2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

First, nobody knew Reagan hod Alzheimer’s until a while after he left office. So there was no reason for anyone to have concerns while he was POTUS. If he would have exhibited signs of it while campaigning, or during office, then I would have had serious concerns, and if it was determined he had Alzheimer’s that might have affected his job then the American people should have been told and he should have dropped out of the race, or resigned if he was in office, and Bush I taken over.

Therefore it would be fair then to see what's going on with Hillary, correct? Or are you going to move the goalposts again?

Hillary isn't exhibiting any signs of having any issues that would affect her presidency. So my answer is no.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Some of the worlds greatest leaders had narcissistic traits. Napoleon, Winston Churchill, Alexander the Great, Charles de Gaulle, Mahatma Ghandi, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton. And I believe a case could be made that Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding Benghazi inquiry showed malignant narcissism, attendant paranoia, and a disturbing inability to consider the people affected at the center of the inquiry.

You might want to brush up on narcissistic personality disorder because you clearly don't understand what it means.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

You might want to brush up on narcissistic personality disorder because you clearly don't understand what it means.

Appears to fit those I listed.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Hillary isn't exhibiting any signs of having any issues that would affect her presidency. So my answer is no.

I'd say you would be in the minority then. 59% of voters believe all major presidential candidates should release at least their most recent medical records to the public.

A majority also believe candidates should release their tax records.

Again, release it all... taxes and medical records!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2016/most_want_to_see_clinton_trump_tax_returns_medical_records

B0jangles

Have you guys seen the letter about Trump's health that purports to come from his doctor? It's fecking hilarious



https://www.donaldjtrump.com/images/uploads/trump_health_record.pdf

Amerika

Word is coming out that there is a corruption probe going on into the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and the FBI is taking part in it. Of course it’s not coming from the Department of Justice or any other administration cronies out of Washington.

At first glance people might say why would anyone bother because the DOJ will just ignore it anyway.

The difference this time is reports indicate the probe was launched out of New York City and it’s focused on the offices of the foundation based there, and being led by Preetinder Singh “Preet” Bharara, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He seems to be absolutely fearless when it comes to going after the corruption of those in political power and has a reputation for an apolitical pursuit of justice. He has already taken down powerful democrats and republicans in NY.

Hey, there might really be a god, and justice might yet prevail.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Hillary Clinton isn't proposing raising taxes on the middle class. Donald Trump is.

Hillary says she is going to raise taxes on the middle classes, Warren Buffett is happy behind her.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I'd say you would be in the minority then. 59% of voters believe all major presidential candidates should release at least their most recent medical records to the public.

A majority also believe candidates should release their tax records.

Again, release it all... taxes and medical records!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2016/most_want_to_see_clinton_trump_tax_returns_medical_records

Hillary has released both. In fact she released her tax returns today. We're still waiting on Trump to do either.

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary says she is going to raise taxes on the middle classes, Warren Buffett is happy behind her.

Are you going to provide proof of your claim? She clearly states that "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class" in that video. Her website also gives a clear outline of her tax proposals which include no tax increases for the middle class.

Trump on the other hand proposes massive tax hikes for middle class people though. His proposed tariffs would dramatically reduce the purchasing power of both the working and middle class. His proposed $10tn increase in the deficit will also need to be paid back at some stage as well, most likely by the middle class.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary says she is going to raise taxes on the middle classes, Warren Buffett is happy behind her.

You are seriously pretending to believe that she said "are" rather than "aren't" in that context - "fairer rules for the middle classes" being the preceding phrase -and with the result of the whole crowd cheering for a tax hike?

Seriously?

Inquitus

Amerika wrote: »

Hey, there might really be a god, and justice might yet prevail.

Not sure God would vote for Trump or how he relates to the election, surely God would be on the side of social justice and more aligned to Bernie's vision of giving everyone a fairer chance in life, with education for all?

With regard to Justice, were Justice to prevail surely Trump would be in as much trouble as Hillary, Trump University was certainly corrupt and preying on the weak to further enrich Donald, which is why it's the subject of the current RICO investigation.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Word is coming out that there is a corruption probe going on into the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and the FBI is taking part in it. Of course it’s not coming from the Department of Justice or any other administration cronies out of Washington.

At first glance people might say why would anyone bother because the DOJ will just ignore it anyway.

The difference this time is reports indicate the probe was launched out of New York City and it’s focused on the offices of the foundation based there, and being led by Preetinder Singh “Preet” Bharara, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He seems to be absolutely fearless when it comes to going after the corruption of those in political power and has a reputation for an apolitical pursuit of justice. He has already taken down powerful democrats and republicans in NY.

