fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

JesseDark wrote:Trump's debate incompetance a slap in the face to his supporters

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/

Good article for the NYPost, speaks to the delusion that some have that Trump won the debate.

It depends on what "winning the debate" means. On an intellectual level, Hillary won by a landslide. But if winning the debate means moving the polls in your favor, we'll have to wait and see. I'm really not sure what will happen with the polls. Hillary won on the issues but I think Donald's way of speaking connects with more people.

it does and you would think Dems would have learned their lesson with Kerry who constantly talked above people's heads and couldn't connect with the general population who didn't understand what he was saying. People cant handle details... they do much better with "My way is better", "your way stinks" and "we can do this better"

leaving out facts and logic is a good thing at times... at least when dealing with the general population

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

JesseDark wrote:Trump's debate incompetance a slap in the face to his supporters

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/

Good article for the NYPost, speaks to the delusion that some have that Trump won the debate.

It depends on what "winning the debate" means. On an intellectual level, Hillary won by a landslide. But if winning the debate means moving the polls in your favor, we'll have to wait and see. I'm really not sure what will happen with the polls. Hillary won on the issues but I think Donald's way of speaking connects with more people.

it does and you would think Dems would have learned their lesson with Kerry who constantly talked above people's heads and couldn't connect with the general population who didn't understand what he was saying. People cant handle details... they do much better with "My way is better", "your way stinks" and "we can do this better"

leaving out facts and logic is a good thing at times... at least when dealing with the general population

Right. At times I thought Hillary did a good job but often I was frustrated listening to her. I'm thinking, "Why is she using such long, complicated sentences?!" Donald has one point and says it slower and repeats it for emphasis. In most of the two minute intervals, Donald had like 1 or 2 points and Hillary had like 10.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Anyone saw 60 minutes???..The Cold War is on full bore..US B2 bombers making runs to Russia over the last year..Each B2 bomber capable of carrying 40,000 lbs of nuclear weapons..We wanted to send a message after Crimea and Ukraine..Crazy stuff, a bit shocking to be honest..Appearently Putin thinks he can use nuclear weapon on a small ex-society NATO state and we are showing him what's possible..One of our nuclear subs are carrying more nukes than some nuclear states..

You make it sound like someone can actually win one of these wars. Heck, we can't even win conventional wars in the middle East.
Let's just stick to our business and try to get America back on track and stop worrying about Ukraine, etc.

And regarding Putin/Russia, they probably don't like the missile offensive (or do we call it defensive?) shield surrounding them, just as we wouldn't want it surrounding us.

We have to learn to get along and not buy into this BS military spending fear campaign. Life is pretty good once you stop watching their news and stop buying into their fear campaign.

Peace out

I was actually trying to spur conversation about a very serious topic in the backdrop of the presidential debate..I'm not sure how you deduce I'm a proponent of nuclear war..Like it or not these issues are real and current..The next president will have to manage the Cold War and our relationship with Russia..I don't think the candidate mentioning Rosie O'Donnell at a presidential debate is qualified to manage our nuclear arsenal...Getting America back on track??.We are still the most dynamic economy on the planet and our growth numbers 1.5/2% is largely due to global growth than our economy..

If you are really a patriot of the United States..Cleary he is unqualified..How do you put party politics ahead of the good of the country and talk about getting the country on track??..Trump is dangerously naive and unprepared...If he doesn't care enough to prepare for a debate why would he do the necessary study of material needed to run this country after becoming president..He is a narcissist..

He mocked the debate preparation process by saying he was at the Westchester Country Club eating cheeseburgers..Do we understand what's at stake here?

You sound too much like ra ra pom pom when it comes to Clinton or the US. We need to all get along is what I'm saying. With nuclear war, there is no us vs them and where did I say you were a proponent? You certainly sound like "we showed them". There are a few who survive, we all lose. Get over "we showed them..." types of mentality. It is a dog and pony show.

