is how easily America succumbed. One of the main causes of fascism was economic hardship brought upon by WWI and the great depression. But America in the aftermath of the Great Recession did not even come close to the level of suffering of Europe post WWI.

 

Cwericb quoted that famous line: He who ignores history is bound to repeat it. While this Trumpist (or whatever you want to call it) movement is developing there's one interesting thing. It's not catching on in formerly fascist countries. Maybe America needs to put more emphasis on teaching history. I guess on the eve of the election I remain hopeful that despite the all the rhetoric Americans will listen to their better angels, make the right choice, and reject fascism.

[KinAlberta]

And now for something a bit lighter.  :-)

 

A very horny Dinold Trump:

 

[Packer16]

Those who compare Trump to Hitler & Mussolini really do not know history & are playing off a superficial knowledge of it.  Trump is more akin to those who have a large mouth but not much to back it up with.  Hitler & Mussolini had bands of thugs around them that would suppress the opposition.  I see no evidence of this other than protesters paid by others to cause trouble.  Also both men were great at inciting others to do there bullying for them a trait Hillary is better at the Trump.  The other major difference is Trump changes his positions to the mainstream over time.  Immigration is an example.  Going from mass deportation to deporting the criminals, securing the border then dealing with amnesty.  Another characteristic of both men is they did the worst is secret and covered up the truth with lies.  Now this is Hillary's specialty and different than Turmp who lets the good and the bad all hang out there.

 

Packer   

[Liberty]

Tepper on Trump

 

David Tepper: Trump didn't give one dime! http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000565869

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000565869

 

David Tepper slams Donald Trump for being selfish, calls him 'father of lies' http://www.cnbc.com/id/104085338

http://www.cnbc.com/id/104085338

[vox]

The other major difference is Trump changes his positions to the mainstream over time.  Immigration is an example.  Going from mass deportation to deporting the criminals, securing the border then dealing with amnesty.

 

The reason Donald Trump has and would be forced to shift his plans is because they are unrealistic, impractical, and would cause massive harms. He either has a deep ignorance on policy to think that it would be reasonable to deport 12 million people without resorting to a police state, or is intentionally misleading his followers by taking a hard-line approach he doesn't intend to carry out. Let's remember that as recently as last month, Donald Trump was doubling down on his belief that the exonerated men convicted of a rape in Central Park were guilty despite DNA evidence and the confession of the real perpetrator.

[ccplz]

This was written a year ago, but seems more apt than ever:

 

I don’t like making Nazi comparisons–they’re emotionally charged and often highly unfair. But in the last few months, the things Trump has been saying are eerily reminiscent of the kinds of things that right authoritarian politicians claim when they are trying to win a democratic election for the purposes of doing away with that system. There’s a group that is demonized (immigrants and Muslims), there are draconian policies to deal with the “problem” group (the wall, the database, the ID cards, surveillance, closing mosques), the politicians who disagree are accused of ignoring reality, and ordinary folks who disagree are condemned as troublemakers or enemy sympathizers who ought to be “roughed up”.

 

Right authoritarian politicians emerge in democracies when there is a group of people who feel that the democratic system exists to take things away from them and give those things to other people. During the Obama administration, the Republican Party has consistently nurtured this belief among its supporters–that the government and the democrats want to take things from them and give this “free stuff” to “those people” (the poor, the blacks, the immigrants, the Muslims). When Mitt Romney said that his party is going up against “the 47%” who do not pay income tax, the implication is that politics is a class war between the Americans who work hard and have stuff and the Americans who are lazy and take things. The republicans were overwhelmingly confident that they were going to win in 2012. When they lost, the implication was that there are too many “useful idiots”–those willing to help the 47% take things–for the republicans to take the presidency. And while some Republicnas believe that 2016 will be different, there’s a chunk of these people for whom 2012 established more deeply than ever that the only way to stop the 47% from taking their stuff is to use all available means. On internet forums, these people contemplate armed rebellion, they stockpile gold, and they look for a great leader who can protect them from the left. This chunk of Republicans believe that their country and its values are under attack, that they themselves are going to be expropriated by a government permanently captured by socialists. Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the Republican Party itself have all deliberately fed into these fears to mobilize support for republican candidates. As time progresses, these people grow steadily more desperate and steadily more willing to do things that most of us would consider unthinkable. They believe that Donald Trump is their guy.

