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

[Tourmaline]

Holy sheet, talk about a flop.  This literally changes everything.  Tomorrow would have to reveal some kind of gaping nuclear project with intent to attack for Clinton to be imprisoned now.

 

Keep in mind they had Peter Kadkiz, best pals with Bill, overlooking this entire thing. If there has been rigging/cheating beforehand then there's nothing stopping it from happening at this level too.

 

Er, here

 

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2180405-wikileaks-peter-kadzik-sent-email-to-john-podesta-telling-him-heads-up/

 

There's a Wikileaks email in there: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

[Sunshine Jesse]

No, you can't do that anymore because you already more than maxed out on tax revenue when the economy has almost completely stagnant growth and more businesses failing than being created, any more increases in tax rates(especially now when you need GIGANTIC increases to finance the pain of 2 bubbles + 20T) will only reduce revenue, reduce investment, etc. You can't keep raising taxes indefinitely, you run into diminishing tax returns for big investment hits, this is just the road to greece.

 

That's not what happened to Greece.

 

Here's a bare bones summary:

 

1. Taxes were not increased that much until the Greek economy had already crashed.

2. Tax evasion was widespread in Greece.

3. Widespread corruption. And we're not talking about pay-to-play corruption. We're talking about sheet like this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion_and_corruption_in_Greece

 

Among other things.

 

There's actually no reason we can't increase taxes, and the fact that the right-wing keeps incorrectly using Greece as 'proof' that we can't is disgusting. It's a complete false equivalence.

[Tentacruel]

Kind of a shame tbh, as I do believe Hillary is genuinely corrupt and has little respect for the average American.

 

I don't like Trump at all, he's a funking jabroni, but I might be leaning towards him right now. I don't know if I can reward Hillary for being better at campaigning and having the media in her pocket. She's a reptile.

[vla1ne]

...No. That's not how any of this works! How many times do I have to repeat this to get it through your head? Or will you never believe me because you're that uneducated on how economics works? Look, I get it, supply/demand is what they cover in high-school economics and micro-economics 101 (and not going beyond that is exactly why economic Libertarianism has caught on, as an aside), but it's so much more complicated and in-depth than you show any knowledge of, or most anyone in this thread has shown knowledge of.

 

We're talking about someone who's STATED GOALS would destroy the world economy on a level comparable (or worse) to the Great Depression vs someone who people think might do so based on nothing but the rhetoric spewed by those who have bought into propaganda spread by the same establishment they now want to tear down. This is exactly why Trump's economic policies full of s*** and anyone who buys into it are gullible clowns- he's spewing the logical conclusions of ideologies wrought by people who came up with them solely to line their own pockets, which is the exact same thing you accuse Hillary of.

 

Trump has absolutely no experience with recovering from a global economic collapse whatsoever. How many times do I have to repeat this? The economy of a country is NOTHING LIKE the economic structure of a business. AT ALL. There are SO MANY fundamental differences that to compare the two is just... absolutely and completely ignorant.

 

For one, you can't fire people in a country. The equivalent is kicking them out or letting them die. Controlling the employees and workflow is one of the most important parts of running a business and that alone is something you absolutely cannot replicate in a country without doing terrible, morally repugnant things.

 

Does that give you perspective? Or must I go further in-depth on just how different they are?

 

I have no idea where to even BEGIN with ANY of this. It shows such a fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject that I'd have to go through an entire curriculum just to refute it.

 

This is NOT intended to be an insult in any way, for the record.

well, that's a response to one of my several points in the last post. cool. but to address this in particular:

 

before anything, i actually have to give some ground here. i've said something in ignorance, that being that trumps policy, aside from the default plan (no i don't think it's a great idea, i just believe he would do better with such a default than the rest of the candidates), was decent. and it's reasonable to admit as much before continuing. after looking at his tax policy, i can see the flaws in the plan, but i'ts been a minute since i looked up his policies, and looking at the revision tells me a few things that i agree with you on. it's not a good plan as is, but there should also come the constructive criticism instead of just pointing out the flaws and going "this is worst ever, burn in fire". that said, let's continue. it's not a good one, but it's not an unsalvageable mess. a mess nonetheless, but not impossible to fix with a few shifts:

 

to start with, His bottom class tax drops were too far down. dropping any tax rate to 0 is insane, because it literally turns an entire demographic into a piggyback group. a 5% increase to the base tax on the bottom and top classes would solve a large portion of the problems in his tax plans. although, for a republican, his plan sure does look like it plans to carry a ton of people for free, even though the bottom class, while making less, should still have to pay some share of their income, or else you'd have a massive amount of the population living off of the efforts of the top and middle class. such a change would remove a large portion of the damages to his tax plan could cause without too as much additional cutting, his tax cuts were, and are actually a relatively smart idea, but in comparison to what i said before, where he's not thinking big enough for the world stage, the reverse is true for his tax plans. he's thinking too large for tax cutting. his plan feels as if it's made for a far better off economy. 5% starting point for lower class, and 25% base for upper class while keeping the 15% on the middle class is the best solution.