I'm not a patriot of the US, I'm a Earthling and see myself as just another person. Patriotism and Nationalism got us into most of these problems.

So, something to think about. I'm so deathly afraid of Clinton being president that I would rather have an underqualified (can't say unqualified cause if Bush could be president, honestly, anyone one of us could.) Trump knows business, Clinton knows politics. I still don't want her anywhere near a red button. Thank God for checks and balances though, regarding either of them. I still think, economically speaking, Trump would be much better for the US. We all know how Bill sold the Chinese, was it nuclear secrets or the like? What a team we'll have in the white house and her main concern, imo, will be fullfilling favors and getting richer. She's in the club, don't you see it?

Speaking of what is at stake, Do you want a woman who is on all kinds of drugs just so she can function? She is sick. And outside of her physical problems, more than one person has come out and defined here as not a very stable person.
Seriously, you are like the Nixluva of Clinton, that is how you come across. She can do no wrong. This is Pepsi or Coke...

When the voting takes place, I'm going to be interested in the exit polls, cause the last few years they suddenly stopped "working".

It is true I am a Patriot of the US..I put the country's interest ahead of all party politics...I also put the US interest ahead of other countries because I live here...Patriotism didn't get us in this mess internationally, Republicans got us in this mess and Tramp wants to put ground troops in Iraq again....

You seems to be concerned with rhetoric you tend to hear on obscure websites that Bill Clinton sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese???..Come on, let engage in serious, known quantity events, from known quantity sources, can we??
So here is my challenge to you..The stock market sold off when Tramp's polls numbers pulled even to Clinton on Friday and was bought back after Clinton won the debate..What do you know that the rest of the planet doesn't know about Tramp???

And as for Tramp's business acumen..His businesses went bankrupt six times, not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but yes, SIX times...And you think he should lead this country based on his business acumen...He took over his father business in 1974 valued at 40 million dollars...If he liquidated his company's assets and bought the S&P 500 index, his portfolio would be valued at 4.266 billion today...Tramp is estimated to be worth less than 1 billion dollars in some quarters..He has under performed all his life, he under performed in the debate...By contrast, Mike Bloomberg started Bloomberg LP in 1981 from scratch, off his own sweat, and now his net worth is 44.5 billion dollars...That is a guy you would want to lead this country if business acumen was your sole criteria, and who did he endorse???????..I hold a higher standard for my Presidents by the way..Are you a better judge of business acumen than Bloomberg????Bloomberg spoke about Tramp's business acumen, you should look it up...

P.S. And he hasn't built anything in the last decade, he is now in the business of selling his name to projects...

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:
And as for Tramp's business acumen..His businesses went bankrupt six times, not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but yes, SIX times...And you think he should lead this country based on his business acumen...He took over his father business in 1974 valued at 40 million dollars...If he liquidated his company's assets and bought the S&P 500 index, his portfolio would be valued at 4.266 billion today...Tramp is estimated to be worth less than 1 billion dollars in some quarters..He has under performed all his life, he under performed in the debate...By contrast, Mike Bloomberg started Bloomberg LP in 1981 from scratch, off his own sweat, and now his net worth is 44.5 billion dollars...That is a guy you would want to lead this country if business acumen was your sole criteria, and who did he endorse???????..I hold a higher standard for my Presidents by the way..Are you a better judge of business acumen than Bloomberg????Bloomberg spoke about Tramp's business acumen, you should look it up...

If you want to read a very informative inside look into Trump's business dealings, you might want to read this book written by some of his former top executives. I read it when it was first released almost 30 years ago. Really pulls back the curtain on his business acumen.

https://www.amazon.com/Trumped-Inside-Trump-His-Cunning-Spectacular-ebook/dp/067173735X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1475071988&sr=8-2&keywords=trumped+book

Thanks, will check it out...

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Please go on, you don't even understand simple English words.

I understand that everything Hofstra said is correct..

