a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016

Jill Stein is also a third party candidate, if we're going to praise third party for the sake of being third party.

It's baffling that Clinton is the only candidate who understands the need for vaccinations. This should be a non-divisive issue, yet here we are.

I don't know your family stuff, but none of my family ever taught me those things. Even 12 years ago, the internet was a better source of information.

I don't know what today's mom expectations are, though.

Covar said:

Just like Bernie was?

Click to expand...

Bernie's solutions may have been hard to impossible to implement without major changes in the political landscape, but he had definite ideas that he at least understood. Bernie also got 13,206,000 votes in the Democratic primaries.

Gary Johnson couldn't explain his proposed tax policy when asked about it, and he earned a whopping 1,275,951 votes in the general election, or about 1/10th of Bernie's support.

So, you know, some differences there.

GasBandit said:

santa claus/free stuff from the gubmint

Click to expand...

He wants to implement the single largest entitlement ever that he doesn't even begin to understand.

but we needed a trillion dollar jet or the terrorists win

Gary Johnson's tax plan is to eliminate all income tax, and replace it with a 28% consumption tax on everything. Well, first off, that's a regressive tax. The working poor, who would be getting a refund on their income tax, would now be spending an extra 20% in many cases on everything they buy, meaning they get absolutely fucking nailed, while the top marginal tax rate of 39% is effectively dropped to 28% for the wealthy. So that's a problem right there. Then his solution to that is to send a stipend to the poor, which would be the single largest entitlement program in the history of the government. So, in effect, his plan would benefit the wealthy and crush the poor AND increase government entitlement programs, while slashing the revenue.

GREAT FUCKING PLAN, GARY.


While we're at it, let's discuss the national debt. You know what was a major contributor to that? Using quantitative easing to bail out the banks in the wake of the market crash of 2008, caused by deregulating the banks. The government had to buy up their debt and convert them to mortgage-backed securities and treasury bonds, worth literally trillions of dollars, in order to keep the market stable. Because when you leave corporations to their own devices, they shit the bed.

Let the banks fail? Sure, if you want everyone across the world who had invested in them to lose major amounts of money. The global market already took a hit, that would have collapsed investment houses across the world. But hey, as long as you've got a basement with guns and canned food in it, let the world economy collapse, right?

Null said:

Gary Johnson's tax plan is to eliminate all income tax, and replace it with a 28% consumption tax on everything. Well, first off, that's a regressive tax. The working poor, who would be getting a refund on their income tax, would now be spending an extra 20% in many cases on everything they buy, meaning they get absolutely fucking nailed, while the top marginal tax rate of 39% is effectively dropped to 28% for the wealthy. So that's a problem right there. Then his solution to that is to send a stipend to the poor, which would be the single largest entitlement program in the history of the government. So, in effect, his plan would benefit the wealthy and crush the poor AND increase government entitlement programs, while slashing the revenue.

GREAT FUCKING PLAN, GARY.

Click to expand...

So you're criticizing him for what the plan would do without the stipend and then criticizing him for the stipend to prevent that simultaneously. That's not logically consistent at all. You also assume that the wealthy all pay that tax rate, which as Trump's leaked tax returns (or Romney's released tax returns from the last election) show is not the case.

Reverent-one said:

So you're criticizing him for what the plan would do without the stipend and then criticizing him for the stipend to prevent that simultaneously. That's not logically consistent at all. You also assume that the wealthy all pay that tax rate, which as Trump's leaked tax returns (or Romney's released tax returns from the last election) show is not the case.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do, because part of the Libertarian platform is to reduce or remove government entitlement programs, so his program would not only fail to do that, it would INCREASE government entitlement programs. So he's violating his own core concepts, and it is logically consistent to criticize him for endorsing a plan that will do the opposite of what he intends it to do.

Reverent-one said:

You also assume that the wealthy all pay that tax rate, which as Trump's leaked tax returns (or Romney's released tax returns from the last election) show is not the case.

Click to expand...

Ideally those individuals would be held accountable the same way any of us would be if we did what they did, but I don't think the right approach is to change the law just so that those individuals are no longer breaking it.

Null said:

Yes, I do, because part of the Libertarian platform is to reduce or remove government entitlement programs, so his program would not only fail to do that, it would INCREASE government entitlement programs. So he's violating his own core concepts, and it is logically consistent to criticize him for endorsing a plan that will do the opposite of what he intends it to do.

Click to expand...

Calling the prebate an entitlement program is like calling your tax return an entitlement program, both are functionality the same thing (taxes you pay the government that you don't need to), it just changes when you get the money back. Given that this plan would allow the reducing the size of the government as it simplifies the tax code and allow the removal of the IRS, it still meets his stated goals.

Zero Esc said:

Ideally those individuals would be held accountable the same way any of us would be if we did what they did, but I don't think the right approach is to change the law just so that those individuals are no longer breaking it.

Click to expand...

Who's breaking the law? Neither of those I mentioned were, nor are most wealthy people who use various loopholes and deductions to reduce their tax burden or who simply make money through capital gains.

Reverent-one said:

Who's breaking the law? Neither of those I mentioned were, nor are most wealthy people who use various loopholes and deductions to reduce their tax burden or who simply make money through capital gains.

Click to expand...

I don't know anything with Romney, but people have been saying Trump is committing tax evasion, a term I associate with people choosing not to pay their taxes (which would usually follow with an audit, loss of property, jail time, etc.), not that he was exploiting sections of law in order to evade paying taxes.

