Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Edge-]

Not sure if this got posted and I missed it, but it seems like Patrick Bateman lookalike Donnie Jr. is following in his fathers footsteps...of saying stupid shit and needing to "clarify" his remarks. Because apparently joking about gas chambers, especially when projecting in the most extreme way possible, is somehow an issue for a lot of folks.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...htmlstory.html

[Breccia]

And for people who missed it while he was talking about adding 25 million new jobs...um, somehow...Trump walked back on his tax breaks...um, somewhat. Instead of cutting taxes by $10 trillion, he'd only cut by $4.4 trillion, without adding to the Federal Budget. Um, somehow. Oh wait, he talked about "dynamic scoring" which means his suggested budget includes how many jobs would be created. So, those 25 million jobs, which no President has EVER done, are included. Remember, that his tax breaks are still largely aimed at the top 1%, and trickle-down economics didn't work. The income gap in the USA widened while real wages dropped in Reagan's tenure, and I've already linked how his job growth was stagnant. But I brought backup just to make sure.
Reuters
Forbes
CNN
US News and World Report
CBS News
ABC News
the Wall Street Journal
PBS
the New York Times
the Christian Science Monitor which someone here called out as a good source recently, thanks whoever that was
Harvard University
Stanford University
and the Pope
But my favorite is Ben Stein, who by the way, is not only on FOX News but also voting for Trump. He said "Well I don’t think Mr. Trump’s plan is going to work very well. I don’t think we need that tax cut when we’re running deficits the size we are running. I think the evidence that tax cuts stimulate business in any kind of meaningful way, at least not sufficient to overcome the tax revenue loss, is extremely poor to put it mildly. I think the idea of cutting taxes on the rich in a time when there is so much concern about inequality is not a good idea. " Later, when confronted with the aged saying "a rising tide lifts all ships" he responded "not the ones underwater". That's right: a highly conservative economist, one of the best FOX has, flat-out denied trickle-down economics and they aired it on live TV. FOX News video here.

Anyhow, his plan is to cut taxes on the rich, and the savings by the rich choosing to create 25 million jobs pays for half of it. The rest is paid for by cutting other federal programs, except defense (the largest item on the budget, and he's pledged to increase it further), by 1% per year. Now, he's in the GOP, federal budget cuts are completely expected...except it includes Medicare and Social Security. That's right: Trump just pledged to cut Medicare and Social Security by 1% per year.

And for those of you thinking "would that cover the difference?" the answer is "no" Non-defense federal spending is about $3.3 trillion. Cutting 1% off of that would, yes, be $33 billion. Not bad. But nowhere near what Trump requires. It won't even pay for his stupid fucking wall, let alone his tax cuts. He's off by orders of magnitude, plural.

Oh, and that Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget I was just talking about? Has already come out and criticized this, saying "He's moving in the right direction by pursuing a less costly tax plan and identifying some spending cuts to help pay for it. But the plan appears to rely on rosy assumptions and murky policy changes." They are still bipartisan, nonprofit, and independent.

I'd also like to add that Trump's big claim to get the economy to grow by 4% is still doable. Obama did it three times. Clinton did it every year he was President. So regardless of how impressive he makes it sound, it's actually pretty common.

- - - Updated - - -

Where do you see this?:

He didn't. Trump never promised to expand Medicare or Medicaid, and has in fact pledged the opposite on both. I linked them today.

EDIT: The lowest top marginal tax rate this country has had for a whole century was during the first Bush administration. From 1989 to 1993, Bush added 5 million jobs to the economy. Nowhere near 25 million. Trump wants to make the top rate the same as it was then. There is no evidence his tax plan will create the jobs he claims it will, especially if you consider other features like his plan to alienate trade with the EU, China, and Mexico.

Source: BLS and whatever the hell CCH is.

EDIT EDIT: To cover the rest of the $4.4 trillion gap, Trump would literally have to take 20% of the GDP and just give it to the federal government. Which would be a growth of negative sixteen percent.

[PACOX]

For the love of God I hope we don't have to deal with baby Trump in 20 years.

