Please be positive and upbeat in your interactions, and avoid making negative or pessimistic comments. Instead, focus on the potential opportunities.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) ❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
“ Warren Buffett Says He Won’t Endorse Harris or Trump
Taylor Swift, Elon Musk… but not the Oracle of Omaha. The Berkshire Hathaway CEO said he won’t be endorsing any candidate in November’s U.S. election, despite talk that he would be backing Vice President Kamala Harris.
“In light of the increased usage of social media, there have been numerous fraudulent claims regarding Mr. Buffett’s endorsement of investment products as well as his endorsement and support of political candidates. Mr. Buffett does not currently and won’t prospectively endorse investment products or endorse and support political candidates,” Berkshire said in a statement posted on its website.
Buffett has backed Democratic nominees in the past, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and there had been some speculation that he would endorse Harris. But not this election.
The Wall Street Journal reported in September that some residents in Buffett’s neighborhood in Omaha had been urging him to put up signs with blue dots on his lawn, to signal his support for the Vice President.
Buffett’s daughter Susan Buffett, a Berkshire Hathaway board member, does have signs with blue dots on them outside her Omaha house, according to the Journal.
What’s Next: Warren and Susie Buffett live in Nebraska, which splits its electoral college vote and could prove important in a tight election.
—Andrew Bary“
No. of Recommendations: 1
“In light of the increased usage of social media, there have been numerous fraudulent claims regarding Mr. Buffett’s endorsement of investment products as well as his endorsement and support of political candidates. Mr. Buffett does not currently and won’t prospectively endorse investment products or endorse and support political candidates,” Berkshire said in a statement posted on its website.
Yeah well. Surely, if Mr. Buffett wanted to endorse Harris (or Trump) he could just do a quick TV interview with Becky Quick and incorporate an endorsement. There's pretty much zero chance that this would be seen for anything other than what it is.
Clearly, Buffett doesn't want to throw his hat in the election ring. But why not?
Given the high stakes in this presidential election and his history of past endorsements this is a bit of a head scratcher.
Buffett’s daughter Susan Buffett, a Berkshire Hathaway board member, does have signs with blue dots on them outside her Omaha house, according to the Journal.
Peter Buffett doesn't have a sign outside his house, or at least he didn't two days ago. Like father; like son…
No. of Recommendations: 1
“ Given the high stakes in this presidential election and his history of past endorsements this is a bit of a head scratcher.“ How do you think Buffett feels about taxing unrealized cap gains and a net worth tax? We know he’s very liberal on the social issues.
No. of Recommendations: 12
“How do you think Buffett feels about taxing unrealized cap gains and a net worth tax?”
I’d imagine he’d feel it would be excessive, difficult to calculate and it would change the established rules and lessen the appeal of investing and compounding. Warren is a card carrying American capitalist and is loyal to Berkshire and his owner partners. He has paid dozens and dozens of billions in taxes over the decades on behalf of Berkshire with a respectful pro-America attitude. Successful corporations like Berkshire have earned, allocated and navigated the years well and behaved ethically and by the rules. I feel Berkshire and a large number of Billionaires in general do pay their “fair share” of taxes.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Clearly, Buffett doesn't want to throw his hat in the election ring. But why not?
Given the high stakes in this presidential election and his history of past endorsements this is a bit of a head scratcher.
I think it’s pretty clear - for this longstanding Democrat, who has almost always publicly supported the Democrat running for president, the current candidate is just not worthy of his support. I don’t think Buffett has changed his affiliation, or his disapproval of the Republican candidate, nor do I think he has suddenly become too shy to state a preference.
No. of Recommendations: 4
" I think it’s pretty clear - for this longstanding Democrat, who has almost always publicly supported the Democrat running for president, the current candidate is just not worthy of his support. I don’t think Buffett has changed his affiliation, or his disapproval of the Republican candidate, nor do I think he has suddenly become too shy to state a preference."
Is anyone shocked that Buffett, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk, etc aren't wildly enthusiastic about the party that is proposing a TAX on unrealized capital gains AND a net worth tax? Come on man.
