[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[Aerion Brightflame]

Deflection - you attempted to avoid the question I was asking by answering a different similar one. 

 

It's irrelevant what the DNC is offering in reality (If we want to play that card, the DNC was considering those people among a list of other names. Trump has already named donors to a position) - I'm asking you if Hilary had given donors of hers positions as her formal advisors on matters of finance to the same extent Trump has, with an almost identical spread of views, would you still be okay with it? Or would it just be a crooked thing?

 

So... you are saying Trickle down economics doesn't work in reality right? Because it doesn't work in reality - You can't force the rich to hand the money down, or to even spend the damn money. They will find ways around it, they have for decades that's why the wealth gap has only widened since Reagan. At least in the US, where you have incredibly simplistic worker rights and no real unions which means employees have no power against the employer. 

 

Even with that sheet I don't think it works. I don't think it has worked in any nation that has tried has has actually benefited a lot from it. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No, it's not a problem if  1) It's not an actual federal position or if 1 fails, 2) They're qualified to tackle a certain aspect of the endgame (ie steel and oil)

 

 

 

Well that's why you need higher wage rates and stricter tax policy, let them make more money then spread the excess around

 

Supply side works cause you're increasing the maximum output by shifting the supply curve down. At that point you need to move the wealth back to the workers in the labor market

 

You can't halfass it, which is what most republicans do

[Aerion Brightflame]

Right. Thank you for answering. Hopefully Hilary actually does this now so we can put this to the test. 

 

I mean, the corporations still have ways to avoid actually paying more. They can fire people so you have the same amount of wages paid in total, and hence the same profits. It's a very common response to wage rises. And is only possible because workers have no ability to really bargain due to shitty contracts and f*** all rights. 

 

And they won't pay more tax - These people can pay the best lawyers to help them figure out how to pay the bare minimum of tax. Generally people in position of power are high earners themselves so have financial incentive to leave some loopholes to allow companies and individuals to not actually pay as much tax. 

 

They simply won't spread the money around in the US as things stand. It's money they will never use, and yet they will still just sit on it for the sake of sitting on it. 

[Dad]

But no one is spreading the excess around.  Which is precisely why . .  it isn't working.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But no one is spreading the excess around.  Which is precisely why . .  it isn't working.

Well yes that's the problem isn't it?

 

Supply side allows you to create more good for cheaper price...seems like a win win, consumers are happy, producers are happy. Then you look at the labor market and it's usually full of loopholes made to cheat the workers out of $

 

So keep SS going, but kill the loopholes and make companies pay more to the workers. You can keep subsidizing them to increase the overall profit at that point

 

Reganomics, just does the first part, and doesn't move the $ around

 

Democrats just do the second part

 

Neither are good

Right. Thank you for answering. Hopefully Hilary actually does this now so we can put this to the test. 

 

I mean, the corporations still have ways to avoid actually paying more. They can fire people so you have the same amount of wages paid in total, and hence the same profits. It's a very common response to wage rises. And is only possible because workers have no ability to really bargain due to shitty contracts and f*** all rights. 

 

And they won't pay more tax - These people can pay the best lawyers to help them figure out how to pay the bare minimum of tax. Generally people in position of power are high earners themselves so have financial incentive to leave some loopholes to allow companies and individuals to not actually pay as much tax. 

 

They simply won't spread the money around in the US as things stand. It's money they will never use, and yet they will still just sit on it for the sake of sitting on it. 

Simplify the tax code. There's not too many ways to interpret a tax code without loopholes up the ass

[Aerion Brightflame]

Simplify the tax code. There's not too many ways to interpret a tax code without loopholes up the ass

 

So corporations just move headquarters, or move just enough of the business to a different location to retain the same business in the US without being affected by the tax code. 

 

There's enough tax havens in the world to do it. Enough nations that are kinda lax on these kinds of taxes to do it. And you better believe corporations care enough to do it at the cost of the workers (Not that they can do anything to stop it because gain - Shitty contracts and funk all rights) 

 

Amusingly the reason no US corporations or individuals were named in the Panama Paper link was because the US itself is enough of a tax haven for them currently. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290696-george-p-bush-tells-gop-to-support-trump

 

 

Real Tolerance

 

 

Might as well call it the Trumplican Party now

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290696-george-p-bush-tells-gop-to-support-trump

 

 

Don't usually jump in but weren't you all about how it doesn't matter what kinds of people support Trump even if they're terrible? Like the Nazi stuff and the KKK stuff?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Don't usually jump in but weren't you all about how it doesn't matter what kinds of people support Trump even if they're terrible? Like the Nazi stuff and the KKK stuff?

Trump disavowed them, Trumps does not take millions from Duke and Nazis, Trump is still getting sheet even though he despite disavowing and not taking money from them.

 

Can you honestly tell me any of those is true about Clinton?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Trump disavowed them, Trumps does not take millions from Duke and Nazis, Trump is still getting sheet even though he despite disavowing and not taking money from them.

