Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

278 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      115
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      114
    • Indifferent
      44


Recommended Posts

Lol Paul Joseph Watson:

Anyway, as for Trump fans rigging the online polls, I'm actually kinda glad that they're doing it. Trump is a narcissist and hates putting effort in anything (I call it "spoiled rich boy syndrome"). So, if he sees a bunch of easily-rigged internet polls saying he "won", he'll be narcissistic enough to take it as fact, and lazy enough to use that as an excuse to not do any prep for future debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, as for Trump fans rigging the online polls, I'm actually kinda glad that they're doing it. Trump is a narcissist and hates putting effort in anything (I call it "spoiled rich boy syndrome"). So, if he sees a bunch of easily-rigged internet polls saying he "won", he'll be narcissistic enough to take it as fact, and lazy enough to use that as an excuse to not do any prep for future debates.

Agree entirely with this. Absolute mistake if Trump doesn't prepare for the next one. I hope Kellyanne Conway can rectify that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the people who want Hillary jailed are probably the same that call the aforementioned traitors.

Is that so? I think Hillary belongs in jail. I also think Snowden and Manning are in no way traitors but rather heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ how is Snowden a hero? Manning I can get but Snowden is much more gray than villainous or heroic. Based on my understanding of Manning she deserves her freedom, Snowden deserves some kind of house arrest or jail time and Clinton is independent and deserves freedom.

[email protected]'s rant, because not all income is equal. Cost of living generally doesn't scale as easily with your salary which is why the burden shifts to the poor. If someone making 450k and someone making 80k live in the same area (because maybe they work different jobs that only exist in the same area) then a greater fraction of the money of the person making 80k goes into living expenditures than the person making 450k if we assume a flat tax. This is what tax bracketing does to nullify this effect, and it's a progressive tax meaning that if you make 450k then with a 35% tax it ends up being like 20-25% of their total income in taxes (idk I haven't done the calcs in detail). In an equal system everyone would have the same fraction of disposable income unless they want to be homeless and starving. That's why the progressive tax exists.

The reason for increasing minimum wage is because unlike interest minimum wage hasn't risen with inflation. You're talking about devaluing the dollar, but because of inflation minimum wage has seen an effective decrease, so increasing the minimum wage is effectively a correction for devaluation.

If you honestly think Trump/Hillary is a tie you're pretty high. The majority of the debate was Trump trying to bring in baggage, denying literally every accusation despite him saying things like he did word for word, and if you check any fact check website you'll see significantly more facts that Donald got wrong than Hillary. You are saying they're tied but then say you have an overt bias against Hillary which logically means that Hillary won the debate is what I'm taking out of your post, Life. Trump also began his tirade after the initial question, because it looked like it would be a constructive debate until 20 minutes in where Trump went for the insults. No shit the moderator seemed biased against Trump, because he debated like you normally do and you probably relate to it. Your significant bias doesn't even mean Hillary is a slight win; it is a significant win with your significant bias against Hillary.

And no shit Holt interrupted him more, he interrupted her way more and dodged way more questions. When asked about whether or not they'd support the winner of the election he went on a tirade about immigrants and then said "yes" but Clinton was like "I believe in our democracy, so yes." He's a bumbling incoherent mess and Clinton was perfectly coherent; there was a significant difference.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though even with such a rate it is still quite possible for people like Romney who, when releasing his 2011 tax returns, had a 14.1% effective tax rate.

But as Trump says, not paying his taxes makes him smart.

Is that so? I think Hillary belongs in jail. I also think Snowden and Manning are in no way traitors but rather heroes.

Not all. Just that seemed to be most of the opinions I saw regarding between them. (not that I've seen many) Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah as you make more and more money then the tax rate should tend towards 35%, so if he's paying only 14.1% then it's significantly more egregious than the number I laid out where I just took the 20-25% value out of my ass since I'm not in the mood to do calculations on an iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it was considered an extremely low rate and was a point of contention against him considering many middle class workers had more of a % if you include payroll tax (which you would in practice), the average for the very rich was considered to be 23.6% in 2012. I think even considering back then that was one of the things the Obama campaign ran ads against.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-romney-pay-a-lower-rate-in-taxes-than-you/

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3edgy5me

That's not theft, that's you giving the government money in exchange for something. If this is how you're defining theft, then you might as well say that any and all transactions of currency are theft.

