Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Shalcker]

This guy seems to think that Clinton invented the estate tax. Sorry that he thinks the rich should be able to hold on to their money forever and ever, but that would just exacerbate the massive problem we already have with the rich always getting richer at the expense of the poor.

He doesn't "think she invented estate tax", no. He thinks she tries to mislead by only mentioning 500 million plus households as those affected (which wouldn't affect him) and then adding "going back to 2009 rates" - which means tax on 5 million plus estates, affecting him directly.

Btw, is 5 million+ estates count as 4 out of 1000? Or 500 million+ ? I would assume the latter, which means this figure is also misleading voters.

[NED funded]

Here is example from someone who actually read it:
2. Confiscation of Property: Clinton proposed a new top Estate Tax of 65% on people with net worth over $500 million. Her website goes to great length to obscure the actual policy details, including the fact that taxes would increase on lower value estates as well. See the total lack of transparency here, where the text simply refers to going back to 2009 rates. It is clear that the intent of the page is to mislead, not inform.

So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.

The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish). I call this a confiscation tax because income taxes have already been paid on this money. In my case, a dollar I earn today will be taxed at about 50% by various government entities, collectively. With Clinton’s plan, my remaining 50 cents will be taxed again at 50% when I die. So the government would take 75% of my earnings from now on.

Yes, I can do clever things with trusts to avoid estate taxes. But that is just welfare for lawyers. If the impact of the estate tax is nothing but higher fees for my attorney, and hassle for me, that isn’t good news either.

You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?)

State taxes affects a very small percentage and the worst thing that could happen is that rich people start spending their money before they die. So I don't really understand what's the issue.

[Breccia]

Considering i was making the point regarding your average voter

Nope.

And yet on the other side we have Hillary who hasnt tabled any policies whatsoever!

All we get from her are soundbites like "I promise to work hard for women!" or "I promise to work hard for the poor!" or "I promise to champion the cause for african-americans!" or "I promise to get tough against Wall Street!"

No substance whatsoever, just words. And words that the public dont trust....

Looks like you got caught in a lie, and deflecting. Don't hurt yourself, now.

[Breccia]

Why you gotta be so mean bro?

You triggered bro?

[LaserSharkDFB]

He doesn't "think she invented estate tax", no. He thinks she tries to mislead by only mentioning 500 million plus households as those affected (which wouldn't affect him) and then adding "going back to 2009 rates" - which means tax on 5 million plus estates, affecting him directly.

Btw, is 5 million+ estates count as 4 out of 1000? Or 500 million+ ? I would assume the latter, which means this figure is also misleading voters.

No, he's pretty mad that the estate tax even exists. And sure, she misleads by specifically saying she'll go back to the 2009 rate (45%) and increasing that to up to 65% for $500M+ estates. So, okay, she leaves out some intermediate steps? But it's enough to get a grasp of what she wants to do. She's not misleading anyone.

[Deleted]

Nope.



Looks like you got caught in a lie, and deflecting. Don't hurt yourself, now.

Hahaha!

Dude just because you misunderstood my point doesnt make it invalid... my point stands up perfectly well.

TLDR Hillary doesnt communicate her policies.

[Breccia]

Dude just because you misunderstood my point doesnt make it invalid... my point stands up perfectly well.

I quoted your entire first post verbatim. The following words do not appear in it:
"average"
"voter"
The following words do appear in it:
"And yet on the other side we have Hillary who hasnt tabled any policies whatsoever!"
As demonstrated, that's not just false, that's Pants on Fire. She has a website, and a book.
"All we get from her are soundbites"
As demonstrated, that's also not just false, that's Pants on Fire. She has a website, and a book.
"No substance whatsoever, just words."
As demonstrated on this very page, that's also false. Even when her estate tax is called out for being misrepresented, she did say 65% on the upper tier, and she did say 2009 rates. That's substance. People might say that's deceptive the way it's phrased, but it's substance. Substance you claimed didn't exist, because not only didn't you read her website -- literally the very first place anyone would think to look for her policies -- you didn't even read this page or the last one in a thread you're responding to.