[Breccia]

For the love of God I hope we don't have to deal with baby Trump in 20 years.

Ivanka might not be so bad...

[Orbitus]

Correct, she has not had a conviction. But the perception she is guilty is pretty strong with the public. And in a political race, that is a very important factor.

Then why are they not doing the same for Trump? Considering he is closer to going to jail for fraud and paying MILLIONS in damages to people for defrauding them. Then you have the bribery cases, the pedophilia/rape lawsuit, and all of the other lawsuits against him for non-payment and whatnot. It is HYPOCRISY at its finest where he skates away scott-free but if she fucking coughs the wrong way it is a scandal and investigations are fucking launched.

[cubby]

And you believe shes not criminal or corrupt because that narrative appeals to you.

This is called an impasse, and that's just the way things go in the realm of political discourse.

No, it's not an impasse. Here's an example: please list all the trial dates for charges against Hillary coming up. Now list all the trial dates for pending charges against Trump.

Got it now?

[Merkava]

Then why are they not doing the same for Trump? Considering he is closer to going to jail for fraud

Does civil fraud carry the possibility of jail time?

[ringpriest]

While I have little doubt Trump will attempt to use his power to punish people he dislikes should he take office, you need a reason to deport legal immigrants.

Why would he deport his critics, when he can just use the precedents set by the Obama administration, put a Trump spin on them, and start signing Executive Execution orders en masse? Perhaps he can make a game show out of it: who will First Citizen Trump execute today?

[Orbitus]

I am sure they did not factor in his job growth and improved economy and the reduction of waste within the Federal Government. They are of course not for him.

Probably because his "job growth" would be the opposite? This guy, who's job is an economist. If they passed what could pass in 4 years. Clinton would add 3.3 million jobs in 4 years. But Trump would LOSE 7.6 million jobs with his policies. http://fortune.com/2016/08/11/hillar...on-trump-jobs/

- - - Updated - - -

Does civil fraud carry the possibility of jail time?

My mistake, I thought the New York or California case against him, that one was criminal and the other civil, but I guess they are both civil. Either way, he has to worry about the criminal case for bribery in New York for bribing Florida AG Pam Bondi and Texas Governor Greg Abbott to drop the cases against him.

[Wells]

Why would he deport his critics, when he can just use the precedents set by the Obama administration, put a Trump spin on them, and start signing Executive Execution orders en masse? Perhaps he can make a game show out of it: who will First Citizen Trump execute today?

What precedent exactly are you trying to point to here?

[ringpriest]

Trump apparently wants to get rid of food safety regulations; a press release that the fat fascist's campaign has since thrown down the memory hole, included this:


Trump wants to be the faux-gold plated dictator of a Neo-Third World United States, and Americans have a simple choice: defeat him and his ilk (which struggle will not be ended in November, even if he is laughed off the public stage after a humiliating defeat) or see the US become a cyber-punk style dystopia (which it is in danger of turning into anyway, but Trump guarantees it).

[Merkava]

My mistake, I thought the New York or California case against him, that one was criminal and the other civil, but I guess they are both civil. Either way, he has to worry about the criminal case for bribery in New York for bribing Florida AG Pam Bondi and Texas Governor Greg Abbott to drop the cases against him.

What criminal case? There hasn't been an arrest or a booking. No charges have been filed. How does that constitute a "criminal case?"

[ringpriest]

What precedent exactly are you trying to point to here?

This one: "Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil"

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Combine that with this (ultimately part of the same series of events): "Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans"

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

Now, put the above in a blender with a fat helping of Trump and it doesn't take much to see him ordering executions on Trumped-up pretenses (like disagreeing with the Maximum Trump, or pointing out that he's an actor who is not a successful or competent executive, but who plays one on TV).

[Orbitus]

What criminal case? There hasn't been an arrest or a booking. No charges have been filed. How does that constitute a "criminal case?"

The one that the New York AG is building? http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...ndation-228125

Then the fact that EVERY MAJOR newspaper in Florida just DEMANDED a criminal case against Bondi and Trump for the bribe to drop the case, or "donation" as Trump calls it. http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/09/1...ibe-pam-bondi/ Since there is actual damages and victims with this case since they couldn't join the other 2 civil cases, then this is grounds for bribery and fraud.

