Friday, September 30, 2016

Philippines president Duterte likens himself to Hitler to kill 3 million drug addicts - Reuters

By Karen Lema and Manuel Mogato | MANILA
Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte appeared to liken himself to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler on Friday and said he would "be happy" to exterminate three million drug users and peddlers in the country.
His comments triggered shock and anger among Jewish groups in the United States, which will add to pressure on the U.S. government to take a tougher line with the Philippines leader. Duterte recently insulted President Barack Obama and in a series of remarks he has undermined the previously close relationship between Manila and Washington.
In a rambling speech on his arrival in Davao City after a visit to Vietnam, Duterte told reporters that he had been "portrayed to be a cousin of Hitler" by critics. 
Noting that Hitler had murdered millions of Jews, Duterte said: "There are three million drug addicts (in the Philippines). I'd be happy to slaughter them.
"If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have...," he said, pausing and pointing to himself. 
"You know my victims. I would like (them) to be all criminals to finish the problem of my country and save the next generation from perdition."
Duterte was voted to power in a May election on the back of a vow to end drugs and corruption in the country of 100 million people. He took office on June 30 and over 3,100 people have been killed since then, mostly alleged drug users and dealers, in police operations and in vigilante killings.
His comments were quickly condemned by Jewish groups.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Digital Terrorism and Hate project, called them "outrageous".
"Duterte owes the victims (of the Holocaust) an apology for his disgusting rhetoric."
The Anti-Defamation League, an international Jewish group based in the United States, said Duterte's comments were "shocking for their tone-deafness".
"The comparison of drug users and dealers to Holocaust victims is inappropriate and deeply offensive," said Todd Gutnick, the group's director of communications. "It is baffling why any leader would want to model himself after such a monster."
EX-PRESIDENT'S WARNING
Two days before the Philippines election, outgoing President Benigno Aquino had warned that Duterte's rising popularity was akin to that of Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s.
"I hope we learn the lessons of history," Aquino said in widely reported remarks. "We should remember how Hitler came to power."
Duterte has been scathing about criticism of his anti-drugs campaign and has insulted the United Nations and the European Union, as well as Obama, at various times in recent weeks.
On Friday, reacting to critical comments on his war on drugs by U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy and Benjamin Cardin, Duterte said: "Do not pretend to be the moral conscience of the world. Do not be the policeman because you do not have the eligibility to do that in my country."
He also reiterated there will be no annual war games between the Philippines and the United States until the end of his six-year term, placing the longstanding alliance under a cloud of doubt. It also may make Washington's strategy of rebalancing its military focus towards Asia in the face of an increasingly assertive China much more difficult to achieve.
Still, U.S. Defence Secretary Ash Carter, speaking before the latest remarks from Duterte, said Washington had an "ironclad" alliance with Manila.
A senior U.S. defense official, also speaking earlier, told reporters that the United States had a long enduring relationship with the Philippines regardless of who was president.
"It's going to continue to survive based on what we think are strong U.S.-Philippines common security interests, so we’ll be engaging President Duterte further," the official said.
Malcolm Cook, a senior fellow at Singapore's ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, said the U.S-Philippines alliance was not necessarily at risk, but Washington could seek to focus on ties elsewhere in the region.
"We are all in some sense becoming, by necessity, desensitized to Duterte's language," he said.
"Diplomatically, the U.S. would say they'll continue to work with him and the alliance is strong. But it's whether they'll continue to strengthen that alliance or not." 

(Additional reporting by Brendan O'Brien in Milwaukee, Yeganeh Torbati in San Diego and Marius Zaharia in Singapore; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Trump's hair raising economic policy - Financial Times

