• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Presidential Debates

well, as most threads do nowadays, the Hillary fans have reached the point where they are posting nothing but offensive comments and insults.

I'll step out for a while.
 
Debate transcript.

TRUMP:...

....

Let me give you the example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. We're on a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there's a tax. When they sell in -- automatic, 16 percent, approximately. When they sell into us, there's no tax. It's a defective agreement. It's been defective for a long time, many years, but the politicians haven't done anything about it.

...
Click to expand...
A semi-idiotic assertion, as any Mexican product is charged the same VAT in Mexico and Mexican product are taxed in each of the United States the same way the local products are.

Why semi? Because countries can have high income taxes for middle classes and almost no VATs (United States) or low income taxes for middle classes and high VATs (Mexico) or both high (Europe).

Then there's some slight asymmetry that may be compensated (the compensation would be enough to build a wall from East Laredo to West Laredo)
 
The Big Dog said:
Actually you and Holt don't understand the difference between stop and frisk being unconstitutional and the NYPD's SELECTIVE PRACTICE of stop and frisk being unconstitutional.

I do, the lawyer writing that article did, and Trump did.

Holt should have kept his big lying yapper shut.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I sincerely did not know that is what Trump meant.
Why didn't he make it more clear by saying he meant stop and frisk without racial bias? Or even better why not just say Terry Stop? Surely he couldn't have expected people outside of New York City and people unfamiliar with cases related to civil rights and police procedures to know he meant something other than NYC-style stop and frisk.
 
The Big Dog said:
well, as most threads do nowadays, the Hillary fans have reached the point where they are posting nothing but offensive comments and insults.

I'll step out for a while.
Click to expand...

My oh my! What a terrible shame!

We will have to wait for a while before you can post how "Hillary Clinton almost fell on her face ten times", how Hillary Clinton has "a fake smile, and her dolls eyes plus nervous laughs were frightening" how "Lester Holt was wildly biased" and how 'Trump won'.
 
BobTheCoward said:
As I said earlier, for purposes of this discussion, I will unilaterally accept the assumptions you put forward. But I won't do that unless you are willing to accept that your assumptions might lead to a result where you need to pay more and Trump needs a subsidy.
Click to expand...

I emphatically agree.

I should have been more clear.
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually he did whine in his twitter feed.

He posted the following:
Nothing on emails. Nothing on the corrupt Clinton Foundation. And nothing on #Benghazi.

Sounds to me like he was whining.

Oh, and Twitter isn't the only place...

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-debate-ads_us_57e9e8b1e4b024a52d2a3f3e
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump thinks it’s very unfair that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton airs videos of his words on national television, he said on Monday.Trump complained about her ads both during and after the first presidential debate. He said Clinton “spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue.”... “And I will tell you this, Lester, it is not nice, and I don’t deserve that, but it’s certainly not a nice thing that she’s done.”

More whining. And I think its amazing that he's complaining because many of the adds are untrue. So how many of the ads ARE true?
Click to expand...

If I said all the lying crap that Trump has, I'd be embarrassed having it played over and over again on TV.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Fair share is something that can be defined without a single tax return. You would identify what constitutes fair, arrive at a fair share definition, and then review tax returns to assess who meets it.
Click to expand...

Not if the system is rigged. We can talk all day about a top tax rate of 39, 45, 36, 33 percent but if people aren't paying those taxes, the discussion borders on being worthless.
 
Garrette said:
My thoughts exactly, and it was demonstrated last night with Clinton's "Trumped up trickle down" line. Obviously scripted, obviously pre-planned, obviously used as a hoped-for zinger, and completely a failure. It failed not because of the line but because that sort of thing does no suit Clinton's style.
Click to expand...
This is a lot of wild speculation.
 
acbytesla said:
Not if the system is rigged. We can talk all day about a top tax rate of 39, 45, 36, 33 percent but if people aren't paying those taxes, the discussion borders on being worthless.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't fairness be a concept independent of the the rules of the current system?

