Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

276 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      113
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      112
    • Indifferent
      44


Recommended Posts

I kinda have to agree- if the the stuff Trump has said is still worthy of discussion, than surely what Hillary's done should receive the same attention?

A lot of people are saying the debate moderator was pretty biased, keeping the heat on Trump while mostly neglecting anything on Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would have loved a debate about policy since I am so fundamentally against every one of Hillary's economic policies and I would have just been call "FACT-CHECK THAT SHIT" all night long.

Also Tryhard mentioned Snowden.

Here's my own take on whistleblowers. A whistleblower is someone who is trying to put corruption on full view in public notice. So each case must be handled seperately. First and foremost, the information that the whistleblower has must be accurately reviewed. If it shows a case of corruption or another morally abhorant act, I'm absolutely for no punishment for the whistleblower. But if there is no evidence of corruption or egrarious action, then that's aid and comfort.

Each one has to be case by case.

Edited by Deplorable Pepe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would have loved a debate about policy since I am so fundamentally against every one of Hillary's economic policies and I would have just been call "FACT-CHECK THAT SHIT" all night long.

Economics and trade was one of their first talking points iirc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd LOVE to hear of a single respected economist who supports trump's economic plans

Like, business economists aren't the ones usually voting democratic, but i saw a suvey of them, and they were voting like 55% clinton, 15% Johnson, 14% Trump

I mean, i don't see protectionism + bigger deficts (caused by tax cuts on the rich rather than infrastructure spending) being liked by economists

Edited by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. trump didn't want to talk about the clinton foundation because that would open up comments on the trump foundation, which is way worse

2. holt was more confrontational towards Trump partially because he kept lying or evading the question. The Iraq war question was actually directed towards Hillary- Hillary turned it onto Trump and then Holt had to be confrontational bc Trump refused to admit a well-documented fact; that he was for the war at the time.

3. trump actually brought up libya at least twice, as well as emails

trump lied a lot, but my favourite, just because it was so out of nowhere as opposed to the climate change/economy lies, was him talking about the 200 admirals and generals who are supporting him, when in fact there are only 40 admirals/generals in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd LOVE to hear of a single respected economist who supports trump's economic plans

Like, business economists aren't the ones usually voting democratic, but i saw a suvey of them, and they were voting like 55% clinton, 15% Johnson, 14% Trump

I mean, i don't see protectionism + bigger deficts (caused by tax cuts on the rich rather than infrastructure spending) being liked by economists

I think Trump's economic policies are semi-garbage while Clinton's are even worse.

I would like to see tax cuts across the board and would prefer a flat tax.

Also, sauce me.

Edit: Hmm...

Check out @PrisonPlanet's Tweet: https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/780758268792668160?s=09

Edited by Deplorable Pepe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprise surprise Fox News and breitbart and politico said trump won

Because anyone who was watching the debates saw Trump as fairly weak and he was also very wrong on the majority of the shit he said

Economists have also said that Clintons plan is leagues better than Trump, just cause you say it or disagree with it doesn't make it true

EDIT would like to point out that online public polls are prone to raids too lol have you seen the Donald's subreddit? It's a giant circle jerk known for brigading and apparently /pol is the same shit

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trump lied a lot, but my favourite, just because it was so out of nowhere as opposed to the climate change/economy lies, was him talking about the 200 admirals and generals who are supporting him, when in fact there are only 40 admirals/generals in the US.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/retired-generals-admirals-endorse-trump-227755

He's likely counting in retired admirals/generals to add up to over 200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprise surprise Fox News and breitbart and politico said trump won

Because anyone who was watching the debates saw Trump as fairly weak and he was also very wrong on the majority of the shit he said

Economists have also said that Clintons plan is leagues better than Trump, just cause you say it or disagree with it doesn't make it true

CNBC, Time, Fortune...

Economists also think that Thomas Piketty's plan to tax the rich at 80% (which is theft) is acceptable so... yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNBC, Time, Fortune...

Economists also think that Thomas Piketty's plan to tax the rich at 80% (which is theft) is acceptable so... yeah.

Do they, though? It's not something i see being brought up on places like forbes or the economist, which i read quite often, for exemple.

What I do see they mention is that tax breaks for the rich don't affect the economy positively nearly as much as giving tax breaks to low and middle classes.

Also, sauce me.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/08/22/by-4-to-1-margin-business-economists-say-clinton-would-manage-economy-better-than-trump/amp/ Edited by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's acceptable, used to be the norm before Reagan

Unless America wasn't great then

Hold on.

You think that taxing the rich 80% is acceptable?