It’s hard to take Donald Trump’s economic policy proposals seriously. Not just because it’s difficult to pin down what exactly they are. Not just because it’s unclear whether he would actually carry them out or is just trying to capture the voters’ attention. Above all, it’s hard to take them seriously because of the outrageous consequences that become apparent if we do.
A number of competent, independent economists have analysed parts of Trump’s policy proposals, so far as they can make them out, and modelled how the economy would be affected if he were to win and make good on his plans. The results are hair-raising.
Take Trump’s flagship policy of radically changing US trade relationships with the rest of the world. As a briefing by Peterson Institute economists sums up, he has threatened punitive tariffs on Mexican and Chinese imports (he has mooted rates of 35 and 45 per cent, respectively), and to unilaterally withdraw the US from major trade treaties. The Peterson economists have modelled the fallout for the US economy from the trade war that would probably ensue. The bottom line: the US would fall into recession and 4.8m private sector jobs would be lost. That’s about the same as the number of US factory jobs that disappeared in the decade after China joined the World Trade Organisation, the disruption that perhaps did most to create a constituency for Trump. While most of the jobs lost in the modelled scenario would be in the service sector, the largest proportional damage would, ironically, be in manufacturing, in particular in export-oriented capital goods production. (Read the Financial Times write-up of the analysis here.)
That’s just the beginning. Under a president Trump, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, signed but not ratified by the US, would be stillborn. (Hillary Clinton now says she is against the TPP as well, but her earlier wobbling on trade means the deal has a better prospect of surviving on her watch.) That would give up on the additional growth and jobs the TPP would create. Robert Lawrence, also at the Peterson Institute, has pointed out that while small in absolute terms, the TPP’s forecast boost to US GDP is equivalent to the return on $3tn of investment. It would also bring 128,000 more people into work than would otherwise be the case because wages would be higher. And while there would, as with any removal of economic inefficiencies, be losers, “the annual benefits from the TPP are likely to be between 12.3 and 114.5 times the costs”. More than enough, that is, to compensate the losers many times over. That would be the right policy; to jettison the TPP would be to forgo both the gains and the compensation.
Then there are the domestic policies. In his own words, Trump promises “tremendous” tax cuts. For once he’s not exaggerating. He proposes to reduce personal income tax rates, slash corporate tax rates and kill inheritance tax. That would blow a hole in the public finances. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has examined the two candidates’ tax plans, and calculates that Trump’s policies would add $5.3tn, or one-fifth of annual national income, to the federal debt by 2026 (and that is positively frugal compared with an earlier plan of his, which would have added $11.5tn). If nothing else, a president Trump would make the deficit great again. (Clinton’s plans, meanwhile, raise about as much in new taxes as they commit in new spending.)
Who would benefit? There is a lot of devil in the detail. The change to exemptions for dependants means that many families with children on low to middle earnings would end up paying more in tax than today. On corporate taxation, Trump boasts of getting rid of the disgrace of the “carried interest loophole”, which lets hedge fund managers pass off (more highly taxed) labour income as (much less taxed) capital income. It is true that the Trump tax plan closes this loophole. But he opens a bigger one by introducing an even lower tax rate on all business income, even earnings that are today counted as business owners’ personal income. That would allow hedgies and many other very high earners to pay even less than today’s capital tax rate.
In sum, the ones we can be most sure would benefit from all of Trump’s tax reforms are … Trump and his children.
Other readables
  • Diane Coyle writes on how the shift from analogue to digital information radically affects received norms of ownership and the efficiency of traditional ownership structures.
  • Reports of Opec’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. The FT’s commodities team explains.
Numbers news
  • Lies, damned lies, and Japanese GDP numbers. Concerns about statistical flaws mean Japan’s economy may have been doing better than thought in recent years, and have sent officials on a hunt for better measures.
To receive Martin Sandbu’s Free Lunch by email every workday, sign up here.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. All rights reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

More on this topic

Suggestions below based on US Budget

Janet Yellen Should Stand Up to Donald Trump - TIME

Posted: 27 Sep 2016 12:46 PM PDT

There are many reasons that the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency worries me. I’ve outlined why his economic policy, for starters, is magical thinking. But after Monday’s debate, I have a new fear: I worry that if Trump were to be elected, Janet Yellen would resign from the Federal Reserve.
Trump’s comments last night that the “Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton” were not only unprecedented, they leave little room for a good working relationship. Indeed, the only person Trump has blamed as much as Hillary seems to be Yellen, whom he’s accused of keeping interest rates low for political reasons, and creating a bubble economy as a result.

The dangerous thing about Donald Trump, as I’ve explained in past columns, is that he embeds tiny nuggets of truth in a welter of lies. As I have been writing for years now, I think that the low interest rate policy of the last few years has created a disconnect between Wall Street valuations and the Main Street recovery. That’s what easy money is supposed to do: drive up risk appetite, raising the value of assets, with the hope that eventually the animal spirits will get the economy moving again.
For a variety of reasons, though, the money dump hasn’t worked as well or as fast this time (again, that’s not a criticism of the Fed—if it had not acted in the wake of the 2008 crisis, when President Obama was unable to pass more fiscal stimulus through a polarized Congress, the economy would have faltered). We’ve already seen corrections in emerging markets and commodities as the Fed pulled back on quantitative easing, and we’ll likely see more as rates ultimately rise.
Yellen herself worries about all of this. In fact, she keeps a careful eye on the balance between market risk and the risk that an early rate hike could derail the recovery. You can argue about the timing of when the Fed should (or should have) hiked rates. But nobody can argue that Yellen isn’t a data driven economist who’s looking at a variety of inputs while trying to make an unbiased decision about what’s best not for Wall Street, but for Main Street. (As she explained in a TIME cover story, she’s all about kitchen table economics.)
In fact, that’s a particular reason I worry about the possibility that Trump could drive such a competent person out of the Fed. With the recovery still fragile, it’s crucial to have a Fed chair right now that is most concerned with Main Street. I’m betting that anybody Trump would appoint to the Fed might actually keep rates lower, longer. After all, the people who benefit most from the current policy are investors like Trump himself, who can borrow huge sums at historically low rates and watch the value of their portfolios climb. Yellen has responded to Trump’s criticisms by saying that the “Fed isn’t politically compromised.” But one way to ensure the opposite would be for Trump to hound out a sitting Fed chair and appoint a lackey. Truly, I can’t think of anything more disastrous for the nation — or the world.
So, I’m calling on Yellen to stand up to what Hillary might call the “trumped up” charges of Fed politicization, and fight on, regardless of who wins in November. There is precedent. Chairman Marriner Eccles battled for Fed autonomy during the Truman administration. That fight led to the 1951 Fed/Treasury accord, which allowed the Fed to prioritize its own concerns about inflation over the then-President’s desire for a low-rate policy that would help the war effort.
This example couldn’t be more relevant today. The only reason that the Fed launched the unprecedented monetary policy of the last several years is that governments around the world were doing little-to-nothing to stop a new Great Depression. Trump should be lauding Janet Yellen (and Ben Bernanke) and the rest of the Fed governors for saving the markets when nobody else would. And he certainly shouldn’t try to falsely politicize the only institution in Washington that isn’t myriad in gridlock and anger.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Twitter Stock Surges On Disney Takeover Rumor - Fortune


Posted: 26 Sep 2016 02:25 PM PDT

The list of potential Twitter acquirers continues to grow. In addition to recent reports that Salesforce and Google are interested in possibly buying the real-time news service, Disney is now said to be considering an acquisition bid as well.
The news and entertainment conglomerate is “working with a financial adviser to evaluate a possible bid for Twitter,” according to a Bloomberg News report that cites anonymous sources familiar with the situation.
In other words, Disney and an investment firm are going over Twitter’s financial data and looking at the potential benefits of combining the two companies, but that process could fall apart or be shelved at any point.

