Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[JohnRoberts]

You're describing some sort of bartering system. I'm guessing you're heading down the road of [...]

No, I wasn't. I just wanted to see the end of the footnote

TTTT, I'm a bit tired of hearing the ubiquitous phrase, "make money work for you." It's an advertising phrase turned battle cry, a catchphrase that blurs reality more than it helps clarify a thing. But I understand what you are driving at. And I think it's good and high time that the financial system as we have it got criticised and adjusted big time. But let's face it, it's either revolt (bloody), reform (maybe difficult and slow) or resignation (darn easy). I assume we all agree that just stating repeatedly how bad everything is, doesn't change anything.

I'm not sure what you are responding to but the whole premise of capitalism is about putting money (capital) to work (to earn a return.)

Sadly the chronic low interest rate environment (too low for too long) has deprived retired savers, from expected interest revenue they counted on to fund their retirement.

In economics there's a term called "time value of money". This compares the present value of money higher than the future value based on the earning power of money over time.   

---------------------

Back to topic, Hillary Clinton has advocated changing capital gains tax rates in her campaign. She proposes a sliding scale of tax rates for period of up to six years. Read here:
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/details-hillary-clinton-s-capital-gains-tax-proposal

Interesting idea, I think, since there seems to be little correlation between low capital gains tax and economic growth anyway. And it is scandalous that capital gains are taxed lower than regular (work) income! However, if you asked me, Hilary's ideas are not far-reaching enough. So how about some science fiction:

Hillary's proposal that lower long term capital gains rates for investors will alter corporate governance to be less short term thinking, is approaching the problem from the wrong end of the stick, so unlikely to have the expected result. Clawbacks of bonuses for poor long term results has more chance of altering short term behavior.  Less attention on quarterly results could reduce the short term focus.

STEP 1
Abolish existing distinction between "long-term" versus "short-term" capital gains tax rates altogether and instead make all capital gains taxable like (or rather as) regular income.

Long term capital investment is good for increasing business activity, jobs etc. So should be encouraged.  Short term capital investment (trading) is a form of gambling, unless the traders have an unfair advantage, then it should just be illegal. 

I have proposed in the past a significant transaction tax on short term trades, the argument is that this short term trading improves market liquidity, but IMO it's just people gaming the system and siphoning off profits from real investors. 

Long term capital investment is not simple income. The money that is being invested (at least in my case) came from employment income and was already taxed before.

STEP 2
Allow depreciation of negative gain (read: loss) only for private people, but not for businesses. Or, better even, abolish the capital gain depreciation system altogether (not sure this exists in the US!?). If that's not possible/existing, put a stop to cross-category depreciation and make it category-specific; that is, taxable income tax cannot be "reduced" by loss in capital gains and vice versa, meaning capital gains tax cannot be reduced by business investment depreciation. This would make all gains fully taxable and a loss a loss -- period.

Depreciation? are you talking about deductions to offset gains with losses? Depreciation is a different deduction for replacement cost and declining value of fixed business assets that would otherwise be treated like cash at full value.   

STEP 3
Prohibit "short-selling" (and "long-selling"; ) of securities and other financial products to (1) get rid of "leeches" and (2) prevent systematic price manipulation and evil attacks against companies/markets/currencies.

Are you talking about put and call options?

Short selling is a valid market bet on a stock declining in the future. I wouldn't mind re-instituting the old rule that you can only short a stock on up ticks, to prevent piling on and increasing price volatility. Short sellers keep the market honest by identifying over valued stocks.

STEP 4
Introduce a variable speculation tax (to be paid in addition to income/corporate tax) for gains realized within 24 hours between purchase and sale. We no longer have stock market floors where people bid, it's all computers now. So make the term "speculation" go with the time and make it correlate with the speed of computers.

yes I have long ranted against the high speed trading crowd. There is one new exchange that delays access to trade information to thwart HST.