 

Is he? Maybe, maybe not. But he sure knows how to use them. And the trouble with using these people like this is that you cannot use them without creating more of them and without making the ones we already have more reactionary and extreme over time. The US does not have a draft anymore–the military is all-volunteer, and because much of the left disdains the armed forces, reactionaries are over-represented in the military. As time progresses and the Republican Party continues to encourage this zero sum view, they are inadvertently potentially creating a situation in which the state could be captured by right wing authoritarians, either through the election of a figure like Trump or through a military coup.

 

While folks like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush pretend it’s 1996, the U.S. political system is devolving in dangerous and sinister ways. Donald Trump may personally turn out to be harmless, but his supporters are anything but. It probably won’t be this year or this election, but every four years these people seem to be stronger and more influential in the Republican Party. If the U.S. continues down this path, we may all live to regret it.

 

[Packer16]

The real question you need to ask can you deal with a guy who lets you know upfront what his initial point is and in the end it will be negotiated or do you want someone who tell you what you want to hear and after the deal is done you find out that there is something in there if you knew you would not make the deal.  In terms of all the ethics and other discussions I think they both are pretty bad each in there own way that is why there are so many undecided close to 13% going into election day.  They both are bullies.  One is explicit about it & the other is more refined.  I would rather deal with the explicit one versus dealing with more refined deceiver.

 

Packer

[rkbabang]

Seriously, what's with these long lines? If you have long lines, why not add more polls?

 

It's a perception thing.  There are long lines, because everyone is voting.  The last thing they want is the perception that I went to vote and almost no one was there.

 

Here in Colorado they mail you a ballot weeks beforehand, you fill it out and drop it off. Simple. New York was a joke: dense areas had lines around 2-3 blocks.

 

That seems like a much better way of doing it.  It would probably prevent fraud too.  In Massachusetts (where I lived when I last voted) you wait in a huge line, then give your name and address, they find your name in a book and put a checkmark next to it.  I always wondered what would happen if they said, sorry you already voted" and you hadn't.  You could have voted multiple times by getting back in line later and giving your neighbor's name or anyone else you know in town, who would know?

 

[vox]

Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency. 

[Gregmal]

Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency.

 

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business.

[vox]

Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency.

 

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business.

 

Donald Trump is not Mitt Romney, nor does he have Mitt Romney's endorsement.

 

Donald Trump, who often says he only likes winners, tells one grand tale of loss: In 1990, he nearly went bankrupt and was forced to ask dozens of banks to whom he owed money to change the terms on their loans and forgive some of his debts.

 

It was, the real estate developer admits in his 1997 book "The Art of the Comeback," the darkest period of his professional life. In his telling, it's a story of redemption, of resilience, and proof of his exceptional negotiating skills and shrewd thinking.

 

Six people who participated in the loan workout negotiations have a different recollection, raising questions about a key part of the personal narrative that many of Trump's supporters have found compelling as he campaigns to be the next president of the United States on Nov. 8. On the campaign trail he has portrayed himself as a survivor and a master negotiator.

 

Trump says his comeback began when he recognized a downturn in the real estate market and quickly asked banks to renegotiate his loans. "That decision was perhaps the smartest thing I did," he wrote.

 

The six bankers and lawyers involved in the talks say the bailout wasn't based on any overture Trump initiated with the banks - and the terms of the deal were dictated by what was best for the banks, not Trump.

 

Three of the participants say Trump didn't acknowledge he had a problem until his lenders reviewed his books, realized he was on the brink of collapse, and summoned him for debt restructuring talks.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-bankruptcies-insig-idUSKCN0ZX0GP

[Peregrine]

 

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman?

 

I still LOL hard at "accomplished businessman".

[rb]

Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency.

 

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business.

Do you actually think that negotiating at the nation level, say for a cease fire or a peace deal is the same as negotiating a bulk purchase of mattresses? If I was hiring someone to negotiate a fancy renovation maybe I'd pick Trump but if I'm looking for a cease fire I'll take Clinton over Trump without thinking twice.

 

Why are we still talking about this nonsense of how the economy would be so great under Romney because he was a businessman v.s that crappy Obama? We don't know because he didn't win. But remember Romney promised that at the end of his first term he would have achieved the heroic feat of bringing unemployment down to 6%. Barack H. Obama: 4.9%. I'd say some respect is warranted.

[wachtwoord]

Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency.

 

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business.

