Donald Trump

Outlaw Pete

Penn wrote: »

Yes, it's good for business. Not good when you're running for President, when you're saying how all these things need to be improved but you've spent years not just ensuring you pay as minimal towards those things as possible but also given his bankruptcies, has also caused money to be taken out of that pot too.

Oh I get that, but that's Trump, he doesn't have polished politician type answers. He even said that at one point.

Legal tax avoidance is legal. It is not moral. It is not something someone who is running for President should ever have done, and anyone who has done it, shouldn't run for President.

Sure, but many will see his business mindset as a good thing and he has highlighted many tax loopholes which need to be closed, especially with regards to foreign trade.

Trump got slaughtered in that debate. He can't even deflect arguments well and just ends up flapping his gums with his 3 standard comebacks which are devoid of reason or context. And any time he does try and actually explain something, he talks pure and utter nonsense of the highest order. His answers about "cyber" and his support for the Iraq war "Ask Sean Hannity! Why is no one asking Sean Hannity?!" are the ramblings of a lunatic.

And saying you were shot at on a runway when you weren't, being against gay marriage one minute and then for it the next...really the words of someone who is all that much better in that regard? If anything she just comes across as a more accomplished liar to me.

pumpkin4life

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

It's a perfectly cromulent word

A word which I'm sure embiggens him.

Agricola

You have to wonder, is there another first world western democracy where someone like Trump could be this close to the highest office. A man who openly wants to make the richest subset of society richer still and believes that people like him have a legitimate right to evade tax as best they can.... why? Well because the government squander it, so why should he pay anything! Tax is for the little people. The same little people that he hopes will elect him! It's farcical!
Hillary Clinton should have beat him to death with that point last night. Considering how highly they prize their military and retired soldiers, who's funding comes from federal tax which he doesn't want to pay. He actually tied his own noose fairly often, should be easy to get him to hang himself.

stefanovich

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote:

You can't honestly stand over this.

Parachutes wrote:

This can't be a serious post.

Sarcasm lads Jesus.

Billy86

Agricola wrote: »

You have to wonder, is there another first world western democracy where someone like Trump could be this close to the highest office. A man who openly wants to make the richest subset of society richer still and believes that people like him have a legitimate right to evade tax as best they can.... why? Well because the government squander it, so why should he pay anything! Tax is for the little people. The same little people that he hopes will elect him! It's farcical!
Hillary Clinton should have beat him to death with that point last night. Considering how highly they prize their military and retired soldiers, who's funding comes from federal tax which he doesn't want to pay. He actually tied his own noose fairly often, should be easy to get him to hang himself.

The real irony here is those taxes are supposed to pay for, among other things, the billions of dollars he has claimed across his multiple bankruptcies. Clinton missed a trick on that one last night, her campaign should be looking to make a big deal out of that in the coming days/weeks.

First Up

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh I get that, but that's Trump, he doesn't have polished politician type answers. He even said that at one point.



Sure, but many will see his business mindset as a good thing and he has highlighted many tax loopholes which need to be closed, especially with regards to foreign trade.



And saying you were shot at on a runway when you weren't, being against gay marriage one minute and then for it the next...really the words of someone who is all that much better in that regard? If anything she just comes across as a more accomplished liar to me.

He doesn't have non-politician type answers either. He doesn't even know the questions.

He does seem to know a thing or two about tax avoidance. Maybe when he tells us what he is proposing about tax loopholes we can form a view about it. Until then it is just populist slogans and stunningly hypocritical.

And is that the best (or worst) you can find to say about Clinton? She is not the most charismatic or likeable of candidates but for fecks sake, look at the alternative.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

Admitting and gloating that his company paid no tax is a ridiculously short-sighted move.

I agree, but we're talking about Donald Trump. What were / are people expecting. He is approaching this as he would an episode of The Apprentice. Not saying that is a good thing but I really don't think anyone that was going to vote for him, now won't as a result of that "debate". Granted, it doesn't drag any new voters over to his side either.