STEP 5
Regulate hedge funds rigorously and take back more of the market deregulations from before the turn of the century (birth of derivatives).

hedge funds are not all doing that good... they seem to all or most be making the same bets causing crowded trades that are less profitable.  I do not like the trick some do to classify their income as capital gains, there might need to be a variant for tax treatment of just those revenues to be higher than capital gains but lower than simple income, they do have some "at risk" factor.

STEP 6
Take the tax revenue and pump it into the education system and the education system only. The mid-term idea is to make education entirely free, top-notch and available to all (and I mean ALL). Pay teachers loads of money (more than they would make in private schools) and control their perfoemance. If money is short for this, raise the tax on all capital gains and in particular 24-h speculation. If money is still short, get it printed.

Education will not be fixed by more money, they need to embrace and leverage off technology, we are still in the early days of AI assisted education.

STEP 7
Make "macroeconomics", "economics", and "business ethics" compulsory subjects in all schools, and don't forget to also include a chapter on "criticism of capitalism."

and civics, and math, and science... the public is tragically ignorant of so many things that will affect their future.

STEP 8
If any of this is not doable within five years, start a nation-wide campaign to file a petition, and better even, sue the government quoting the constitution.

Some insurance companies have started suing the government over ACA losses that the government said they would cover but aren't...  SCOTUS has kicked the religious objection to ACA back down to lower courts to settle.

----------------

Not sure what DJ Trump has to say on this (haven't checked on it), but I assume his musical taste is different altogether. If I remember correctly, at some point he said he wanted to lower income tax for all households -- a very "popular" idea, I assume, and way easier to remember and understand than what Hilary proposed.

I would separate the Donald's campaign utterances from real policy proposals that he is probably working on right now. He seems to generally be pro-growth, but some of his trade statements are inconsistent with a healthy economy. 

I expect to hear more (hopefully thoughtful) policy in the near future, but I have been so disappointed by recent elections I'm not sure why this time is different, but it feels a little different so fingers crossed.

JR

 

[Script]

Sorry, I don't have time now, to respond to all of this. Only briefly.

putting money (capital) to work (to earn a return)

Yes, that's what I meant. Money itself can't work. It can only be /put/ to work and should be put to work. However, presently I see little investments being made especially by big players. They all seem to play the hoarding game.

Long term capital investment is good for increasing business activity

I totally agree.

Short term capital investment (trading) is a form of gambling, unless the traders have an unfair advantage, then it should just be illegal.

Absolutely +1.

Long term capital investment is not simple income. The money that is being invested (at least in my case) came from employment income and was already taxed before.

But it could be declared income.  And it won't be a case of double taxation, cos only the return/gain gets taxed, not the initial investment. I know, this would hit me too, although I'm not retired yet.

Depreciation?

Yeah, sorry. This comes from my JapEnglish brochures. There's all sort of weird English in it. I guess I meant expensing (capital asset purchases and depreciable property). It's one of the loopholes that allow some people to pay less income tax (in percentage) than regular workers (W. Buffet is a famous example).

If capital gains tax was the same independent of holding time, it doesn't matter when gain is realized. There is no incentive to buy and sell within a day, or a year or ten year. But it might make investors more cautious about what they invest into: companies they think are successful in the long term. On the other hand, it might postpone gain realisation, leading to a freezing of capital.

Yes, puts and calls are pure gambling, no doubt. I really meant shortselling. I know that shortsellers are often regarded as policing the market. I have my doubts.

Education, yes, get the best of technology too and implement it as early as possible. And get the best minds from all areas. It sure will cost loads of money, but this will be money put to work for something really important, the well-being and competitiveness of the next generation.

Yeah, change is ever so slow. Only alternative would be "Fight Club" (Kaboum!)

 

[ksor]

Who ?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sorry, I don't have time now, to respond to all of this. Only briefly.

putting money (capital) to work (to earn a return)

Yes, that's what I meant. Money itself can't work. It can only be /put/ to work and should be put to work. However, presently I see little investments being made especially by big players. They all seem to play the hoarding game.