Salesforce and Google are said to be in a similar situation, according to a number of recent reports, which also said that Twitter is working with Goldman Sachs to consider potential takeover offers for the company.
That news helped push Twitter’s share price up 21% in mid-day trading on Friday. Until the latest takeover talk began, the stock had fallen by more than 50% in the past year, and even at its current level it is still well below the $70 it traded for after its initial public offering in 2013.
CNBC also reported on Monday that a sale of Twitter could happen fairly quickly—within the next 30-45 days, sources said—and that Microsoft may be interested in making an offer as well.
Although Disney may not seem like an obvious candidate to acquire Twitter, there are a number of reasons why it may be interested. Although the service only has about 300 million users, far less than Facebook’s 1.5 billion, it has a treasure trove of data on the interests and behavior of those users.
That kind of data, which could be used to target advertising and other content to users, is undoubtedly part of what Salesforce and Google see as valuable about Twitter, and a media company like Disney would likely see that value as well.
Disney also owns ABC News and sports giant ESPN, and Twitter has become both a real-time news source of remarkable power and a place where millions of users go to discuss both the news and in particular sporting events. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey is also on Disney’s board of directors.
Twitter has spent much of its time and resources recently signing deals with video providers such as the National Football League and Bloomberg to stream live content,including Monday’s presidential debates (which will also appear on Time Inc. websites including Time and Fortune, as part of a deal with Twitter).
With its resources, Disney would be able to help Twitter improve its video streaming and possibly strike new deals with other content providers. As a result of a recent acquisition, Disney owns a stake in BAMTech, the digital arm of Major League Baseball, which runs streaming services for ESPN and others, including Twitter.
With more and more TV content moving to mobile and digital services, Disney is probably also looking for ways to hedge its massive investments in traditional TV such as ESPN, and the real-time news service may look like a way to do that.
One of the major sticking points for any possible Twitter acquirer including Disney, however, is the fact that a reasonable premium for the shares would put a deal for Twitter in the $20-billion range, and that’s a lot of money to pay for a company that lost half a billion dollars last year and is showing little or no user growth.
Also, as Recode’s Peter Kafka points out, such a deal would be more than Disney paid for Pixar, Marvel Entertainment and Lucasfilm combined, and yet there is virtually no chance that Twitter would turn out to be as valuable as any of those investments.
This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

Here’s Why Twitter Might Finally Be Sold - TIME Business

Posted: 27 Sep 2016 06:29 AM PDT

Ever since Twitter became a popular social network, people have been imagining it getting swallowed up by a bigger company. Back in 2009, some thought it a good fit for Google, or Microsoft, or Apple. In some cases, companies tried: Googleagain, and also Facebook, and even Al Gore.
It never happened for a few reasons. First, Twitter’s board, including current CEO Jack Dorsey, simply didn’t want to sell. Later on, questions emerged over how Twitter would monetize its network and keep users coming, dimming the company’s appeal as a takeover target. But the most vital reason why Twitter hasn’t been bought — or seriously considered as an acquisition candidate — has been its high price.
Twitter went public in late 2013 at $26 a share, valuing it at $18 billion. After Facebook shares began to rally, investors bid up Twitter’s price as high as $69 a share. But after Twitter’s user growth flatlined and multiple efforts to boost its fortunes fizzled, the stock sank as low as $14 a share last June. But even at that nadir, when Twitter’s value was around $12 billion, the stock was still seen as too pricey. Net profit was nowhere in sight, quarterly sales were sluggish to flat, and the company still had no clear turnaround plan in sight.
So potential buyers have been biding their time hoping the stock price would keep falling. If Twitter has another disappointing quarter, its stock would surely slump again — a prospect that analysts have been signaling as likely by downgradingthe stock. In that event, right now would be a prudent time to approach buyers. Twitter’s board has reportedly been considering a sale this month. And sure enough, names of potential buyers are being tossed around, starting with cloud computing firm Salesforce and Google parent company Alphabet. 
Twitter’s stock rallied 20% Friday on reports of the Alphabet and Salesforce rumors. One Salesforce exec fueled the fire by tweeting “why Twitter?” and listing four reasons — a bizarre move, given that the tweet made Twitter’s price 20% more expensive. Analysts quickly emerged to explain why a Salesforce-Twitter deal made little sense. The same day, another report cited Microsoft and Verizon as potential suitors.
Such takeover rumors are common in the tech market. But they frequently end up being little more than speculation. After all, leaking out word to the financial press of a potential sale of the company is often a quick way to temporarily push up a stock’s price or to prompt fence-sitting buyers to jump into the ring.
The problem is, outside of Google, none of the potential deals make much strategic sense. Salesforce is an enterprise company and Twitter is primarily a consumer-facing service. Microsoft, too, is moving toward the enterprise market; it also has its hands full with its $26 billion purchase of LinkedInVerizon, which itself is grappling with its Yahoo deal, has little potential for synergy with Twitter’s often unruly audience.
Things became even more interesting Monday when Disney was said to be working with an advisor to evaluate a possible bid for Twitter. A Twitter-Disney combo is intriguing. With Vine, Periscope and live video tie-ins with the National Football League, Twitter has been moving toward becoming a video platform for some time. And Disney offers just that, primarily in ESPN’s live sports broadcasts, but also with ABC’s news broadcasts and big events like the Oscars.
Such events are already big draws for Twitter users, but Twitter has been struggling to tighten the integration in a way that enhances both the video content and the conversation around it. Under CEO Bob Iger, Disney has had a strong track record of buying properties like Marvel and Lucasfilm and seeing them flourish. But Disney is also facing a crisis of cord-cutting in cable channels like ESPN, which has long been a cash cow. Twitter could help Disney transition its cable audience to an online format.
Of course, Google parent Alphabet also remains a strong contender and a logical partner. Twitter has excelled at branded advertising, but struggled with the more lucrative targeted ads that turned Facebook into a digital ad powerhouse. Google’s massive user data could help here. In return, Twitter could bring Google the social network it could never build itself. (Remember Google Plus?) YouTube, a key growth engine at Google, could also benefit from closer ties with Twitter. As socially gifted companies like Facebook and Snapchat push hard into video, YouTube is looking vulnerable.
But if Alphabet wanted to buy Twitter, it could have done so when Twitter traded at $14 a share. Since then, Alphabet has become more cost-conscious, scaling back initiatives like Google Fiber, Nest and robotics projects. And then there’s the question of how regulators in the U.S. and Europe would look at an Alphabet-Twitter deal. A Disney deal would likely win regulatory approval much more easily.
Thanks to the rally over the past couple of trading days, Twitter is again overpriced. It’s currently worth $20 billion, and the board will surely ask for more than that, especially if a bidding war breaks out. Yes, all of this remains speculative. What’s different is that, perhaps for the first time, the pieces are aligning to make a Twitter sale easier to imagine.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Trump 's disaster in first presidential debate - Huffington Post