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.

I don't know as much about the different forms of taxation as I should, so can someone else pick up on this?

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.

Sounds nice in theory, but you have to come up with a means by which businesses can't exploit the lack of a minimum wage as well.

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.

Because Trump went off-topic/on tangents 6x more than Hillary did. Are you really going to accuse the moderator of bias for doing his job as moderator?

Edited by The Blind Idiot God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how much the rich pay. Taxes are theft.

Income is not even. It doesn't have to be.

Steve Jobs made billions selling iPhones. You decided to buy an iPhone from him and helped make him a billionaire. How is it now your right to say "you know that money that I gave you for your product? I want you to pay for x, y and z and you will do it at the end of a gun"?

Short answer is, that's coercion. It's done at the end of a gun. And that is not OK with me.

Raising taxes on someone successful is theft. All you've done is validate my point. At the end of the day, capitalism allows everyone to proper because all business is done volutarily. Look at South Korea. Look at Hong Kong. Those are examples of nations who lifted themselves out of poverty within a generation. Lure capitalism brought 1 billion people out of poverty in Asia over a 30 year period. And it didn't require a $15 minimum wage.

Also, you admit that Hillary won the debate with help from Holt. Imagine a scenario where Holt interupts Hillary as many times as he interupts Trump. Like any time Hillary claims that the Iran deal was good.

It's OK that he interrupted Trump more. But it shows that the two of them needed to gang up on Trump. So you've proven my point for me.

For the guy above me, it works like this.

A business should be able to decide how much to pay its employees. If it is too low by the employees standards, then the employee has no obligation to work for the business and the business will go bankrupt.

Why do you think cheap labour exists? Because employees are willing to agree to the conditions. There is no gun. Employees make money and the business makes money. Win/win.

Again, Hong Kong and South Korea are your examples.

As for Trump going off topic, it is Hillary's job to point out the flaws in his argument, not the moderator. The same way that it is my job to point out the flaws in your argument, not Eclipse's.

Fact checkers in a debate are silly. If the candidate is prepared enough, that candidate should be able to point out mistake without requiring help. I don't understand why nobody gets this.

Edited by Deplorable Pepe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes are kind of needed for government to exist. You may actually be an anarchist, not a "Right Wing Nut."

IMO even without the moderator's help she made an ass out of him/he made an ass out of himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact checkers in a debate are silly. If the candidate is prepared enough, that candidate should be able to point out mistake without requiring help. I don't understand why nobody gets this.

What? They should be allowed to tell blatant lies on a national stage if their opponent is not privy to all information, or is unable to prove so?

You do realise that Trump blatantly lied about certain things like never saying that climate change is a Chinese hoax and then all Hillary could do is say that he is incorrect. If someone who factchecked was there, they could easily tell anyone uninformed that he is not correct. And show that a presidential candidate is demonstrably lying. The same for Hillary.

I remember Candy Crowley in 2012. And conservatives bitched about it then.

But that doesn't stop them doing so now, even though I didn't see any fact checking really: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/giuliani-lester-holt-fact-checking-228773

I haven't seen the whole thing, but even if he did, I don't see a problem with a factchecker at a presidential debate.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how much the rich pay. Taxes are theft.

Again, taxes are no more 'theft' than any other transaction of currency. You give the government x percent of your income in exchange for a number of services. You might as well say that it's 'theft' for employees to take money for doing their jobs.

For the guy above me, it works like this.

A business should be able to decide how much to pay its employees. If it is too low by the employees standards, then the employee has no obligation to work for the business and the business will go bankrupt.

Why do you think cheap labour exists? Because employees are willing to agree to the conditions. There is no gun. Employees make money and the business makes money. Win/win.

Again, Hong Kong and South Korea are your examples.

It's Phillius, by the way.

