Trump to win?

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

Trying to wrap my head around this whole Trump thing and it's been really difficult. I simply can't understand how a thinking intelligent person can see him as a viable president, from my own perspective.


But, I have a lot of family members that I love deeply that support him. And, it turns out, I think it comes down to Scott Adams' determination: it comes down to taxing the rich.


If you believe in "trickle-down" economics, or however you want to phrase it... You support Trump.


If you believe that Reaganomics was a failure, you support Clinton.


So, if you think that the upper end of the income spectrum should get greater tax cuts, thereby creating more capital for investment that will create jobs and raise up the lower classes, then you will support Trump.


If you think that taxes at the upper end should be raised so as to fund government investment in infrastructure or some other federal programs, then you will support Clinton.


(I actually believe it's a bit more nuanced than this, but this basically gets to the point).


So, am I on the right track here?


Are there any Trump supporters here who think that raising taxes on the upper end of the spectrum is a good idea?


Are there any Clinton supporters who feel that it's a bad idea to increase taxes on the wealthy?


I suspect the answer is no in both cases.

In a very real sense you have drilled down to the core of the debate; the illusion that wealth begets further investment. If that were so, then there would be no wealthy person that remained in control of their wealth. My reasoning being that true prosperity, in a free nation, demands that all such further investment, has to leave the recipient of that trickle down investment; free! That is the basis of my own belief in the need to recognise the value of free enterprise; underpinned by the creation of a set of agreed rules, mechanisms and associated institutions; designed to deliver that free enterprise based equity capital into new very small business start-ups and thus job creation.

Instead, what trickle down brought us is good old fashioned feudalism; the Feudal Mercantile Economy, or FIRE and the further decent into what one might describe as Borrow and Spend economics based upon a distorted idea of what drives socialism. That borrow and spend drove the creation of feudal civil service administrations more dedicated to their own internal need to stuff as much national treasure into their own pockets rather than take true responsibility for the (Supposedly FREE), nation they purport to serve.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

In a very real sense you have drilled down to the core of the debate; the illusion that wealth begets further investment. If that were so, then there would be no wealthy person that remained in control of their wealth. My reasoning being that true prosperity, in a free nation, demands that all such further investment, has to leave the recipient of that trickle down investment; free! That is the basis of my own belief in the need to recognise the value of free enterprise; underpinned by the creation of a set of agreed rules, mechanisms and associated institutions; designed to deliver that free enterprise based equity capital into new very small business start-ups and thus job creation.

Instead, what trickle down brought us is good old fashioned feudalism; the Feudal Mercantile Economy, or FIRE and the further decent into what one might describe as Borrow and Spend economics based upon a distorted idea of what drives socialism. That borrow and spend drove the creation of feudal civil service administrations more dedicated to their own internal need to stuff as much national treasure into their own pockets rather than take true responsibility for the (Supposedly FREE), nation they purport to serve.

They both bother me equally, as humans, probably Hillary a little more because the whole CGI thing doesn't sit well with me, not at all. I hate hypocrisy, and the abuse of charity to build power is sickening to me.

Trump, I despised upon hearing (not reading ) a phrase from his first book (in the 80's?), and the arrogant claim of, "if you owe enough money to the bank, then you own the bank" or something like that.

As a former NYer, I think I'm a bit more tolerant of arrogant NYers, you build up an immunity to it, but I used to rant and rave against Trump as that mindset is reflected in the mentality of folks in NY finance that enjoy (expect?) the backing of the american taxpayer (and the 2007/8 bailouts).

The one thing that pushes me to the Trump side is simple - the democrats have indicated (Hillary, and Bernie, both, and I haven't heard it, but I think Kaine would, too) they would enhance immigration, and and give citizenship people that have crossed the border and stayed illegally. Now, you can argue all you want about how we don't want to treat these people harshly and why, but ultimately, I see it as primarily a political ploy to ensure permanent plurality in federal elections.

The two party system, while presently resulting in two parties that have crazed wings, but are otherwise very similar, gives us a federal gov't lead by big money.....but if one party had complete control of the federal gov't, I just see that as leading to huge problems. Just look at how well executive orders take into account the constitution, and the rights of ALL Americans.

