Asset voting in USA 2016 election? Newspapers?

[Warren D Smith]

If Jill Stein cannot be elected president (as seems likely...)
whom would she select?
A recent post by JS's "social media director" onto her facebook page
sounds like it is a statement that she prefers Trump. (Perhaps unexpectedly...)
But it is not clear to me this represent's JS's view:
https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/posts/1342946029078917
See also
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/31/1589308/-Yes-the-Green-Party-has-Endorsed-Trump-Over-Clinton
The trouble with those is:
While is certainly true that one can find statements by JS saying she considers
Clinton worse than Trump in various respects, I have NOT found any
clear statement
by JS that OVERALL she prefers one over the other.

If Gary Johnson cannot win, then who would he prefer?
Johnson's VP Bill Weld appeared on "Rachel Maddow show" (cable TV) a couple
days back making a pretty clear statement that Weld prefers Clinton. See also
https://www.johnsonweld.com/statement_by_gov_bill_weld_regarding_the_final_weeks_election
which is a written statement by Weld, which at the very least is an
anti-endorsement of Trump by Weld. (Again this perhaps is unexpected,
since Weld formerly was gov. of MA and as, at the time, a Republican.)
Weld also has said he considers Clinton more qualified
than any rival (except perhaps Johnson). It is not entirely clear to
me that Weld's view necessarily is Johnson's view.

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

If we regard newspaper boards as more knowledgable than the rest of
us... it is interesting
to see how those more-knowledgable people would vote, and it differs a
lot from how
the USA as a whole is voting...

Johnson has now been endorsed by these newspapers:
1. Detroit News
2. Chicago Tribune
3. Union Leader of Manchester, NH.
4. Winston-Salem (NC) Journal
5. Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch
6. Caledonian Record (St. Johnsbury, Vermont).
all of which usually in the past endorsed the Republican.

Clinton was endorsed by the
1. Arizona Republic,
2. Cincinnati Enquirer,
3. Dallas Morning News
4. Houston Chronicle
all of which in the past had reliably endorsed the Republican.

As of Oct 30, Wikipedia claims that of the 100 largest US newspapers
by paid circulation,
* 56 endorsed Clinton
* 3 endorsed Johnson
* 2 anti-endorsed Trump
* 1 endorsed Trump
* remainder had not made any endorsement as of that date.

Apparently the only significant newspapers that have endorsed Trump are
1.The National Enquirer
2.New York Observer (NY city)
3.Santa Barbara News-Press, Santa Barbara, CA
4.St. Joseph News-Press , St Joseph Missouri
5.Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas, NV
of which only the last is among the USA's 100 largest.

Large lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)

[Phil Uhrich]

My personal preference is Stien>Trump>Clinton>Johnson. If you want to chat with a few hundred thousand people that would agree with me check out the comment sections of www.nakedcapitalism.com. We were all Sanders supporters too. It has to do with a fundamental understanding of Neoliberalism, the economic model that Reagan put us on and every president since has totally embraced. You can think of Libertarianism as the purest form of neoliberalism and then republicans and democrats are just different shades. It is a wholesale rejection of Laissez Faire disaster capitalism that mandated Wall Street deregulation and privatization of public assets.

Trump>Clinton comes from 2 things; Wall Street hates him. Neocons love her.

Neoliberalism is behind income inequality, no social mobility, brexit, and the death of centrist parties, and modern day debt slaves. It killed the american dream, it is impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps anymore.

The elite newspaper editors are in the class of people that have benefited from neoliberalism, while the middle class disintegrated. They are thoroughly behind Clinton because they don't bother talking to the unwashed masses anymore and don't see just how impossible it has become for most people to live an average life. Most people lost a lot when Obama bailed out Wall Street and let everyone else lose their house.

[Warren D Smith]

On 11/2/16, Warren D Smith <warre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If Jill Stein cannot be elected president (as seems likely...)
> whom would she select?
> A recent post by JS's "social media director" onto her facebook page
> sounds like it is a statement that she prefers Trump. (Perhaps
> unexpectedly...)
> But it is not clear to me this represent's JS's view:
> https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/posts/1342946029078917
> See also
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/31/1589308/-Yes-the-Green-Party-has-Endorsed-Trump-Over-Clinton
> The trouble with those is:
> While is certainly true that one can find statements by JS saying she
> considers
> Clinton worse than Trump in various respects, I have NOT found any
> clear statement
> by JS that OVERALL she prefers one over the other.

--UPDATE:
Jill Stein has put out a statement debunking the notions
that (a) she endorses Trump, or
that (b) she has said she prefers Trump>Clinton, and in
particular disclaiming some of the quotes I cited above
as NOT her actual opinion.
[And she in said statement, did NOT say that she
prefers Clinton>Trump either. She's remaining firmly on the fence.]