The problem with that is that is someone decides that the pay is too low, then they can just find someone who's is to take them up on it anyway? What's to stop them from just hiring desperate refugees or illegal immigrants for slave wages?

As for Trump going off topic, it is Hillary's job to point out the flaws in his argument, not the moderator. The same way that it is my job to point out the flaws in your argument, not Eclipse's.

Fact checkers in a debate are silly. If the candidate is prepared enough, that candidate should be able to point out mistake without requiring help. I don't understand why nobody gets this.

The purpose of the moderator is to act as a neutral participant. This includes holding participants to time limits and keep them from straying off-topic. If he kept interrupting Trump, then it's because Trump wasn't sticking to the questions. If you started talking about something completely off-topic or resorted to excessive ad-hominem in a hypothetical argument, would it be bias for Eggclipse to admonish you for such behaviour?

Also, fact checkers are there to fact-check both sides of the debate. If they aren't there, then the whole debate becomes an argument of he said, she said.

Edited by The Blind Idiot God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also because they're debating in real time so the facts aren't easy to double check and there is nothing stopping the person from vehemently insisting something batshit happened. That can and will derail a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary saying "that's wrong/untrue" is far less trustworthy than a neutral third party saying "that's wrong/untrue".

As others have already pointed out, the debates aren't supposed to just be stump speeches for either of the candidates. If they agree to the terms and rules, the moderator expects them to adhere to them accordingly. This isn't bias, nor is it really being combative.

But Trump has trouble following instructions. And his most ardent supporters think it's unfair that he's expected to or forced to follow instructions lol.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how much the rich pay. Taxes are theft.

theft

noun

the action or crime of stealing.

tax

noun

1.

a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

2.

a strain or heavy demand.

eh?

Income is not even. It doesn't have to be.

I never said it was.

Steve Jobs made billions selling iPhones. You decided to buy an iPhone from him and helped make him a billionaire. How is it now your right to say "you know that money that I gave you for your product? I want you to pay for x, y and z and you will do it at the end of a gun"?

Short answer is, that's coercion. It's done at the end of a gun. And that is not OK with me.

I don't give a fuck, how is this relevant? Steve Jobs is dead.

Raising taxes on someone successful is theft. All you've done is validate my point.

because not all income is equal. Cost of living generally doesn't scale as easily with your salary which is why the burden shifts to the poor. If someone making 450k and someone making 80k live in the same area (because maybe they work different jobs that only exist in the same area) then a greater fraction of the money of the person making 80k goes into living expenditures than the person making 450k if we assume a flat tax. This is what tax bracketing does to nullify this effect, and it's a progressive tax meaning that if you make 450k then with a 35% tax it ends up being like 20-25% of their total income in taxes (idk I haven't done the calcs in detail). In an equal system everyone would have the same fraction of disposable income unless they want to be homeless and starving. That's why the progressive tax exists.

The reason for increasing minimum wage is because unlike interest minimum wage hasn't risen with inflation. You're talking about devaluing the dollar, but because of inflation minimum wage has seen an effective decrease, so increasing the minimum wage is effectively a correction for devaluation.

I did not validate your point.

Also, this is an emotional argument. You are equating success to the amount of money one makes. You're trying to invoke an emotion by using an intentionally open-ended and loaded word. You're not raising taxes on someone successful. You're giving them more tax on every dollar they make after 200k. Whether or not that's successful is entirely irrelevant to this argument.

Let me put it this way; middle-income person and rich-person pay equal amount for food and housing because they live in the same area, but rich person has much more money to spend. However, one pays more in taxes than the other.

What we mean by shifting the burden to the lower class is that the ratio of disposable income to total income is very very low for the lower class under a flat tax, whereas it eases the burden for the lower class because they have living expenses to pay for all intents and purposes. If literally all money goes into food, taxes and shelter, then none of that money ever gets into the economy to help perpetuate the capitalism that you enjoy fellating over.

Now, the rich person pays the same percentage of his income in tax, but pays a significant lower percentage of his income in housing and food despite probably having access to nicer things. This person can keep capitalism afloat, because he has not only significantly more money but access to a more significant portion of his money. It's also much easier for him to participate in the system, because he can make investments and save money, gain interest on said money, and things to that effect. He can participate actively in the system, because the burden of the tax is not shifted to him.