It would all be fun and exciting if I was in my 70s and wanted to see the country torn apart (I don't think the right wing folks will take kindly to losing 2nd amendment rights), but as a middle aged dad, I really don't think I can bear any new burdens that I think one part rule would ultimately place on my or my kids shoulders. I'm definitely not a globalist, and think the nation's sovereignty matters, and I'd rather not be part of a larger experiment to expand our horizons/borders (or weaken them). Geez, that all is almost tin foil hat/crown material.

My vote doesn't matter, anyway. I live in NJ.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

Trump, I despised upon hearing (not reading ) a phrase from his first book (in the 80's?), and the arrogant claim of, "if you owe enough money to the bank, then you own the bank" or something like that.

I think the quote from Trump is something along the lines of, "If you owe the bank one million dollars and can't pay it back, you're in a lot of trouble. If you owe the bank one billion dollars and can't pay it back, the bank is in a lot of trouble."

The above idea something I believe is attributed to Keynes: "Owe your banker a thousand pounds and you are at his mercy. Owe him one million pounds and he is at your mercy." Jean Paul Getty has also said something similar.

Regardless, it isn't an original insight of Trump's.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

I think the quote from Trump is something along the lines of, "If you owe the bank one million dollars and can't pay it back, you're in a lot of trouble. If you owe the bank one billion dollars and can't pay it back, the bank is in a lot of trouble."

The above idea something I believe is attributed to Keynes: "Owe your banker a thousand pounds and you are at his mercy. Owe him one million pounds and he is at your mercy." Jean Paul Getty has also said something similar.

Regardless, it isn't an original insight of Trump's.

Agreed, I have often heard it before today.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

However, my question is, why is that not considered racist but requiring a similar type of verification process to get a voter registration card with a photograph on it is?
.

the reason it is considered racist is that it is primarily aimed at african-americans, not immigrants. e.g. immediately after alabama passed a voter id law they also closed dmv offices in black majority counties. what a coincidence! [later rescinded after a firestorm of publicity, but you get the idea.]

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

What puzzles me is, whenever I have visited the US, it becomes very apparent that the US is a two language nation; English and Spanish. I have always assumed that thus the people have come to terms with immigration and have accepted, particularly, all the Mexicans that have made the US their home. Where did I go wrong?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

In a speech to Alumni of GW in the mid 1980's Herbert Haft, a greenmailer of the era, said:

"I used to lose sleep over the money my business had to borrow until one day there was so much money I owed I slept peacefully. The person losing sleep was the banker who lent it all to me."

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

the reason it is considered racist is that it is primarily aimed at african-americans, not immigrants. e.g. immediately after alabama passed a voter id law they also closed dmv offices in black majority counties. what a coincidence! [later rescinded after a firestorm of publicity, but you get the idea.]

Okay. But why not phase it in over four or so years? And if the DMV offices were closed in counties that are heavily black, how will black people get drivers' licenses or government-issued photo IDs, of which drivers licenses are the most common?

As things stand, the U.S. is going to have, in perpetuity, a porous southern border and an ever-increasing rate of identity fraud.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

What puzzles me is, whenever I have visited the US, it becomes very apparent that the US is a two language nation; English and Spanish. I have always assumed that thus the people have come to terms with immigration and have accepted, particularly, all the Mexicans that have made the US their home. Where did I go wrong?

The U.S., at least for now, is most definitely not a two language nation. In practically any venue that requires some level of education, if you don't speak English, you're going nowhere.

My gut feeling is that people have not come to terms with immigration, either. It's just that there are a lot of factors that have really prevented it from getting a lot of publicity: people being too busy trying to earn a living to follow this story and study its true cost to the country, propaganda campaigns that claim it is racist to not want uneducated illegal aliens in the country thus silencing dissenting opinions, and, initially, lack of a critical mass of illegal aliens many American did not see the problem.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Trying to wrap my head around this whole Trump thing and it's been really difficult. I simply can't understand how a thinking intelligent person can see him as a viable president, from my own perspective.


But, I have a lot of family members that I love deeply that support him. And, it turns out, I think it comes down to Scott Adams' determination: it comes down to taxing the rich.