 

In addition to that small edit, you can sell off lesser, or not as lucrative government assets. for example, amtrak would be a good business to sell off, or piece apart.(sell a couple trains, put more shares out, ect.) the sale could add in immediate revenue to grease the gears, and there's even more you can do to gain immediate or long term revenue. such as taxing previously not taxed premises and organizations, such as credit unions, alongside this, we have the plans for health care reform. which, while not detailed on his site, if repealed and rolled back would save millions, but leave man without health care, so instead, it would be right to suggest not a complete repeal, but an alliance with already existing firms. you can still tax them, but you could then have their transactions go through you, thus giving any who comply a safeguard against future problems, closer insight which could prevent cases of medical related fraud, and retail america's level of care, while obtaining canada's level of coverage. the best of both world, with the assistance of multiple business, who could each cover different aspects of the system under partnership. saving the government effort, protecting health care jobs, and maintaining the standards while potentially further lowering healthcare costs. but maybe that's not enough money? so to further increase revenue, why not properly phase the 2012 government healthcare legislation into current government jobs instead of exempting them? raising the deductions for healthcare over time, from 0.8% tax to 3.1% tax, in the same manner that they're raising minimum wages. thus not only earning money, but covering for lost taxes from the decreased taxes.

 

you're letting that one flaw take over your entire view. why not think of ways to improve it? heck if i had a twitter or something i'd try and send the improvements and suggestions to trump myself. i'd love a better candidate(s) but this is what we've got. and i don't trust Hillary by any means. if one's gonna win, i'd rather it be the honest jabroni who's been known for being charitable long before coming into politics.

[Sunshine Jesse]

you're letting that one flaw take over your entire view. why not think of ways to improve it? heck if i had a twitter or something i'd try and send the improvements and suggestions to trump myself. i'd love a better candidate(s) but this is what we've got. and i don't trust Hillary by any means. if one's gonna win, i'd rather it be the honest a****** who's been known for being charitable long before coming into politics.

...but he's not honest.

 

Over the course of the presidential debates he lied no less than fifty times. In the first debate alone, he lied at least 26 times.

 

He was rarely, if ever, charitable:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-and-the-truth-his-charitable-giving

 

The rest of your post was decently well-informed if not something I disagree with.

 

But this part was just objectively, completely wrong. He's both a bigger liar and less charitable than his competition.

 

He's not honest at all. He just says what people want to hear.

[Tentacruel]

I may actually be voting for Trump, but she's right, Trump is full of sheet.  Maybe not the deceitful mastermind Hillary is, but he's not honest. 

[Sunshine Jesse]

I may actually be voting for Trump, but she's right, Trump is full of s***.  Maybe not the deceitful mastermind Hillary is, but he's not honest. 

Hilary isn't much of a mastermind though.

 

Have you seen her try to lie? She's absolutely awful at it. She's good at pivoting- great, even- but when she tries to actually lie or even just awkwardly dance around the truth?

 

https://youtu.be/fWNqTVfrh6Q?t=23s

 

It's just awful.

 

You can say she's not honest- and you'd be right- but Trump is both a better liar and lies more frequently.

 

Except he's also not a mastermind because he's a dumbass. Lying and rhetoric are the only things he's actually good at. Most of his business successes are entirely built around bending the truth (Trump University, his legal tax evasion, etc etc).

[vla1ne]

Hilary isn't much of a mastermind though.

 

Have you seen her try to lie? She's absolutely awful at it. She's good at pivoting- great, even- but when she tries to actually lie or even just awkwardly dance around the truth?

 

https://youtu.be/fWNqTVfrh6Q?t=23s

 

It's just awful.

 

You can say she's not honest- and you'd be right- but Trump is both a better liar and lies more frequently.

 

Except he's also not a mastermind because he's a dumbass. Lying and rhetoric are the only things he's actually good at. Most of his business successes are entirely built around bending the truth (Trump University, his legal tax evasion, etc etc).

you for real? trump might be dishonest politics wise, but that's pot vs kettle. look at their overall moralities both during and before this race. trump ran what you can call a clean race all the way through. manners aside, his attacks were open, his positions were known, and he did little to nothing behind the scenes. then look at hillary, who not only cheated enough members on her own side to clean the DNC in california (or was it florida where that happened?), but committed what in any fair race would undoubtedly be called voter fraud, accepted cheat sheets to debates, has taken money from corporations and people directly opposed to her cause under shady means, has backstabbed more niggas than assassins creed, and whose outside actions are straight up criminal in comparison to trumps abrasiveness. hillary has no more, if not far less, moral ground than trump to stand on, no matter the stance.

