Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:50
Subject: Re:Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Alright, Trumpkins, one area where Trump was the clear winner: interrupting. He interrupted Hillary 51 times vs. 17 times she interrupted him. So...congratulations?
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:47
Subject: Re:Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:
“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension,” the 66-year-old Czech-American told CNN in response to an article that said Ivana once accused Donald of raping her.
“The story is totally without merit,” she said in a statement on Tuesday.
“Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”
This is a classic non-denial denial. She read some "comments attributed to" her. Which comments? The Daily Beast article contained her original rape allegation and a second statement in which she softened her original statement. So, when she says the "story is totally without merit" what exactly does she mean? Does she mean the story is false? Does she mean that the comments attributed to her were false? If so, the initial allegation or the subsequent softened version? Or, to get technical, "merit" doesn't have much to do with being true or false. I am sure that the lawyer who drafted Ivana's statement is aware that "merit" is roughly a synonym of "to be worthy" not of " to be false". So, was Ivana simply saying the story was not worthy without saying anything about the veracity of her comments?
You are going to believe what you want to believe. Ivana said "I have nothing but fondness for Donald".
Has any of Bill Clinton's mistresses or victims said even one nice word about him?
Despite the gag order, in which she can not talk about their marriage without Donalds permission, Ivan's divorce was granted on the grounds of his "cruel and inhuman treatment" of her. Trumps lawyer said it best, “... understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse." That law has now been fixed.
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:41
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The world is not run by fairness. It is run by what cards you have to play and CHINA holds all the cards. If you read any history china was the worlds largest economy until about 1800s. You know what collapsed their economy. They couldn't compete with slave labor and their products became pricier. And they thought they can win by closing their border. They have learned their lesson well. They are using their low wage to their advantage just as the USA used free slave labor to their advantage.
In the world of competitive advantages, you need to have big cards to play and win. US is a small market and that is a huge weakness and to offset this you need NAFTA and TPP to isolate huge markets like China.
US is a small market? According to who? Your wishful thinking doesn't count. Here's a ranking of consumer spending power and tell me again that US is a small market and that China is huge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets
That is not an apt comparison because it includes everything, including agricultural and other local products that is not part of global trade.
Second, this is most important point. The USA market is saturated and its growth is very small. Chinese consumer market is more than doubling every decade. Check mckinsey and goldman sachs report below. It is more about what China offers versus what US offers in terms of future growth. In capitalism if you don't grow you lose.
http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/why-chinas-consumers-will-continue-to-surprise-the-world
http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/macroeconomic-insights/growth-of-china/chinese-consumer/
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:39
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
This pretty much summed up the issues with Trump last night... WTF was he talking about? Anyone who knows about reality would have been greatly puzzled:
"And yet from his very first statement in the debate, Trump revealed a frankly bizarre level of ignorance about economic policy.
Literally the first thing Trump said after thanking the moderator was that “our jobs are fleeing the country” when, in fact, employment has been steadily increasing for years.
Three sentences later, he said the Chinese “are devaluing their currency and there's nobody in our government to fight them,” when, in fact, the Chinese are trying to prop up the value of their currency in the face of a massive investor exodus from Chinese real estate.
He also said the Chinese “are using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China,” which isn’t even how piggy banks work, much less the US-Chinese economic relationship.
He said that Mexico is feasting on American manufacturing and “building the bigger plants in the world” when, in fact, Tesla is currently building the biggest factory in the world right in California. The existing biggest factory in the world is also in the United States, and is where Boeing jumbo jets are built. No. 3 is a Mitsubishi plant located in Illinois.
One could continue with the factual specifics here, but the overarching theme is pretty clear: The Republicans nominated someone who doesn’t know anything about his signature issue. Trump lambasted Clinton for her involvement in NAFTA, which he said had devastated American manufacturing, but US manufacturing output has risen about 50 percent since NAFTA passed. And while it’s not true that the world’s biggest factories are opening in Mexico, it is absolutely true that both the Boeing factory and the Mitsubishi factory depend critically on international trade for their viability."
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/26/13066698/trump-debate-trade-fact-check
"And yet from his very first statement in the debate, Trump revealed a frankly bizarre level of ignorance about economic policy.
Literally the first thing Trump said after thanking the moderator was that “our jobs are fleeing the country” when, in fact, employment has been steadily increasing for years.
Three sentences later, he said the Chinese “are devaluing their currency and there's nobody in our government to fight them,” when, in fact, the Chinese are trying to prop up the value of their currency in the face of a massive investor exodus from Chinese real estate.
He also said the Chinese “are using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China,” which isn’t even how piggy banks work, much less the US-Chinese economic relationship.
He said that Mexico is feasting on American manufacturing and “building the bigger plants in the world” when, in fact, Tesla is currently building the biggest factory in the world right in California. The existing biggest factory in the world is also in the United States, and is where Boeing jumbo jets are built. No. 3 is a Mitsubishi plant located in Illinois.
One could continue with the factual specifics here, but the overarching theme is pretty clear: The Republicans nominated someone who doesn’t know anything about his signature issue. Trump lambasted Clinton for her involvement in NAFTA, which he said had devastated American manufacturing, but US manufacturing output has risen about 50 percent since NAFTA passed. And while it’s not true that the world’s biggest factories are opening in Mexico, it is absolutely true that both the Boeing factory and the Mitsubishi factory depend critically on international trade for their viability."
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/26/13066698/trump-debate-trade-fact-check
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:34
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:34
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
This is priceless:
Donald Trump's website was down last night.
* Donald Trump's website: Take a note: If you are going to make mention of your website during a presidential debate where the audience is likely to be upward of 80 million people, make sure it is ready for some traffic.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Elise Viebeck ? @eliseviebeck
Meanwhile, over at Trump's website:
9:32 PM - 26 Sep 2016 · Washington, DC, United States
257 257 Retweets 281 281 likes
Donald Trump's website was down last night.
* Donald Trump's website: Take a note: If you are going to make mention of your website during a presidential debate where the audience is likely to be upward of 80 million people, make sure it is ready for some traffic.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Elise Viebeck ? @eliseviebeck
Meanwhile, over at Trump's website:
9:32 PM - 26 Sep 2016 · Washington, DC, United States
257 257 Retweets 281 281 likes
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:32
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am really really trying to be open-minded, but I feel like I was watching a different debate than some of you. I saw a poised, prepared, experienced candidate who gave specific policy platforms, used humor appropriately and seriousness besides, who spoke eloquently about important issues, who held her poise when she was provoked, who paid attention to the debate rules but pushed only slightly when she needed to. She didn't come across to me as arrogant or untrustworthy in the least. She looked like exactly what I want in a President.
Versus, a person who gave rambling, incoherent statements that were frequently conflicting and hypocritical even in the same sentence, wo was clearly unprepared and nervous (the amount of movement and water drinking and sniffling was a dead giveaway), who was rude to everyone, who repeatedly lied about things that were easy to confirm, who made racist comments and gave no specific policy ideas and who admitted he pays no federal taxes and has repeatedly filed for bankruptcy.
the main one that gets me is people who think she was arrogant last night. I think she could have been arrogant given who she was debating against, but I didn't read arrogance even a little.
Very eloquently put. Thanks for summing up my views exactly. #imwithher
That's also what I saw. To be honest, the most disappointing thing about this is how little respect he has for the office, for the voters, frankly for himself. He got up there on the stage and had no idea what first use was. Defended unconstitutional policies. Lied about things that are common knowledge and that, because of the internet, are RIGHT THERE for all to see. It was very hard to watch. I thought she held her composure well considering that it really wasn't a "debate" in the conventional sense of the term.
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:31
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Trump is not articulate and he is not effective at translating realities of international trade into terms that the average American can appreciate. I don't have experience exporting to/from Mexico and Canada, but I know the trade between US and China is not fair and open. Whereas it is relatively easy to export goods from China to the US, the reverse flow is excruciatingly difficult. The tariff rates are high, and Chinese customs makes it very difficult for a shipment to clear customs and be released. We are a US business that has tried for the past three years to sell our products into the Chinese market and has found it very tough to get traction because our products are no longer competitive in terms of pricing and speed to delivery by the time we hop over the great wall of China Customs. On the other hand, I can have a container full of whatever commodity loaded and shipped on a vessel bound for the US in probably 3 days, knowing that US customs will clear it quickly/efficiently as long as all my paperwork is done properly.
As a business that sells to international customers, I am all for free and open trade, but it has to be actual free and open bilaterally. All too often, the US holds up their end of the bargain but the other side does not. This happens in international trade and security, with US ending up carrying the bulk of the burden. Enough is enough.
