Below we present three entertaining vignettes from the latest weekly letter to investors by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management.
The first one explains how we have once again ended up “right back where we started“ but after a curious tanget: one where central bankers now believe they can “invert causation” and not only control the yield curve but stoke inflation by doing so.
“Right back where we started,” said the CIO, spinning, dizzy. “Twelve months ago we were talking about a December rate hike.” The Fed was intent on normalizing interest rates, and if the rest of the world struggled to adjust, so be it. “It was their experiment with raising real interest rates and they were telling us to expect four more hikes in 2016.”
Inflation had remained subdued ever since the 2008 crisis, but interest rates had remained lower still; leaving real interest rates negative. “Having witnessed the stock market meltdown in January, we all now know what happens when the Fed raises real interest rates while economic growth is anemic.”
But nevertheless, we’re right back at it, albeit with lower expectations for the pace of 2017 hikes. Of course the S&P 500 is now higher too; were it lower, we’d sooner see a burqa at a Trump rally than another 25bps from the Fed.
“Not only does the Fed want higher overnight rates, they want steeper yield curves too,” he explained. “Rosengren is telling people how he’d like the curve to ‘develop,’ as if it’s in the Fed’s control.”
He’s not alone. Kuroda wants the same, Europe too. “Policy makers everywhere have somehow convinced themselves that if they engineer higher longer-dated yields, then inflation expectations will rise too,” he explained. “They’re basically saying you can invert causation.”
And in today’s new reality, everything’s possible, so why not inverse causation too? You see, rising inflation expectations cause higher long-term yields, not the other way around.
“So now our central bankers will run a new experiment based on the theory which is obviously incorrect,” he said, whirling, laughing. “It’s like saying I wish I had a billion dollars, which I desperately do, and somehow a billion dollars just appeared in my bank account.”
The next anecdote explains why we now find ourselves in a world where everyone loves conspiracy theories:
“You’d think today’s technological ubiquity would eradicate the scourge of conspiracy theories,” he said. “But it appears they’re spreading.”
When people are unhappy, they suspend disbelief. And people are in a conspiracy kind of mood today. “How can Trump say, ‘You literally saw me admit I sexually assault women, but it really isn’t true and it’s actually a cabal?”
One-third of America believes that. “The greatest manifestation of this phenomenon is Brexit.” As if a withdrawal from the EU would magically solve Britain’s problems. “It’s a lie.”
“People who are miserable enough will believe any story that promises to improve their lives,” he continued. “And the remarkable thing today is that everyone is miserable; billionaires, millionaires, the middle, the poor.” The scapegoats are quite naturally bankers. They always are. To make it worse, today’s central bankers missed the crisis, then missed their own forecasts, and still fail to meet their objectives.
“We need to figure this out, because two world wars started over conspiracy theories. And things aren’t even bad right now.”
Finally, it appears we are all now maniacs, rifling through garbage.
“You watch Saturday Night Live?” asked the CIO, high atop his prodigious pile. Of course I had. “How about Colbert?” he asked. Yup. “The Daily Show?” Naturally. “Did you make it through the debate or just catch the highlights?” Watched it all. “I’m not the puppet, you’re the puppet!” he shouted, repeatedly, losing his mind.
We all are. And attempting to move on, I asked if he’d seen Norway’s $880bln sovereign wealth fund may lift its equity allocation 10-points to 70%? “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?” he said, addicted, tuning me out, quoting the Donald. Norway clearly knows that in a world of ultra-low or negative rates, there’s simply no way to generate their targeted returns without taking more risk. It’s a universal problem. Norway’s doing something about it.
“Oh my god, a new Trump accuser came forward,” he squealed. “That makes thirteen, possibly fourteen, but who’s counting?” Global investors are sitting on the largest percentage of cash since right after the September 11 attacks. Hard to believe when you consider we’re hovering just below all-time highs in equities.
Must be a conspiracy. The Russians. Hackers. Bankers. “Did you see Melania’s interview? And the spoof?” he asked.
Of course I had. Saudi Arabia’s oil minister called an end to the downturn, now that prices have doubled. Brazil cut rates for the first time in 4yrs.
“I feel dirty just watching, but I literally can’t stop.”
The ECB did nothing, Draghi told us to wait until December. China’s renminbi made new lows. The dollar rallied, pricing in a Clinton win — not even the Donald believes he has a chance in hell.
“I will totally accept election results… If I win!” he shrieked, refreshing his browser, a maniac rifling through garbage, like us all.
Rage is all the rage these days, but as Barclays notes, what appears less well understood is that this voter rebellion, “the Politics of Rage”, spans nearly all advanced economies, has been taking place for more than a decade, is unparalleled in modern history, and is deeply entrenched.
This is not just about Brexit or the US election; it is about a global political movement.
More troubling, from a market perspective, is that its roots may be misunderstood. Misperceptions in politics tend to lead to volatile surprises, such as Brexit, or to misdiagnoses and to policy mis-prescriptions that imply even worse outcomes for asset prices.