Everything Hofstra said is about as wrong as it can be. Anyone who thinks banks rely on interest earnings from savings accounts and CDs for their working capital shouldn't be holding a discussion on economics. I posted a WSJ article that shows banking profits at all time highs during the years with the lowest interest rates in history. You can sit here and pretend that it doesn't exist, but you haven't provided jack to support anything you said.

BTW - I never said anything about the prime rate being based on the 10 yr note, I was talking about bank lending (primarily mortgages - google 30 yr mortgage rate and see if its based on the 10 year bond yield or not). But reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your thing.

Anyway, I think I have embarrassed you enough for one night.

POGS

Edit - my bad - I did mistakenly post (10 yr bond) next to prime rate -different post, they are separate

meloshouldgo
Posts: 21326
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

9/27/2016 6:04 PM

Additionally banks also get to borrow money at the prime rate (10 yr bond) and then put those into risky investments that yield double digit returns

And do tell me where I can find those double digit yields..

Every bank has a number of trading or prop desks who's job is to make money for the bank trading. To keep it as simple as possible the bank give a trading desk a trading book. They essentially trade their model to make money for the bank, often taking on very risky and short term positions. These traders are using the bank's money and are paid based on performance. These desks are massive revenue generators for banks. What % of profit do they account for? I don't know... but they are a huge part of banking business and yes, risk is taken.

JesseDark wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

JesseDark wrote:Trump's debate incompetance a slap in the face to his supporters

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/

Good article for the NYPost, speaks to the delusion that some have that Trump won the debate.

It depends on what "winning the debate" means. On an intellectual level, Hillary won by a landslide. But if winning the debate means moving the polls in your favor, we'll have to wait and see. I'm really not sure what will happen with the polls. Hillary won on the issues but I think Donald's way of speaking connects with more people.

it does and you would think Dems would have learned their lesson with Kerry who constantly talked above people's heads and couldn't connect with the general population who didn't understand what he was saying. People cant handle details... they do much better with "My way is better", "your way stinks" and "we can do this better"

leaving out facts and logic is a good thing at times... at least when dealing with the general population

Right. At times I thought Hillary did a good job but often I was frustrated listening to her. I'm thinking, "Why is she using such long, complicated sentences?!" Donald has one point and says it slower and repeats it for emphasis. In most of the two minute intervals, Donald had like 1 or 2 points and Hillary had like 10.

before the debate settled into a name calling contest of who is a bigger douche I thought she offered some decent substance. I forgot the context and the audience and I was reminded after when people were saying he actually won by his ability to hammer home simple messages that people could understand and identify with.

I believe most supporters for Hillary are pleased with her performance. With Donald alluding to taking it to the gutter the next debate I don't see how he expands on his base.
Are polls where you can vote in over and over truly accurate?

Bonn1997 wrote:

JesseDark wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

JesseDark wrote:Trump's debate incompetance a slap in the face to his supporters

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/

Good article for the NYPost, speaks to the delusion that some have that Trump won the debate.

It depends on what "winning the debate" means. On an intellectual level, Hillary won by a landslide. But if winning the debate means moving the polls in your favor, we'll have to wait and see. I'm really not sure what will happen with the polls. Hillary won on the issues but I think Donald's way of speaking connects with more people.

it does and you would think Dems would have learned their lesson with Kerry who constantly talked above people's heads and couldn't connect with the general population who didn't understand what he was saying. People cant handle details... they do much better with "My way is better", "your way stinks" and "we can do this better"

leaving out facts and logic is a good thing at times... at least when dealing with the general population

Right. At times I thought Hillary did a good job but often I was frustrated listening to her. I'm thinking, "Why is she using such long, complicated sentences?!" Donald has one point and says it slower and repeats it for emphasis. In most of the two minute intervals, Donald had like 1 or 2 points and Hillary had like 10.

before the debate settled into a name calling contest of who is a bigger douche I thought she offered some decent substance. I forgot the context and the audience and I was reminded after when people were saying he actually won by his ability to hammer home simple messages that people could understand and identify with.