 

as for charitable, you clearly haven't looked up the dozens of times he's just straight up cut checks to people in need, granting jobs to those who needed help, or stimulated the economy. the earliest source i can think of being http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3449920/That-time-Donald-Trump-saved-family-farm-Widow-s-daughter-campaign-rally-recall-Donald-paid-mom-s-300-000-mortgage-father-committed-suicide.html#ixzz429qlrfFE and far more following. he might not donate as much as he says to charities, but at the same time, he does charity to a shitton of people who need it http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-quietly-helped-marine-whom-obama-ignored/#ixzz429rKhlGP my friend, ask yourself how many stories are there that go unreported of trump doing this type of service? of him granting jobs to those who're down on their luck, like the one i posted just days ago, and the ones you've likely ignored from winter? a lot if what i've got behind me is any indication. anecdotes, like him paying off the morgage of a mechanic who fixed his flat tire, and various others, are all over the place. but what is publicity from the media when you already know they're in clintons pocket? the man might brag, but he clearly doesn't tell all he does, or you'd already know about these. the man takes hard risks, and while he's failed a lot of them, the ones he made succeed help change the face of cities and states. in fact, even some of the failures have led to benefits to the surrounding areas.

 

in addition to those https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/49a0l1/donald_trump_shows_kindness_to_a_little_girl_with/ while the poster is a fanatic, the point is well made. he clearly doesn't brag about everything he does. he is respected by thsose who work with him, and he's undoubtedly got strong values. it's not the clinton foundation, but looking at the clinton foundations shows you like i said, i might not have full faith in the man as a presidential candidate, but he's unquestionably a good person which is more than i can say for hillary, no matter what her smile tries to say. you wanna talk morals? we can keep this up all day.

[mido9]

https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results/total

 

With 0 days left, this is probably the final count for global numbers.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results/total

 

With 0 days left, this is probably the final count for global numbers.

Just saying, polls that work like this hold just about 0 meaning.

[epicmemesbro]

I'm beginning to notice a trend in candidates running for congress. An increasing number of candidates don't mention their party affiliation in advertisements on television. It isn't being done verbally nor is there any mention of it on any written portion of the ads. This is also more prevalent with Republican candidates than democrats...

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I'm beginning to notice a trend in candidates running for congress. An increasing number of candidates don't mention their party affiliation in advertisements on television. It isn't being done verbally nor is there any mention of it on any written portion of the ads. This is also more prevalent with Republican candidates than democrats...

This is because they are terrified of being painted as obstructionist.

[Sunshine Jesse]

but he's unquestionably a good person which is more than i can say for hillary, no matter what her smile tries to say. you wanna talk morals? we can keep this up all day.

Why are you deliberately ignoring the awful things he's said and done just because he's capable of acting human once in a while?

 

I already made a giant megapost linking to horrible things he's said and encouraged. I could do the same with links of him refusing to pay people, refusing to listen to people, etc etc.

[vla1ne]

Why are you deliberately ignoring the awful things he's said and done just because he's capable of acting human once in a while?

 

I already made a giant megapost linking to horrible things he's said and encouraged. I could do the same with links of him refusing to pay people, refusing to listen to people, etc etc.

no, i'm not ignoring what he's said and done, but even then, comparing his actions and words with hillary, he comes out clear on top.

 

again his actions are still better than hillary for miles. he's a s*** politician compared to hillary, because she's had years to practice when and how to lie. but as a person, he's leagues above her. the fake smile and manners are all she has above him. when has she saved a city via spending like trump? his "stupid risks" created enough jobs (however temorary) to jump start the economy  in new york. he's not as good with deals as he claims, but he's definitely got more experience making and keeping them than hillary does. she has stacks more shady money than he does, and is a professional backstabber. what does trump have that's worse than her? her actions and beliefs have helped shape policy over the years, and look where we are. his actions and beliefs have held n political power, and he still managed to boost the economy. what does she have better than he does on the moral ground?

 

 

ALSO EDIT:

went back a few pages to find that megapost you made, still going back, but i ran into

I'm not against Trump because he's a jerk. I'm not against him because of political correctness. I'm against him because in him I see a self-interested narcissist. I see someone who shamelessly panders to any demographic he can to gain power, even when he's been on record supporting exactly what he now champions against. He undermines our political process at every opportunity, his campaign does the exact same things he accuses us of doing, and pays people who are known to doctor and falsify information.

 

He has no consistent positions. He's a complete unknown. He's untrustworthy on a level that Clinton couldn't even approach.

 

And our voting generation picks up on it.

 

They haven't lost our generation at all, because most of us are actually smart enough to see through it. You can blame all these news stories and polls on some grand conspiracy all you want, but the point is that it absolutely has nothing to do with political correctness.

 

This is why I believe Trump is a self-interested conman and narcissist and why his ardent supporters are nothing but a cult.

 

It's because they refuse to understand or accept just why people hate them and their candidate so much.