If Trump had turned that around to read, "My company paid the legally correct amount of tax, which was and still is too low, so I will fix the tax code so that companies pay their fair share of tax".

Again, I agree but that would be a politician's answer. He's not one and it's why he won't win.

Of course, he's talking about cutting tax, but someone who had the hot topics nailed down would have turned it around.

He's not intelligent enough, nor articulate enough. Nor can he deflect questions like a pro.

Hillary is the expert liar here, not Trump.

Agricola

Billy86 wrote: »

The real irony here is those taxes are supposed to pay for, among other things, the billions of dollars he has claimed across his multiple bankruptcies. Clinton missed a trick on that one last night, her campaign should be looking to make a big deal out of that in the coming days/weeks.

Yeah there seems to be an ocean of ammunition to fire at him, everything from hard stats like that which will appeal to some of the electorate right through to the emotional stuff like the tenant discrimination thing in NY in the '70s which will appeal to far more.
Seems like it's all down to do whether she is quick witted enough to sink him when he trips himself up, which I believe he will do many times before these debates are finished.
She was probably drilled last night not to go to town, or come across like a hectoring maiden aunt. Be interesting to see what happens next time.

First Up

Agricola wrote: »

Yeah there seems to be an ocean of ammunition to fire at him, everything from hard stats like that which will appeal to some of the electorate right through to the emotional stuff like the tenant discrimination thing in NY in the '70s which will appeal to far more.
Seems like it's all down to do whether she is quick witted enough to sink him when he trips himself up, which I believe he will do many times before these debates are finished.
She was probably drilled last night not to go to town, or come across like a hectoring maiden aunt. Be interesting to see what happens next time.

He's a one man munitions factory. Clinton really doesn't have to say a lot - just let him shoot himself in both feet and keep alienating possible swing voters. His base will vote for him regardless but that won't be close to being enough.

alchemist33

Butters1979 wrote: »

The thing is, he didn't compare people to skittles. He used an analogy to make the point that even though most refugees aren't dangerous, some are and unless you know exactly which ones, taking in any is a risk. The question is do you think the risk is acceptable.
Although very basic, it was actually a good analogy. The reaction to this on t'internet seems to be loads of people, including the head of skittles itself, shouting about how 'people aren't skittles'.
They either don't understand the analogy, do understand it but have no reasonable counter argument, or maybe are so fast to be outraged by whatever comes out of his camp they haven't even thought about it. All 3 possible reasons are pretty stupid.

We all know people aren't skittles. Thanks.

You're welcome

Glad we agree

Outlaw Pete

First Up wrote: »

And is that the best (or worst) you can find to say about Clinton? She is not the most charismatic or likeable of candidates but for fecks sake, look at the alternative.

Not sure what you mean about "find" as it's common knowledge she has lied her ass off about those issues. She has tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate dozens of times over the years. She tells outrageous lies deliberately so people will vote for her. Like I said, I wouldn't trust a word out of her mouth.

Frankly I don't think either of them should be president but the snake factor means Trump will get more votes than he would were he not running against a liar.

Next debates will be interesting if nothing else anyway.

Billy86

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not sure what you mean about "find" as it's common knowledge she has lied her ass off about those issues. She has tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate dozens of times over the years. She tells outrageous lies deliberately so people will vote for her. Like I said, I wouldn't trust a word out of her mouth.

Frankly I don't think either of them should be president but the snake factor means Trump will get more votes than he would were he not running against a liar.

Next debates will be interesting if nothing else anyway.

The exact same is true in reverse. Had Kasich or Sanders won, this election would have been over a long time ago.


....though the news networks would still be desperately calling it a 'close one' to boost ratings and clicks. As always.

fly_agaric

Agricola wrote: »

You have to wonder, is there another first world western democracy where someone like Trump could be this close to the highest office..

Well, Italy voted in Berlusconi multiple times. CJH (edit: Haughey) comes to mind too.
That type of wealthy politician, the big chieftain who also plays at man of the people tends, I would think, be more popular in the 3rd world.