How do you think this can be changed? China is offering its huge market to American companies. You think it is a win-win if China decides NOT to allow US companies to sell in its market. USA will collapse if china does that.
Also how many Chinese companies are selling in the USA? Can you name any? China can make the argument that US blocks entry of Chinese companies into the USA. China offers a huge infrastructure and scale for American companies to make anything in china IN EXCHANGE for access to its huge market.
US being a much smaller market is the real weakness here that nobody wants to address. This is the natural order of things and this is the reason why China has been an economic giant most of human history and has now reclaimed its top spot.
What cards does the USA have to play with the Chinese? China holds over 1 trillion $ of American debt. The dollar will collapse if they start selling or stop buying US debt. We are a profligate nation that spends money it borrows on needless wars and oil wars of the past.
We as a people are profligate people with less that 5% savings. Chinese save over 30%. So china has much more cash to invest in future. If US has that high a percent of savings we can deploy that money to fund infrastructure growth. But no, instant gratification rules.
Change it by pushing for China to make it easier for US companies to sell its products and services to China. Push China to divest itself from ownership of the three major communication companies that operate data networks in China. Tell China that it is not acceptable to strong arm a US company into selling its China branch to a domestic competitor. Tell China that there will be a equitable application of tariffs for goods flowing into the US from China that echos what they charge US goods. This year's G20 summit saw the whole world pressuring China to ease their iron grip on the levers of their economy, artificially supporting a growth rate that does not reflect the reality of the global economy.
Year to date, China only account for about 60 billion of US exports, out of over 800 billion total, or less than 8 % of our global export. While 8% is not a small number, you are grossly overstating the importance of China as a foreign market for US companies. Again, much of this US export that China allows in is not for economic efficiency, but of important need for China. The top product types exported from US to China in 2015 are: aircraft ($15 billion), electrical machinery ($13 billion), machinery ($12 billion), miscellaneous grain, seeds, fruit (soybeans) ($11 billion), and vehicles ($11 billion). Of these, China simply has no competitive domestic capacity for aircraft, and agricultural production. Note that electrical machinery is actually mostly consumer electronics, which they may have domestic means to replace. But Machinery and vehicles are important components to their agricultural engine.
Your comment on China holding US debt shows that you don't really understand how international trade works. When there is a trade imbalance between two countries, one country will end up with a surplus of currency of the other country, which they have to somehow use: they spend it buying the other country's debt. So the fact that China has been and must continue to buy US debt is not that they want to or are doing us favors, but that they must do so due to the trade imbalance. If China reduces US imports further, this will cause the trade imbalance to grow, not shrink. Therefore, they would have to buy even more US debt as a result, not less.
Tell china, how? China is the big 900 pound gorilla that everyone wants to tame BUT nobody knows how because nobody is united against China. China plays Europe against America and vice versa. Unless there is ONE huge market of ALL Anti-china countries as one single trade block, China cannot be controlled. That is what TPP is all about. Trying to make one NON-China trade block. Merger of NAFTA and TPP as one block will help. BUT THEN TRUMP wants to undo all trade deals making China even staronger and they will continue to play one against the other.
China is not blocking American companies from selling in Chinese market. They only make a quid pro quo, If you want to sell in china, then make it in china. So obviously US exports to china will be less but American companies do sell in China worth trillions of dollars. They are playing their market size card well. Unless USA can cobble up a large enough UNITED trade bloc under their leadership, there is no taking on china and winning on this one.
WRT to debt, are you saying debtor nation has more leverage than the lender? yes the lender will suffer if the USA collapses BUT who will suffer more? China has huge internal cash reserves of its people's savings to reduce its suffering. USA doesn't have any internal savings, and being a democracy it is more vulnerable to people's sentiments than China. Another psychological factor is USA being wealthier will play NOT TO LOSE and that is a major weakness. China has all the cards to play offense and USA is playing defense. This will not change unless USA creates a large enough trade block to counter chinese huge market.
jsteele
09/27/2016 10:26
Subject: Re:Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:Has any of Bill Clinton's mistresses or victims said even one nice word about him?