 

I don't feel any less betrayed or disillusioned by the establishment than you do. I just have the common sense not to trust a candidate who promises the world when all he's shown he's willing to give us is the dick.

if this is what you're talking about, then the first cite is before immigration became a relatively high terrorism issue. granted, it is a 180, it's not an illogical 180 (aside from the fence/wall idea,) there is a laundry list of issues related to Muslim immigration in Europe,  and staunching the flow in america to do better background checks is perfectly reasonable. his immigration policy on mexico has been liberal the whole time, if you're going to say he was lying about anything, it was the toughness of his stance during the republican race. since he got te nomination, it's softened almost all the way back to it's original position. in fact, his most recent one to my knowledge was to only deport criminals and those who wer doing nothing productive,while expediting the process from those actually contributing. so if you're fearing a wall. odds are that's the real false sell to begin with.

 

the second link is a joke. literally. a joke. unless he actually does such a thing, the tone with which it was presented lends credence to it being a mere joke extension. as for him claiming he has been treated unfairly. are you going to tell me the media wasn't trying it's best to f*** him over? because i can start slow with the things they don't report, or i can simply show you the difference between what they did report for him an hillary. as for him thinking hillary is going to try and rig things, have you not heard about the campaign questions being handed to her? ...what's that bernie? you never saw the voter fraud coming? well at least trump will.

 

unless you're telling me trump himself told them to, or encouraged such actions, the third link is dead in the water. it is an entirely separate action to trump himself, barely linked even to his campaign. and even were it not, there's enough of the same on the other side to cancel this out twice over. in fact, the main person in the article is admittedly known for doing the exact same thing for obama and hillary to trump himself. so any love there is clearly lost.

 

as for the fourth, read up, not only was that donation done before he had ever ran for president, unless there's evidence of him actively knowing and seeking said filmmaker for the express purpose of criminal activity, he is not doing the "exact same things" as he's accusing hillary of. in addition said video actually DID uncover corruption. so that 10k was still a damn strong investment. the filmmaker just got arrested for unlawful entry into a federal building in pursuit of more footage. stupid, and trump likely could have found a better filmaker of higher repute, but the end goal, and the means to said goal, are all clean (aside from unlawful entry) the group (project veritas) is completely clean so far as money goes, they rely soley on donations, and unlike the clinton foundation, are all hands above board in their operations. 

(video in quesstion=

) assuming that the video is true, or even half true, i see no reason to be mad at trump over donating to it.

 

still going back for this megapost though. so i'll make a new post once i find it.

[VCR_CAT]

no, i'm not ignoring what he's said and done, but even then, comparing his actions and words with hillary, he comes out clear on top.

 

again his actions are still better than hillary for miles. he's a s*** politician compared to hillary, because she's had years to practice when and how to lie. but as a person, he's leagues above her. the fake smile and manners are all she has above him. when has she saved a city via spending like trump? his "stupid risks" created enough jobs (however temorary) to jump start the economy  in new york. he's not as good with deals as he claims, but he's definitely got more experience making and keeping them than hillary does. she has stacks more shady money than he does, and is a professional backstabber. what does trump have that's worse than her? her actions and beliefs have helped shape policy over the years, and look where we are. his actions and beliefs have held n political power, and he still managed to boost the economy. what does she have better than he does on the moral ground?

 

We're talking about the same person, right? The same guy that's cheated workers out of hard-earned wages, used charity money on a vanity purchase, and has generally practiced unethical business practices over the career of his failing enterprise? Look, I get Hillary's bad, but Trump is by no means honest or ethical just because another person is bad; they're both awful people.

[The Amazing Avian]

We're talking about the same person, right? The same guy that's cheated workers out of hard-earned wages, used charity money on a vanity purchase, and has generally practiced unethical business practices over the career of his failing enterprise? Look, I get Hillary's bad, but Trump is by no means honest or ethical just because another person is bad; they're both awful people.

This. A turd that smells slightly better is still a turd at the end of the day.

[vla1ne]

We're talking about the same person, right? The same guy that's cheated workers out of hard-earned wages, used charity money on a vanity purchase, and has generally practiced unethical business practices over the career of his failing enterprise? Look, I get Hillary's bad, but Trump is by no means honest or ethical just because another person is bad; they're both awful people.

i didn't say trump was the savior, i'm saying practically everything you can say negative about the man is also applicable to hillary, and the reverse is by no means true. he's still an ass, (this right here is enough reason to hate him to an extent = http://correctrecord.org/fact-check-phil-ruffin-lies-about-trumps-record-paying-his-bills/  he clearly has an excessive boner for deal making, when there is NO REASON AT ALL to do so. forcing people less for agreed prices and the like, although liens are par for course according to a few contractor lawyers i've read up on, so they don't count to the tally )  but to attack him on morality, using that as an excuse to prefer hillary, is completely illogical when comparing actions and personalities (when hillary and bill have have skimmed money on shady policy and donations through the foundation from people who should have no connection to her and openly oppose what she and bill claim the foundation does.). you are free to hate him, free to dislike him, love him, or whatever else, but fact is, he's miles above her as far as morality. and his business practices, however reckless, have indeed improved the lot of many a business and person around him (while on the other hand, he himself is an a****** who has cut payments from contractors for decades under annoyingly thin pretenses. that being the origin of where the bankrupt businesses has come from) he's by no means a shady dealer on the level of hillary. her s*** crosses nations, has done so for years, and is backed by the lies and money of an experienced politician and donor(s). he's just an ass in love with dealmaking. she's as bad if not far worse, she simply hides behind a facade far better than he does.