Policymakers have focused on income inequality as the primary driver of the Politics of Rage. Although we cannot reject the thesis, we find little support for it in the data. Others have focused on anti-globalisation movements as the main driver. Our analysis agrees, but in results that may surprise some; we find that it is neither the most important source of rage nor as economically irrational as some have suggested.
We find that a deeper cause is a perception among “ordinary citizens” that political and institutional “elites” do not accurately represent their preferences amid a growing cultural and economic divide. These frustrations appear to be validated, with many caveats, by the data: median earners in advanced economies seem to have been the relative losers of globalisation, both within their own countries and relative to their emerging market peers.
Voter anger may be analogous to the Greek hero Achilles’ terrible rage, not for having received less than King Agamemnon, but for the perceived injustice in the manner in which Agamemnon distributed the spoils of battle. Achilles’ wrath cost the Greeks – and ultimately Achilles – dearly, as the Politics of Rage may cost global output. But it was not because Achilles’ sense of justice was in error.
Our findings have mostly strategic implications for asset markets, but they are not happy. Our research seems to support the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington’s forecast of continued political upheaval and highlights the trilemma of incompatibility among democracy, sovereignty and globalisation postulated by the economist Dani Rodrik. The Politics of Rage has been around longer than many realise and likely will remain for the foreseeable future. Despite this long arc, our findings also are highly relevant to near-term event risks.
The report is robust and detailed, but the issues and conclusions are framed in brief in the Executive Summary and on “Rage in a page”, below.
Prospects for the Politics of Rage
• Its roots run deeply through and across countries; Brexit was no exception
• Technology likely will nourish the roots of Rage by inflaming some of the key proximate causes
• Governments are ill equipped to fight Rage with already overextended fiscal positions and low levels of popular trust
The Policies of Rage
• Sovereignty: Reclaiming sovereignty delegated to supranational and intergovernmental organizations
• Representative reform: More direct democracy and a greater voice for “ordinary citizens” • Immigration: Greater sovereign control over immigration
• Trade: Restrictions on the free movement of goods and services
• Redistribution of income: More progressive taxation and income support
• Anti-corporatism: More sovereign assertion of tax and regulatory authority for multinationals
Effects of the Policies of Rage
• Direct de-globalisation: Restrictions on the free movement of goods and services, labour and capital
• Indirect de-globalization: Greater difficulty achieving harmonisation of international rules, standards and taxation Supranational entities like the EU and intergovernmental agreements like the Basel Accords and WTO likely will be at greater risk of dissolution
• Redistribution of income: Even without explicit policies to redistribute, de-globalisation likely will lead to a greater labour share of aggregate income
Implications of the Politics of Rage
Economic
• A slower pace of trend economic growth is likely with EM growth disproportionately affected
• We expect steeper advanced economy Phillips curves; but EM may see even more disinflation
• Fiscal policy likely is ambiguous for advanced economies, but more expansionary for EM
• Global savings should fall, and precipitating a rise in real interest rates to equate investment, but the pattern should shift, ironically, to decrease advanced economy current account balances relative to EM
Financial market
• Global nominal interest rates should rise, but more so in core economies; dispersion should increase
• G10 FX should outperform EM FX, but dispersion within each group should increase; JPY is a clear outperformer, EM and Europe are clear underperformers
• Slower global demand should dominate the outlook for commodity prices
• Equities and credit likely face a poor outlook in aggregate due to slower revenue growth and margin compression, but wide sectoral and country dispersion is likely
• “Fat tails” are likely as markets learn about the Politics of Rage, but a long-run increase in volatility is unlikely
The biggest moves… the ones that make the MOST money in the markets are the ones no one is talking about for months.
With that in mind, you NEED to know that the Fed is going to let inflation run wild in the US.
That is not a hypothesis. In the last month we’ve had THREE different Fed officials state that they WANT inflation and that the Fed will let it run BEYOND the Fed’s target 2% rate.
First up was Chicago Fed President Charles Evans on October 11.
The U.S. Federal Reserve should engineer monetary policy to spur inflation to rise above its two-percent target because the costs of doing so are less than in past decades, Chicago Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Evans said on Tuesday.
Source: CNBC
Then came NY Fed President William Dudley on October 12.
"Inflation is a little below our target, rather than above our target, so I think we can be quite gentle as we go in terms of gradually removing monetary policy accommodation," said Dudley, a close ally of Yellen and a permanent voter on policy.
Source: Reuters
Then came Fed Chair Janet Yellen stating on October 14th.
In a further indication that the Federal Reserve will be inclined to let inflation run hot for a while, Chair Janet Yellen on Friday said it's useful to consider the benefits of a "high-pressure economy."
Source: CNBC
That’s THREE different Fed officials all offering implicit reasons NOT to hike rates but to let inflation run wild.
Scratch that… make it FOUR Fed officials…
St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard said on Monday that a single U.S. interest rate rise would be all that was necessary for the time being, repeating comments he had made recently.