I believe most supporters for Hillary are pleased with her performance. With Donald alluding to taking it to the gutter the next debate I don't see how he expands on his base.
Are polls where you can vote in over and over truly accurate?

Yeah but I don't think making detailed intellectual arguments will expand Hillary's base either. She already has the support of people looking for detailed arguments with lots of SAT words thrown in.

The bar is so low for trump that he has to just make sure that he does not moon the moderator. It seems that she is so unlikable that this seems like Trump just has to not do anything to destroy himself and that voters just want someone else other than her. Can they stomach getting behind trump? It depends on if he can hold it together.

Either way, its pretty sad.

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Please go on, you don't even understand simple English words.

I understand that everything Hofstra said is correct..

Everything Hofstra said is about as wrong as it can be. Anyone who thinks banks rely on interest earnings from savings accounts and CDs for their working capital shouldn't be holding a discussion on economics. I posted a WSJ article that shows banking profits at all time highs during the years with the lowest interest rates in history. You can sit here and pretend that it doesn't exist, but you haven't provided jack to support anything you said.

BTW - I never said anything about the prime rate being based on the 10 yr note, I was talking about bank lending (primarily mortgages - google 30 yr mortgage rate and see if its based on the 10 year bond yield or not). But reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your thing.

Anyway, I think I have embarrassed you enough for one night.

POGS

Edit - my bad - I did mistakenly post (10 yr bond) next to prime rate -different post, they are separate

meloshouldgo
Posts: 21326
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

9/27/2016 6:04 PM

Additionally banks also get to borrow money at the prime rate (10 yr bond) and then put those into risky investments that yield double digit returns

And do tell me where I can find those double digit yields..

Try day trading.

Every bank has a number of trading or prop desks who's job is to make money for the bank trading. To keep it as simple as possible the bank give a trading desk a trading book. They essentially trade their model to make money for the bank, often taking on very risky and short term positions. These traders are using the bank's money and are paid based on performance. These desks are massive revenue generators for banks. What % of profit do they account for? I don't know... but they are a huge part of banking business and yes, risk is taken.

Banks are no long allowed to have prop trading desk...They are no long allowed to hold positions unless it tied to a customer order...Prop desk across NY banks have closed as a result of Dodd-Frand..Some Broker-Dealers do take the chance and prop trade but if caught their will be massive fines...You can only trade around customer orders...And there is no investment where you can get at double digit return..Trading the balance sheet is different...You don't quantify by saying you made a double digit return because you aren't given a fix amount of money to trade in a bank...You just put on a position and run that position and you have a position limit which varies from day to day depending on the duration of the trade....

It just not true. Banks most certainly still prop trade, they are just subsidiaries and use different names. Please tell me you don't actually think Dodd Frank has kept banks from taking positions? Especially in deriv markets

I know they take positions but they aren't supposed to unless it tied to a customer order...It's the law..The compliance officers have no clue what to look for is really the problem...

Nalod wrote:Nalod buys those "Iluminati Bonds" for his clients.

Trump said his mic was broken. It was, we could hear every word.

This was precious from the debate:

Transcript

Look at the mess that we’re in. Look at the mess that we’re in. As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t know if we know it was Russia who broke into the DNC.

And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS. So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a, it is a huge problem. I have a son.

He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly do-able. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester and certainly cyber is one of them.

He claims he is ahead in the "CBS" Polls. CBS is on record as saying they don't do polling.
Its subjective if he wants to claim he won and have his adoring fans cheer him.

The Town hall debate will be interesting because he is used to talking "AT" people, now he has to talk "To them".
It might turn into a Jerry Springer type event.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/MajorCBS/status/780747025398763520

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Anyone saw 60 minutes???..The Cold War is on full bore..US B2 bombers making runs to Russia over the last year..Each B2 bomber capable of carrying 40,000 lbs of nuclear weapons..We wanted to send a message after Crimea and Ukraine..Crazy stuff, a bit shocking to be honest..Appearently Putin thinks he can use nuclear weapon on a small ex-society NATO state and we are showing him what's possible..One of our nuclear subs are carrying more nukes than some nuclear states..