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump stumbled through the first presidential debate Monday night, losing his composure on multiple occasions, including during a heated exchange with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about previously saying she does not appear “presidential” ― remarks that many observers regarded as sexist
On numerous occasions, Trump interrupted and spoke over Clinton. Quite a few viewers found his behavior inappropriate, if a Twitter search of the terms “Trump mansplained” is any indication. 
However, the universe conspired against Trump by drawing even more attention to this behavior. Every time Trump lowered his head, one word was perfectly framed by his hair: “Men.”
The word came from the Declaration of Independence, which was printed on the backdrop of the debate stage at Hofstra University.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” it read. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men [Emphasis added], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” 
Trump’s woes were compounded by his unfortunate position on the stage. Debates are carefully planned events ― affairs that are hashed out months in advance by the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Secret Service and the host university. However, as any good advance official on a campaign can tell you: It’s the problems you can’t anticipate that get you every time. 
Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liarrampant xenophoberacistmisogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Why Trump should not be president ? - New York Times

When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican “rapists” flooding across the Southern border.
From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.
Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.
Here’s how Mr. Trump is selling himself and why he can’t be believed.
executive magic to government?
Despite his towering properties, Mr. Trump has a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University, which authorities are investigating after numerous complaints of fraud. His name has been chiseled off his failed casinos in Atlantic City.
Mr. Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns — as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done — should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.
Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self-dealing. He notably tapped $258,000 in donors’ money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The Washington Post.
Continue reading the main story
A straight talker who tells it like it is?
Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security, declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic State militants in Syria, but won’t reveal it, bobbing and weaving about whether he would commit ground troops. Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he’s talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr. Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.
Another of his cornerstone proposals — his campaign pledge of a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for by Mexico — has been subjected to endless qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-ground voters.
Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make clear where his heart lies — with the anti-immigrant, nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed to build his base.
He used the shameful “birther” campaign against President Obama’s legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther canard and then fled reporters’ questions.
Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.
An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders?
His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump’s debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser’s estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for — only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.
If Mr. Trump were to become president, his open doubts about the value of NATO would present a major diplomatic and security challenge, as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an air-rights deal on Broadway. Numerous experts on national defense and international affairs have recoiled at the thought of his commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell privately called Mr. Trump “an international pariah.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced global warming as a “hoax,” although a golf course he owns in Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to build a protective wall against a rising sea.
In expressing admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies acceptance of Mr. Putin’s dictatorial abuse of critics and dissenters, some of whom have turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin’s vicious crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr. Trump’s urging Russia to meddle in the presidential campaign by hacking the email of former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the White House.
A change agent for the nation and the world?
There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.
The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk” policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagineswould be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.
Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