 

Can you honestly tell me any of those is true about Clinton?

I have no idea I was just curious as your perception on the matter.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I have no idea I was just curious as your perception on the matter.

When Hillary returns her millions, and dissavows these countries till they change their perception. Then I'll take the highroad and not criticize her for it, despite the fact the MSM won't offer Trump the same courtesy

[Aerion Brightflame]

Do you have a source on those donations rather than just an image?

 

Because you know, sources are nice when you are making wildly sweeping judgements about someones tolerance due to associations. 

 

Since, I think we've had the discussion where we've shown that being associated with a group that has a particular view doesn't mean you share said view. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Do you have a source on those donations rather than just an image?

 

Because you know, sources are nice when you are making wildly sweeping judgements about someones tolerance due to associations.

 

Since, I think we've had the discussion where we've shown that being associated with a group that has a particular view doesn't mean you share said view.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/american-crossroads/conservative-group-claims-hillary-clintons-foundat/

 

I'll verify everyone individually too after this.

 

See there's a difference between having flawed supporters and taking millions from them. One is out of your control. The other is a betrayal. Why should I be with her, when she's with people who'd stone me for being me?

 

Clinton threw the gays under the bus for cash

Not making sweeping genrerlaization, her money trail speaks for itself. If you find out the Nazis have been bankrolling Trump. I'll condemn that too

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290701-trump-to-announce-fully-tax-deductible-childcare-in

 

funking finally.

[Aerion Brightflame]

That's a story from February of last year. Just pointing it out, this is a really old story. It's also going to the Clinton Foundation rather than Hilary herself. 

 

You seem to be jumping a step ahead in the story - Where is the proof that the money the Clinton Foundation was donated by these governments went specifically on the Hilary campaign? Hell where is the evidence that this made Hilary more anti gay rights than she was before?

 

There's been issues with the Clinton foundation and campaign finance that I can recall in that the foundation was being used to launder money into the campaign, but that was specifically donations the foundation got these past two years (And the instances listed in the article would predate all of those). 

 

So until you have proof that the money wasn't used for humanitarian purposes this is kinda circumstantial at best (It's that some 89% of money given to the Clinton Foundation gets used on charitable causes in some for or another). It genuinely could be that Saudi gave money to help with a shared cause (Because we do have semi close ties to Saudi for god knows what reason), and hence this reaction is overblown. 

 

It is definitely premature to say 'Hilary through the gays under the bus'. Just as it was premature with Trump and the Nazi's. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's a story from February of last year. Just pointing it out, this is a really old story. It's also going to the Clinton Foundation rather than Hilary herself. 

 

You seem to be jumping a step ahead in the story - Where is the proof that the money the Clinton Foundation was donated by these governments went specifically on the Hilary campaign? Hell where is the evidence that this made Hilary more anti gay rights than she was before?

 

There's been issues with the Clinton foundation and campaign finance that I can recall in that the foundation was being used to launder money into the campaign, but that was specifically donations the foundation got these past two years (And the instances listed in the article would predate all of those). 

 

So until you have proof that the money wasn't used for humanitarian purposes this is kinda circumstantial at best (It's that some 89% of money given to the Clinton Foundation gets used on charitable causes in some for or another). It genuinely could be that Saudi gave money to help with a shared cause (Because we do have semi close ties to Saudi for god knows what reason), and hence this reaction is overblown. 

 

It is definitely premature to say 'Hilary through the gays under the bus'. Just as it was premature with Trump and the Nazi's.

 

http://www.politifact.com/arizona/statements/2016/jul/11/donald-trump/did-hillary-clinton-take-money-countries-treat-wom/

 

More recent? It's really not overblown. They have an absolutely shitty record on LGBT rights. And the foundation shouldn't be accepting donations from them is the issue.

 

The only escape I see is that Hillary didn't know about where her donations came from, which is another issue altogether

 

Would you be ok with the Trump buisness accepting money from the KKK to solve the meth epidemic in Alabama? Cause most people would have problems with accepting anything from the KKK.

 

Judge both Hillary and Trump by the same standards mate.

 

Thoughts on the child care exception?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Yes, they have terrible records on LGBT rights. They also happen to be members of the UN and close allies to the US so the situation is a little different to your KKK or Nazi situation - No one wants to associate with those groups for obvious reasons. But there are reasons to associate with the Saudi's. 

 

It's not me judging Hilary and Trump by different standards, you know full well I despise both. It's me saying - A foundation that Hilary has part ownership of accepting money for charitable purposes from an ally of the United States is different to a hate group personally funding a politicians electoral campaign. Especially when Saudi, as hilarious as it is, are a member of the UN human rights council which makes the government donating money for humanitarian reasons not entirely insane, or unheard of. 