Do you actually think that negotiating at the nation level, say for a cease fire or a peace deal is the same as negotiating a bulk purchase of mattresses? If I was hiring someone to negotiate a fancy renovation maybe I'd pick Trump but if I'm looking for a cease fire I'll take Clinton over Trump without thinking twice.

 

Why are we still talking about this nonsense of how the economy would be so great under Romney because he was a businessman v.s that crappy Obama? We don't know because he didn't win. But remember Romney promised that at the end of his first term he would have achieved the heroic feat of bringing unemployment down to 6%. Barack H. Obama: 4.9%. I'd say some respect is warranted.

 

But Clinton doesnt want a cease fire. She loves war.

[rb]

 

Do you actually think that negotiating at the nation level, say for a cease fire or a peace deal is the same as negotiating a bulk purchase of mattresses? If I was hiring someone to negotiate a fancy renovation maybe I'd pick Trump but if I'm looking for a cease fire I'll take Clinton over Trump without thinking twice.

 

Why are we still talking about this nonsense of how the economy would be so great under Romney because he was a businessman v.s that crappy Obama? We don't know because he didn't win. But remember Romney promised that at the end of his first term he would have achieved the heroic feat of bringing unemployment down to 6%. Barack H. Obama: 4.9%. I'd say some respect is warranted.

 

But Clinton doesnt want a cease fire. She loves war.

Because you say so? Is there any proof Trump is a great pacifist? Between the two of them Hillary actually negotiated cease fires. The only proof of Trump's negotiating prowess comes from his mouth. The only evidence of Trump coming ahead on negotiations is by not paying or not keeping his side of the bargain. That doesn't really work for Nation level negotiations.

[vox]

But Clinton doesnt want a cease fire. She loves war.

 

[rb]

Those who compare Trump to Hitler & Mussolini really do not know history & are playing off a superficial knowledge of it.  Trump is more akin to those who have a large mouth but not much to back it up with.  Hitler & Mussolini had bands of thugs around them that would suppress the opposition.  I see no evidence of this other than protesters paid by others to cause trouble.  Also both men were great at inciting others to do there bullying for them a trait Hillary is better at the Trump.  The other major difference is Trump changes his positions to the mainstream over time.  Immigration is an example.  Going from mass deportation to deporting the criminals, securing the border then dealing with amnesty.  Another characteristic of both men is they did the worst is secret and covered up the truth with lies.  Now this is Hillary's specialty and different than Turmp who lets the good and the bad all hang out there.

 

Packer 

Does it have to identical to movements of the past to call it what it is? Do we need have to wait for the Trump Shirts before we say something?

 

Is it so far fetched that we may get Trump goons in the future? He's already recruiting poll watchers to go to "certain areas". The usual creepy characters seem to have answered the call.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/27/militia-group-calls-on-members-to-patrol-polls-on-election-day/

[Packer16]

Those who compare Trump to Hitler & Mussolini really do not know history & are playing off a superficial knowledge of it.  Trump is more akin to those who have a large mouth but not much to back it up with.  Hitler & Mussolini had bands of thugs around them that would suppress the opposition.  I see no evidence of this other than protesters paid by others to cause trouble.  Also both men were great at inciting others to do there bullying for them a trait Hillary is better at the Trump.  The other major difference is Trump changes his positions to the mainstream over time.  Immigration is an example.  Going from mass deportation to deporting the criminals, securing the border then dealing with amnesty.  Another characteristic of both men is they did the worst is secret and covered up the truth with lies.  Now this is Hillary's specialty and different than Turmp who lets the good and the bad all hang out there.

 

Packer 

 

 

Does it have to identical to movements of the past to call it what it is? Do we need have to wait for the Trump Shirts before we say something?

 

Is it so far fetched that we may get Trump goons in the future? He's already recruiting poll watchers to go to "certain areas". The usual creepy characters seem to have answered the call.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/27/militia-group-calls-on-members-to-patrol-polls-on-election-day/

 

I think we need to wait for evidence.  At this point Trump has a loud mouth with no goons.  Hillary has more goons at her disposal that she has never dismissed like the Black Panthers who are poll watchers from the her side & she is so secretive versus the public Trump you would not know until it is too late, like Hitler and Mussolini.  So you have the loud mouth you can see coming & in the end is a pragmatist in the end versus the stealthy person playing pay for play & thinking she is above the law.  Which would you choose?

 

BTW using the same type of login with Clinton she would be looting the government for her personal gain.

 

Packer