You make it sound like someone can actually win one of these wars. Heck, we can't even win conventional wars in the middle East.
Let's just stick to our business and try to get America back on track and stop worrying about Ukraine, etc.

And regarding Putin/Russia, they probably don't like the missile offensive (or do we call it defensive?) shield surrounding them, just as we wouldn't want it surrounding us.

We have to learn to get along and not buy into this BS military spending fear campaign. Life is pretty good once you stop watching their news and stop buying into their fear campaign.

Peace out

I was actually trying to spur conversation about a very serious topic in the backdrop of the presidential debate..I'm not sure how you deduce I'm a proponent of nuclear war..Like it or not these issues are real and current..The next president will have to manage the Cold War and our relationship with Russia..I don't think the candidate mentioning Rosie O'Donnell at a presidential debate is qualified to manage our nuclear arsenal...Getting America back on track??.We are still the most dynamic economy on the planet and our growth numbers 1.5/2% is largely due to global growth than our economy..

If you are really a patriot of the United States..Cleary he is unqualified..How do you put party politics ahead of the good of the country and talk about getting the country on track??..Trump is dangerously naive and unprepared...If he doesn't care enough to prepare for a debate why would he do the necessary study of material needed to run this country after becoming president..He is a narcissist..

He mocked the debate preparation process by saying he was at the Westchester Country Club eating cheeseburgers..Do we understand what's at stake here?

You sound too much like ra ra pom pom when it comes to Clinton or the US. We need to all get along is what I'm saying. With nuclear war, there is no us vs them and where did I say you were a proponent? You certainly sound like "we showed them". There are a few who survive, we all lose. Get over "we showed them..." types of mentality. It is a dog and pony show.

I'm not a patriot of the US, I'm a Earthling and see myself as just another person. Patriotism and Nationalism got us into most of these problems.

So, something to think about. I'm so deathly afraid of Clinton being president that I would rather have an underqualified (can't say unqualified cause if Bush could be president, honestly, anyone one of us could.) Trump knows business, Clinton knows politics. I still don't want her anywhere near a red button. Thank God for checks and balances though, regarding either of them. I still think, economically speaking, Trump would be much better for the US. We all know how Bill sold the Chinese, was it nuclear secrets or the like? What a team we'll have in the white house and her main concern, imo, will be fullfilling favors and getting richer. She's in the club, don't you see it?

Speaking of what is at stake, Do you want a woman who is on all kinds of drugs just so she can function? She is sick. And outside of her physical problems, more than one person has come out and defined here as not a very stable person.
Seriously, you are like the Nixluva of Clinton, that is how you come across. She can do no wrong. This is Pepsi or Coke...

When the voting takes place, I'm going to be interested in the exit polls, cause the last few years they suddenly stopped "working".

You assessment of my comments continues to be way off..I have said multiple times in this very thread as well, I don't care for Clinton, yet you claim I cheer for her..Puzzling

I referred to the US flying B2 bombers to Russia as "Crazy stuff, and a bit shocking", yet you say I was selling the message "We showed them"..
I know facts isn't a strong suit for republicans but for our discussions, let's try to stick to them especially when it comes to accusations...Deal??

It is true I am a Patriot of the US..I put the country's interest ahead of all party politics...I also put the US interest ahead of other countries because I live here...Patriotism didn't get us in this mess internationally, Republicans got us in this mess and Tramp wants to put ground troops in Iraq again....

You seems to be concerned with rhetoric you tend to hear on obscure websites that Bill Clinton sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese???..Come on, let engage in serious, known quantity events, from known quantity sources, can we??
So here is my challenge to you..The stock market sold off when Tramp's polls numbers pulled even to Clinton on Friday and was bought back after Clinton won the debate..What do you know that the rest of the planet doesn't know about Tramp???