George Soros bought a bunch of coal stocks, after the administration slammed the industry.

Many hedge funds are shorting the market right now expecting some reaction to fed interest rate increases.  I am not smart enough to predict (or control) the future.

Long term capital investment is good for increasing business activity

I totally agree.

Short term capital investment (trading) is a form of gambling, unless the traders have an unfair advantage, then it should just be illegal.

Absolutely +1.

Interesting tidbit, NASDAQ and some large hedge funds are suing the new fledgling stock exchange (IEX) that adds a 350mSec (1/3 second) "speed bump" that delays publishing trade data to thwart high speed trading from collecting and predicting large block trades to front run them and skim profits.

Long term capital investment is not simple income. The money that is being invested (at least in my case) came from employment income and was already taxed before.

But it could be declared income.  And it won't be a case of double taxation, cos only the return/gain gets taxed, not the initial investment. I know, this would hit me too, although I'm not retired yet.

There are several competing tax reforms, and one senators plan is to make stock dividends deductible for corporations and taxable as simple income by individuals. This is obviously unpopular so unlikely to happen, but they are trying to get around how much dividend income is already in tax deferred retirement accounts, so not available to the legislators to spend.

I converted my retirement portfolio to a ROTH and paid taxes on it years ago, so now I can enjoy any future investment gains tax free... (unless they change the rules again.)  :

Depreciation?

Yeah, sorry. This comes from my JapEnglish brochures. There's all sort of weird English in it. I guess I meant expensing (capital asset purchases and depreciable property). It's one of the loopholes that allow some people to pay less income tax (in percentage) than regular workers (W. Buffet is a famous example).

Buffett very publicly raises the issue of his tax "rate" not tax "amount". Buffet pays himself exactly one share of his company's stock per year (something like $100k so low pay for his gig). His annual income is  predominantly from  previous investments, so taxed at a lower rate than his secretary's simple income. Despite the lower rate, Buffett pays far more taxes total than his secretary. The focus on "rate" is typical political misdirection. Two observations, #1 rich people don't mind higher taxes because they already have their wealth, and #2 Rich people don't believe the government can spend their wealth "better" than they can. Guys like Buffett and Gates, distribute their wealth through private self-directed charities.

If capital gains tax was the same independent of holding time, it doesn't matter when gain is realized. There is no incentive to buy and sell within a day, or a year or ten year. But it might make investors more cautious about what they invest into: companies they think are successful in the long term. On the other hand, it might postpone gain realisation, leading to a freezing of capital.

Long term investment is good for the private economy to fund business expansion. Short term investment is gambling. I favor lower taxes for longer holding time, and increased taxes for short term trading that I see no benefit from.

Yes, puts and calls are pure gambling, no doubt. I really meant shortselling. I know that shortsellers are often regarded as policing the market. I have my doubts.

It more complex than that, you can sell options to manage that risk. For example selling a "covered" call, means you own the stock and sell someone the option to buy that stock for a fixed price for a limited time.    If that option expires out of the money, you keep that extra income, or you may have to sell the security for the promised price.

Naked shorts where you sell options on stock you do not own is not legal. Short sellers are supposed to borrow stocks from owners that they can then sell short. Some cheat for short term trades. 

Education, yes, get the best of technology too and implement it as early as possible. And get the best minds from all areas. It sure will cost loads of money, but this will be money put to work for something really important, the well-being and competitiveness of the next generation.

Yeah, change is ever so slow. Only alternative would be "Fight Club" (Kaboum!)

Change should be slow, I have seen way too much change in the last several years.. A lot that needs to be un-changed (IMO).

JR

 

[Unit7]

I have a weak spot for the U.S elections and if I have the time I follow the race closely. I'm also reading this thread frequently. It contains a lot of talk that, mainly for language reasons, is over my head. Still, many times I've asked myself the question in the title - What is your take on him?

I'm 51 and consider myself a fairly balanced and even restrained person. But in the case of DT I just lose it.