 

honestly though, the best way to handle said habit, would be to base his salary as president upon the same criteria that he's shorted his contractors and workers by. i'd honestly  love to see that. cut his money away based upon the national GDP, and tell him to suck it up as business if he complains about it. fair and balanced no?

[Sunshine Jesse]

You keep moving the goalposts. First it was "Trump is a good person," then it was "Trump is better than Hillary." Now it's "Hillary is just as bad as Trump, if not worse."

 

Do you really not recognize this? Is the cognitive dissonance that strong?

 

Hillary doesn't cheat her own employees out of money, nor does she use charity money on vanity purchases.

 

unless you count the /r/politics, CNN, and the presidency as vanity purchases

[vla1ne]

You keep moving the goalposts. First it was "Trump is a good person," then it was "Trump is better than Hillary." Now it's "Hillary is just as bad as Trump, if not worse."

 

Do you really not recognize this? Is the cognitive dissonance that strong?

 

Hillary doesn't cheat her own employees out of money, nor does she use charity money on vanity purchases.

 

unless you count the /r/politics, CNN, and the presidency as vanity purchases

he is a good person. his idea of business deals is what i'm calling him out on in that post, but then you can balance that with the deeds he's done that balance said actions out. being a good person and being an a****** are not mutually exclusive, you can be an ass and still be a great man. i have no doubt you know many an ass who would still help you in a pinch, in their own a****** way. if he hears about somebody in some form of large trouble, his supports to them is unfaltering, if he's dealing with somebody on what he believes to be a business setting, he goes as hard on them as everybody else. which is why i used the term jerk with a heart of gold. he's clearly no saint, but he is by no means a devil either...... yeah, after thinking, he's not that good of a person overall, i'll admit, good may have been too strong, but he's not a bad person. he's just decent. that sounds like a lot better word to describe him..

 

there is also no real large dissonance in saying he's a good person though (although i must say decent fits him far better than good after a bit more thought), he's better than hillary, and hillary is as bad, if not worse than trump under all three contexts. he has, for the most part, good values. in comparison to hillary i consider her the worst person for the job if we're talking morals, and as for the third statement, it was directed to somebody whom i assumed believed hillary was a better person morally than trump. in the context, what it means is, hillary has a list of actions matching the worst things trump has done (as bad) and has taken actions far beyond what trump has done throughout this race (if not worse)

 

 she may not cheat her employees, but she has been right beside, and supported policies by, people who have indeed cheated the country out of it's money. in other words, trump has cheated people and companies, hillary cheats both (as bad) AND the country (worse).

 

and yes, i do count cnn and the presidency as purchases, no, not really a vanity purchase, but far worse under most, if not all contexts.

 

do you get what i'm saying? trump, as bad as he can be, is still a good decent person at the core, he has a different set of rules in business, believing everything is negotiable, and has a sore loser streak, but at his core, he is a good decent person, and plays a relatively fair game (outside of business deals, where he goes into shark mode) hillary, on the other hand, is a person i believe to be corrupt to the core. she is false in all aspects, is only caught lying less often because she has had years of practice doing so, is involved with people whose interest directly oppose both america, and the values of the average citizen, and has proven that she does not play fair, and is willing to use unfair methods in politics to advance her causes, while trumps business practices can not only be learned and avoided, but countered against him. he himself is his army, he is all he has at this point, his money is a long arm, but it is still only him you have to fight. clinton uses the media itself, the backing of multiple outside corporations and countries, and the the power of the DNC, a far arder opponent, and she has earned all of these through screwing over people via policy, money, and politics. she is by far the shadier person. understand me?

[VCR_CAT]

he is a good person. his idea of business deals is what i'm calling him out on in that post, but then you can balance that with the deeds he's done that balance said actions out. being a good person and being an a****** are not mutually exclusive, you can be an ass and still be a great man. i have no doubt you know many an ass who would still help you in a pinch, in their own a****** way. if he hears about somebody in some form of large trouble, his supports to them is unfaltering, if he's dealing with somebody on what he believes to be a business setting, he goes as hard on them as everybody else. which is why i used the term jerk with a heart of gold. he's clearly no saint, but he is by no means a devil either...... yeah, after thinking, he's not that good of a person overall, i'll admit, good may have been too strong, but he's not a bad person. he's just decent. that sounds like a lot better word to describe him..