But perhaps you're still going to cling to the point where you said, and once again this is a direct quote, "And yet on the other side we have Hillary who hasnt tabled any policies whatsoever!" while ignoring her website. Let's say I accept this argument which is literally based on willful ignorance. Well, I went through a few of her speeches, and found the following:
"In my first 100 days, we will work with both parties to pass the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II. Jobs in manufacturing, clean energy, technology and innovation, small business, and infrastructure. If we invest in infrastructure now, we'll not only create jobs today, but lay the foundation for the jobs of the future"
"Bernie Sanders and I will work together to make college tuition-free for the middle class and debt-free for all!We will also liberate millions of people who already have student debt.It's just not right that Donald Trump can ignore his debts, but students and families can't refinance theirs. And here's something we don't say often enough: College is crucial, but a four-year degree should not be the only path to a good job.We're going to help more people learn a skill or practice a trade and make a good living doing it."
"I'm proud that we shaped a global climate agreement – now we have to hold every country accountable to their commitments, including ourselves."
"I've laid out my strategy for defeating ISIS. We will strike their sanctuaries from the air, and support local forces taking them out on the ground. We will surge our intelligence so that we detect and prevent attacks before they happen. We will disrupt their efforts online to reach and radicalize young people in our country."
"And if we're serious about keeping our country safe, we also can't afford to have a President who's in the pocket of the gun lobby. I'm not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm not here to take away your guns. I just don't want you to be shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place. We should be working with responsible gun owners to pass common-sense reforms and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and all others who would do us harm."
"I believe in science. I believe that climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs."
"I believe that our economy isn't working the way it should because our democracy isn't working the way it should.That's why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we'll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!I believe American corporations that have gotten so much from our country should be just as patriotic in return. Many of them are. But too many aren't. It's wrong to take tax breaks with one hand and give out pink slips with the other. And I believe Wall Street can never, ever be allowed to wreck Main Street again."

Now that wasn't a MS Excel spreadsheet filled with numbers, true. If you want that sort of thing, it's best presented on, oh I dunno, a website. But that's a lot more specific than the vague statements you said was "All we get from her are soundbites". That was a 100 days promise and a proposed Constitutional Amendment in there. Did you know that, earlier in this thread, the question "did she mean trade schools?" had come up, and I legit didn't know the answer? And this speech answered it. That's pretty specific. Maybe not as specific as you like, but a lot more specific than you're claiming it was.

And the best part? I LIED. That wasn't from "a few" of her speeches. That was from just one: her speech at the Democratic National Convention. Which is literally the second place anyone would look for her policies. And it was watched live by over thirty million people, and likely on-demanded or YouTubed by a whole bunch more later by people who, say it with me, were trying to learn about her policies.

So again, going back to your very first post on the subject, the one where you claimed she hadn't tabled any policies and didn't mention the average voter even once, you're flat-out wrong. And your attempts to walk it back aren't working. You made a statement that's easily contradicted by literally the first place anyone would look, and literally the second place anyone would look. The fact that you checked neither place, and still said she hadn't tabled any policies, makes you either hilariously poor at gathering and understanding information (textbook definition!) or an outright liar.

Your posts after that, claiming she didn't communicate them very well, such as

TLDR Hillary doesnt communicate her policies.

might have been easier to defend. But that is also an absolute, and again, factually false. You just didn't bother to look. That's not her fault, that's yours.

[rosebull]

Its disheartening to see how many people in this thread and the world in general think Trump or Hillary would make a decent president. Its more disheartening to see people saying "pick your poison" or "Pick the lesser evil"

No, we shouldn't have to decide between two shit picks. There are like 12 other options. I'm waiting for the day the people have had enough and take matters into our own hands.

[TZucchini]

I'm waiting for the day the people have had enough and take matters into our own hands.