Hey, there might really be a god, and justice might yet prevail.

And the source for this 'word coming out'?
If it becomes anything more than rumour mongering from DailyCaller, it might gain a bit of credibility. Until then...

Amerika

Clinton plans on taxing the rich to the tune of $1.3 Trillion, but plans on increasing spending by $3.5 Trillion. Who else but the middle class will pay for the $2.2 trillion shortage to paying for her policy agenda? Or has she found some miracle fairy somewhere that delivers boatloads of cash to the treasury every Sunday morning?

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

And the source for this 'word coming out'?
If it becomes anything more than rumour mongering from DailyCaller, it might gain a bit of credibility. Until then...

You do understand the meaning of 'Exclusive,' right?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/11/exclusive-joint-fbi-us-attorney-probe-of-clinton-foundation-is-underway/

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Clinton plans on taxing the rich to the tune of $1.3 Trillion, but plans on increasing spending by $3.5 Trillion. Who else but the middle class will pay for the $2.2 trillion shortage to paying for her policy agenda? Or has she found some miracle fairy somewhere that delivers boatloads of cash to the treasury every Sunday morning?

She has taken a leaf from Donald's book. She's going to get the Mexicans to pay for it.

RobertKK

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But the US isn't Ireland though. The two aren't comparable. However, you have a point. Lowering corporation tax is generally a good thing. You've also failed to address Trump's proposed tax cut for wealthy people. It's going to be hard to sell this to the typically white, working class voters that he attracts as a measure to improve their income. US labour costs more than Chinese, Mexican or Polish labour which is why companies have relocated. Cutting CT alone won't bring them back. Ireland also has access to the richest trading block in the world. Another reason why the 2 don't compare well.

Trump is proposing making it 33% for the richest while removing the tax loopholes. It seems these loopholes are large.
According to the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/04/as-the-rich-become-super-rich-they-pay-lower-taxes-for-real/

The average tax paid across the top half of American society by income -- the top 50 percent of earners -- was 14.33 percent in 2012, according to the IRS. Climbing up the income ladder the tax rate increases to 22.83 percent for the top 1 percent of earners.
But when you start to slice that group further -- all the way up to the top 0.001 percent -- you'll notice that the effective tax rate falls steadily to 17.60 percent at the very top.
In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income.
That's not how federal income taxes were, at least originally, designed to work. The super-rich pay a relatively low rate for a variety of reasons. They benefit from a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Trump says he will remove all these deductions and the rich will pay 33%. While the poor workers pays 0%


What is the corporation tax rates in the countries you mention?
Even the UK is lowering it's corporation tax rate. US corporation tax is somewhere around 36% if I remember correctly.
Is it any wonder why a lot of US companies set up shell companies to keep their money abroad rather than bring it back to the US and be taxed as one of the highest corporation tax rates in the developed world.
Trump's 10% on this money if brought back to the US is a good policy as is lower corporation tax.
Pfizer wanted to become Irish for lower taxes, and if anyone watched CNBC over the past number of years, Ireland for such a small country would be the most mentioned country in Europe when it came to US companies doing tax inversions.
Trump banged on about the Pfizer deal and how it shows US policies are not working, US treasury secretary did a small law change which made the Pfizer/Allergan tax inversion deal a non goer.
btw Ireland would have benefited by around €650 million a year from the Pfizer tax inversion, which would mean it would probably have cost the US around $2 billion a year given their tax rate is three time higher.
There is so much wrong with US business taxes.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

You do understand the meaning of 'Exclusive,' right?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/11/exclusive-joint-fbi-us-attorney-probe-of-clinton-foundation-is-underway/

I also understand the meaning of 'credible sources'. DailyCaller isn't one.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

She has taken a leaf from Donald's book. She's going to get the Mexicans to pay for it.

So it's still the middle class, because it's us that are paying for the illegal aliens already. You wouldn't believe how much my property taxes have increased in recent years because of the influx of illegal aliens into the area and the their children in our school systems... the cost of which has to be borne by the average citizen.

B0jangles

Trump wants to eliminate estate tax - a tax which in the US kicks in at $5.9 million for a single person and $10.8 million for a couple.

He's really hitting the rich HARD

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

So it's still the middle class, because it's us that are paying for the illegal aliens already. You wouldn't believe how much my property taxes have increased in recent years because of the influx of illegal aliens into the area and the their children in our school systems... the cost of which has to be borne by the average citizen.