And as for Tramp's business acumen..His businesses went bankrupt six times, not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but yes, SIX times...And you think he should lead this country based on his business acumen...He took over his father business in 1974 valued at 40 million dollars...If he liquidated his company's assets and bought the S&P 500 index, his portfolio would be valued at 4.266 billion today...Tramp is estimated to be worth less than 1 billion dollars in some quarters..He has under performed all his life, he under performed in the debate...By contrast, Mike Bloomberg started Bloomberg LP in 1981 from scratch, off his own sweat, and now his net worth is 44.5 billion dollars...That is a guy you would want to lead this country if business acumen was your sole criteria, and who did he endorse???????..I hold a higher standard for my Presidents by the way..Are you a better judge of business acumen than Bloomberg????Bloomberg spoke about Tramp's business acumen, you should look it up...

P.S. And he hasn't built anything in the last decade, he is now in the business of selling his name to projects...

Continues? I haven't read the full 80 pages, I jump in and out and was replying to the post I quoted but also noted, as have others, that you seem to cheerlead for Hillary and I don't get it. This really is a lesser of two evils race. And yes you said "crazy" but followed that with "Appearently Putin thinks he can use nuclear weapon on a small ex-society NATO state and we are showing him what's possible..One of our nuclear subs are carrying more nukes than some nuclear states.." That is like saying "my sword is bigger than yours." No harm in that, but that is what I was talking about. Not meaning to pick on you, really.

Your ideas on Patriotism are dangerous. You can't put yourself ahead of others, we are on equal ground and share the planet. I'm an American living in Europe (not why I made the last comment either) and see we need to get along in a big way.

Obscure sites, well, considering the ties of the Clintons to big media, yeah, you will not here it on CNN, FOX, etc, much, maybe in passing.
But a simple search reveals a lot, for starters. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940025/posts
The cocain trade through Arkansas while Clinton was governor is so crystal clear. That family is just bad news and dark.
And going to Amazon.com and putting in "Clinton" reveals a host of other dark things. These 2 people are not one of us. They serve higher masters, for lack of a better word.
Maybe Trump does to, but I feel he is a loose cannon, not under their control, but who knows.

And sorry, some things you won't find on mainstream, because, well, their in the same club.

You mention rhetoric and then say Tramp, why not say Hitlery too? lol

I don't doubt Trump is gonna have problems, but he is not, for a lack of a better word, evil. Honestly, I and many others, just plain do not trust the Clintons. They are not here for us.
Luckily we have some form of a democracy left, and perhaps Trump can create enough chaos to disrupt the system. Not the answer, but what are our choices? More of the same?

Well I do support Hillary over Trump which you seem to have a problem with...So if you see poms poms when I post, so be it...

The entire nuclear post was a post of shock not awe...I wasn't aware that we were here again...

You don't know my ideas on Patriotism, so you can't claim them to be dangerous..But the people you support profess patriotism and they have been proven to be dangerous but yet you defend and support them anyway...You can be Patriotic without wanting to wage war around the globe...Yes, it is possible...

Tramp has bilked people out of money from Trump University..
Tramp has squeezed small business owners doing business with him by not paying them
Tramp refused to pay Miss Universe because she got fat
Tramp has used money others donated to charity to pay his own bills and commitments..
Tramp has had 72 law suit against him in federal court, this doesn't include local courts of New York and around the country..
And you tell me the Clintons are bad people...

fishmike wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Anyone saw 60 minutes???..The Cold War is on full bore..US B2 bombers making runs to Russia over the last year..Each B2 bomber capable of carrying 40,000 lbs of nuclear weapons..We wanted to send a message after Crimea and Ukraine..Crazy stuff, a bit shocking to be honest..Appearently Putin thinks he can use nuclear weapon on a small ex-society NATO state and we are showing him what's possible..One of our nuclear subs are carrying more nukes than some nuclear states..