Source: Reuters
Folks, the Fed is LITERALLY broadcasting that it’s going to let a MAJOR monetary event happen.
Gold's figured it out. It just put in a base and is about to go STRATOSPHERIC.
Over 99% of investors have missed this. They continue to focus on stocks. They're missing a once in 30 years event that has begun in the metals markets.
HUGE money will be made from this trend going forward.
On that note, we just published a Special Investment Report concerning a secret back-door play on Gold that gives you access to 25 million ounces of Gold that the market is currently valuing at just $273 per ounce.
The report is titled The Gold Mountain: How to Buy Gold at $273 Per Ounce
We are giving away just 100 copies for FREE to the public.
An American hacker, known only as “The Jester”, hacked into the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs over the weekend leaving a benign message while alluding to future attacks to come:
“Now see here, I wouldn’t want you to get all upset and throw your toys out of your stroller over this mild incursion, so think of this as a ‘professional courtesy’ or if you prefer message from ‘USA with love.'”
According to CNN, the attack was in retaliation for last Friday’s attack on the U.S. that brought down numerous U.S. websites, including Twitter, Spotify, Reddit, eBay and the New York Times, and restricted service for millions of people, particularly in the northeast. The hacker agreed to an exclusive interview with CNN in which he expressed frustration over recent alleged Russian hacks in the U.S., saying that he “wanted to poke them in the eye” rather than “sitting around watching these fuckers laugh at us.”
In an exclusive interview with CNNMoney this weekend, Jester said he chose to attack Russia out of frustration for the massive DNS cyberattack that knocked out a portion of the internet in the United States on Friday.
Related story: Massive cyberattack turned ordinary devices into weapons
“I wanted to poke them in the eye and stop feeling like US is just taking it on the chin. Again,” he said. “I’m not gonna sit around watching these f—-rs laughing at us.”
The Jester used a classic hacking technique, finding a hole in the website’s computer code and injecting his own code into it.
“It’s 4 a.m. in Moscow right now and a weekend. I’m hoping they can’t fix the hole til Monday,” he said.
Just to be clear, Russia allegedly hacks the emails of the U.S. Secretary of State and launches a subsequent attack that takes out the internet in most of the continental U.S. and Obama hacks a random website and posts a funny picture of a jester?
Russia reveals photos of a new highly advanced liquid fuelled heavy ICBM capable of evading anti-missile defences and hitting US territory with 10 tonne nuclear payload.
The Makeyev Design Bureau – the designer of Russia’s heavy liquid fuelled Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (“ICBMs”) – ie. of missiles capable of reaching US territory from Russian territory, has published the first picture of Russia’s new heavy Sarmat ICBM which is due to enter service shortly, probably in 2018.
The picture is accompanied by a short statement which reads
“In accordance with the Decree of the Russian Government ‘On the State Defence Order for 2010 and the planning period 2012-2013,’ the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau was instructed to start design and development work on the Sarmat. In June 2011, the Bureau and the Russian Ministry of Defense signed a state contract for the Sarmat’s development.The prospective strategic missile system is being developed in order to assuredly and effectively fulfil objectives of nuclear deterrent by Russia’s strategic forces.”
The Sarmat is the planned replacement of the R-36 family of Russian ICBMs, which entered service with the Soviet armed forces in the 1960s.The R-36 family culminated in a series of missiles known in the USSR and Russia as the R-36M, which entered service in the 1970s.With a throw weight of 8,800 kg these were the heaviest and most powerful ICBMs built up to now.Here is a video of one being launched:
The specifications of the Sarmat have not been disclosed and are classified.However it is believed to be a significantly smaller and lighter missile than the R-36 family, but to have a larger throw weight of up to 10,000 kg.
Advances in the chemical industry and in the design of rocket engines since the 1960s have made it possible to build smaller and lighter rockets having the same or greater capability as the heavier rockets designed in the 1960s.
The Sarmat has been specifically designed to defeat the US’s Anti Ballistic Missile systems, which are being deployed in eastern Europe.
Its range of countermeasures is classified and not known.However it is believed the Sarmat is capable of manoeuvres during its flight trajectory to confuse incoming missiles, that it is able to launch decoys – also to confuse incoming interceptor missiles – and that at least one of the warheads being designed for it is a hypersonic warhead, which rumours say was tested successfully in April, and which is believed to be impervious to interception by incoming missiles.
A little mentioned fact about the military strategic balance between the US and Russia, is that Russia has been steadily upgrading its strategic deterrent with new advanced missiles, which are entirely different to those of the 1960s, which formed the basis of the Soviet strategic deterrent.
These include the Topol and Yars light road mobile solid fuel ICBMs, and the very advanced solid fuelled Bulava ICBM, which is sea launched from Russia’s advanced Borei strategic nuclear missile submarines. (Below)
Topol ICBM
Yars ICBM
Bulava ICBM
Borei-class Strategic Nuclear Submarine
By contrast the US strategic deterrent still relies on missile systems such as the ground-based Minuteman III and the sea launched Trident II, which have their origins in the 1960s and early 1970s.