[Breccia]

What criminal case? There hasn't been an arrest or a booking. No charges have been filed.

Yet. The word you are looking for is "yet". The FBI announced no charges would be filed, that the case was not being moved forward. The criminal case in New York has not said that. Now, they might say that later. It is quite possible they won't find enough evidence to proceed and announce dropping the investigation. Quite frankly, it'd be pretty ballsy to try to arrest someone running for President on anything other than a smoking gun. But the investigation, which yes is a criminal case, the part that comes before the arrest, is ongoing. Like Trump's taxes. Which are also criminal investigations, technically (tax evasion carries Capone-like jail time).

Also, don't forget that Trump is the one who said someone under investigation, not trial, investigation, should not run for President. And now, he is.

Clinton is not currently under investigation. For anything.

[Surfd]

For the love of God I hope we don't have to deal with baby Trump in 20 years.

May be sooner then you think. He might have an illigitimate bastard kicking around out there that is well past baby years:

A lawsuit has been filed against trump accusing him of multiple counts of sexual assault / rape against a 13 year old girl..

So either the feminist nutzo crazies decided to toss someone under the bus with a bogus lawsuit against one of the most scrutinized men on the planet at the moment in an effort to promote some agenda or another, or Trump just got one MAJOR mother of a wrench thrown into his works should this have even the slightest grain of truth to it. Cause once this hits tumbler and the like, expect it to make the Hindenburg look like a firecracker.

[Breccia]

May be sooner --

Dammit, not the child rape thing again. For crying out loud, Trump likes women with big fake tits. There's no way he raped a child. The only thing this case is good for is when Trump/Trump's supporters say "Clinton was accused of XXX" we can now say "Trump was accused of raping a child" just to point out the hypocrisy.

[Merkava]

The one that the New York AG is building? http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...ndation-228125

Then the fact that EVERY MAJOR newspaper in Florida just DEMANDED a criminal case against Bondi and Trump for the bribe to drop the case, or "donation" as Trump calls it. http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/09/1...ibe-pam-bondi/ Since there is actual damages and victims with this case since they couldn't join the other 2 civil cases, then this is grounds for bribery and fraud.

You said a "criminal case." That's not a criminal case.

Criminal Case : A court proceeding in which a person who is charged with having committed or omitted an act against the community or state is brought to trial and either found not guilty or guilty and sentenced.

And it doesn't make a difference how many newspapers make demands. It's not a criminal case until charges are filed.

I can find all kinds of links with all kinds of people accusing Hilly Clinton of all kinds of things. That doesn't mean that any of those things constitute "criminal cases."

[PACOX]

Ivanka might not be so bad...

She her RNC speech? She is only a Republican by association

[Merkava]

Yet. The word you are looking for is "yet". The FBI announced no charges would be filed, that the case was not being moved forward. The criminal case in New York has not said that. Now, they might say that later. It is quite possible they won't find enough evidence to proceed and announce dropping the investigation. Quite frankly, it'd be pretty ballsy to try to arrest someone running for President on anything other than a smoking gun. But the investigation, which yes is a criminal case, the part that comes before the arrest, is ongoing. Like Trump's taxes. Which are also criminal investigations, technically (tax evasion carries Capone-like jail time).

Also, don't forget that Trump is the one who said someone under investigation, not trial, investigation, should not run for President. And now, he is.

Clinton is not currently under investigation. For anything.

In reverse order, Hillary Clinton is definitely under investigation by the United States Congress. For whatever that's worth.

If you want to say that there's no criminal case against Trump yet, that's fine. I have no disagreement with that. There may in fact be one soon. If the case has merits, then I can say that I hope it moves forward. By the same token, though, I can say that there's no criminal case against Hillary Clinton for perjury, yet, either.

But the fact of the matter is, an investigation does not constitute a "criminal case." An investigation, or an inquiry in this instance, may lead to a criminal case, but the two are different things.