 

there is also no real large dissonance in saying he's a good person though (although i must say decent fits him far better than good after a bit more thought), he's better than hillary, and hillary is as bad, if not worse than trump under all three contexts. he has, for the most part, good values. in comparison to hillary i consider her the worst person for the job if we're talking morals, and as for the third statement, it was directed to somebody whom i assumed believed hillary was a better person morally than trump. in the context, what it means is, hillary has a list of actions matching the worst things trump has done (as bad) and has taken actions far beyond what trump has done throughout this race (if not worse)

 

 she may not cheat her employees, but she has been right beside, and supported policies by, people who have indeed cheated the country out of it's money. in other words, trump has cheated people and companies, hillary cheats both (as bad) AND the country (worse).

 

and yes, i do count cnn and the presidency as purchases, no, not really a vanity purchase, but far worse under most, if not all contexts.

 

do you get what i'm saying? trump, as bad as he can be, is still a good decent person at the core, he has a different set of rules in business, believing everything is negotiable, and has a sore loser streak, but at his core, he is a good decent person, and plays a relatively fair game (outside of business deals, where he goes into shark mode) hillary, on the other hand, is a person i believe to be corrupt to the core. she is false in all aspects, is only caught lying less often because she has had years of practice doing so, is involved with people whose interest directly oppose both america, and the values of the average citizen, and has proven that she does not play fair, and is willing to use unfair methods in politics to advance her causes, while trumps business practices can not only be learned and avoided, but countered against him. he himself is his army, he is all he has at this point, his money is a long arm, but it is still only him you have to fight. clinton uses the media itself, the backing of multiple outside corporations and countries, and the the power of the DNC, a far arder opponent, and she has earned all of these through screwing over people via policy, money, and politics. she is by far the shadier person. understand me?

 

All of this is implying he's ever at any point had good intentions beyond personal gain. If he truly was a good person; if he truly cared for people and wanted to do good with him; that is not the person you would be seeing as the republican nominee. His employees would be treated fairly and not brought to court simply for contesting obscenely poor wages, if they're paid at all; and yes, absolutely being a deplorable jabroni and a good person are mutually exclusive. If someone cares for other people beyond themselves, then they should at least care to treat them with respect and dignity; that of which is much easier than actually using a charity to help other people than buying 6 frickin' foot tall painting of yourself.

 

Which yeah, let's focus on that a little more, shall we? If Trump actually cared for people; if he was the good (oh now decent) person you claim to be, then what's he actually doing for people? What little guy is he standing up for? Is he paying his rightful taxes despite having the ability to avoid them because it's the right thing to do, or is he avoiding them so he can put a couple extra bucks in his pocket? Is he objectifying individuals because of their gender and appearance, or is he treating people with respect and dignity?

 

Listen, I get you hate Hillary; I do too. She's a deplorable person. They're both deplorable, awful people. But the fact that you hate one less than the other doesn't suddenly make that person a good person; Trump has done MORE than enough to show that he doesn't care at all for the little guy; that he's only looking out for himself. He's proven himself to be irresponsible, selfish, and downright unethical through his business practices.

 

You can argue Hillary is awful for her practices during the election, and absolutely that's true; but to say that Trump is suddenly a good person because he didn't do those same practices during that election is simply putting blinders on to what kind of person he really is to satisfy your own bias.

 

Treating employees as disposable objects that might not need to be paid or even paid properly isn't just a "different business practice". It's selfish and unethical. Setting up a charity under the guise of helping others and good causes and using that money for purchases isn't "a different idea of business"; it's dishonest and, again, selfish. Trump has done little, if anything, to prove that he's looking out for anyone other than himself, and it's astounding that that someone can just ignore what kind of person he is just because they dislike somebody else.  

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I think I hammered down one of my big issues with Hilary and Trump being our main choices. Excuse me for this post which might not be suitable for Debates but I think it's fitting to put it here anyway.

 

Neither feel like a president. Obama, for all his faults, felt a lot more presidential. His entire person just felt like someone I could see in charge.

Hilary feels like, well, not someone at the top. She feels like some kind of representative yes but not really presidential. She just sort of is there. I don't feel any real leadership from her.

Trump on the other hand does have some feelings of leadership. However not even close to presidential. More he feels like perhaps a mayor of some smallish city that got in because he got enough people hyped to be on board. Or perhaps a high school principle.

Just. I don't feel like this is real. I don't feel these two are president material. Once one of them, most likely, gets elected I will struggle to see them as actually my president.

[vla1ne]

All of this is implying he's ever at any point had good intentions beyond personal gain. If he truly was a good person; if he truly cared for people and wanted to do good with him; that is not the person you would be seeing as the republican nominee. His employees would be treated fairly and not brought to court simply for contesting obscenely poor wages, if they're paid at all; and yes, absolutely being a deplorable a****** and a good person are mutually exclusive. If someone cares for other people beyond themselves, then they should at least care to treat them with respect and dignity; that of which is much easier than actually using a charity to help other people than buying 6 frickin' foot tall painting of yourself.