On what basis? Who are you to say "I deserve some of your money because you are successful"? Are you really trying to say that it is acceptable for the public to steal the rich's money "for the greater good"?

This is important because a lot of people like to villanize tax cuts when they don't get that the top 1% already pay about 50% of the taxes in America. And yet, it is unacceptable to them that successful people prosper without realizing that these people are creating wealth for more than just themselves (I mean society in general).

Do they, though? It's not something i see being brought up on places like forbes or the economist, which i read quite often, for exemple.

What I do see they mention is that tax breaks for the rich don't affect the economy positively nearly as much as giving tax breaks to low and middle classes.http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/08/22/by-4-to-1-margin-business-economists-say-clinton-would-manage-economy-better-than-trump/amp/

Thanks for the sauce.

As I stated, I believe in a flat tax. That's my own opinion.

Edited by Deplorable Pepe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on.

You think that taxing the rich 80% is acceptable?

On what basis? Who are you to say "I deserve some of your money because you are successful"? Are you really trying to say that it is acceptable for the public to steal the rich's money "for the greater good"?

This is important because a lot of people like to villanize tax cuts when they don't get that the top 1% already pay about 50% of the taxes in America. And yet, it is unacceptable to them that successful people prosper without realizing that these people are creating wealth for more than just themselves (I mean society in general).

When the 1% makes 100x more than the 99, there's a problem. Personally, I hate the Income Tax, and would switch it for excise taxes and high (Read: 25% or higher) sales tax any day. Sounds extreme, but to balance this, there needs to be lax restrictions on starting business in the US, along with improved education standards, so that the 1% becomes the 10% or even 20%, though success really shouldn't measured in numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the 1% makes 100x more than the 99, there's a problem. Personally, I hate the Income Tax, and would switch it for excise taxes and high (Read: 25% or higher) sales tax any day. Sounds extreme, but to balance this, there needs to be lax restrictions on starting business in the US, along with improved education standards, so that the 1% becomes the 10% or even 20%, though success really shouldn't measured in numbers.

I don't agree with the idea that this is an issue.

First of all, 1% means having a salary of about $450,000 or more. If we tax them at 80%, they are now making less than $100,000. That's not a cushy life anymore.

Secondly, I have a fundamental problem with the idea of democratically stealing money from the rich. Because that is what taxes are, especially when they are uneven. It is punishing the rich for being successful and claiming that you deserve a part of that money. I don't care if the money is going to a good cause, I take issue with the fact that the rich have to part with a vast portion of their earnings at the end of a gun.

Thirdly, I know a leftist (not saying any of you feel the same but maybe you do) that will swear up and down that Capitalism is evil. Capitalism is responsible for the success of South Korea, Hong Kong and bringing a billion people out of poverty in Asia over a 30 year period. And none of that included heavily taxing the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this article by the Washington Post articulates the issues with online polls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/27/no-matter-how-garbage-the-poll-if-it-shows-that-donald-trump-won-the-debate-hell-endorse-it

Basically, these online polls have no checks in place to stop people from flooding polls, and can not be TRUSTED as representative. An open internet poll does not hold the same value as a closed poll done utilizing actual polling samples. CNN was a small sample size, but they stated their sample and the bias they knew of. That is why it holds more weight as a poll.

The online polls are... [o]pen to anyone, meaning that anybody with an Internet connection can go and cast a vote. Anyone in Russia, for example, or in Canada. Anyone who is 12 years old or who is not a citizen. Literally anyone can weigh in at any time. And can do so more than once: Vote once from your phone and once at your desktop. No reason not to.
Trump is even making up polls that didn't exist.
The article even directly addresses that handwritten tweet you pointed to at the end.

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/780758268792668160?s=09

The answer is: Yes, any poll that used a non-scientific methodology and allowed anyone to weigh in to generate its results is nonsense that should be ignored.

As I put it to someone else, throwing more garbage onto a garbage pile doesn't make it a mansion, it makes it a garbage dump.

Honestly, imo most polls are pretty irrelevant, as there are always going to serious questions about the samples they took. So why exactly are we supposed to trust the polls? Especially THESE polls?

---

I would be far more interested in any reasons people had for declaring #TrumpWon that debate... because I am curious what exactly they were watching, or looking for if they believe that?

If winning the debate meant actually engaging in a debate, Trump Lost.

If winning the debate meant appearing Presidential, Trump Lost.

If winning the debate meant hammering Hillary, Trump Lost.

If winning the debate meant being incoherent and ignoring the actual debate though... well then, #TRUMPWON! :D

...this just seems a little desperate of a maneuver, and hearkens to words at the end of the debate by the NBC panel, that whoever was angrier/more on the attack after the debate would be the one who felt they lost.