To me it's striking just what a giant a-hole he is. The fact that so many americans take him to heart is worrying and depressing. But I guess what it really shows is his genius when it comes to manipulating. That skill and the fact that he can't have a single cell anywhere in his whole grotesque appearance capable of feeling shame or regret, just like the predator he is, more and more makes me think that eventually he will crush any opponent and become the next president.

Here in my home land I often find myself sharing many values associated with the right wing - though I mostly end up voting leftish for compassion and empathy reasons. For instance I'm very proud of the medicare system we have here. We pay a lot of tax, but I'd gladly pay more to keep that. So it's an odd feeling following the U.S debate and suddenly feeling closer to a communist than right wing. Consequently if DT makes it to the Oval office, and if he ever was allowed to enter Sweden, I'd be in the front line of the screaming masses.

So much for balanced and restrained

 

[mattiasNYC]

Here in my home land I often find myself sharing many values associated with the right wing - though I mostly end up voting leftish for compassion and empathy reasons. For instance I'm very proud of the medicare system we have here. We pay a lot of tax, but I'd gladly pay more to keep that. So it's an odd feeling following the U.S debate and suddenly feeling closer to a communist than right wing. Consequently if DT makes it to the Oval office, and if he ever was allowed to enter Sweden, I'd be in the front line of the screaming masses.

So much for balanced and restrained

If you're Swedish and follow not only election rhetoric by politicians, but pay attention to the questions they get by "journalists" as well as what the voters say then it's a pretty darn bleak situation compared to Sweden. Granted, that SD got 13% with such crappy politicians in the party - i.e. even ignoring the little politics they stand for - is a signal of something, but it's still a vastly superior system to the one in the US. Though I fear Sweden is moving towards the US in many respects.

 

[JohnRoberts]

In case this election cycle couldn't get any more bizarre, now there is talk about a debate between the Donald, and the Bern.... (WTF??)

Hillary has backed out of a promised debate with Bernie before the California primary. I understand her calculation as she has the nomination locked up with super delegates, while an effective politician would use the opportunity to convert, or at least not further insult, Bernie supporters in hope of converting some of them after the super delegates drop the hammer on Bernie.

Bernie knows he can't win, but is enjoying his success in these primaries to get a seat at the table to pull the democratic party further left. (Note he only recently joined the democratic party to get this primary contest exposure. )

Bernie debating Trump, is just insane. Trump gets an opportunity to make Hillary look even weaker before the general election. Who knows what Bernie's rationale is (I don't). I kind of hope this debate doesn't happen, and hopefully Hillary will be shamed into debating Bernie (like she should).

I will admit, if Trump debates Bernie I will actually watch this one. I haven't watched any of the other debates, but this one sounds like really good TV (not good politics). 

JR

PS: An interesting trend is how much the candidates have shown up on late night TV. I remember the time (Bill) Clinton played saxophone on Arsenio hall's show.  Since then the candidates have polished up comedy routines and show up all too regularly.

 

[Script]

Here's someone's take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs
Not really Japanese commerical style, but Japanese in style.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Sorry for bumping this and stuff.....

Keith, your inbox is full and I tried to PM you....

The opposition have gone to the dirty tricks, digging up some sensational mud from one of his divorces.

...which -like so many other things this season- they expect will torpedo him.

And yet to confound expectations, his popularity will probably get a short boost.

Prepostrich.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-2016-sarah-palin-cabinet-post-120747.html

The innuendo possibility of the title is no accident, I'm sure.

I think he'd like her not so much for a running mate as a mating run.

 

[kambo]

Sorry for bumping this and stuff.....

Keith, your inbox is full and I tried to PM you....

who is Keith  :

 

[ln76d]

Keith Richards

 

[DaveP]

Well, Trump is now the official republican candidate, like it or not.

I think that many Americans are not exactly pleased with the choice of candidates they have this time around and that goes for both parties.