With the Sarmat missile, which is supposed to enter service in 2018, the Russians will add another powerful modern advanced system to their strategic armoury.
For the first time since 2012, the Richmond Fed business surveyr has been in contraction (below 0) for 3 straight months (and 4 of the last 5). Worse still, the six-month average of the business survey has not deteriorated this fast since Q2 2008. While the underlying components were mixed, inventory levels dropped (bad for GDP), average workweek tumbled (bad for incomes), and new orders re-plunged.
This is the worst drop in the six-month average of the Richmond Fed survey since Q2 2008…
But that cannot be right… Obama, Hillary, and Donna Brazile all said everything was awesome (in public).
First, McMullin pointed out that Johnson is a poor protest vote for those who care about the Constitution. “Gary Johnson is not actually a libertarian,” McMullin told TWS at a press event. “He has tax policies that are not libertarian, his stance on religious liberty is not libertarian.” […]
McMullin is pro-life, while Johnson believes in a right to abortion. “If Gary Johnson were a real libertarian, I probably would not be in this race,” McMullin said.
I caught up with Johnson this afternoon just after he had finished a Facebook Live video to promote his new book Common Sense for the Common Good: Libertarianism as the End of Two-Party Tyranny (read Brian Doherty’s scan of it here), and asked him about McMullin’s comments.
“Well, all I can point toward to on my libertarian bonafides is that I’ve been the nominee of the Libertarian Party two cycles,” he said. “And that is the libertarian hardcore that…decides that. So I don’t know how you can get any more bonafide than that.”
(This answer was a milder echo of what Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark told me two weeks ago: “I trust the judgment of dedicated Libertarian Party members from around the nation somewhat more than that of an unremarkable Capitol Hill staffer with no purpose other than to split the Gary Johnson vote in the mountain West and assist in electing the Democrat for President…. The day I take advice on who’s a real libertarian from a former CIA operative who was an insider in Washington and at Goldman Sachs, being propped up by dead-end neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and shameless Republican political consultants like Rick Wilson, is the day I’ll resign as Chairman of the Libertarian Party.”)
What about the religious-liberty charge, which has dogged Johnson throughout 2016? “I would have signed the Civil Rights bill of 1964, and I think that that’s in essence what he is pointing out, that a real Libertarian would have vetoed that, or not signed it. I would have signed it.”
Today the number of McMullin-qualifying states in which he has been publicly polled doubled from two (Utah and Virginia) to four, with the introduction of Minnesota and Idaho. In the Gopher State, the independent barely registered a blip in a Star-Tribune poll, tying the Green Party’s Jill Stein at 1 percent, compared to Johnson’s 6, Donald Trump’s 39 and Hillary Clinton’s 47. But in Idaho, the second-most Mormon state in the union (19 percent of the population, compared to Utah’s 55 and Wyoming’s 9), a new Emerson poll has McMullin beating Johnson 10.0 percent to 4.2 percent, while Trump stomps Clinton 52.3 percent to 23.3. McMullin polled 32 percent among Idaho Mormons, just behind Trump’s 32; but received just 7 percent of the non-Mormon support.
I asked Johnson to what he attributed McMullin’s regional success, and he just said “I couldn’t guess.” (In an interview last week with Brian Doherty, he said “It is what it is.”)
After the jump, a deeper look at McMullin’s more-libertarian-than-thou claims.
McMullin’s critique of Johnson’s allegedly deficient libertarianism continues to zero in on one questionable area of Johnson’s ideal tax system—a federal consumption tax—while ignoring the extremely libertarian components of abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and federal corporate taxes, not to mention slashing enough government to submit a balanced budget on day one (thereby easing some of the pressure to raise taxes). McMullin, by contrast, sounds just like a standard-issue Republican, only even less likely to reduce taxes for the top earners:
He will make the tax code fairer and simpler, helping to spur business innovation, especially the growth of small businesses, which are the country’s most important job creators. Small businesses should pay closer to 25 percent of their profits in taxes, whereas now there are many that must pay almost 40 percent. Right now America also has the highest corporate tax rate – 35 percent – of any advanced economy. Even Barack Obama has said that it should be substantially lower. Income tax rates also need to come down, especially for the middle-class; once the economy starts growing again at an acceptable rate, high-earners should also get a break.
What about foreign policy? TheWeekly Standard, which acknowledges that “many non-interventionist libertarians could be turned off by McMullin’s hawkish foreign policy,” nevertheless soldiers on:
Second, McMullin pointed out that Gary Johnson is a poor choice for those casting a protest vote on the grounds that neither Trump nor Clinton is fit to be commander-in-chief. “I do believe that I’m prepared to lead this country. I know where Aleppo is. I’ve been to Aleppo,” said McMullin, a former CIA counterterrorism agent. “We need to defeat ISIS.”
“There’s nothing honorable about not knowing who international leaders are or not being able to say that you respect any of them,” he added.