#TrumpWon using these internet polls is damage control. Pure and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trump's economic policies are semi-garbage while Clinton's are even worse.

I would like to see tax cuts across the board and would prefer a flat tax.

Also, sauce me.

Edit: Hmm...

Check out @PrisonPlanet's Tweet: https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/780758268792668160?s=09

why would you prefer a flat tax? because it's "fairer"? then you fall into the same mathematical trap most conservative economic people fall into.

CNBC, Time, Fortune...

Economists also think that Thomas Piketty's plan to tax the rich at 80% (which is theft) is acceptable so... yeah.

why is 80% theft, but not 15%, or 9%, 1%? what arbitrary amount constitutes theft? and why?

Hold on.

You think that taxing the rich 80% is acceptable?

On what basis? Who are you to say "I deserve some of your money because you are successful"? Are you really trying to say that it is acceptable for the public to steal the rich's money "for the greater good"?

This is important because a lot of people like to villanize tax cuts when they don't get that the top 1% already pay about 50% of the taxes in America. And yet, it is unacceptable to them that successful people prosper without realizing that these people are creating wealth for more than just themselves (I mean society in general).

Thanks for the sauce.

As I stated, I believe in a flat tax. That's my own opinion.

there's too much here and i have class soon, but i would recommend reading up a bit more on our tax history. though rates were as high as 91%, under eisenhower and others, those rates were not actually true to what was paid.

the 1% also owns around 40% of the wealth, the top 20% around 93%.

to give an idea of the order of magnitude, $5mn in taxes from $10mn income is desirable compared to $10k from $30k, or even $5k. i don't think you truly grasp how wealthy the top 1% is, let alone smaller fractions of that 1%. say, the 1% of the 1%, or the 1% of the 1% of the 1%. these people could pay 99.0% income in taxes and be better off than you. for life.

shifting the tax burden onto the poor in the name of "fairness," isn't just silly mathematics, it'd be apocalyptic for the bottom 80% of the people.

When the 1% makes 100x more than the 99, there's a problem. Personally, I hate the Income Tax, and would switch it for excise taxes and high (Read: 25% or higher) sales tax any day. Sounds extreme, but to balance this, there needs to be lax restrictions on starting business in the US, along with improved education standards, so that the 1% becomes the 10% or even 20%, though success really shouldn't measured in numbers.

it's actually more like 1000x more than the top 10, and 100000x more than the bottom 90.

what's wrong with the income tax? and why is it ok to take away a progressive tax in favor of archaic tax practices that would again shift burden to people who cannot afford it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's wrong with the income tax? and why is it ok to take away a progressive tax in favor of archaic tax practices that would again shift burden to people who cannot afford it?

Judicial meddling. When it comes to economics, the bar doesn't have the right to levy their opinion, just to make sure the policies are obeyed. I'm that petty. Plus, tax returns are a PITA to fill out, and might even require you to backpay the IRS hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Speaking of, the IRS is used as a political weapon all too often, "randomly" auditing organizations that seem to not fall in line with the Presidency. Granted, they would abuse excise taxing also, so I guess I just want the Fed to tax us rather than the IRS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah... btw, as an example of why the online polls are pretty sketchy at best. These tweets highlight it all.

https://twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99/status/780821825009831937

In an actual vote that seems an awful lot like ballot box stuffing?

...actually, kind of worrying when you think about elections going online. The possibility of election Hacking never seemed so lucrative/dangerous. :\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the idea that this is an issue.

First of all, 1% means having a salary of about $450,000 or more. If we tax them at 80%, they are now making less than $100,000. That's not a cushy life anymore.

Secondly, I have a fundamental problem with the idea of democratically stealing money from the rich. Because that is what taxes are, especially when they are uneven. It is punishing the rich for being successful and claiming that you deserve a part of that money. I don't care if the money is going to a good cause, I take issue with the fact that the rich have to part with a vast portion of their earnings at the end of a gun.

Thirdly, I know a leftist (not saying any of you feel the same but maybe you do) that will swear up and down that Capitalism is evil. Capitalism is responsible for the success of South Korea, Hong Kong and bringing a billion people out of poverty in Asia over a 30 year period. And none of that included heavily taxing the rich.

I'm not a supporter of 80% tax rates on the rich at all (though i do support progressive income taxes), but that's NOT how progressive taxation works.