What does Bill Clinton have to do with this? Bill Clinton is not the candidate. Your focus on Bill Clinton -- just like Trump's determination to focus on Bill Clinton during the next debate -- simply show how badly Trump lost last night. So far today, Trump has said that there weren't any sniffles, that his mic was defective, that Miss Universe deserved to be called "Miss Piggy", and that he wants to talk about Bill Clinton next time. Clearly, Trump and his supporters don't want to talk about his lack of realistic policy ideas or his personal failure to pay taxes.
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:22
Subject: Re:Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:
“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension,” the 66-year-old Czech-American told CNN in response to an article that said Ivana once accused Donald of raping her.
“The story is totally without merit,” she said in a statement on Tuesday.
“Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”
This is a classic non-denial denial. She read some "comments attributed to" her. Which comments? The Daily Beast article contained her original rape allegation and a second statement in which she softened her original statement. So, when she says the "story is totally without merit" what exactly does she mean? Does she mean the story is false? Does she mean that the comments attributed to her were false? If so, the initial allegation or the subsequent softened version? Or, to get technical, "merit" doesn't have much to do with being true or false. I am sure that the lawyer who drafted Ivana's statement is aware that "merit" is roughly a synonym of "to be worthy" not of " to be false". So, was Ivana simply saying the story was not worthy without saying anything about the veracity of her comments?
You are going to believe what you want to believe. Ivana said "I have nothing but fondness for Donald".
Has any of Bill Clinton's mistresses or victims said even one nice word about him?
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:18
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:I don't think Donald has the, ahem, "stamina" to adequately prepare for the debates.
Giuliani said Trump should pull out of future debates. He is blaming Lester Holt but Trump said Holt was fine, and honestly he was fine.
Stamina or not, you just can't cram 30 years of political savvy and knowledge in two months. Giuliani is right. The debate stage is not the format for Trump to do what he does best (bluster, sling mud, be outrageous for its own sake, etc.). He should just focus on working the ground game. We already know the issues are way over his head, we don't need 90 min of torture to prove it.
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:17
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am really really trying to be open-minded, but I feel like I was watching a different debate than some of you. I saw a poised, prepared, experienced candidate who gave specific policy platforms, used humor appropriately and seriousness besides, who spoke eloquently about important issues, who held her poise when she was provoked, who paid attention to the debate rules but pushed only slightly when she needed to. She didn't come across to me as arrogant or untrustworthy in the least. She looked like exactly what I want in a President.
Versus, a person who gave rambling, incoherent statements that were frequently conflicting and hypocritical even in the same sentence, wo was clearly unprepared and nervous (the amount of movement and water drinking and sniffling was a dead giveaway), who was rude to everyone, who repeatedly lied about things that were easy to confirm, who made racist comments and gave no specific policy ideas and who admitted he pays no federal taxes and has repeatedly filed for bankruptcy.
the main one that gets me is people who think she was arrogant last night. I think she could have been arrogant given who she was debating against, but I didn't read arrogance even a little.
Very eloquently put. Thanks for summing up my views exactly. #imwithher
+1.
Trump could have hit hard in several occasions (such as when he said what a shame it is we have third-world infrastructure and huge debt levels--so where has all the money gone), but he simply wasn't prepared or disciplined to drive points home.
She was better last night.
I also wish that he had hit her hard when she talked about being so concerned about hacking and cybersecurity. This from a woman who was using an unauthorized, less secure server in her basement to send classified information.
That server was apparently better than anything the federal government uses b/c it's constantly being hacked.
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:16
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:
The world is not run by fairness. It is run by what cards you have to play and CHINA holds all the cards. If you read any history china was the worlds largest economy until about 1800s. You know what collapsed their economy. They couldn't compete with slave labor and their products became pricier. And they thought they can win by closing their border. They have learned their lesson well. They are using their low wage to their advantage just as the USA used free slave labor to their advantage.
In the world of competitive advantages, you need to have big cards to play and win. US is a small market and that is a huge weakness and to offset this you need NAFTA and TPP to isolate huge markets like China.
US is a small market? According to who? Your wishful thinking doesn't count. Here's a ranking of consumer spending power and tell me again that US is a small market and that China is huge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets
jsteele
09/27/2016 10:10
Subject: Re:Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:
“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension,” the 66-year-old Czech-American told CNN in response to an article that said Ivana once accused Donald of raping her.
“The story is totally without merit,” she said in a statement on Tuesday.
“Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”
This is a classic non-denial denial. She read some "comments attributed to" her. Which comments? The Daily Beast article contained her original rape allegation and a second statement in which she softened her original statement. So, when she says the "story is totally without merit" what exactly does she mean? Does she mean the story is false? Does she mean that the comments attributed to her were false? If so, the initial allegation or the subsequent softened version? Or, to get technical, "merit" doesn't have much to do with being true or false. I am sure that the lawyer who drafted Ivana's statement is aware that "merit" is roughly a synonym of "to be worthy" not of " to be false". So, was Ivana simply saying the story was not worthy without saying anything about the veracity of her comments?
Anonymous
09/27/2016 10:04
Subject: Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread
Anonymous wrote:
Trump is not articulate and he is not effective at translating realities of international trade into terms that the average American can appreciate. I don't have experience exporting to/from Mexico and Canada, but I know the trade between US and China is not fair and open. Whereas it is relatively easy to export goods from China to the US, the reverse flow is excruciatingly difficult. The tariff rates are high, and Chinese customs makes it very difficult for a shipment to clear customs and be released. We are a US business that has tried for the past three years to sell our products into the Chinese market and has found it very tough to get traction because our products are no longer competitive in terms of pricing and speed to delivery by the time we hop over the great wall of China Customs. On the other hand, I can have a container full of whatever commodity loaded and shipped on a vessel bound for the US in probably 3 days, knowing that US customs will clear it quickly/efficiently as long as all my paperwork is done properly.
As a business that sells to international customers, I am all for free and open trade, but it has to be actual free and open bilaterally. All too often, the US holds up their end of the bargain but the other side does not. This happens in international trade and security, with US ending up carrying the bulk of the burden. Enough is enough.
How do you think this can be changed? China is offering its huge market to American companies. You think it is a win-win if China decides NOT to allow US companies to sell in its market. USA will collapse if china does that.
Also how many Chinese companies are selling in the USA? Can you name any? China can make the argument that US blocks entry of Chinese companies into the USA. China offers a huge infrastructure and scale for American companies to make anything in china IN EXCHANGE for access to its huge market.
US being a much smaller market is the real weakness here that nobody wants to address. This is the natural order of things and this is the reason why China has been an economic giant most of human history and has now reclaimed its top spot.
What cards does the USA have to play with the Chinese? China holds over 1 trillion $ of American debt. The dollar will collapse if they start selling or stop buying US debt. We are a profligate nation that spends money it borrows on needless wars and oil wars of the past.
We as a people are profligate people with less that 5% savings. Chinese save over 30%. So china has much more cash to invest in future. If US has that high a percent of savings we can deploy that money to fund infrastructure growth. But no, instant gratification rules.
Change it by pushing for China to make it easier for US companies to sell its products and services to China. Push China to divest itself from ownership of the three major communication companies that operate data networks in China. Tell China that it is not acceptable to strong arm a US company into selling its China branch to a domestic competitor. Tell China that there will be a equitable application of tariffs for goods flowing into the US from China that echos what they charge US goods. This year's G20 summit saw the whole world pressuring China to ease their iron grip on the levers of their economy, artificially supporting a growth rate that does not reflect the reality of the global economy.
Year to date, China only account for about 60 billion of US exports, out of over 800 billion total, or less than 8 % of our global export. While 8% is not a small number, you are grossly overstating the importance of China as a foreign market for US companies. Again, much of this US export that China allows in is not for economic efficiency, but of important need for China. The top product types exported from US to China in 2015 are: aircraft ($15 billion), electrical machinery ($13 billion), machinery ($12 billion), miscellaneous grain, seeds, fruit (soybeans) ($11 billion), and vehicles ($11 billion). Of these, China simply has no competitive domestic capacity for aircraft, and agricultural production. Note that electrical machinery is actually mostly consumer electronics, which they may have domestic means to replace. But Machinery and vehicles are important components to their agricultural engine.
Your comment on China holding US debt shows that you don't really understand how international trade works. When there is a trade imbalance between two countries, one country will end up with a surplus of currency of the other country, which they have to somehow use: they spend it buying the other country's debt. So the fact that China has been and must continue to buy US debt is not that they want to or are doing us favors, but that they must do so due to the trade imbalance. If China reduces US imports further, this will cause the trade imbalance to grow, not shrink. Therefore, they would have to buy even more US debt as a result, not less.