Heck, even your use of top tax rates assumes a certain structure of taxes that might.now actually follow from your assumptions about what constitutes a fair share.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Not if the system is rigged. We can talk all day about a top tax rate of 39, 45, 36, 33 percent but if people aren't paying those taxes, the discussion borders on being worthless.
Click to expand...
If they aren't paying that rate, they aren't paying their fair share.

I think a bigger problem is the blurry line between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion, leading to the top tax rate being effectively "whatever your tax attorney can't weasel you out of without making the IRS suspicious."
 
Crossbow said:
If the Trumptards want to keep bitching and complaining in order to feel better, then they should continue to bitch and complain.

Personally, I think that they should do something more productive, however there is no such thing as a productive Trumptard.
Click to expand...

Not all folks voting for Trump are unproductive Trumptards

About "Trumptards"
I understand that emotions run high in this election. And that a poster might be in a situation in which the election outcome could drastically alter the direction of his or her life. But could we dial back the name calling?

About unproductive
There are many ways to choose a candidate. And almost all of those have certain underlying assumptions. And almost all of those are based on one's value system and personal experiences. What I am getting at is while some Trump supporters support him because they think he will outlaw Islam, other Trump supporters might find themselves in Trump's camp because they cannot bring themselves to vote Clinton. Or because they are single-issue voters. Or for any number of reasons not tied to specific forms of bigotry. Therefore calling everyone on the other side unproductive is neither helpful nor accurate nor appropriate.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
I really hope Trump believes the #Trumpwon BS. That way he'll get absolutely destroyed next debate as well.
Click to expand...

He does!

I was instructed here to believe in everything Trump says, so when he says the contrary is because he lied before (never before he lies now).

In that spirit Trump said he won the debate according to a CBS poll. A non-existent one.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I think a bigger problem is the blurry line between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion, leading to the top tax rate being effectively "whatever your tax attorney can't weasel you out of without making the IRS suspicious."
Click to expand...

Bingo! The rich don't pay tax because they are smart, but because they have smart accountants and lawyers.
 
By the way, why not concede "Trump won"? Virtually everything coming out of the Trump camp is a lie. So is this, but if it makes supporters happy to accept yet another lie, why not?

Trump won.:rolleyes:
 
I've mentioned before we have a guy at work who is an intense Trump fan. He has a buddy at work, from a different department, who occasionally stops by for a few minutes to chat with him. The 'buddy' is a black woman and -- I don't know if the Trump fan was aware of this -- but she can't stand Donald Trump. This morning I overheard him bragging to her about The Don's great performance last night and I admit -I was all ears! ;)

I almost choked on my coffee when I heard her say, "Yeah he did pretty good I guess, but... I'm sorry, there's something wrong with that man! Did you see the way he was acting, the way he kept making those weird faces. What is wrong with him?"

To my surprise the Trump fan agreed, "Oh there's definitely something wrong with him; he's not normal. Hillary will probably win." Then he added, "But I like him."

We know, we know...
 
Beelzebuddy said:
If they aren't paying that rate, they aren't paying their fair share.

I think a bigger problem is the blurry line between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion, leading to the top tax rate being effectively "whatever your tax attorney can't weasel you out of without making the IRS suspicious."
Click to expand...

There was a time in the US when the top marginal tax rate was a whopping 90 percent. That is what it was under the Eisenhower administration. But few people paid it. And even though the top marginal tax rate is less than half that today, there are many who don't pay it either.

The fact of the matter is that the super rich employ thousands of lobbyists who work Congress to give them tax breaks. It happens on every level of government.

Trump worked the tax commissioner in NY to give him a 60 million dollar tax break.

Do you really think Trump has ANY DESIRE to change that system?
 
Clinton admonished Trump for saying "Women do not deserve equal pay unless they do as good of a job as a man".

Apparently Clinton doesn't believe in performance based pay.

Clinton 2016: Women deserve equal pay for doing a worse job than a man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom