Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Shalcker]

The problem is that in this equation, either bringing the jobs back, or putting in tariffs, the products they create cost more. Which means everyone pays more for goods.

But everyone will also have more money to spend on those goods (because they'll have actual paying job rather then welfare). Which can mean that products cost more yet gets bought more too, leading to more rather then less profits.

There are many ways this can play out.

He does not want to raise minimum wage, he believes in trickle down economics, which will just make the rich richer and create more income inequality.

Because "minimum wage" is horrible even after being risen. "Living wage" is what any decent worker should get, not "minimum wage" subsidized by government welfare to keep people from dropping dead from hunger after their rent and taxes.

And if you cannot pay living wage you should not exist as a company, you're basically leeching on government spending.

And, btw, rising minimum wage is ALSO imposing costs on company, not much different from tariffs as far as profits are concerned! It just targets companies already within US, ones you would actually want to preserve...

In the end, the people he is trying to help are the rich, not the poor. If the price of food/goods raises, I will pay more, but it won't break the bank for me. From someone that is having issues making ends meet, they will be SOL.

They'll have option to get a job. Many people are already SOL as it is.

[Breccia]

Again, the very fact that she's --

Still got nothing, huh? Didn't think so.

If you're going to demand people put blame where it belongs, you should really pick your battles. Your attempts to move the goalposts ("well she didn't change it either") is laughable. You FAIL. You have NOTHING.

[Aggrophobic]

Again, the very fact that she's been in office and hasn't closed the very loopholes being talked about means that she's complicit and therefore is responsible for them.

She isn't going to close them after being elected this time, so I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Trump says he's going to close them, and she had her chance and didn't.

There's nothing to "prove", it's simply naive to think Clinton is going to behave differently after being elected for the 900th time. She is the establishment. Embrace it. You can't be for the establishment politician and change. That's the fundamental problem here.

Wait, are you somehow convinced that if you're a politician you can decide anything and everything alone?

Please tell me you're just trolling here. Please!

[LaserSharkDFB]

Again, the very fact that she's been in office and hasn't closed the very loopholes being talked about means that she's complicit and therefore is responsible for them.

She isn't going to close them after being elected this time, so I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Trump says he's going to close them, and she had her chance and didn't.

There's nothing to "prove", it's simply naive to think Clinton is going to behave differently after being elected for the 900th time. She is the establishment. Embrace it. You can't be for the establishment politician and change. That's the fundamental problem here.

You haven't cured cancer, therefore you are complicit with it and are responsible for everyone who dies from it. You monster.

There are roughly five billion worthy causes out there and only so much time and effort Senators can devote to each one. Claiming that she's complicit and responsible just because she didn't focus on a specific issue, especially when there was no way to actually effect change on it, is incredibly disingenuous.

[Noxx79]

No, they made millions by working as lawyers and putting their money in investment firms, like lots of other rich people. Being in office and being rich does not make you guilty of being rich because you sold your office. Mitt Romney is rich, he held office. Did he sell his office? Coincidence? Nope, just paranoid conspiracy theories.

You are going to have to show me some proof they sold their office, otherwise you are just some loonie on the internet screaming conspiracy theories.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, she won the popular vote over bernie by 3.5 million votes.

That would be why in a Jake Tapper interview Bernie was asked, "Why should the DNC chose you over the person who won the most votes?" to which Bernie stumbled a bit before saying that the nominee should go to the person with the most excited base.

BOOM! Just because it is in your head doesn't make it a fact.

Hillary vote total: 16,914,722
Bernie vote total: 13,206,428

Facts suck huh?

Trump on the other hand...

[Breccia]

Well, very similar to the time the press called him out for bailing on a charity, Trump got embarrassed when he gave his own campaign $31,000 in one month.

He just wired his campaign $10 million.

So:
a) still doesn't bring him up to his $100 million promise
b) still a little late in the campaign to have a huge effect.

But, better than yesterday.

EDIT: Also, this still has Trump's campaign with less than half of Clinton's money, and also, it fails to full match the "I will triple your donation" challenge he emailed his followers on Oct 1.

[DeadmanWalking]

Again, the very fact that she's been in office and hasn't closed the very loopholes being talked about means that she's complicit and therefore is responsible for them.

A senator does not rubber stamp tax loopholes into or out of existence. Go watch school house rocks because your knowledge of the law system is shockingly deficient.

She isn't going to close them after being elected this time, so I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Trump says he's going to close them, and she had her chance and didn't.

She said she would close the ones he abuses, and others. He has said he would close a list of loopholes, of which none of them are loopholes he uses.

There's nothing to "prove", it's simply naive to think Clinton is going to behave differently after being elected for the 900th time. She is the establishment. Embrace it. You can't be for the establishment politician and change. That's the fundamental problem here.

I don't have a problem with establishment politicians, had you guys elected any one of those other 16 establishment guys they would of stomped Hillary with probably the exception of Christie who has a new bridge scandal. They certainly never would of been caught filming a speech about grabbing pussies or making cameos in porn like Donald has. Establishment politicians can be caught being corrupt, Donald is just a complete disaster of a human being. Hillary can at least tell me her parties policies, Donald doesn't know the policies of his own party because he isn't a Republican.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Not going to get my hopes up... but the FBI is opening a new case about Hillary's e-mails. Breaking news, and all I have for a source is a french website. But I'm sure you'll hear about it soon enough.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Well, very similar to the time the press called him out for bailing on a charity, Trump got embarrassed when he gave his own campaign $31,000 in one month.

He just wired his campaign $10 million.

So:
a) still doesn't bring him up to his $100 million promise
b) still a little late in the campaign to have a huge effect.

But, better than yesterday.

Does it really count as giving it to the campaign when it'll just go to the $47 million it owes him?

[Daerio]

The claim being put forth here is that once Clinton is president she is going to vote against her own economic best interest and the economic interest of those funding her. A fairly shaky claim to begin with.

You're saying I have to prove she actively voted in her own economic best interest previously while in office. I'm saying she didn't need to, all she had to do was inherit a broken system and perpetuate it, which is exactly what she did.

Contrary evidence would be Clinton being responsible for driving reform before running for this election. More than talking points to get elected; laws being passed that resulted in change or at least effort to do so. Does this exist? Nope. Funny thing, that.

[Cyberowl]

So she's responsible for everything good about the government we love she chooses to take credit for, but none of the bad stuff we don't like because you can't prove she's directly responsible.

Got it.

It's kinda ironic since you are the one laying the blame on her for not being able to close the loopholes all by herself.

[Daerio]

It's kinda ironic since you are the one laying the blame on her for not being able to close the loopholes all by herself.

I'm saying she didn't even try, and she has incentives not to. It's foolish to think she will, but that's the bullshit you're trying to sell here that nobody is buying.

[Cyberowl]

I'm saying she didn't even try, and she has incentives not to. It's foolish to think she will, but that's the bullshit you're trying to sell here that nobody is buying.

What incentive does Trump have to close those? He is the guy who was subsidized by the US tax payer using those loopholes.

[Breccia]

You're saying I have to prove she actively voted in her own economic best interest previously while in office.

No. We are saying you said this:

He uses the loopholes, he doesn't write them. That's the politicians. That's Clinton. At least assign the blame where it's due.

You have failed to provide even a single loophole that Clinton wrote, that Trump used. You cannot back up your own argument.

Next time, pick a battle you can actually win. This wasn't it. Give it up. It's over. You FAIL.

[Daerio]

I think this narrative is also a bit clunky.

Why do most people not murder someone? Is it because it is against the law, or because they know it's wrong? If you need laws to tell you right from wrong, you have no moral compass. And that is exactly the feeling I get about Trump.

Your argument equates to "You should pay more taxes to the government because you know it's the right thing to do."

We aren't talking about murder, we're talking about paying taxes and nobody wants to do it more than they have to.

[Breccia]

Why do most people not murder someone? Is it because it is against the law, or because they know it's wrong? If you need laws to tell you right from wrong, you have no moral compass. And that is exactly the feeling I get about Trump.

The term you are looking for is "Lawful Evil" or, being charitable, "Lawful Neutral".

[LaserSharkDFB]

The claim being put forth here is that once Clinton is president she is going to vote against her own economic best interest and the economic interest of those funding her. A fairly shaky claim to begin with.

You're saying I have to prove she actively voted in her own economic best interest previously while in office. I'm saying she didn't need to, all she had to do was inherit a broken system and perpetuate it, which is exactly what she did.

Contrary evidence would be Clinton being responsible for driving reform before running for this election. More than talking points to get elected; laws being passed that resulted in change or at least effort to do so. Does this exist? Nope. Funny thing, that.

Time for something you hate: logic. If the question is 'will she reform the tax code' and the only data available is 'she hasn't voted for or against tax code reform', then the only reasonable answer is 'we don't know'. You can't get to 'she definitely will' or 'she definitely won't' from there.

So, what else do we have? Well, in the 'will' column, she's making the promise to do so, and if she doesn't it'll hurt her politically. In the 'won't' column, she'll save some money.

So ask yourself: with what you know about Hillary, would she prefer to lose political standing, or money? And (as this is the Trump thread) ask the same question, only substitute his name instead.

No matter how you feel about Clinton, you have to admit she's not the one who flaunts her success and wealth.

[Daerio]

No. We are saying you said this:



You have failed to provide even a single loophole that Clinton wrote, that Trump used. You cannot back up your own argument.

Next time, pick a battle you can actually win. This wasn't it. Give it up. It's over. You FAIL.

You're being pedantic and pathetic. It was a general statement you're trying to apply direct "intent" to, are you a mind reader?

[Daerio]

What incentive does Trump have to close those? He is the guy who was subsidized by the US tax payer using those loopholes.

Well, if you believe the Clinton campaign narrative Trump doesn't actually make any money or have any money and he therefore won't be burdened by such a tax increase on the genuinely wealthy?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I pay taxes because I know it is the right thing to do. I always pay something. ANd I give more to organizations and causes I support that ultimately help humanity.

But I am not just talking about taxes, with Trump he seems to lack any kind of empathy for his fellow human beings. He says things that he knows get a rise out of his listeners, he can read reactions well. But his compassion and empathy are lacking. He is only out for himself, and his 'uge ego.

Well, maybe you pay the IRS more than you have to, but I don't think that's a very compelling argument to most Americans, and it isn't one for myself.

Stop making it about some implied morality nonsense when it obviously isn't, and don't try to equate it with murder, that's bullshit.

[Cyberowl]

Well, if you believe the Clinton campaign narrative Trump doesn't actually make any money or have any money and he therefore won't be burdened by such a tax increase on the genuinely wealthy?

Who said I do? And I haven't heard anyone saying that Trump doesn't have any money, just claims that he may not be as wealthy as he tries to sell us.