Sounds positively awful. Having to have your tax dollars fund education no less!

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

I also understand the meaning of 'credible sources'. DailyCaller isn't one.

Then I'd say you would be wrong.

http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/about-us/

But yes they do lean to the Right. But I'm afraid to break it to most here... Leaning Right does not automatically make one wrong.

And have you seen CNN finally admitted their total bias for Hillary Clinton? Seems they've finally embraced the moniker 'Clinton News Network.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ESUUhncaYk

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Sounds positively awful. Having to have your tax dollars fund education no less!

Don't mind one bit funding education for our citizens. Actually, I'm writing a huuggge check next week to one of our liberal indoctrination breeding grounds... also known as a University.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Then I'd say you would be wrong.

http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/about-us/

But yes they do lean to the Right. But I'm afraid to break it to most here... Leaning Right does not automatically make one wrong.

I've no problem with the 'leaning right' side of things, but they have too long a record of wingnuttery to have any credibility for me. Fool me once...

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Don't mind one bit funding education for our citizens.

I'm sure many of those kids of illegal immigrants are US citizens too.

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, I'm writing a huuggge check next weak

Hopefully for the english dept?

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Hopefully for the english dept?

Three seconds between the edit? You aren't stalking me, are you?

Nope, not the English dept... Mathematics.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I'd say you would be in the minority then. 59% of voters believe all major presidential candidates should release at least their most recent medical records to the public.

A majority also believe candidates should release their tax records.

Again, release it all... taxes and medical records!

Hillary Clinton has released several years of her tax returns, including 2015 Friday, and had also released her "Health Statement" that is more detailed than Trump's. So why is Donald Trump afraid of releasing his tax returns, like presidential candidates have done for decades? Why? The audit excuse is a terribly weak, as shown by Warren Buffett, who is also being audited this year.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Clinton plans on taxing the rich to the tune of $1.3 Trillion, but plans on increasing spending by $3.5 Trillion. Who else but the middle class will pay for the $2.2 trillion shortage to paying for her policy agenda? Or has she found some miracle fairy somewhere that delivers boatloads of cash to the treasury every Sunday morning?

Over the course of ten years economic growth could easily cover the $2.2tn in spending increases.

How does Trump propose covering the $10tn increase in the deficit his taxes would create? Or how will fund the $550bn in infrastructure spending he has proposed?

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Nope, not the English dept... Mathematics.

Missed a trick there.

Btw - as of the last Pew Research count, 79% of K-12 students with at least one undocumented parent in the US, was a US citizen.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

So it's still the middle class, because it's us that are paying for the illegal aliens already. You wouldn't believe how much my property taxes have increased in recent years because of the influx of illegal aliens into the area and the their children in our school systems... the cost of which has to be borne by the average citizen.

AS we all know illegal immigrants don't live in homes so they obviously don't pay property tax.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Over the course of ten years economic growth could easily cover the $2.2tn in spending increases.

How does Trump propose covering the $10tn increase in the deficit his taxes would create? Or how will fund the $550bn in infrastructure spending he has proposed?

what in god's name is she proposing that will spur economic growth?

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

It raises questions if the Clintons have used the State department to benefit themselves through the Clinton Foundation.

You Hope

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

what in god's name is she proposing that will spur economic growth?

Infrastructure spending. Not that she needs to propose anything as the economy is growing anyway.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary says she is going to raise taxes on the middle classes, Warren Buffett is happy behind her.

Is this some sort of elaborate ruse? She clearly states that's "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class". But you post it as evidence of the opposite.

ancapailldorcha

marienbad wrote: »

You Hope

Please try and post more constructively than this.

Black Swan

Brian? wrote: »

Is this some sort of elaborate ruse? She clearly states that's "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class". But you post it as evidence of the opposite.

Erroneously claiming "aren't" was "are" in the video exemplifies a falsehood typical of Trump, just like the earlier Donald Trump "birther" claim about Obama, or now that Obama and Hillary Clinton are "founders" of ISIS, which he repeated several times from podium and during Fox News interview.

Trump needs to wake-up and realise that the childish name-calling political tactics he used to win the Republican nomination may not be effective for the general presidential election. Trump's polls continue to drop, and the modeled odds that Hillary will win 8 November 2016 keep increasing since the RNC/DNC conventions. For example, from the beginning to end of this week the NY Times model has climbed from 86% Clinton and 14% Trump, to 88% Clinton and 12% Trump. While Trump's base continues to cheer such name-calling, methinks that Bernie's demographically more educated Dems and independents are slowly moving over to Hillary.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Infrastructure spending. Not that she needs to propose anything as the economy is growing anyway.