The US has been busy grinding its electorate into poverty for the benefit of corporations and the wealthy for the last generation or so. A more "third-worldish" political figure like Trump potentially gaining the presidency is possibly a natural consequence.

First Up

Billy86 wrote: »

The exact same is true in reverse. Had Kasich or Sanders won, this election would have been over a long time ago.


....though the news networks would still be desperately calling it a 'close one' to boost ratings and clicks. As always.

For sure, a lot of people will be holding their noses as they vote for both candidates but Clinton will lock in the core Democrat vote a lot better than Trump will the GOP and Clinton will slaughter him with the neutrals.

I actually suspect Trump wants to lose and just sees this as an enormous ego trip (for his enormous ego). He would prefer to go down with guns blazing than be seen to compromise.

The media always hype it up. But even Fox News is using it more as a Clinton bashing opportunity than a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. Its quite funny to watch actually.

pumpkin4life

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I think this is going to be a pretty uninteresting debate.

The momentum is with Trump. His biggest weakness is that people view him as a crazy "press the nuclear button" kind of lad. Just play presidential, calm, professional, don't be overly aggressive and don't fùck up.

Clinton's biggest weakness is that she the living version of Mr Burns: a sick, cartoonishly evil (people's perception of her) Wall St sellout. She has to get rid of this image and the health one, by trying to be dominant and control the frame, that her health is nothing to concern people with.

Which, if you're looking to be as professional and presidential as possible, is perfect for you. Let Hilary destroy herself.

It's Trumps election to lose at this stage.

The media will try and spin it though, whatever the outcome.

I watched the debate.

First, what I said would happen as quoted above, would happen. Hillary tried to be much more attacking and tried to put the health stuff to rest as much as possible.

Trump tried to be as presidential as possible. Hell, you can see this with the clothes they were wearing. Red for Hilary, blue tie for Trump.

Second, who won?

If this was a ranked, rational, point by point debate, Hillary destroyed Trump and I say this as a Trump, not supporter but "easily the best out of a bad lot" kind of person.

However...

These debates are not about being clever and rational, and all those fuzz words that people like to throw around to feel good about themselves.

These debates are about likability and putting your weaknesses aside to get as many undecided votes as possible.

Hillary's weakness = health issues plus being Mr Burns globalist twat.

She looked unhealthy and her fùcking smile looked like the Joker out of Batman. Her dress was maybe a bad idea. Rather than aggression, it looked communisty, Hail Stalin kind of shìtè. Didn't really succeed here.

Trump's weakness = mad, unpresidential, crackpot, blow up russia with an atom bomb.

He got very defensive at parts and answered some questions poorly. Didn't really succeed here but perhaps/perhaps not moreso than Hilary.

Overall, I'd say pretty much a stalemate in terms of getting votes with possibly a small gain for Trump (as reported by Time and CNBC) and once again, people who are going on about how Hillary was a better debater are missing the point.

Billy86

First Up wrote: »

For sure, a lot of people will be holding their noses as they vote for both candidates but Clinton will lock in the core Democrat vote a lot better than Trump will the GOP and Clinton will slaughter him with the neutrals.

I actually suspect Trump wants to lose and just sees this as an enormous ego trip (for his enormous ego). He would prefer to go down with guns blazing than be seen to compromise.

The media always hype it up. But even Fox News is using it more as a Clinton bashing opportunity than a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. Its quite funny to watch actually.

I would love to agree with you on the first paragraph, but sadly I'm not so sure. The two party system and fundamentalist worship people have toward the letters 'D' or 'R' over there is pretty scary stuff. I would genuinely reckon Clinton could unveil (pardon the pun) herself as the mastermind behind ISIS, as in literally the person calling the shots for them, and still haul in a good chunk of the vote. Trump even more so, in that admittedly completely hypothetical scenario I doubt he would love more than 20-25% of his more hardcore alt-right fanbase. I'm not even sure that I'm joking when I say that I believe a good chunk of Americans would rather associate with ISIS than Democrats (for Republicans) or Republicans (for Democrats).