Rather than rehash AleppoGaffeMania, or even get into a discussion about the comparative advantages of running both a state bureaucracy and a successful company, let’s take a proactive look under the hood of McMullin’s foreign policy ideas.
First, and most promisingly, McMullin—quite unlike the gang over at The Weekly Standard—opposed the war in Iraq. Here’s how he put it in a recent National Interest essay:
[W]e must exercise leadership in a prudent way. One of the most important mistakes to avoid is the premature use of force. That is why I opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As an intelligence officer who saw it firsthand, I believe the war was a tragic and expensive mistake. I say this even though I remain proud of my service in Iraq as an officer with the CIA. The valor, courage, and integrity displayed by American forces in Iraq were extraordinary. We overthrew a brutal tyrant and then fought a long war to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq. These were noble objectives but not sufficient justification for the cost of fighting.
Good start! But then it begins to deteriorate into some Goldilocks notion of finding a third way between Bush interventionism and alleged Obamaite retreats:
The great challenge we face today is how to reconcile the imperative of global leadership with the necessity of reining in its costs. Whereas the war in Iraq illustrates the dangers of doing too much, the myriad failures of the Obama administration demonstrate the costs of retreating into passivity and compromising our principles. If we had struck the Islamic State much earlier, before it spread across Syria and Iraq and before it beheaded American citizens, we could’ve crushed it at a much lower cost. Instead, we now have 5 thousand troops in Iraq while ISIS is launching attacks across Europe and inspiring massacres in the United States.
Given the importance of strength, it is especially regrettable that the Obama administration has begun to implement about $900 billion in defense cuts, leaving our military too old, too small, and not sufficiently ready to meet the demands of a chaotic world. As a first step toward restoring American leadership, I would reverse those cuts so that our troops have the training and equipment they deserve.
There are things to like about McMullin’s essay here—he’s against torture, for example. But it’s hard to see much daylight between his positions and those of, say, Hillary Clinton. Which is to say, they’re neither very libertarian nor particularly smart. Over at The American Conservative, Daniel Larison (read his Reason archive here) takes us on a brief tour:
His Syria policy is essentially identical to Clinton’s, including support for a “no-fly zone,” and he thinks the U.S. should have bombed the Syrian government in 2013. McMullin’s support for an aggressive foreign policy isn’t limited to that. He favors sending weapons to Ukraine, he is for continued support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen, he thinks the U.S. should “prevent Russia from conducting airstrikes in Syria” (he doesn’t say how), he supports the Cuba embargo, he wants to use a small number of ground troops in the war on ISIS, and of course he thinks military spending should be increased. His campaign press releases predictably describe the nuclear deal with Iran as “disastrous.” Also like a typical hawk, he claims that supposed U.S. “withdrawal” from the world under Obama has allowed “destructive forces” to “surge.” In his National Interest piece, he says that “we must exercise leadership in a prudent way,” but based on these positions it seems clear that McMullin has a very strange definition of prudence. McMullin hopes to win over voters that can’t bring themselves to support either major party nominee, but on foreign policy he combines many of the worst positions of both. That reinforces my impression that he is an anti-Trump candidate whose main appeal is to Republicans that remain deeply committed to a very aggressive foreign policy.
There is much to like about Evan McMullin, or at least to prefer over some of the uglier trends in the GOP and conservatism writ large. On ABC’s This Week over the weekend, for example, McMullin winningly described his candidacy as “dedicated to these principles that I’m talking about, namely the equality of all men and women. We are standing also for the cause of liberty, the idea that we all ought to have the power and the freedom to pursue happiness in the way we like.” He criticized forthrightly the “bigoted, sexist, xenophobic messages” coming out of the mouth of Donald Trump. He is pro-immigration and pro-trade, opposes the death penalty, and has said conservatives should “move on” from their opposition to gay marriage.
But let’s not pretend that the Gitmo-loving hawk who can’t criticize Gary Johnson without making dumb weed and prostitution jokes is anybody’s libertarian, let alone somehow more deserving of the descriptor than the two-time L.P. nominee. The fact is, no matter who the Libertarian Party would have nominated, Weekly Standard-style conservatives, who are appalled both by Donald Trump’s manners and foreign policy, would have coughed up some pro-life hawk who knows how to impress the Washington Post editorial board. Interventionism, abortion, and respectability politics are just too important to leave in the hands of libertarian weirdos. Even if the alternative only has access to a maximum 84 electoral votes.
Trump took his most aggressive foreign policy shots yet at Hillary Clinton at an interview earlier today from his Trump National Doral golf resort in Florida, saying that her policies on Syria would inevitably lead to World War III. Not pulling any punches, Trump also referenced his frequent attack against Hillary that she’s “all talk”, saying that her plan would engage Russia which “is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk.”
U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Democrat Hillary Clinton’s plan for Syria would “lead to World War Three,” because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.
On Syria’s civil war, Trump said Clinton could drag the United States into a world war with a more aggressive posture toward resolving the conflict.
Clinton has called for the establishment of a no-fly zone and “safe zones” on the ground to protect non-combatants. Some analysts fear that protecting those zones could bring the United bring into direct conflict with Russian fighter jets.
“What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria,” said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. “You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton,” Trump said.
“You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk,” he said.
Trump said Assad is much stronger now than he was three years ago. He said getting Assad to leave power was less important than defeating Islamic State.
“Assad is secondary, to me, to ISIS,” he said.
Trump also questioned how a Clinton administration could find common ground for negotiations with Russia after she, and the Obama administration, had seemingly gone all-in to demonize Putin in an effort to salvage her campaign.
On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton’s handling of U.S.-Russian relations while secretary of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about “how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil,” if she wins the presidency.
Meanwhile, Trump also had harsh words for Obama who he said would rather “focus on his golf game” than engage with world leaders…an issue which he says led to the deterioration of ties with the Philippines.
On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying the president “wants to focus on his golf game” rather than engage with world leaders.
Since assuming office, Duterte has expressed open hostility towards the United States, rejecting criticism of his violent anti-drug clampdown, using an expletive to describe Obama and telling the United States not to treat his country “like a dog with a leash.”
The Obama administration has expressed optimism that the two countries can remain firm allies.
Trump said Duterte’s latest comments showed “a lack of respect for our country.”
Finally, Trump continues to draw huge crowds in the Florida, despite apparently being down massively in the polls, with the following rally held earlier today in Sanford.
Someone close to me, who is voting for Hillary, sent me this article recently, thinking it did a great job of characterizing Trump voters as real people. And I was so mortified and incensed reading it, that I felt it necessary to respond with my own thoughts on this election, and who I will be voting for.
The article is a perfect example of virtue signaling as it relates to this election. Nowhere in the article does John Biggs, the author, indicate that he has actually spoken with any Trump voter who actually has anything positive to say about Trump himself or his proposed policies. Instead, the quotes are merely meant to symbolize angry conservatives who are voting against Hillary moreso than they are voting for Trump. It seems this Ohio native turned Brooklyn hipster has taken but one glance at the odds and surmised that since he believes Hillary is going to win, and since he has such a large following, it is his duty to begin reaching out to Trump voters to bridge the partisan divide. It seems as if he wants to unite everyone under a nation of corruption and crime for the leaders, but not for the general population. Seeing as how I regularly communicate with Trump voters, I felt it my duty to respond, and will preserve the anonymity of my contributors by speaking through my own voice.
However, it is important to give some background on myself, my voting record, and who I will be voting for. Since I have been eligible to vote, I have voted for the Libertarian candidate for President. I am firmly convinced that the differences between the two parties are merely superficial, as they are both committed to deficit spending, endless wars, welfare handouts, and corporate bailouts/kickbacks, which are the real issues plaguing the country today. Most recently, in 2012, I voted for Gary Johnson, as I was very impressed with his campaign and platform. At the time, Charlie at Single Dude Travel did an excellent job of characterizing what it means to vote for a third party, and not be a part of the two-party scam:
Voting for the “lesser of two evils” is repugnant, intellectually lazy, stupid and morally decrepit. The whole point of democracy and voting in the first place is to demand a candidate you believe in. If anything is wasting a vote it’s voting for someone you term as “the lesser of two evils”. How about a new rule: “Don’t vote for evil, dumbasses!”
Last year, seeing as how he was running again, and looking at the pathetic field of candidates put forward from both parties, including Donald Trump, I assumed I would again be voting for Johnson. However, a few things changed for me recently. Most importantly, Johnson displayed an incredible aloofness while campaigning, and with the possibility of becoming President. He not only deviated from the Libertarian platform, he had several blank moments, mostly regarding taxation and foreign policy. His choice of notorious gun grabber Bill Weld as running mate met me with disdain, and when Weld recently abandoned the Libertarian campaign to convince people to vote for Hillary instead, out of his “fear” of Trump, I was aghast. I realized Weld, the 2nd name on the Libertarian ballot, was a mere establishment shill, and had abandoned everything the platform stood for. Meanwhile, Trump had been slowly but surely positioning himself as the anti-establishment candidate, campaigning against corporate interests, and on a platform that doesn’t involve warmongering and control by bureaucrats, billionaires, elites, and the MSM.
So, I’m currently an undecided voter; I haven’t made up my mind between Gary Johnson and Donald Trump. However, if you’ve been reading my content, it should be rather obvious where I stand on at least a couple things. The major thing I’ve decided in regards to this election is that the only thing worse than voting for Hillary Clinton and electing a criminal who is for sale to the highest bidder with disdain for the general public, is doing so for the sole purpose of “voting against” Donald Trump. Voters’ refusal to consider a vote for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Poopy McPoopypants, or any other write-in candidate is exactly as Charlie described it above. They have been so blinded by billionaires, elites, and the MSM with disdain for Trump, they are willing to continue their “march of tyranny” by electing a criminal who cares for no one except those who have enriched her with their control over her leadership.
No matter what, when I go to the polls and cast my vote, I will be casting my vote FOR a candidate I believe in, and not merely casting a vote against a candidate I do not believe in. And they will not be what some virtue signaling elitist has fed me; like many of the other Trump voters, the majority of us have much more than angry emotion behind Trump’s platform. I’m not sure – I still might end up voting for Gary Johnson. But, if I end up voting for Trump, the below are the REAL reasons why myself, and many of his supporters, are voting for him and his platform.
Most importantly, I will vote for Trump because of what he is not – controlled by the global elites. George Soros, who supports and funds violent Trump protests, violent BLM protests, open borders, and anti-Israel movements… is funding Hillary and staunchly against Trump. Warren Buffett, who enriched himself from America’s tax breaks while denigrating Trump doing the same, and used his position on taxes as leverage to kill the Keystone XL pipeline, further enriching himself due to his ownership of BNSF, the competing railroad conglomerate… is funding Hillary and staunchly against Trump. And notorious 2nd amendment hater Michael Bloomberg, who has restricted or banned trans fats, salt, and soda drinks, doing his best Raymond Cocteau impression of trying to turn New York into San Angeles… is funding Hillary and staunchly against Trump. The fact that the elites, establishment, and MSM are so worried about losing control due to a Trump presidency is exactly the reason why he won the Republican nomination in the first place, and to me, the best part about his platform.
I will vote for Trump because he represents the polar opposite of our dysfunctional and corrupt political system. Democrats and Republicans alike both cannot stand Trump, precisely because of what he represents – a threat to the status quo. Even the Republicans who endorsed him were against him at first, and used a decade-old video to tuck tail and withdraw their support for him. Congressional leaders in both the House and Senate, from both sides of the aisle, are forced by both parties to spend more time calling fundraisers in designated call centers than they do actually do working on writing laws. Of course, relative to fundraising, the amount of time they spend calling their own constituents is likely a very small fraction. Trump’s popularity, which has nothing to do with fundraising and corporate control, is an inherent threat to the status quo and our current leaders’ existence. Trump represents our country’s best chance at forcing term limits on Congress, which is another cornerstone of his platform. This could lead to a real ban on Congressional insider trading and true political reform, as he has never held any political office himself. As the only candidate on the ticket with no qualms on shaking up the status quo, all of our corrupt politicians’ hate for him is all the more reason to vote Trump.
I will vote for Trump because he is the only true anti-war candidate with a chance for victory this large in the 30+ years that I’ve been alive. Every President on the ticket, even (and in some cases especially) the Democratic ones, have been warmongers. Notably, Obama campaigned on an anti-war platform, using his vote against the Iraq war to solidify his position… but most of us knew he was the same establishment candidate involving our country in endless global wars as all the rest before him. Donald Trump has never held office, and thus he has never conducted airstrikes against people living in tents or promoted regime change in Middle Eastern nations. His primary defense platform involves working with other nations to defeat ISIS and the other threats to the United States, and avoid endless wars and bombing campaigns wherever possible. Though others campaign on the same platform, there is real reason to believe that Trump is truly the only anti-war candidate.
I will vote for Trump because of his position on healthcare. Notably, that the only bit of defined policy he has is the repeal of Obamacare, and allowing insurers to compete across state lines. Obamacare has been nothing short of a colossal failure. For me, it has meant increased premiums and deductibles, and led me to live in constant fear of my policy being cancelled… and I’m one of the lucky ones, as others have in some cases had their policies cancelled multiple times. The increase in insured customers has hardly made the insurance affordable or accessible, and has only barely offset the number of cancelled policies. Like me, those who do have insurance pay their premiums only to live in fear of having to use it, as the high deductibles and massive out-of-pocket costs lead the insured to dread doctor visits, even when they are absolutely necessary. Furthermore, being able to buy insurance across state lines will give consumers real choice in their policies, something Obamacare could never do. There is no single effective health policy that doesn’t begin and end with the repeal of Obamacare, and Trump gets that, and that gets him votes.
I will vote for Trump because I really don’t care about the “social issues”, and I don’t think he does either. The ones people rail on about, abortion and gay marriage, have already been decided by the Supreme Court. The amount of popular support and inertia behind those decisions would make any attempt to overturn them all but impossible. For the record, I’m pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, mostly because I’m really pro-whogivesashit; I could care less what you do as long as it doesn’t bother me, and its not like I can stop you anyway by criminalizing personal behavior. More importantly, I don’t believe the MSM’s constant spouting of Trump as a racist, sexist, misogynist is the truth – I think he much more of a “merit-ist”, and that gets lost in his overall attitude towards his affairs. And, I’m certain that a decade-old video is not relevant to how Trump will tackle the real problems this country faces. I don’t think Trump cares to weaken his political position defending issues he probably doesn’t care about either, which he would only do to support a Republican establishment that has turned on him anyway.