Stop waiting for other people to do things. Be the change you want to see, and all that.

[Lenonis]

That's a fair perspective. I just think if you start down the road to fact checking, then you're going to have people in your ear telling you to dispute statements made all night. And however hard you try, you're never going to be able to keep the fact checking equal, kind of like penalties in a football game, and then you open up yourself to charges of bias. Just my thoughts on it though.

Yeah, but I think the underlying problem is the base assumption that both candidates would lie equally. Which isn't likely true, and thus one would get facted checked more than the other -- and the appearance of bias would be there even though it's just one lied more.

I'm not yet convinced that Trump wants to win.

I agree, mainly because he seems to be running a campaign that is always just a bit too far behind to have a good chance at winning. Whenever he falls too far behind, he cleans up and closes the gap. When he gets too close, a string of issues and gaffes pushes him out. It may be that's all just entirely coincidental, or just the best he can do, but I wouldn't be surprised if a couple decades from now there is a tell-all book from his kids about what Trump was really trying to do this election. And I suspect it's about his brand and funneling campaign money into his businesses to prop them up financially.

- - - Updated - - -

TLDR Hillary doesnt communicate her policies.

Laughably untrue, doubly so given that she's been under fire for flip flopping. How can she flip flop if she's never communicated her policies?

Absurd. And easily disproven with 3 seconds on the internet.

Hillary has a lot of rhetoric and feel good sound bytes, but she's also given policy details in speeches.

[Breccia]

Hillary has a lot of rhetoric and feel good sound bytes, but she's also given policy details in speeches.

See? This is the way to do it. Count the number of absolutes. ZERO. ChicagoLeno has demonstrated the correct way to phrase a point that's much harder to contradict.

Also he uses apostrophes in his contractions, and that's a plus for people who want to be taken seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

Its disheartening to see how many people in this thread and the world in general think Trump or Hillary would make a decent president.

While I agree there should be more viable choices (why isn't Kaine running?) I still think Clinton would make a "decent" president. I did not say stellar. I said "decent". Let's not forget, the idea that she'd be "Obama's Third Term" has been floated around there, in some cases to attack her. But a lot of national trends are good right now -- unemployment is dropping, crime is dropping, ISIS is being pounded into the ground, and Obamacare didn't kill millions of jobs as predicted. Hell, even illegal immigration is down. Mexicans in particular are leaving as fast as, if not faster than, they're arriving, for one. The Wall would keep them here. And her policies regarding education (I am an educator) seem like valid additions to me, while her tax/budget plan seem realistic, even if they'd never survive a GOP House and Senate.

I'm not dancing in the aisles she's the Democratic nominee, but she could easily go down in history as the most average President and boring four years we've ever had. And I'd be okay with that.

[Biged781]

And yet on the other side we have Hillary who hasnt tabled any policies whatsoever!

All we get from her are soundbites like "I promise to work hard for women!" or "I promise to work hard for the poor!" or "I promise to champion the cause for african-americans!" or "I promise to get tough against Wall Street!"

No substance whatsoever, just words. And words that the public dont trust....

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Policy outlines and fact sheets to accompany them. Did you even try? Did you watch the primary debates? Do you expect this stuff to be spoon fed to you?

[Endus]

I'm not dancing in the aisles she's the Democratic nominee, but she could easily go down in history as the most average President and boring four years we've ever had. And I'd be okay with that.

People seem to forget that there's a pretty broad gap between "literally Jesus' second coming" and "flawed human being but one we can work with". And that the latter is miles away from "racist fraudster with massive conflicts of interest and expressed intent to engage in war crimes and human rights abuses".

[Merkava]

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald...racism-quotes/
While he settled it, he is most definitely not the "least racist person on earth"..

No. You missed my point. Settling a court case, if that's what Trump did, is not the same as losing a court case. People "settle" court cases to avoid going to trial, so both sides can say that they won.

I guess they never saw that he lost court cases for not renting to black people.