Therefore you're taking people effectively out of being able to spend their disposable income - this is not your ideal of capitalism, especially since the person who is poor also may have had many factors beyond their low income contributing to their low income, such as living in Mississippi and learning that 2 + 2 = vagina and not having a good enough education to do anything. Then their kids can't really amount to much because they actually live paycheck to paycheck and can barely provide for them beyond food and maybe a few notebooks. Definitely can't get more than a small grant from the government for college, and that's assuming they have the resources to even get a good education in the first place. In fact, capitalism amounts to the lucky few becoming the elite, other people stumbling into it by chance, and many people offering slave labor jobs to people because they just don't have anything better. Because they were not necessarily equal from birth. You honestly think Donald Trump was a self-made man born without a silver spoon in his mouth? No, he fucking was; his idea of a "small loan" from his father is 45 million dollars, and my dad's large loan from the bank was 500k. This is only an example to convey my point, this isn't evidence.

Now, by giving a progressive tax, you shift the burden to people who can afford it - someone making 450k would pay maybe 30k more in taxes but that's still a small fraction (only 7%) of his total income added on. It's still very easy for said person to save, it's still very easy for him to pay all of their bills, and they still make a lot of money. The poor person now has some income to spend on other things, some frivolous and they can maybe save and maybe give the next generation something to work off of. They still probably spend a significantly larger % of their income on basic living expenses, but the idea of a progressive tax is to basically even out the ratio of your living expenses and your tax expenses to your total income across the board. It is still not even, though.

If you want to argue the theory then you should confront the theory for the facts of what it is and how it has applied to the reality of the United States. You have many people arguing against you about how it hasn't worked, how the gap between the upper and lower class is large as fuck and how the middle class is dying out completely. You're still denying this, and you're preaching the theory of capitalism by a) saying something absurdly false and b) saying something that is just a theory and in practice was not applied like this at all.

At the end of the day, capitalism allows everyone to proper because all business is done volutarily. Look at South Korea. Look at Hong Kong. Those are examples of nations who lifted themselves out of poverty within a generation. Lure capitalism brought 1 billion people out of poverty in Asia over a 30 year period. And it didn't require a $15 minimum wage.

[citation needed]

You're saying 1 billion people were in poverty in Asia? What the fuck? You're saying that literally 71% of people in China and South Korea were in poverty 30 years ago.

By the way China adopts a progressive tax as well and their top tax bracket is 45%. What the fuck are you talking about? I literally got this by googling "tax rates in China"

You also didn't acknowledge why the minimum wage needs increasing. Your argument was inflation, but because of inflation the minimum wage has decreased in value. The point that people have made is that minimum wage should at least catch up to inflation.

Also, you admit that Hillary won the debate with help from Holt. Imagine a scenario where Holt interupts Hillary as many times as he interupts Trump. Like any time Hillary claims that the Iran deal was good.

It's OK that he interrupted Trump more. But it shows that the two of them needed to gang up on Trump. So you've proven my point for me.

I said she fucking crushed him. She didn't need help to win; she got it anyway, because Trump was committing political seppuku on stage. He was softballing her, but he was also not stating anything supported by fact. Check just about any fact check site and you'll see how much Trump was talking out of his ass. Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary saying "that's wrong/untrue" is far less trustworthy than a neutral third party saying "that's wrong/untrue".

"you're wrong" ~ donald trump

I said she fucking crushed him. She didn't need help to win; she got it anyway, because Trump was committing political seppuku on stage. He was softballing her, but he was also not stating anything supported by fact. Check just about any fact check site and you'll see how much Trump was talking out of his ass.

I thought Trump did pretty well in the first third or so, especially in regards to criticizing Clinton on the trade deals. After that he floundered badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a little less than a third. I thought Trump was doing well until it somehow got completely derailed, and Hillary just stood back and watched it happen at points (someone did a count and Donald had more speaking time overall).