Maybe the plus side would be Gary Johnson getting the win in that make believe situation, though I reckon both parties would work together to make it an impossibility. Again, I think they might actually prefer to team up behind the scenes and associate with ISIS & co, than the alternative of breaking up the two-party system and risking ceding power to other voices.

Yes it's a hyperbolic and exaggerated post, but I seriously don't know to what extent.

First Up

Billy86 wrote: »

I would love to agree with you on the first paragraph, but sadly I'm not so sure. The two party system and fundamentalist worship people have toward the letters 'D' or 'R' over there is pretty scary stuff.

Clinton isn't everyone's cup of tea but she comes from Democratic aristocracy and Bill would be elected again if he was able to run. Trump is almost as much an outsider in the GOP as he is with the Dems.

The GOP grandees are sh*tting themselves because they fear many traditional Republican voters will stay home; so not only will they lose the presidency, they will lose Congress too.

Billy86

First Up wrote: »

Clinton isn't everyone's cup of tea but she comes from Democratic aristocracy and Bill would be elected again if he was able to run. Trump is almost as much an outsider in the GOP as he is with the Dems.

The GOP grandees are sh*tting themselves because they fear many traditional Republican voters will stay home; so not only will they lose the presidency, they will lose Congress too.

Oh I do get you, but the thing is... seemingly almost every politician who was telling the country how awful he was during the primaries have now turned around and endorsed him once the presidential election cycle began. Among voters, I've seen people who identify Republican go from despising him during the primaries now either claiming 'at least better than Clinton' and in some instances claiming he would be a great president, or at least very good one. Once the primaries are out the window, so is ideology in place of the letter beside the name.

Again very hyperbolic on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the US break up during my lifetime if this incredibly huge issue does not get resolved. It's a disconnect with logic and rationality to such an extent that I cannot see a logical or rational solution being reached. There's barely even a universally respected politician that could unite the country by being assassinated or some such (horrible as it sounds, sometimes it has to reach that level for people to see reason) because of the idolization of the letters 'D' and 'R', and the alienation of anyone without either of those beside their name.

If I were a higher up in the GOP, I think I'd rather take a loss on this one, focus on sanity, get someone with a solid capacity to 'present' themselves like Paul Ryan prepped up, and win a landslide in 2020. I figure a good few of them think that too, but the FOX News/Breitbart/Tea Party/etc Frankensteins that they have created since 2008 are haunting them in a very bad way here. Even if Trump had not won the nomination, Ted Cruz for example would not be any more viable for president (and in my opinion, is one of the very few politicians who would be doing worse against Clinton right now).

As someone who identifies closer with the democrats (not to say I'm particularly fond of them on the whole, mind) and despises what the GOP has turned to represent in the last several years, I could almost say the same about a Trump victory. Except for the fact that Donald Trump winning the election is the best thing (from their perspective) that could possibly ever happen to Islamic terrorist groups and the likes.


TLDR; the US is kind f***ed either way, short term and long.

First Up

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh I do get you, but the thing is... seemingly almost every politician who was telling the country how awful he was during the primaries have now turned around and endorsed him once the presidential election cycle began. Among voters, I've seen people who identify Republican go from despising him during the primaries now either claiming 'at least better than Clinton' and in some instances claiming he would be a great president, or at least very good one. Once the primaries are out the window, so is ideology in place of the letter beside the name.

Again very hyperbolic on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the US break up during my lifetime if this incredibly huge issue does not get resolved. It's a disconnect with logic and rationality to such an extent that I cannot see a logical or rational solution being reached. There's barely even a universally respected politician that could unite the country by being assassinated or some such (horrible as it sounds, sometimes it has to reach that level for people to see reason) because of the idolization of the letters 'D' and 'R', and the alienation of anyone without either of those beside their name.

If I were a higher up in the GOP, I think I'd rather take a loss on this one, focus on sanity, get someone with a solid capacity to 'present' themselves like Paul Ryan prepped up, and win a landslide in 2020. I figure a good few of them think that too, but the FOX News/Breitbart/Tea Party/etc Frankensteins that they have created since 2008 are haunting them in a very bad way here. Even if Trump had not won the nomination, Ted Cruz for example would not be any more viable for president (and in my opinion, is one of the very few politicians who would be doing worse against Clinton right now).