> If Gary Johnson cannot win, then who would he prefer?
> Johnson's VP Bill Weld appeared on "Rachel Maddow show" (cable TV) a couple
> days back making a pretty clear statement that Weld prefers Clinton. See
> also
> https://www.johnsonweld.com/statement_by_gov_bill_weld_regarding_the_final_weeks_election
> which is a written statement by Weld, which at the very least is an
> anti-endorsement of Trump by Weld. (Again this perhaps is unexpected,
> since Weld formerly was gov. of MA and as, at the time, a Republican.)
> Weld also has said he considers Clinton more qualified
> than any rival (except perhaps Johnson). It is not entirely clear to
> me that Weld's view necessarily is Johnson's view.

--UPDATE:
I still fail to see any statement by Johnson he prefers T or C
over the other, but his running mate Weld remains quite
clear he prefers C>T,
despite Weld having formerly been a Republican.

[Warren D Smith]

On 11/7/16, Phil Uhrich <philu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My personal preference is Stien>Trump>Clinton>Johnson.

> Trump>Clinton comes from 2 things; Wall Street hates him. Neocons love her.

--First of all, I'd advise you not to judge Trump vs Clinton
based on who allegedly likes them since you heard that rumor.
I'd base it on whether you yourself like them. Or in my case,
its not really that I "like" either of them, it's more like "dislike less."

Second, even if one did want to judge them based on
who allegedly likes them, then there is the slight matter of
getting that right.

Trump's largest Donor is Robert Mercer, a hedge fund billionaire,
who I guess counts as "wall street" although he actually works
in Setauket New York about 60 miles from Wall Street.
Mercer also supplied Trump with several of his key people,
e.g. his current campaign manager Conway,
who were former Mercer employees. Trump also appointed Chris Christie
as head of his transition team, and Christie's wife worked on
Wall Street as an investment banker, so he's literally in bed with wall street.
And Trump says he's going to appoint Carl Icahn, a well known "corporate raider"
who is head of his own wall street firm, to a high (apparently
cabinet) position.
So I am afraid I cannot support your claim "wall street hates Trump."
I could support "wall street loves Clinton" (which is not the same) however.

"Neocons love Clinton?" Another statement I cannot
agree with, at least if we count, e.g. Dick Cheney and
Donald Rumsfeld as the two most prominent "neocons" -- they
both endorsed Trump. (I'm not sure how exactly to define "neocon"
but can you find anywhere near as prominent neocons who endorsed
Clinton? Because I looked and failed to find even a single one,
although some have made statements about finding Trump
repugnant, which is not the same thing.)

[Warren D Smith]

> And Trump says he's going to appoint Carl Icahn, a well known "corporate
> raider"
> who is head of his own wall street firm, to a high (apparently
> cabinet) position.

--Trump said he'd make Icahn Secretary of the Treasury.
I mean, if that is Wall Street "hating" Trump, what the
heck would love be like?

[Phil Uhrich]

Why would any Neocon support a democrat? Hillary is a Hawk to reference the NY times and she has the horrible record to prove it.

Clinton and Neocons:
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/
https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-opponents-hint-at-sedition-while-clinton-partisans-embrace-the-neocons/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/hillary-clinton-necono-republican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues
There is even a website with tons of links: http://HillaryIsANeocon.com/

Trump's Foreign Policy Is Sane While Clinton's Is Belligerent (This is the most accurate milatry / defence blog, used a source frequently by MSM)
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/10/trumps-foreign-policy-is-sane-while-clintons-is-belligerent-.html
If you are currious about the impending nuclear war she is starting. Russia gets CNN.

Trump may have a handful of people on wall street that favor him, but the vast majority are #WithHer
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/wall-street-is-starting-to-get-freaked-out-about-trump.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/wall-street-is-giving-up-on-donald-trump-commentary.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-would-markets-rally-on-a-trump-win-tom-lee-2016-11
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/why-the-rise-of-donald-trump-has-even-wall-street-worried/2016/03/23/dd0a710e-df31-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html

Goldman Sachs even banned donations to Trump and not Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/08/goldman-sachs-bans-employees-from-donating-to-trump-but-allows-clinton-donations/

[Phil Uhrich]

I hate Clinton with a passion since her and her husbands closeness with wall street ended with GLBA and CFMA, the two bills that created the great recession leaving me with a mountain of debt and no job prospects. She has said in her Wall Street speeches that Wall Street should regulate itself.

Trump is no hero on wall street but he did force reinstating Glass Steagall into the GOP platform, against the wishes of the rest of the GOP. The next 4 years will be hell no matter what. I'd rather the backlash be against the right.

[Phil Uhrich]

Oh and how could I forget her best bud Kissinger.... He was a neocon before it was cool.
If you are clueless why anyone is voting for Trump here is a great explanation:
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-last-gasp-of-american-dream.html

[Warren D Smith]

I would agree with characterizing Clinton as a "hawk" but
not with the claim "Neocons love Clinton."
If the most prominent such neocon you can find is
"Robert Kagan," a joker who never held an elected office,
you already lost that argument.

Clinton may well be more of a hawk than Trump, although
the difficulty is that Trump is such a huge liar, with
70% lie-rate according to politfact, that
I cannot believe any claim he makes about anything.
You can believe practically anything about what Trump
will do about anything -- and it might be true! He has
no record, he lies hugely, he often completely
contradicts himself, so he's totally unpredictable far
as I can see.

Neither Goldman Sachs, nor any other US employer,
has the legal right to forbid its
employees from donating to any politician.
If they tried, they could be sued and would lose the
suit, making said employees rich. My suggestion is
not to rely on breitbart.com as a "news source."

> Trump may have a handful of people on wall street that favor him, but the
> vast majority are #WithHer

--I might have agreed if you'd said Wall Street has supported
HC more than DJ, but you instead had said "Wall street hates
Trump" which I just do not see.

[Phil Uhrich]

If you are actually curious this two part series thoroughly documents Kagen's pivotal role in the neocon movement.
https://shadowproof.com/2016/06/30/films-series-on-neoconservatives-concludes-with-look-at-hillary-clinton/

Seriously? I post a dozen links and you take issue with the source of one? I remembered the story and googled it, that was just the one I happened to click on. If you want more detail they tried to say it was because Pence was the sitting governor of IN and that would be corrupt... No explanation as to why Kaine being VA's Senator wasn't just as disqualifying. Even if there was an explanation it would not be justified.

I'm under no illusions about Trump. He will be a bad president, I just think slightly less bad then Clinton. Neoliberalism is killing the working class, literally. With Clinton the people in power would just keep pretending that nothing was wrong, there is no way we would elect anything short of a fascist in 4 years. Trump is a pressure release valve. When he fails someone more egalitarian minded will have an opening on the left. We need Egalitarianism. That is all that stopped us from fascism last time Laissez Faire capitalism created a Gilded Age followed by economic collapse.

The only reason Trump had any traction is because neoliberalism destroys the middle class. Seeing as the Clintons are some of neoliberalism's biggest cheerleaders it would be irresponsible to give them power.

[Warren D Smith]

On 11/11/16, Phil Uhrich <philu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you are actually curious this two part series thoroughly documents
> Kagen's pivotal role in the neocon movement.
> https://shadowproof.com/2016/06/30/films-series-on-neoconservatives-concludes-with-look-at-hillary-clinton/

--dubiousness. Rumsfeld and Cheney were the two
highest ranking neocons, while
99% of Americans including me never even heard of Kagan,
and even you just mis-spelled his name.
Some documentary may say he was pivotal, but so what?
And wikipedia says
"A profile in the The Guardian described Kagan as being
"uncomfortable" with the 'neocon' title, and stated that "he insists
he is 'liberal' and 'progressive' in a distinctly American tradition".

And by the way according to current rumor, Trump is now
angling to appoint John Bolton as Secy of Defense.
If that is true, well, Bolton was another of the highest ranking
neocons, he seems the neoconnest of neocons, again is
at least 100X more famous than Kagan, and this
all is despite the fact Bolton like C & R was a huge proponent
of the Iraq war which Trump (last time he was asked anyhow)
claims was a big mistake. I do not believe either R or C or
B says, or ever said, or ever will say, the Iraq war was a
mistake...

> Seriously? I post a dozen links and you take issue with the source of one?
> I remembered the story and googled it, that was just the one I happened to
> click on. If you want more detail they tried to say it was because Pence
> was the sitting governor of IN and that would be corrupt... No explanation
> as to why Kaine being VA's Senator wasn't just as disqualifying. Even if
> there was an explanation it would not be justified.

--Breitbart actually was set up by,
and its top owner is, Robert Mercer,
who as I said is a secretive hedge fund billionaire who is
Trump's top financial backer.
As a result, Breitbart cannot be trusted on these matters.

Incidentally, Icahn allegedly had told Trump he would
indeed be treasury secy,
but then later allegedly changed his mind, and hence now
allegedly Trump is angling to get some other top
wall street barracudas for that role.

I must say the idea of appointing probably the
world's most famous "corporate raider" (Icahn)
as treasury secretary makes me nervous.

> I'm under no illusions about Trump. He will be a bad president, I just
> think slightly less bad then Clinton. Neoliberalism is killing the working
> class, literally. With Clinton the people in power would just keep
> pretending that nothing was wrong, there is no way we would elect anything
> short of a fascist in 4 years. Trump is a pressure release valve. When he
> fails someone more egalitarian minded will have an opening on the left. We
> need Egalitarianism. That is all that stopped us from fascism last time
> Laissez Faire capitalism created a Gilded Age followed by economic
> collapse.
>
> The only reason Trump had any traction is because neoliberalism destroys the
> middle class. Seeing as the Clintons are some of neoliberalism's biggest
> cheerleaders it would be irresponsible to give them power.

--well, I don't understand all that. But let's hope
some of the more positive things you say are correct.

Trump does have some positive aspects and might be
able to be a good president despite all his flaws. I doubt
it, but it is conceivable. For example, Trump seems
very un-ideological and un-indebted to the usual
suspects, which both could be strengths that few
other presidents had. For example he could
blow off the Republicans to a large extent to appoint
many Democrats and/or Independents. But at least according to the
current rumors about who he is going to appoint
as his cabinet -- if they are true it looks like Trump is going
to have very conventional very Republican establishment
appointees, except it'll be bad ones who are sort of too
on the fringes to normally be able to get those
positions.