 

But for the record, no I would not be okay with Trump or Hilary if they were directly being funded by the KKK or by the Nazi's. Mostly because you don't want those sorts of groups directly influencing policy. 

 

If Hilary and Bill maintain control of the foundation in the event they win and Saudi keep donating, then we have an issue. 

 

I don't know anything about what making it a tax deductible means in real terms so I have no opinion on it. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4BoMbNxwfA

 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-economic-plan-winning-the-global-competition

 

The child and death tax parts are really important to me actually

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-senator-clinton-promised-200000-jobs-in-upstate-new-york-her-efforts-fell-flat/2016/08/07/339d3384-58d2-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html?postshare=8931470676763045&tid=ss_tw

[Aerion Brightflame]

Trumps big plan is just going to be a vague promise to bring back American manufacturing isn't it?

 

He's having the speech in Detroit, the city that is essentially the symbol of the decline of bluecollar work in the US. He will talk about how Great Detroit used to be, blame recent government ideas for it going wrong, make a promise that he will shift it around, bring the manufacturing back into the US, and talk about how great the US will once again become. Probably saying how he will make Detroit the heart of the production for the new Wall. 

 

I will be shocked if it is not some variation of this idea - It will probably be a little more insane, but I will still be shocked if it is not this. 

 

I think I called it fairly well didn't I? 

 

More specific than my vague guess, and basically reitorating a lot of the stuff I talked about. But it's all focused on the emotional idea of 'making us great again'. 

 

More style than substance given that he's talking about putting jobs back in either unsustainable avenues or ones which will feature massive amounts of industrialisation. Or just flat out terrible ideas. 

 

Just to focus on a small point - He is insane if he thinks he can cut down on the Chinese infringing on IP's. China just does not give a f***. 

 

But still the transcript was better than I thought it would be. 

[Dad]

If Hilary denounces countries, she not only screws herself, but the US's relationships with those countries.  That would literally be asking for war.  

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If Hilary denounces countries, she not only screws herself, but the US's relationships with those countries.  That would literally be asking for war.  

She's perfectly capable of doing it when it suits her

[Aerion Brightflame]

Soooo... Trumps declaration that he would cease regulations currently coming into effect and prevent new ones when he comes into office would include Dodd-Frank wouldn't it?

 

Since that's still being implemented right now. That's lunacy, sheer lunacy. That's asking for a return to pre-rescission regulations allowing bankers to freely funk us all again. 

 

He absolutely need to clarify his stance on that point almost immediately. I know he's spoken against Dodd Frank in the past, but he seriously need to tell us if that is one of the regulations he is seeking to shut down. Because that's a regulation that's saving us (As in the working people) a lot of money. 

 

Also I know it's CNN so it's heavily Clinton biased but this was just silly:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/donald-trump-iraq-war-vote-mike-pence-hillary-clinton/

 

The many intended to be his VP is entitled to make a mistake every now and again but Hilary isn't. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Soooo... Trumps declaration that he would cease regulations currently coming into effect and prevent new ones when he comes into office would include Dodd-Frank wouldn't it?

 

Since that's still being implemented right now. That's lunacy, sheer lunacy. That's asking for a return to pre-rescission regulations allowing bankers to freely funk us all again. 

 

He absolutely need to clarify his stance on that point almost immediately. I know he's spoken against Dodd Frank in the past, but he seriously need to tell us if that is one of the regulations he is seeking to shut down. Because that's a regulation that's saving us (As in the working people) a lot of money. 

 

Platform on the other hand supports Glass Steagall

 

Context wise, he was talking about businesses right...so removing restrictions on companies for the purpose of manufacturing.

[Dad]

She's perfectly capable of doing it when it suits her

 

Except no one is that stupid.  Hilary might be a liar, but she's by no means stupid.  Whether you like or dislike her or Trump, neither of them is that ignorant to go to war with multiple nuclear armed countries.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except no one is that stupid.  Hilary might be a liar, but she's by no means stupid.  Whether you like or dislike her or Trump, neither of them is that ignorant to go to war with multiple nuclear armed countries.

All I'm saying is Hillary has no problem pissing Russia and India off (you know, nuclear powers unlike SA)

 

Nor does she have any problem trying to strongarm friends (England and Brexit)

 

It's inconvenient for her to openly criticize SA and the other Islamic state's desire to remain in the stone age while they bankroll her foundation.

 

The woman is crooked crooked crooked

[Aerion Brightflame]

Because you aren't allied with Russia. Everyone tries to piss Russia off a little because they aren't allied. It's incredibly satisfying to poke the Russians. 

 

Showing support for remain was not trying to strong-arm into staying. Trump voiced public support for brexit - Does that mean he tried to strong arm the UK as well? Practically every major leader in the world voiced an opinion on Brexit and made some kind of implied threat. It really means nothing if Hillary did it too.

 

Of all the reasons to call the woman crooked, not pissing off an ally is not one of them.