As someone who identifies closer with the democrats (not to say I'm particularly fond of them on the whole, mind) and despises what the GOP has turned to represent in the last several years, I could almost say the same about a Trump victory. Except for the fact that Donald Trump winning the election is the best thing (from their perspective) that could possibly ever happen to Islamic terrorist groups and the likes.


TLDR; the US is kind f***ed either way, short term and long.

I would agree with you on pretty well all of that but I think a break-up of the GOP is a more immediate prospect than a break-up of the US.

When Trump loses (and he will) the GOP has a big decision to make. Either it tries to get back back to being a centre right, sensible party that is relevant to 21st century America (and world) or it continues down the nostalgia for the 1950's trail and reduces itself ever more to that demographic.

So I think you are right that many in the GOP see a Trump loss and defeat in both Houses as a cathartic moment but also an opportunity to finally stand up to the Murdoch/Fox News/Koch Brothers tyranny that has rendered them the mess they now are.

It is an interesting mirror image of the Labour Party in the UK.

Billy86

First Up wrote: »

It is an interesting mirror image of the Labour Party in the UK.

Never thought of that, great point. I'd consider myself quite comfortably to the left (not AAA/PBP etc though, unrealistic, entitled, magic money tree clowns - not all too different to the Tea Party wing of the GOP in an odd sense) but the Corbyn re-election has me beyond stunned. They just threw away a free election, maybe the otherwise most free election the UK has ever seen... or will do if he makes it anywhere even remotely close to 2020 when it is currently set for.

Yamanoto

Donald delivered his usual mix of bravado, meaningless buzz phrases and woolly generalisations.

It's that lack of conventional polish that sets him apart from career politicians & seems to resonate with many of the electorate. It also makes him hard to pin down in a debate - I bet Hilary just wanted to blurt out 'what the fcuk are you talking about you gibbering buffoon'.

DEFTLEFTHAND

He's extremely inarticulate for a Presidential candidate. He finds it very difficult to stay on point and convey his message in a clear and concise manner.

Bazzo

Trump came out and acted like Trump last night. A moronic-looking man child. He can't stand for the spotlight to be off him for any length of time but when he's actually given a chance to speak he can't even manage to hold a train of thought for the length of a sentence. He just vomits out buzzwords and leaps from topic to topic. How in the **** could anybody seriously look at this man and want to put him in any position of power?

InTheTrees

Bazzo wrote: »

He just vomits out buzzwords and leaps from topic to topic. How in the **** could anybody seriously look at this man and want to put him in any position of power?

He really doesn't seem able to complete one single coherent sentence.

I heard it described as "word salad".

I'm baffled as to what his supporters are hearing? Well formed arguments? I don't know.

B0jangles

This was a fun moment:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/780580555255455744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Why not, Donald, why not?

MonkeyTennis

When Trump is delivering a practiced line or something he is comfortable with he has one hand in the air when he is confused or caught out he moves his hands in an out ( like an squeezebox player).

Its fun to watch.

Christy42

InTheTrees wrote: »

He really doesn't seem able to complete one single coherent sentence.

I heard it described as "word salad".

I'm baffled as to what his supporters are hearing? Well formed arguments? I don't know.

Those few coherent statements are also generally contradicting himself. I would like a Trump vs Trump debate.

I mean does he or does not pay tax?
Was he pro or against the Iraq war when the invasion was launched?
Does he or does he not believe that global warming is a conspiracy theory created by the Chinese?

I really can't believe I typed those last words. You would get laughed out of the ct forum for that one.

B0jangles

Joe Biden spoke today about the debate, specifically about Trump and his taxes.

He does not hold back.

Rezident

Hilary clearly won the debate but even more worryingly I don't think Trump's supporters care. Should sway a lot of the (massive) amount of undecided though.

Hande hoche!

Can see Hillary getting a bit of momentum from this. Will be intrigued as to how the VP debate goes, on account of not having a clue about either of them.