If you believe in "trickle-down" economics, or however you want to phrase it... You support Trump.


If you believe that Reaganomics was a failure, you support Clinton.

That's definitely a piece of it but I don't think it gets to the heart of the disagreement. As I see Trump supporters, they are completely and utterly disillusioned. I came across this cartoon which I think gets to the core issue rather well.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

That's definitely a piece of it but I don't think it gets to the heart of the disagreement. As I see Trump supporters, they are completely and utterly disillusioned. I came across this cartoon which I think gets to the core issue rather well.

Vote for Trump is to admit America is no longer great.

Vote for Clinton to hope that America is still great.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/do...rticle/2603450

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/do...rticle/2603450

WHOOOO HAAAAAA.... heheheheheh!!!!

'smoking gun # 30001'
(30 thousand and one)

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

tsk, tsk, tsk... them pesky russians again?

FBI Allowed 2 Hillary Aides To "Destroy" Their Laptops In Newly Exposed "Side Agreements"

A new letter from the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee reveals that the FBI struck "side agreements" with both Cheryl Mills an Heather Samuelson to "destroy" their "laptops after concluding its search."

• Oct 3, 2016 1:18 PM

naaah... this has just GOTTA BE the ole 'vast right-wing conspiracy'

Just when you think the Hillary email scandal can't get any more bizarre and corrupt, it does. According to a just released letter from the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte (R - Virginia), to Attorney General Lynch, the FBI apparently struck "side agreements" with both Cheryl Mills an Heather Samuelson to "destroy" their "laptops after concluding its search."


In the attached, Goodlatte questioned why the destruction of the laptops used to sort Clinton's emails was included in immunity deals that already protected Mills and Samuelson from prosecution based on the records recovered from their computers. Furthermore, we learn that according to the immunity agreements, FBI agents limited their search to documents authored before Jan. 2015. The Republican argued such parameters prevented investigators from examining potential proof of the destruction of evidence that may have occurred after that date, and that the deals offered to Mills and Samuelson already protected the aides from prosecution related to their alleged roles in the deletion of federal records.


"Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers," Goodlatte wrote of the "side agreements," which lawmakers were allowed to read even though they have not yet been released in full to members of Congress.


The immunity deals for Mills and Samuelson were negotiated before they agreed to hand over their laptops which we now learn were subsequently destroyed.
While we parse the letter to understand what basis for action the FBI may have had when pursuing such a course of action, we can't help but note that the FBI appears to have acted as a co-conspirator in what appears to be an unprecedented case of destruction of key evidence.


Below are some of the key excerpts from the letter (full document attached at the end of this post):

As part of the Judiciary Committee's ongoing oversight of Secretary Clinton's unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Justice Department (DOJ) provided in camera review' of certain immunity agreements. After a specific request from the Committee, based on references made in the immunity agreements to certain "side agreements," DOJ subsequently provided in camera review of those "side agreements" between DOJ, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Beth Wilkinson, the lawyer representing both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers. Please provide a written response to the below questions and make DOJ staff available for a briefing on this matter no later than October 10, 2016.

1. Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mills' and Heather Samuelson's laptops after concluding its search?

2. Doesn't the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn't that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?

7. Please explain why DOJ agreed to limit their search of the Mills and Samuelson laptops to a date no later than January 31, 2015 and therefore give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton's unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

8. Why was this time limit necessary when Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?

9. Please confirm whether a grand jury was convened to investigate Secretary Clinton's unauthorized use of a private email server. Disclosure is authorized under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(A)(i) and (e)(3)(D).

Of course, since this will be promptly spun as just more "plumes of smoke" we hope people will stop trying to "criminalize behavior that is normal."

bold/emphasis = ZH

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

If you believe in "trickle-down" economics, or however you want to phrase it... You support Trump.


If you believe that Reaganomics was a failure, you support Clinton.

While this split is real, I'm not convinced that people vote because they believe these things. I think many vote their party and believe these these things because their party tells them to.

It's like a favorite sports team. Many people can't conceive of rooting for another team, even if they move across the country.

Vote for Trump is to admit America is no longer great.

Vote for Clinton to hope that America is still great.

For the one you think will make/keep it great. I think it's a choice of which way we want to get screwed.