Infrastructure spending? How are family pay leave, free college and free child care going to grow the economy to the level you envision?

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Infrastructure spending? How are family pay leave, free college and free child care going to grow the economy to the level you envision?

Well allowing people who can't afford it to go to college will allow to them to get higher paying jobs and contribute more to the economy.

Free child care allows more women to get back into the job market quicker allowing them to get promotions sooner to allow them to contribute more to the economy. See - a massive chunk Europe to see this works.

Now while these jobs may be filled anyway but this allows the most talented to contribute to the work force instead of potentially needing to look after children or unable to get the relevant qualifications. Essentially it brings more competition to these jobs and companies will be aware that there are more qualified employees looking for jobs encouraging them to expand their companies (from the interviews they do).

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

Hillary Clinton has released several years of her tax returns, including 2015 Friday, and had also released her "Health Statement" that is more detailed than Trump's. So why is Donald Trump afraid of releasing his tax returns, like presidential candidates have done for decades? Why? The audit excuse is a terribly weak, as shown by Warren Buffett, who is also being audited this year.

The audit excuse is a complete non starter. The IRS have made it clear that a person been under audit in no way prevents that person from releasing their tax returns. At this point it really does smack of what is he trying to hide.

Akrasia

eire4 wrote: »

The audit excuse is a complete non starter. The IRS have made it clear that a person been under audit in no way prevents that person from releasing their tax returns. At this point it really does smack of what is he trying to hide.

We've been at this point for a long time. Trump said he would release his tax records early in the primaries.

Hes a con man. He knows he just needs to drag out the lies until payday. He'll do what the perpetual motion machine con artists do, he'll offer to release his taxes to a few carefully selected 'independent' parties who will verify them and report back to the public

This will give his supporters just enough straw to grasp at that they'll buy his excuse that 'it's the best I can do, I'm being audited, you know what the IRS are like..."

While the press wastes a few days waiting for the 'independent' reviewers to report back, Trump will wave away the tax issue saying it's out of his hands

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary says she is going to raise taxes on the middle classes, Warren Buffett is happy behind her.

Mod:She clearly says the opposite. Check your sources from now on thank you.

RobertKK

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:She clearly says the opposite. Check your sources from now on thank you.

My original source was when I heard it on TV, don't blame me that Hillary was weak with her pronunciation.
I searched based on what I heard on TV.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/04/rumor-check-did-clinton-really-vow-to-raise-taxes-on-middle-class/

I should not have has a Mod in black as it was not done intentionally.

During remarks at a rally in Nebraska Tuesday, Clinton criticized her rival Donald Trump for wanting to “cut taxes for the super-rich.”
“Well we’re not going there, my friends,” she said. “I’m telling you right now, we’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class, and we aren’t going to raise taxes on the middle class!”
However, Clinton poorly annunciated the word “aren’t” and an online debate ensued, with some social media users arguing that she said “are.”

If Clinton had indeed stated “we are going to raise taxes on the middle class,” it would have likely been a slip of tongue. According to her campaign website, Clinton has promised “tax relief” for the middle class, while she has repeatedly vowed to ensure “the wealthiest Americans and large corporations pay their fair share.”
Some media outlets quoted Clinton as saying “are” and speculated that the moment was a “Freudian slip.”

I saw it on CNN and believed she had said 'are'. I used Hillary a source, it is accepted it seems the fault lies with Hillary Clinton not me for how she said the word, which could easily be taken as 'are' instead of 'aren't'.

It is far from clear as you state it is.

Call Me Jimmy

But did it make ANY sense in the context of the previous sentence or democratic crowds cheering for higher taxes on the middle class?

RobertKK

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

But did it make ANY sense in the context of the previous sentence or democratic crowds cheering for higher taxes on the middle class?

There is a lot with Hillary Clinton that doesn't make sense. I listened to the clip loads of times, I do not hear 'aren't'.
She was the original source, but I guess the moral of the story is, don't believe everything that Hillary Clinton says.

ancapailldorcha

RobertKK wrote: »

My original source was when I heard it on TV, don't blame me that Hillary was weak with her pronunciation.
I searched based on what I heard on TV.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/04/rumor-check-did-clinton-really-vow-to-raise-taxes-on-middle-class/

I should not have has a Mod in black as it was not done intentionally.

If you have a problem with a mod instruction, use the PM function. Do not derail the thread.