 

Which yeah, let's focus on that a little more, shall we? If Trump actually cared for people; if he was the good (oh now decent) person you claim to be, then what's he actually doing for people? What little guy is he standing up for? Is he paying his rightful taxes despite having the ability to avoid them because it's the right thing to do, or is he avoiding them so he can put a couple extra bucks in his pocket? Is he objectifying individuals because of their gender and appearance, or is he treating people with respect and dignity?

 

Listen, I get you hate Hillary; I do too. She's a deplorable person. They're both deplorable, awful people. But the fact that you hate one less than the other doesn't suddenly make that person a good person; Trump has done MORE than enough to show that he doesn't care at all for the little guy; that he's only looking out for himself. He's proven himself to be irresponsible, selfish, and downright unethical through his business practices.

 

You can argue Hillary is awful for her practices during the election, and absolutely that's true; but to say that Trump is suddenly a good person because he didn't do those same practices during that election is simply putting blinders on to what kind of person he really is to satisfy your own bias.

 

Treating employees as disposable objects that might not need to be paid or even paid properly isn't just a "different business practice". It's selfish and unethical. Setting up a charity under the guise of helping others and good causes and using that money for purchases isn't "a different idea of business"; it's dishonest and, again, selfish. Trump has done little, if anything, to prove that he's looking out for anyone other than himself, and it's astounding that that someone can just ignore what kind of person he is just because they dislike somebody else.  

not directed solely towards you, but this has been the last time i will allow this. I've gotta point this out before we continue, so before i start, i'm going to turn this little quote i made earlier into a habit, because it saves me a lot of time making this paragraph pointing it out over and over again:  I didn't say trump was the savior, i'm just saying that practically everything you can say negative about the man is also applicable to hillary, many times on a larger scope, and the reverse is by no means true. 

[spoiler= I will elaborate on this comment one time] nearly everything negative you can say about trump, could (with bare minimum modification so as to fit the context of politics) apply to hillary, but much of what you can say about hillary, cannot be applied to trump in that same fashion. many of you all have done this repeatedly. you do not cease in your attacks of trump, which are not entirely unjustified, but you have continuously granted hillary passes on those same behaviors with little more than a basic nod in the direction, digging nowhere near half as deep as you do to trumps own negative actions, even though said behaviors cover the same, if not wider scope of damage than trump. --when her history of policies that damage entire communities (even multiple communities) come up, it is ignored in favor of the couple people that trump didn't pay overtime (about 20 were personal lawsuits if i remember right.) --when her defense of a rapist (whose case she could have easily refused or dropped) comes up, what is it but trumps statement of being allowed to pussy grab his groupies that you have eyes for. -- when her pocketing of the media itself with clinton money and power comes up, what should you focus on but a few vanity purchases from trumps end?-- if trump screws over a business by paying less, what are you ignoring but hillary taking money from multiple business and people that screw you over to continue horrible policies?-- trump makes a donation to people he likes? what are you glossing over but hillary taking money from businesses/leaders through her own false fundraiser?---- THE GUY WHO WAS BARELY CONNECTED TO TRUMP IS DOING SOMETHING NOT EVEN REMOTELY IMMORAL TO CALL OUT ANOTHER PARTY MEMBER.... By the way hillary accepted cheat sheets from the dnc and they both clearly plotted to screw bernie sanders (or anybody else capable of competing with her) over. ---  HEY YOU GAIZE LOOK! TRUMP WAS CAUGHT LYING ON HIS STANCES 20+ TIMES!!!!! that was clearly so interesting that you completely forgot hillary's entire political career has been composed of her perfecting the art of lying, and effectively covering her lies, bribes and shady dealings with manipulation, and doing the same as a lawyer. you all have done this multiple times, on multiple subjects, and i have let it slide a hell of a lot more than i ought have. I am defending trump, not because i believe he deserves to be president,but because you are all being right hypocrites in your criticisms. I didn't even want to be in this thread because i'd already seen the sheer hypocrisy and jumped ship early. but i came here because i figured the only supporter of trump would be out of the house for a while, so i might as well step in to keep things balanced also winter asked me to hold down the fort for trump, which i doubted dad could do on his own because he has mod things among other more important things to do do you get me? i'm not a fan of either candidate, i believe we should honestly have somebody far better, but when it comes down to it, trump is clearly the better choice on multiple grounds, especially moral.

 

stop being hypocrites. you have attacked trump on everything from taxes to morality, and have ignored any and all points that i have made both for trump, and against hillary. you are clearly being blinded by your hate of trump. i don't much mind you not liking him, but your hypocrisy has gone on more than long enough. if you are going to address my claims, either address both sides properly, as i have done consistently for you all, or do not address my point at all.