Finally, I will vote for Trump because he is politically incorrect. Trump is the only politician with no qualms about saying something that might start up the internet outrage machine, and then have the balls to stand by it when the outrage is at its peak. And, he obviously has a track record for such behavior. I’m hardly alone as someone who is absolutely sick of the constant need for our leaders to be politically correct and gentle in policy direction solely out of fear of offending a small segment of the population, who will then take to Facebook and Twitter to whine about it. We call these crybabies “Social Justice Warriors” (SJWs), and Trump is getting votes because he is the anti- SJW candidate, and the only candidate with tacks to stand up for what is right, regardless of who it offends.
Am I concerned about what a Trump Presidency would be like? Absolutely! Like all candidates, Trump is not without his flaws, and there is a lot more worry about Trump in particular, given that he is a political outsider. I’m concerned that he’s actually just that orange-faced idiot from The Apprentice; an ignorant blowhard who shoots first and asks questions later. I’m concerned that he doesn’t actually want to win, and could merely be running as either A) a paid plant of the Clintons, or B) doing everything he can to lose, and using his loss to propel his startup of his own media conglomerate. I’m concerned that if he wins, he won’t actually want to rule at all, and will pass off most of the ruling responsibility to Mike Pence and other establishment surrogates. Instead he will do his best Obama impression and spend most of his time on the golf course, possibly resigning at some point and giving the Presidency to Pence. Most importantly, I’m concerned that if Trump wins, those who voted him into office will be blamed for the coming financial crash, which I see as very likely during either a Trump or Hillary Presidency, and this will spell the end of free speech and usher in a new age of censorship and political control by the elites.
Yet, in spite of all of these risks, Trump could be the first and last political outsider with this good of a chance to lead this country who is not a socialist campaigning on handouts for all. Trump represents what could be the last shot the anti-establishment movement has to dethrone the elites and their multiple layers of control, precisely because they hate him so much; he won’t owe anything to any politician and a large majority of elites if he wins. And it is only fitting that in a nation full of whiny SJW crybabies and ignorant blowhards, this country would leave it to someone like Trump to somehow, and very surprisingly to me, be the one candidate who is actually campaigning on the platform of changing politics and the two-party system, which is why I’ve been voting Libertarian all these years.
Like Batman was to Gotham City in Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight: Trump is definitely not the hero America needs, but he sure as hell is the hero that America deserves.
When I started writing this article, I truly was an undecided voter. But, after writing all of the above, I’ve made my decision. I will not continue to vote for a Libertarian candidate that doesn’t truly care about being President or changing politics in this country, and with a 2nd name on the ticket that has abandoned his own platform to campaign for THE establishment candidate. Instead, I will vote for a different outsider of the two-party system, one that pledges to change partisan politics in this country. I will vote for the candidate that is hated by the elites, establishment, and MSM. I will vote for the candidate who does not support endless wars and warmongering, and has no track record of being involved in them. I will vote for the candidate that pledges to change our broken healthcare system, with a plan that starts with the repeal of Obamacare. I will vote for the candidate with the tacks to tell the country like it is, without fear of the internet outrage machine. And I will vote for the candidate with the hope that if he wins, he and the movement that got him elected will finally bring about real, positive change to our broken two-party system.
Next Tuesday, November 2, in New York, I’ll be debating Loyola University’s Walter Block about whether libertarians should vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Specifically, we’ll be arguing the proposition that “Libertarians should vote for Donald Trump in the presidential election. I will be arguing against that idea, for some of the reasons I laid out in my contribution to Reason’s quadrennial “who’s getting our votes” feature.
Sponsored by the Soho Forum, the event is free and open to the public, but RSVPs are required.
Here are the details for those interested in attending:
What should libertarians do this election?
Libertarians are deeply divided about the presidential election. Some say the obvious choice is to vote for Gary Johnson. Others say don’t vote at all.
Two prominent libertarians, Walter Block and Nick Gillespie, go head-to-head on this question, with Block advocating for Donald Trump, and Gillespie for Gary Johnson. The resolution to be debated has been framed as follows:
“Libertarians should vote for Donald Trump
in the presidential election.”
Block will take the affirmative, Gillespie the negative.
The evening will include a 30-minute Q&A, and both debaters have been invited to stay for our wine-and-cheese reception afterwards. Your chance to bring sharply-worded challenges to the case for Trump and the case for Johnson.
Walter Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at Loyola University, and an Adjunct Scholar at the Mises Institute. He is also chief organizer of Libertarians for Trump.
Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason TV, and co-author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong With America.
Walter and Nick will provide a thrilling pre-election debate, and we’re delighted to have them join us at The Soho Forum!
Tuesday, November 1
Subculture Theater
45 Bleecker St., NY, 10012
Doors open: 5:45pm
Meeting convenes: 6:30pm
Wine-and-cheese Reception: 8:15pm
Moderated by Gene Epstein, economics editor of Barron’s
Featuring warm up act by libertarian comedian Dave Smith