The first US election I was aware of was in 1960 with Nixon and Kennedy, like many at the time, I preferred the latter just from looks alone, which is about all a ten year old can discern.  Nixon turned out to be a crook and Kennedy a serial womaniser, none of them lived up to expectations.  I have never been as scared as I was in October 1962.

When I look at Clinton I see false sincerity on the podium, waving to random people like she just saw some long lost friends, it's not real and that worries me.  I also see someone that feels she can flout rules that the rest of us would go to jail for, and that worries me too.  That all adds up to a lack of trust, no matter whether I might prefer her politics or not.  When I see young women not taking to Clinton, that both surprises and concerns me too, you might have thought that they would pile in behind a woman for president, but they don't, women's intuition?

When I look at Trump, I don't see the faux sincerity but the politics are worrying.  I do recognise that the media do not like him and that they would try to show the most unflattering pictures and report the most negative aspects of his speeches, but in the end, which one would I trust?  I have to admit that my gut instinct would be that I could trust Trump as a person over Clinton.  His effectiveness as a president is an entirely different matter.  I think that some republicans are genuinely repulsed by his rhetoric but others hate him because he has smashed their cartel.

Does it matter if someone has relevant presidential experience?  Well from my point of view no it doesn't, because Reagan was a B movie actor yet he managed to negotiate a peaceful rapprochement with Gorbachev that changed the world.

I feel sorry that America hasn't got a better choice of candidates to choose from, but it's a game that only the rich and powerful  can play, you almost certainly have excellent potential presidents buried in the backwoods that no-one will ever know.

DaveP

 

[fazer]

DaveP, its the problems with a 2 party system.  We need about 4 parties to cover the latitude of voters and Trump at least beat the Republicans at their own game.  With Hilary we all know what we'll get.  With Trump we're not sure but its not going to be the same thing.  At this time that might seems more appealing.  (It reminds me of the brexit vote).  I guess we will see.  It's actually a very interesting election cycle.  I just wanted Bernie to make it so as to flip the finger to both parties that have such a strangle hold on things. 

 

[micaddict]

So what about Bill versus Melania?

Or did you guys already cover that one?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Well, Trump is now the official republican candidate, like it or not.

The political elites don't like him, but his choice of VP has added a more conventional politician.

I think that many Americans are not exactly pleased with the choice of candidates they have this time around and that goes for both parties.

not that rare... It is invariably a lesser evil choice.

The first US election I was aware of was in 1960 with Nixon and Kennedy, like many at the time, I preferred the latter just from looks alone, which is about all a ten year old can discern. 

Nixon drafted me, so no love, but he did some good stuff like restoring relations with China. (Well good at the time.)

Funny how much trouble Nixon got for erasing a few minutes of his secret office tape recordings. Contrast that with this years cycle.

Nixon turned out to be a crook and Kennedy a serial womaniser, none of them lived up to expectations.  I have never been as scared as I was in October 1962.

Kennedy was a decorated WWII veteran who  drove a PT boat in the Pacific, not exactly a wus (well he did have chronic health problems that almost kept him out of the service). I'm not sure how many red blooded men would turn down a shot at Marilyn Monroe. But high political office is apparently aphrodisiac for women who are attracted to money and power (mostly the power). 

When I look at Clinton I see false sincerity on the podium, waving to random people like she just saw some long lost friends, it's not real and that worries me. 

All politicians do this, she just isn't very skillful at it.

I also see someone that feels she can flout rules that the rest of us would go to jail for, and that worries me too.

The political elites don't answer to the same rules we do.. in fact when they pass laws they often exclude themselves, because they can.

The Clintons, and Hillary specifically probably doesn't realize how it looks. She is just doing what they've been doing for decades. Pretty long history of dicey behavior going all the way back to AR. 

That all adds up to a lack of trust, no matter whether I might prefer her politics or not.

not just her but the lack of honesty from this whole administration is disturbing.

  When I see young women not taking to Clinton, that both surprises and concerns me too, you might have thought that they would pile in behind a woman for president, but they don't, women's intuition?