You make it sound like someone can actually win one of these wars. Heck, we can't even win conventional wars in the middle East.
Let's just stick to our business and try to get America back on track and stop worrying about Ukraine, etc.

And regarding Putin/Russia, they probably don't like the missile offensive (or do we call it defensive?) shield surrounding them, just as we wouldn't want it surrounding us.

We have to learn to get along and not buy into this BS military spending fear campaign. Life is pretty good once you stop watching their news and stop buying into their fear campaign.

Peace out

I was actually trying to spur conversation about a very serious topic in the backdrop of the presidential debate..I'm not sure how you deduce I'm a proponent of nuclear war..Like it or not these issues are real and current..The next president will have to manage the Cold War and our relationship with Russia..I don't think the candidate mentioning Rosie O'Donnell at a presidential debate is qualified to manage our nuclear arsenal...Getting America back on track??.We are still the most dynamic economy on the planet and our growth numbers 1.5/2% is largely due to global growth than our economy..

If you are really a patriot of the United States..Cleary he is unqualified..How do you put party politics ahead of the good of the country and talk about getting the country on track??..Trump is dangerously naive and unprepared...If he doesn't care enough to prepare for a debate why would he do the necessary study of material needed to run this country after becoming president..He is a narcissist..

He mocked the debate preparation process by saying he was at the Westchester Country Club eating cheeseburgers..Do we understand what's at stake here?

You sound too much like ra ra pom pom when it comes to Clinton or the US. We need to all get along is what I'm saying. With nuclear war, there is no us vs them and where did I say you were a proponent? You certainly sound like "we showed them". There are a few who survive, we all lose. Get over "we showed them..." types of mentality. It is a dog and pony show.

I'm not a patriot of the US, I'm a Earthling and see myself as just another person. Patriotism and Nationalism got us into most of these problems.

So, something to think about. I'm so deathly afraid of Clinton being president that I would rather have an underqualified (can't say unqualified cause if Bush could be president, honestly, anyone one of us could.) Trump knows business, Clinton knows politics. I still don't want her anywhere near a red button. Thank God for checks and balances though, regarding either of them. I still think, economically speaking, Trump would be much better for the US. We all know how Bill sold the Chinese, was it nuclear secrets or the like? What a team we'll have in the white house and her main concern, imo, will be fullfilling favors and getting richer. She's in the club, don't you see it?

Speaking of what is at stake, Do you want a woman who is on all kinds of drugs just so she can function? She is sick. And outside of her physical problems, more than one person has come out and defined here as not a very stable person.
Seriously, you are like the Nixluva of Clinton, that is how you come across. She can do no wrong. This is Pepsi or Coke...

When the voting takes place, I'm going to be interested in the exit polls, cause the last few years they suddenly stopped "working".

You assessment of my comments continues to be way off..I have said multiple times in this very thread as well, I don't care for Clinton, yet you claim I cheer for her..Puzzling

I referred to the US flying B2 bombers to Russia as "Crazy stuff, and a bit shocking", yet you say I was selling the message "We showed them"..
I know facts isn't a strong suit for republicans but for our discussions, let's try to stick to them especially when it comes to accusations...Deal??

It is true I am a Patriot of the US..I put the country's interest ahead of all party politics...I also put the US interest ahead of other countries because I live here...Patriotism didn't get us in this mess internationally, Republicans got us in this mess and Tramp wants to put ground troops in Iraq again....

You seems to be concerned with rhetoric you tend to hear on obscure websites that Bill Clinton sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese???..Come on, let engage in serious, known quantity events, from known quantity sources, can we??
So here is my challenge to you..The stock market sold off when Tramp's polls numbers pulled even to Clinton on Friday and was bought back after Clinton won the debate..What do you know that the rest of the planet doesn't know about Tramp???