Zero Esc said:

I don't know anything with Romney, but people have been saying Trump is committing tax evasion, a term I associate with people choosing not to pay their taxes (which would usually follow with an audit, loss of property, jail time, etc.), not that he was exploiting sections of law in order to evade paying taxes.

Click to expand...

Nothing in Trump's leaked tax returns give evidence for actual tax evasion, they just revealed he declared a $916 million loss in 1995, which would legally allow him to "wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years." So legally, he could be paying no federal income tax for the next almost 20 years, even when making millions of dollars. Romney was just an example of someone who makes money through capital gains, and thus paid a lower tax rate (15% for the time his tax returns covered) than the normal income tax rate.

Reverent-one said:

Nothing in Trump's leaked tax returns give evidence for actual tax evasion, they just revealed he declared a $916 million loss in 1995, which would legally allow him to "wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years." So legally, he could be paying no federal income tax for the next almost 20 years, even when making millions of dollars. Romney was just an example of someone who makes money through capital gains, and thus paid a lower tax rate (15% for the time his tax returns covered) than the normal income tax rate.

Click to expand...

Then I think there's a lack of distinction being made elsewhere between the "tax evasion" as a legal term and "evading taxes" as an action.

Zero Esc said:

Then I think there's a lack of distinction being made elsewhere between the "tax evasion" as a legal term and "evading taxes" as an action.

Click to expand...

An intentional lack of distinction by some people out there, too, I'd wager.

But the original report (from the NY Times) was clear about it.

So apparently, no one at the FBI had actually seen the emails in questions when Comey sent his letter.

So he basically blatantly decided to put this thumb on the scale, 11 days before an election. That may actually be a violation of the Hatch Act.

GasBandit said:

If only one of the other candidates were.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking that Hillary is way overqualified for the position of Libertarian Candidate.

GasBandit said:

I don't like simply putting a "disagree" rating on a post, but you tempt me sorely.

Click to expand...

I was aiming for

Dave said:

Why?

Click to expand...

System-wide term limits.

GasBandit said:

intentionally misconstruing a statement in an attempt to be witty.

Click to expand...

That's what I was aiming for.

Gruebeard said:

That's what I was aiming for.

Click to expand...

ARE YOU HAPPY NOW

Oh and look: @stienman laughed. Thanks @stienman.


Also: yeah, we morphed into "You're doing your thing again." @dark audit's thing is not @PatrThom's thing. And your thing is a whole other thing again. My thing, and @Bubble181's thing are both @PatrThom's thing, which was indeed The thing.

(Man, I think me and @Bubs are actually lemmings dressed as an owl and kitten Frankenmonster)

Dave said:

I forget about all the crimes she's been convicted of. Oh, wait.
I forgot about her book and speaking deals, which is where their money came from.
Okay, that one is 1/2 right. Banks yes, foreign governments? Like Russia?
Bill's been convicted of what, exactly? Oh, right. Nothing.
Her tenure has been no better nor worse than any other SoS in recent memory, which yours seems to be very short and pointed.
The emails are overblown but still bad. Not as bad as the right would have you think, and not as good as the left would.
"notoriously abusive and dismissive". Man, such notoriety would be everywhere! Other than right wing crap the only thing is that the secret service hate her. She seems to be dismissive of pretty much everyone. While that is a character flaw, it is not only the military that she treats in this manner.
And maybe - just maybe - the smoke generated by the right does not conceal the fire you seem to think is there.

I guess libertarians think you don't have to be convicted of anything to get the negative consequences. Innocent until proven guilty be damned!


Again and always for the record, I think she's a terrible person and will be a vastly corporate stooge as president. But I also think she's eminently qualified - probably the most qualified candidate we've had in a long, long time. Whether or not she's likable is immaterial.

Click to expand...

Are you adding "... meaning Trump should be elected!" in your head every time someone posts any flavor of "HRC is horrible"? The Russia comment hints at that.

Did you know that "innocent until proven guilty" is a law standard, and does not have to apply to public discourse, or shield you from extra-legal (as opposed to illegal) consequences? It's why we can call both Bills rapists, or Pinochet a mass murderer, or Franco a pus-ridden cum-stain on humanity's sheets.

Being a terrible person is not immaterial to someone's fitness for office, unless you didn't mean to put both those phrases in the same paragraph.

Gruebeard said:

Oh and look: @stienman laughed. Thanks @stienman.


Also: yeah, we morphed

into "You're doing your thing again." @dark audit's thing is not @PatrThom's thing. And your thing is a whole other thing again. My thing, and @Bubble181's thing are both @PatrThom's thing, which was indeed The thing.

(Man, I think me and @Bubs are actually lemmings dressed as an owl and kitten Frankenmonster)

Click to expand...

Hey now! I'm not a disguised lemming! I'm a disguised weasel owl dammit!

The Facts About A Couple of Pending Lawsuits Against Donald Trump, by Popehat

I think that Donald Trump is the most terrible and dangerous candidate for President of my lifetime, and perhaps much longer than that. I think he and his movement pose a structural risk to the survival of America in several ways. I think that Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate and would be a terrible leader, but would prefer she wins because I think her awfulness is not an existential threat, but more of the same.
But lying about Trump's legal affairs doesn't help. It helps promote lying, not Clinton (or anyone else).

Click to expand...

Dave said:

See if we like it like that.

Click to expand...

I don't like it like that. It's too on-point, a little too personal.

And I like that we twisted Gassy's narrow creation into something more broadly applicable. It's Libertarian. Well, rebellious. Or anarchic. Something like that.