I don't think Trump is doing well with women either, but the campaign begins in ernest now. I expect Hillary's VP choice monetarily to try to kill the buzz surrounding Cleveland as quickly as possible.

When I look at Trump, I don't see the faux sincerity but the politics are worrying.

I see a lack of politics, a reality TV star. He is sincere but very likely to change his mind, often and hopefully for the better as he gets more informed advice (lets hope).

I do recognise that the media do not like him and that they would try to show the most unflattering pictures and report the most negative aspects of his speeches, but in the end, which one would I trust?  I have to admit that my gut instinct would be that I could trust Trump as a person over Clinton.

Trump is also an unknown, but the president is limited so a responsible congress would prevent excessive policy changes from either. I worry that Hillary is so wired into the system so could be more effective at implementing her agenda, while she has been pulled further to the left by campaigning against Bernie. Either one with a split government will be less effective (always  a good thing).

  His effectiveness as a president is an entirely different matter.  I think that some republicans are genuinely repulsed by his rhetoric but others hate him because he has smashed their cartel.

Indeed the status quo will get blown up by him, she will be (crony) business as usual.

Does it matter if someone has relevant presidential experience?  Well from my point of view no it doesn't, because Reagan was a B movie actor yet he managed to negotiate a peaceful rapprochement with Gorbachev that changed the world.

Don't underestimate Reagan. He was governor of CA which is about as close as you get to presidential experience. He only played a bafoon in movies.

I feel sorry that America hasn't got a better choice of candidates to choose from, but it's a game that only the rich and powerful  can play, you almost certainly have excellent potential presidents buried in the backwoods that no-one will ever know.

DaveP

Yes I fear the truly best men and women will never run for office. The amount of time and money involved is scary, $Billions of dollars on each side. Even Trump needs OPM (other people's money).

I am envious when I see other nations transition between administrations  in a tiny fraction of the time and treasure we waste. This is not easy to fix, there are problems with the simplistic answers, but it is worth the effort to reform longer term, so politicians will spend more time governing, and less time raising money and campaigning (term limits would be a good start).

JR

 

[DaveP]

Kennedy was a decorated WWII veteran who  drove a PT boat in the Pacific, not exactly a wus (well he did have chronic health problems that almost kept him out of the service). I'm not sure how many red blooded men would turn down a shot at Marilyn Monroe. But high political office is apparently aphrodisiac for women who are attracted to money and power (mostly the power). 

Yes you are right, I didn't mean to sell him short, but it depends on how much he loved his wife I guess :-\
The standard I use as a good US president is Ike, he had a very tasty chauffeur during the war but kept on the straight and narrow, despite being away from home for years.

The news over here said that Trump's acceptance speech was all doom and gloom so I wondered whether that was media bias or not.  So I listened to the whole thing on youtube and to be honest I was quite impressed.  He sounded presidential and in command and covered lots of areas that needed attention and putting right, he actually went down very well with the audience who were on their feet applauding most of the time.  He reached out to Sanders supporters and African Americans and all legal immigrants as well as the usual subjects.  He knows his audience and demographic and how to communicate to them.

If I had any criticism at all, it was how he intended to pay for everything whilst simultaneously rebuilding the military and cutting taxes!  I think he will have to put tariffs on imports and fine companies who outsource manufacturing  to make the whole idea work.  He wants to restart manufacturing in major cities  for existing americans and not let them be staffed with low wage illegals.  All in all I thought it was a very accomplished performance.

It will be very interesting to see how the campaign goes, he could just swing it.

DaveP

 

[dmp]

When I see young women not taking to Clinton, that both surprises and concerns me too, you might have thought that they would pile in behind a woman for president, but they don't, women's intuition?

When you see men not taking to Trump, does that concern you?

So I listened to the whole thing on youtube and to be honest I was quite impressed.

His constant shouting didn't bother you?

If I had any criticism at all, it was how he intended to pay for everything whilst simultaneously rebuilding the military and cutting taxes!