[Tierbook]

Its disheartening to see how many people in this thread and the world in general think Trump or Hillary would make a decent president. Its more disheartening to see people saying "pick your poison" or "Pick the lesser evil"

No, we shouldn't have to decide between two shit picks. There are like 12 other options. I'm waiting for the day the people have had enough and take matters into our own hands.

Most of those 12 other options aren't on the ballot in every state. Gary Johnson is the only one who might be on every ballot and one of his campaign policies is disbanding the federal government.....

[Edge-]

Not sure if this has popped up yet but...

Trump put on his victim-hood before tonight's debate even started, claiming that moderator Lester Holt was a Democrat and how that would mean he'd be unfair to Trump during the debate.

Which is wrong, Holt is a registered Republican.

To which Conway said Trump wasn't lying, because she doesn't think he knew Holt's political affiliation. So it's not a lie if you're just making shit up on the spot, got it.

What a fantastic presidential candidate.

[alexw]

Here is example from someone who actually read it:
2. Confiscation of Property: Clinton proposed a new top Estate Tax of 65% on people with net worth over $500 million. Her website goes to great length to obscure the actual policy details, including the fact that taxes would increase on lower value estates as well. See the total lack of transparency here, where the text simply refers to going back to 2009 rates. It is clear that the intent of the page is to mislead, not inform.

So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.

The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish). I call this a confiscation tax because income taxes have already been paid on this money. In my case, a dollar I earn today will be taxed at about 50% by various government entities, collectively. With Clinton’s plan, my remaining 50 cents will be taxed again at 50% when I die. So the government would take 75% of my earnings from now on.

Yes, I can do clever things with trusts to avoid estate taxes. But that is just welfare for lawyers. If the impact of the estate tax is nothing but higher fees for my attorney, and hassle for me, that isn’t good news either.

You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?)

Good. I 100% support this. The last thing we need is a deeply embedded oligarchy controlling everything. We are already well on the way towards it and anything that reverses that trend I will support.

I do have to admire the irony though of a Russian who's country is 100% controlled by such an oligarchy and which is being destroyed by it supporting the existence of such ruinous systems.

[Breccia]

To which Conway said Trump wasn't lying, because she doesn't think he knew Holt's political affiliation. So it's not a lie if you're just making shit up on the spot, got it.

It's sad that she thinks ignorance is an excuse, but since Trump has proven his ignorance of just about everything the US government does, it'd excuse a LOT.

[Edge-]

It's sad that she thinks ignorance is an excuse, but since Trump has proven his ignorance of just about everything the US government does, it'd excuse a LOT.

I know, does that mean Hillary could have gotten out of all of the Benghazi and private email server nonsense simply by throwing her hands in the air and saying, "Well, I didn't know!"?

Or is the one of the multitude of double standards where it's perfectly fine when Trump does it but not Crooked Hillary, she's a filthy liar about everything!



I continue to enjoy Olbermann actually reporting on the shit Trump does accurately. Wish I could subscribe to just these vids, don't care about the rest of the GQ video bullshit but these are good.

[Orbitus]

So your average voter is going to trawl the internet looking for these things?

Call me old fashioned but isnt the entire point of giving speeches the opportunity to explain your policies?

Oh wait... Hillary has spent her entire time on the stand slating Trump. A strategy thats clearly not working... maybe she should start talking more about herself and what shes going to do rather than focusing entirely on her opponent.

Trump is the one that hasn't explained how he is going to implement these policies other than the wall. The wall that will not get built because Mexico isn't going to pay for it. If he is asked about things for in depth explanations, his standard reply is something along the lines of "We will hire people, the best people, to get a plan going for it, don't we love those people?" That's it. He hasn't explained ANYTHING on the spot. But after the fact he makes something on his website that still doesn't explain things. That is why his website is REACTIVE to what is asked of him, Hillary has been PROACTIVE. She has more policies and explains them in DETAIL on the spot and on her website that you still ignore.