First presidential debate between Clinton & Trump - CNN

The first presidential candidates debate of  2012 averaged 67 million viewers. Experts believe the first debate this year will beat that number.

Exactly how high? A debate topping the 100 million viewer mark is unlikely — but not inconceivable. 
Television networks stand to make millions of dollars from the ads that run before and after the debate. 
The ratings matter for political reasons as well: Any surprising victory or embarrassing performance by a candidate will be magnified by the sky-high audience size. 
That's why a guessing game about the ratings is running parallel to the speculation about what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will say on Monday night. 
Television executives and campaign aides privately think that the total viewer number released by Nielsen will land somewhere between 80 and 100 million viewers. 
The most-viewed debate in American history, according to Nielsen, was the sole Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter debate in 1980. Almost 81 million viewers tuned in. 
three major broadcasters — ABC, NBC, and CBS. 
This year the debates will be on more than a dozen TV channels. The face-offs will also be live streamed all across the web in ways that weren't technically feasible just four years ago. Facebook and Twitter will carry the debates live right within their social networks. 
Traditional television remains dominant, however. During this election season's primary debates, more than 95% of the overall viewership happened via TV, with the remainder via streaming.
Nielsen's figures count viewers who watch at home with TV sets. Offices, bars, hotels and other out-of-home locations are not fully measured.
That's why the Super Bowl is always under-counted. This year Nielsen said 112 million Americans watched the big game, but the total audience was undoubtedly larger.
Monday's Super Bowl of Politics will be similar. Some groups are already planning viewing parties. 
Football is the debate's only serious competition for viewers on Monday night. ESPN is expecting that its "Monday Night Football" ratings will be below average due to the debate. 
Then again, some Americans are fatigued by the seemingly endless election and may seek out alternatives to the Clinton-Trump match-up.
about 240 million adults living in the country. Roughly 225 million are eligible to vote this year, according to the Pew Research Center. 
Each debate is normally watched live by just a fraction of the eligible voting population. But other Americans catch up later by watching news highlights and reading about the results, which is why the post-debate coverage is so important. 
The first Obama-McCain debate in 2008 had 52.4 million watching live. That turned out to be the lowest-rated of their three debates. 
But in 2012, the first Obama-Romney debate, with 67.2 million viewers, was the highest-rated of their three debates. 
The first debate was also the highest rated in 2000 and 2004. 
Nielsen will release TV ratings for Monday's match-up on Tuesday.
viewership data, but it won't be comparable to Nielsen's TV ratings for a variety of reasons. 
Bottom line: Americans have more ways to watch than ever before. Some of the methods won't be measured well. But industry veterans believe the TV ratings alone will top the past debates. 
Their reasons include the historic nature of both Clinton and Trump's candidacies; the viciousness of the campaign season; and the ratings records that were set during some of the primary debates. 
TV executives and political types have been debating the ratings possibilities in emails, calls and cocktail party conversations. 
As one top Hollywood executive put it: "This is the ultimate reality show." 
And Trump has a reputation as a ratings magnet -- something the candidate and his campaign aides are fond of pointing out. 
Then again, the ratings for the summer conventions, while respectable, were not through the roof. 
And prospective voters know they have two more chances to see the candidates together: At the follow-up debates on October 9 and October 19.