No. of Recommendations: 29
I think it's likely that in today's hyper-partisan backdrop, Buffett doesn't want half the country to boycott any of Berkshire's subsidiaries. Remember why he shut down the charitable giving program? He also doesn't want to risk the safety of any of Berkshire's employees based on people's reactions to his personal decision to endorse Harris.
No. of Recommendations: 32
I think it's likely that in today's hyper-partisan backdrop, Buffett doesn't want half the country to boycott any of Berkshire's subsidiaries. Remember why he shut down the charitable giving program? He also doesn't want to risk the safety of any of Berkshire's employees based on people's reactions to his personal decision to endorse Harris.Agree 100%. In todays bitterly ultra-partisan world words have consequences.
For example: Retired United States Army General and real hero, Mark A. Milley spoke out saying Trump is "The most dangerous person to this country. A fascist to the core."
General Milley has since received "a non-stop barrage of death threats." (He has installed bullet-proof glass in his residence.)
"First, they fascinate the fools. Then they muzzle the intelligent." ~Bertram Russell
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/11/bo...
No. of Recommendations: 4
Officers serve at the pleasure of the President. They always have the option of resigning - but not the option of picking and choosing what orders to follow. There is a precedent for why officers should remain apolitical.
No. of Recommendations: 8
"He also doesn't want to risk the safety of any of Berkshire's employees based on people's reactions to his personal decision to endorse Harris.
This sounds exactly like the Warren Buffett we've seen and read about over the years. I think you nailed it.
-- sutton
No. of Recommendations: 27
Officers serve at the pleasure of the President. They always have the option of resigning - but not the option of picking and choosing what orders to follow.
I believe the above is not a correct statement.
It's generally called a "duty to disobey," and is empowered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is more concerned about the need to obey orders, but specifies the conditions when military personnel may feel justified in not following them:
If the order is "contrary to the constitution" or "the laws of the United States."
If the order is "patently illegal, ... such as one that directs the commission of a crime."
I am not commenting on the particular item in question, just the broad statement that officers have to obey.
Aussi
No. of Recommendations: 5
Apparently you Americans are 100% convinced that there is this huge divide in America. Just two examples of the many of you saying this
Labadal:
I think it's likely that in today's hyper-partisan backdrop... Banksy:
Agree 100%. In todays bitterly ultra-partisan world... as if it's an irrefutable fact.
I recommend to read this TIME Magazine article:
"The Polarization Myth: The Growing Evidence That Americans Are Less Divided Than You May Think"
https://time.com/6990721/us-politics-polarization-...
No. of Recommendations: 10
Kahuna, Milley is retired
SNIP So how can retired military members make public statements against a political candidate, a political cause or a sitting politician? The reason is that DoD Directive 1344.10 -- Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, which governs active-duty political participation, is limited to just that: active-duty members only.
DoD Directive 1325.06 -- Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces is also limited to active-duty members only.
Since the rules contained in the DoD Directives explicitly state "a member of the Armed Forces on active duty" are subject to the regulation, any active-duty member who violates the rules contained in the directive may be charged under UCMJ Article 92 -- Disobeying a Lawful Order. The lawful orders, in these cases, apply only to active-duty members.
While retirees are technically subject to the UCMJ, they are usually only charged under it for serious crimes. In fact, Army Regulation 27-10 states, "Army policy provides that retired Soldiers ... will not be tried for any offense by courts-martial unless extraordinary circumstances are present."
The military can, and does, still court-martial retirees if the charges are serious enough. The military's legal authority and scope are being challenged in the courts at this time. SNIP
https://www.military.com/benefits/military-legal/c...Milley has a genuine concern in that there is a directive that can be ignored by Trump as he is the Commander in Chief, and can reactivate someone at will. It isn't clear if a Trump appointed judge presides how they will react and rule. Could be messy.
It isn't clear at all to me how someone can be prosecuted for something they said while retired, but evidently Trump was talking about doing that at one point and Milley protected them.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Just to point out that restrictions aren't limited to those in the military. Federal civilian employees have a number of restrictions as well due to the Hatch Act.