I felt like it was even (like a debate should) until basically it turned into the shitshow it ended up being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First to Phoenix, I think all tax is theft.

taxation is necessary for the existence of government and society. also, you don't get to be a part of society for free.

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.

so theft is okay sometimes?

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.

you say you don't believe in it for the purpose of fairness, then give the exact argument i already argued against.

the logic for it does make fucking sense. the top 20% own ninety-three percent of the wealth in the united states of america. you could tax bill gates 99.99% of his income and he'd still be better off than you for life. for life, life.

if you make more, you can afford more. that is the logic behind it. and it makes much more sense than any other tax system by far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A business should be able to decide how much to pay its employees. If it is too low by the employees standards, then the employee has no obligation to work for the business and the business will go bankrupt.

Why do you think cheap labour exists? Because employees are willing to agree to the conditions. There is no gun. Employees make money and the business makes money. Win/win.

That's assuming that everyone's honest. But I don't have that much faith in humanity.

I don't mind if businesses act stupid to their customers, because the customers dictate whether or not the business gets paid. However, I think laws need to be in place, so businesses don't try to screw over their employees. Perhaps you have no issues with screwing over people who are desperate for work, but I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 1 versus 1 debate may actually end up being hilarious show of contrasts and I am curious if Trump can go at her like he did against his Republican rivals with the same amount of success.

Hillary will work to make herself look like the serious candidate and accentuate whenever Trump says something stupid.

Trump would crush Clinton in a debate. He'd just do to her what he did to Bush and Rubio.

Agreed, as Trump's powerful combination of charisma and force of personality will make him be the one to drive any debate between the two, and unless Clinton manages to get the reins of the situation, even if some of Trump's points are countered he will appear to be the winner of the debate.

trump's going to get his ass kicked in a debate because he can't stay on message for five minutes without going on a tangent about the media or whatever feud he's in that week lol

he lacks any sort of coherent discipline

(this is an exaggeration, but not by much.)

EDIT: that's not even accounting for how little he actually factchecks his shit and how the moderators are likely going to challenge him

by contrast, hillary lived through the eight-hour ben ghazi committee and managed to make it a fundraiser

"you're wrong" ~ donald trump

V2GB6zK.gif

alert and i get 'i told you so' hats in bright red

([email protected] though)

Trump did alright with the trade stuff imo and that part was Clinton's weakest segment in my opinion (she danced around the TPP flip-flop). But Trump isn't a debater, he's just used to outshouting people and spewing insults and hoping it sticks and being surrounded by people who constantly praise him. He can't recognize all the openings presented to him and just the slightest verbal jab gets under his skin so he goes off on a tangent. He doesn't think well on his feet at all.

so essentially Trump's biggest weakness is that he's Trump and he's up against someone who recognizes all of his faults LOL

I wouldn't put it past Clinton to get complacent, though. And maybe he'll learn and shut up and calm down a bit.

Maybe.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Trump's biggest weakness is not doing his homework, which is something that's inexcusable in my eyes. At least do some research before mouthing off to the entire American public!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Trump's biggest weakness is not doing his homework, which is something that's inexcusable in my eyes. At least do some research before mouthing off to the entire American public!

Studying is for POLITICIANS, eclipse.

Not genuine guys like the Donald.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studying is for POLITICIANS, eclipse.

Not genuine guys like the Donald.

Studying is for everyone. Especially the users of this site, with the homework titled "read the Code of Conduct".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studying is for everyone. Especially the users of this site, with the homework titled "read the Code of Conduct".

We have one of those?

I wouldn't put it past Clinton to get complacent, though. And maybe he'll learn and shut up and calm down a bit.

Maybe.

Which is funny, since I thought that it was Trump who'd gotten complacent. He basically just tried to do the same thing he's been coasting on the entire election and it didn't work out for him. If he wants to do better next debate, he has to switch up his strategy and come up with coherent points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably did because the people he chooses to surround himself with sound like sycophants.

I'm not sure how he crawls out of that self-made hole. It looks pretty damn deep.

EDIT: Clinton's problem is that she seems allergic to transparency so I'm not apt to say she has this completely in the bag, either.

Edited by Crysta

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...