And as for Tramp's business acumen..His businesses went bankrupt six times, not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but yes, SIX times...And you think he should lead this country based on his business acumen...He took over his father business in 1974 valued at 40 million dollars...If he liquidated his company's assets and bought the S&P 500 index, his portfolio would be valued at 4.266 billion today...Tramp is estimated to be worth less than 1 billion dollars in some quarters..He has under performed all his life, he under performed in the debate...By contrast, Mike Bloomberg started Bloomberg LP in 1981 from scratch, off his own sweat, and now his net worth is 44.5 billion dollars...That is a guy you would want to lead this country if business acumen was your sole criteria, and who did he endorse???????..I hold a higher standard for my Presidents by the way..Are you a better judge of business acumen than Bloomberg????Bloomberg spoke about Tramp's business acumen, you should look it up...

P.S. And he hasn't built anything in the last decade, he is now in the business of selling his name to projects...

Continues? I haven't read the full 80 pages, I jump in and out and was replying to the post I quoted but also noted, as have others, that you seem to cheerlead for Hillary and I don't get it. This really is a lesser of two evils race. And yes you said "crazy" but followed that with "Appearently Putin thinks he can use nuclear weapon on a small ex-society NATO state and we are showing him what's possible..One of our nuclear subs are carrying more nukes than some nuclear states.." That is like saying "my sword is bigger than yours." No harm in that, but that is what I was talking about. Not meaning to pick on you, really.

Your ideas on Patriotism are dangerous. You can't put yourself ahead of others, we are on equal ground and share the planet. I'm an American living in Europe (not why I made the last comment either) and see we need to get along in a big way.

Obscure sites, well, considering the ties of the Clintons to big media, yeah, you will not here it on CNN, FOX, etc, much, maybe in passing.
But a simple search reveals a lot, for starters. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940025/posts
The cocain trade through Arkansas while Clinton was governor is so crystal clear. That family is just bad news and dark.
And going to Amazon.com and putting in "Clinton" reveals a host of other dark things. These 2 people are not one of us. They serve higher masters, for lack of a better word.
Maybe Trump does to, but I feel he is a loose cannon, not under their control, but who knows.

And sorry, some things you won't find on mainstream, because, well, their in the same club.

You mention rhetoric and then say Tramp, why not say Hitlery too? lol

I don't doubt Trump is gonna have problems, but he is not, for a lack of a better word, evil. Honestly, I and many others, just plain do not trust the Clintons. They are not here for us.
Luckily we have some form of a democracy left, and perhaps Trump can create enough chaos to disrupt the system. Not the answer, but what are our choices? More of the same?

The bold... who is Trump here for? When Clinton called him out for stiffing all those people that worked for him he didn't even deny it. His exact quote was he followed the laws of the land. Then he said he looks out for himself, his family and his company.

The problem is its impossible to have real discussion with a Trump supporter. Trump's history is atrocious. He's phucked people over at every turn. He's been sued twice for not renting to minorities by the justice department. Trump isn't evil? He's the ultimate evil using power and money to swindle and scheme. $10mm in tuition collected from Trump university and after promising to hand pick the faculty he couldn't name one teacher, not ONE in the whole "school." Any outline of policy he puts out there is a disaster.

The best part is every chat with a Trump supporter eventually ends in how evil Hillary is but nobody knows because she control mainstream media. How about just holding them accountable for what comes out of their mouths?

You are right. Hillary and the Clintons are not here for us. They are products of the establishment and special interest groups. However at the very worst she toes the party line and while there is plenty of evil here that is the most manageable. Are the Clinton secrets worse than Trumps? You want policy made by someone in bed with Russian and Chinese banks (if you believe one you believe both right?).

At the end of the day people vote for "their guy" or gal in this case and just ignore facts, aside from the 1 or 2 that matter the most. Everything about Trump is bad. His constant lies. His history is terrible. The only thing he brings to the table is he's not a politician, but who cares? He's a BAD guy.

+1000