Akrasia

RobertKK wrote: »

My original source was when I heard it on TV, don't blame me that Hillary was weak with her pronunciation.
I searched based on what I heard on TV.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/04/rumor-check-did-clinton-really-vow-to-raise-taxes-on-middle-class/

I should not have has a Mod in black as it was not done intentionally.





I saw it on CNN and believed she had said 'are'. I used Hillary a source, it is accepted it seems the fault lies with Hillary Clinton not me for how she said the word, which could easily be taken as 'are' instead of 'aren't'.

It is far from clear as you state it is.

So what you're saying is, you thought you heard her say 'are' so you searched the internet for something that backs up what you wanted to hear. Presumably you saw that there was a debate about what it sounded like but instead of giving her the benefit of the doubt and accepting that you misheard what she said, you went out and repeated your mistake as though it's Clinton's election strategy to announce that she wants to raise taxes on the middle class

Is this the level that we're at now?

There are more than enough things to attack clinton for without resorting to blatantly misquoting and taking her completely out of context.

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

So what you're saying is, you thought you heard her say 'are' so you searched the internet for something that backs up what you wanted to hear. Presumably you saw that there was a debate about what it sounded like but instead of giving her the benefit of the doubt and accepting that you misheard what she said, you went out and repeated your mistake as though it's Clinton's election strategy to announce that she wants to raise taxes on the middle class

Is this the level that we're at now?

There are more than enough things to attack clinton for without resorting to blatantly misquoting and taking her completely out of context.

Hi Akrasia, I genuinely believed what I heard her say. If you hear someone say something and you want to see them in video saying that to post what you heard, you don't search with totally different words to what you heard.

I will no longer be posting on politics forum, so please don't reply. There are other issues and I will discuss them with the mods as requested.

EDIT to clarify things

I want to leave K-9 with the final say below so I don't want to create a new reply below it.

I have discussed the issues with mods and they are very reasonable people. We are on the same page as far as I am concerned. I said it to them I was wrong when I replied to the mod comment, and we discussed the issues and I think everyone is satisfied with the outcome. Everyone wants what is best for the forum and that is the important thing and that is a responsibility everyone on the forum has.

I will be back posting when I have something worth posting, if I am missing for days or less it has nothing to do with what happened.
The thing is I think whoever is president is a bad choice for America, it is amazing how they ended up with these two being the main candidates. I dislike Hillary more than I dislike Trump. This should have been an easy election for the Republicans to win.
Right now one would put their house on Hillary Clinton winning as Trump seems to be doing stuff as if he wants to lose the election.

I want to thank the mods for their time, I am sure they had better things to be doing.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

My original source was when I heard it on TV, don't blame me that Hillary was weak with her pronunciation.
I searched based on what I heard on TV.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/04/rumor-check-did-clinton-really-vow-to-raise-taxes-on-middle-class/

I should not have has a Mod in black as it was not done intentionally.





I saw it on CNN and believed she had said 'are'. I used Hillary a source, it is accepted it seems the fault lies with Hillary Clinton not me for how she said the word, which could easily be taken as 'are' instead of 'aren't'.

It is far from clear as you state it is.

If you knew anything about her campaign or her proposals you would know that she said "aren't". That there is even a discussion about this is ridiculous.

K-9

Ok, we'll leave it at that for now.

Suryavarman

There might be a competition in the Trump campaign to see who can make the most ignorant statement. Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson has claimed that Obama started the war in Afghanistan:

When CNN anchor Victor Blackwell asked her if she believed Obama “took the country into Afghanistan post 2009,” Pierson replied, "That was Obama's war, yes." Earlier this month, Pierson also said President Obama was responsible for the death of Captain Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq in 2004, four years before he took office.

KingBrian2

I'd say a lot of Americans would like to know what Hillary is going to do about the Mexicans. What inducement if any will she provide them to stay in their own country the US can hardly take in around 11 million Mexicans each year. She also wants Syrians, Iraqi's, Libyans, El Salvadorians, Guatemalans, Hondurans & Cubans to arrive so does she have any ideas about what to do with these people perhaps the now routine handing out of American passports.

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'd say a lot of Americans would like to know what Hillary is going to do about the Mexicans. What inducement if any will she provide them to stay in their own country the US can hardly take in around 11 million Mexicans each year. She also wants Syrians, Iraqi's, Libyans, El Salvadorians, Guatemalans, Hondurans & Cubans to arrive so does she have any ideas about what to do with these people perhaps the now routine handing out of American passports.

More Mexicans leave the US every year than come to the US so you don't need to worry about Hillary's plans to deal with 11 million of them every year.