He'll just accelerate the country on the path it is on - bankruptcy. He has plenty of experience with that.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Kennedy was a decorated WWII veteran who  drove a PT boat in the Pacific, not exactly a wus (well he did have chronic health problems that almost kept him out of the service). I'm not sure how many red blooded men would turn down a shot at Marilyn Monroe. But high political office is apparently aphrodisiac for women who are attracted to money and power (mostly the power). 

Yes you are right, I didn't mean to sell him short, but it depends on how much he loved his wife I guess :-\

I thought it was the Americans who were prudish and Europeans who considered having mistresses normal.  8)

The standard I use as a good US president is Ike, he had a very tasty chauffeur during the war but kept on the straight and narrow, despite being away from home for years.

I wasn't there  but google "Kay Summersby"... no definitive proof like Kennedy but plenty of opportunity and apparently desire. Back in those days media was far more discreet than today.

The real WH  horn dog was Bill Clinton, I've heard stories from people who were on the same trip  back when he was governor of AR and travelled on a joint trade mission with the governor of MS (to Japan IIRC).  Apparently he had a voracious sexual appetite and much success satisfying that even before rising to the highest office in the land. 

The news over here said that Trump's acceptance speech was all doom and gloom so I wondered whether that was media bias or not. 

As usual all politics is an ink blot test, progressive liberal media will see bogeymen everywhere and look for anyway to paint a negative picture. I didn't watch the speech (I tried but too much applause from an overly friendly audience) but he didn't write it. He is getting better help these days and I hope he continues to get better advice over time to clean up his "loose cannon" imitation.

So I listened to the whole thing on youtube and to be honest I was quite impressed.  He sounded presidential and in command and covered lots of areas that needed attention and putting right, he actually went down very well with the audience who were on their feet applauding most of the time.  He reached out to Sanders supporters and African Americans and all legal immigrants as well as the usual subjects.  He knows his audience and demographic and how to communicate to them.

If I had any criticism at all, it was how he intended to pay for everything whilst simultaneously rebuilding the military and cutting taxes!  I think he will have to put tariffs on imports and fine companies who outsource manufacturing  to make the whole idea work.  He wants to restart manufacturing in major cities  for existing americans and not let them be staffed with low wage illegals.  All in all I thought it was a very accomplished performance.

It will be very interesting to see how the campaign goes, he could just swing it.

DaveP

A great deal of his policy does not add up on paper, (some points may not even be legal or possible)  but he is not the first or last politician to make grand promises. Even if elected all this will get filtered through congress that will hopefully be more responsible about the law and budget discipline.

Lets see how effective the debates are to probe weaknesses of both candidates policy promises. That is what debates are for.  The debate moderation has been a little uneven and getting worse for the last several campaign cycles. Sombody needs to moderate the moderators. 

Hillary is already ahead and hasn't received her convention bump yet which should give her even better poll numbers. She has a decent war chest and is already running ads in swing states. I don't see any of her ads here, but she may not consider MS worth trying.

Trump does not have an easy path to victory, but he wasn't supposed to get even this far.

Of course there is always the "October surprise"  and if we knew what that was it wouldn't be a surprise.  8)

JR

 

[DaveP]

When you see men not taking to Trump, does that concern you?

Of course it does, that's why I said that America was not pleased with its choice of candidates.

His constant shouting didn't bother you?

I did wonder how his voice was going to hold out but it did.  It's all part of of the image he wants to project, being tough enough for tough problems I guess.

He'll just accelerate the country on the path it is on - bankruptcy. He has plenty of experience with that.

You could well be right unless he gets some good people to advise him.

My personal choice would have been Sanders for character (I think Trump respects him) but his policies are probably not what is needed at the moment.
DaveP

 

[Scodiddly]

I did watch most of his acceptance speech last night. Very authoritarian, though some people will go for that.

The basic theme is that the world is falling apart, crime is rampant, etc. etc., and only a strongman can do anything about it. 

Never mind that killings of police officers has been dropping for years, and is not higher than usual this year.