Let's suppose somewhere has a 10% tax rate on incomes below 100000, 20% between 100000 and 200000, 30% between 200000 and 300000, 40% from 300000 to 400000 and 50% beyond 400000. Someone who earns 500000 money units wouldn't pay 250000 in income taxes, but rather 10% on their first 100000, 20% on the second, 30% on the third, 40% on the fourth and 50% on the fifth one, i.e 10000 + 20000 + 30000 + 40000+ 50000 = 150000

I mean, i'm a big supporter of capitalism, though with social balances (the ideology known as social liberalism -not related to what americans call liberalism). Regardless, what brought those places development was open markets, and fiscal responsability -i.e controled deficts and spending. Guess what person running for president wants to massively increase the debt and basically isolate America's market from the world?

That's why i literally don't understand people claiming to be fiscally conservative voting for Trump lol. Trump is anything but fiscally conservative, he's fiscally crazy.

Edited by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly don't see how anyone who watched could say Trump won. When he said he had better temperament the crowd literally laughed at him, and then Hillary proceeded to run him into the ground. The cybersecurity questions were a perfect time to bring in the emails, but instead Trump tells us his 10 year old son is really good with computers.

The only time Hillary made me go "what are you doing?" is when she plugged her book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judicial meddling. When it comes to economics, the bar doesn't have the right to levy their opinion, just to make sure the policies are obeyed. I'm that petty. Plus, tax returns are a PITA to fill out, and might even require you to backpay the IRS hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Speaking of, the IRS is used as a political weapon all too often, "randomly" auditing organizations that seem to not fall in line with the Presidency. Granted, they would abuse excise taxing also, so I guess I just want the Fed to tax us rather than the IRS.

There are many free resources online to make taxes easy to fill out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many free resources online to make taxes easy to fill out.

Maybe if you're single and don't have kids. I bet Rezzy or Elieson would tell you differently. The former is married, and both have at least one kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk of stealing from the rich, yet the rich make their millions off the coattails of the poor. The rich essentially get to set all the rules, and the vast majority of people have little recourse.

Perhaps it'd be fairer if minimum wage could keep up with inflation. If healthcare, rent and utilities hadn't skyrocketed in the past decade. If wages kept up with the cost of living (when taking inflation into account, for example, a teacher's salary in NC has dropped 13% in the past 15 years). I've been in the U.S. for eight years and in that time period I've seen rents on apartments rise in my city by $700-800; healthcare costs have doubled, our phone bill has decreased data usage for $20 more/month, and all the meanwhile your annual job raises have all but disappeared (the only way to obtain a higher salary now is to find work elsewhere, and how often should people be expected to job-hop?), and benefits have been cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of content here.

First to Phoenix, I think all tax is theft. But I am willing to accept taxes in certain places because I believe that the trade-off is worth it. Security for one. Public education up until age 18 as another (that would be on a state level only). Public education is the one that seems hypocritical but realistically, I don't think that charity can reasonably cover schools for those who can't pay, even if I want it to.

I don't believe in a flat tax for the purpose of "fairness of the system". The flat tax is simply because if I am going to forced to pay taxes, it is because I want to enjoy the benefit as much as the person next door if I need to be taxed for it. And likewise, I shouldn't pay more or less for it proportionately. Sure, it hurts the poor class more since 15% (example, not my actual want because I haven't looked into the specifics) of 30k is significantly more than 15% of 300k. But the logic for anything else doesn't make sense. I shouldn't have to pay 30% while he pays 15% because I make more just to enjoy the same benefit.

Again, education is the one exception to this thought. And that's based more on reality and accepting that it levels out the opportunity level without actually ruining those who don't participate. Basically, a net positive trade-off in my mind.

Res mentioned raising minimum wage. I'd rather lower it if I can't abolish it all together. As someone who lives on just more than minimum wage and has done so for 5 years, I think that it is terrible economically. Bot to mention that it leads to cost of living having to raise due to devaluing the dollar.

As for the debate itself, I think it was a tie and that was with heavy moderator help from Lester Holt.

Am I accusing Holt of favouring Hillary? Absolutely. Does it bother me? Surprisingly no. But I do think that it took two people to actually break Trump and that only happened 45 minutes in.

Let's put this in perspective. There is nothing Trump could say that would surprise me regarding Clinton. And I have already stated multiple times that I don't support for his policies but for my hatred of Hillary (both as a person and policy maker), her party and her main voter base (the regressive left). So I looked at it as entertainment. Trump was great for 45 minutes and ended up looking out of it at the end. And Hillary needed the help of Holt who interrupted Trump 6x more than Hillary.

A tie.

Now for all the polls, I find it hilarious because both sides are looking for justification and it's funny. Like I said, tie in my opinion or even slightly for Hillary. Trump definately didn't win and screwed up quite a bit (YOU MORON, YOU DON'T ADVOCATE FOR NO FLY/NO BUY).

Edited by Deplorable Pepe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...