 

 

 

And we now return to replying to your actual quote:

of course it does, he definitely has good intentions beyond personal gain. you do not pay off the mortgage of a farm (as anonymously as possible) for nothing if you didn't have an altruistic side to you.they didn't even know it was him until they dug into the backpay. as for him paying employees, he does, what he didn't pay them was proper overtime. now, according to testimony and evidence, some of the businesses under trump kept terrible track of hours, and as such, i believe that there may be more fault there for terrible management and unwillingness to admit fault than there was selfishness. some of the people (usually those working with businesses that kept better time) received payment promptly others were simply muscled out. there's more than just the trump ideology there. but admittedly, that was still pretty likely the fault of not only terrible hour keeping, but likely trump's worldview kicking in. for example, he paid off the entire mortgage of a mechanic who fixed his limo's flat tire on short notice. does that not lend credence to his claim "Let’s say that they do a job that’s not good, or a job that they didn’t finish, or a job that was way late. I’ll deduct from their contract, absolutely?" he went above and beyond the call in that case, for what was clearly exemplar effort. and in the case of the farm payoff, was he not rewarding something that fit his worldview? a woman working as hard as she could against impossible odds, and doing the best anybody could ask of her. again, his actions align with his words well enough for me to believe him. also, the marine who suffered injustice, but had served his country faithfully prior, again, more evidence that his actions match his worldview. those who do something impressive, going above and beyond, or suffer large injustice (yes, i know you could say that he himself is causing injustices with his practices, i'm giving some slack here for the sake of argument, and my earlier statement: honestly though, the best way to handle said habit, would be to base his salary as president upon the same criteria that he's shorted his contractors and workers by. i'd honestly  love to see that. cut his money away based upon the national GDP, and tell him to suck it up as business if he complains about it. fair and balanced no? covers what i think of those particular injustices) are often granted gifts or assistance of incredible value from trump. [spoiler=Remember this?]

these days, contractors and business alike have gotten wise as well to him, and charge higher than ordinary to still receive their fair cut. in other words, there are easy measures businesses can take to combat his own strategies. the fact that said counters work, again, line up with his worldview. and according to most comments from his workers and the like, he treats the people he deals with, with the respect he believes they are due, business dealing and respect being two different things. he's known to be on the strong-arm side of business, but he is not much less respectful for it. his practices in business are the a****** side, but as i said, it's a single angle, from somebody who's worldview (say what you want about his latest proposals, but his worldview itself) has remained consistent through the years.

 

nope. because taxes are business. smart business is to avoid as many taxes as possible while making a profit. he was a businessman what did you expect? the same can be said of many of clinton's donators, the only difference being that they don't admit legally avoiding as much as they can. as the clintons do through the use of the clinton foundation and campaign money,(in fact, the clintons themselves do it too: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/06/clinton-foundation-admits-it-didnt-notify-state-department-1-million-qatar-gift.html)and the people who support the clintons would drop that support like hot onion soup with no bowl, if clinton had any sort of history going against her benefactors, also, never said he was standing up for the little guy, and i dare you to find as much if you think i did, please take things in context. i said he has more charity in his background than he brags about. 

 

would you again like me to write out the first paragraph? almost anything you can say negative about trump can be pointed back at hillary to equal or greater range of effect, with just as much evidence. i'm not supporting hillary because she has been proven to be a snake t both america, and the black community, she has a history of manipulation, and even her speech is cultivated to turn people against others in the most divisive manner. think of the children/women has become her sharpest blade, and i'm sick of it. she surns nearly every person opposed to her into a sexist caricature of themselves, and attacks the strawman like the crow she is. trump, for all his flaws, has a consistent principle that i can, and have pointed out above. even going so far as to point out how you could easily turn said knife back on him to great hilarity AND effect. hillary has no such thing, merely the well made illusion of such that vanishes once you look at her history with the people she claims to care bout.

 

again, hillary has done the same, to entire communities, for less reason than trump (his main reason being terrible timekeepers in some of his businesses, while others were promptly compensated). he has caused many businesses to collapse, but has also built many a business, invested in many a business, and helped many a business. the scale, and damage, in comparison comes out in trumps favor. again, nearly everything you can levy towards trump, can also be levied at hillary, to equal, if not greater effect. and looking at all of his actions, you can easily understand and counter his worldview to your own benefit if you are a business, or manage to get recompensated if you are a worker for him. he is consistent in those two areas, and most every business has learned how to beat the loop. while most employess know enough now to keep track of their own time should the come up short. hillary has no such consistency, the people she has ruined have varied greatly, for many a reason, and there has been no clear pattern other than the paper trail leading from her wallet to many a side business or country.

 

you are correct, i don't like trump. but at the same time, please, look at their actions. from now on, when you see a negative, for trump or hillary, compare the damage and scope. in most cases, hillary has the larger amount of damage to her name. if you hear trump is dishonest, listen closer, and you'll see how well hillary evades certainty, or states her answer in a manner that simply better covers deceit. the practiced skill of a liar is to prase their words in a way that cannot be called a lie. I know because i spend years doing as much. it's easy to call trump out, he's so blatant with his that you can simply look at him, and see the flaws. but look at him again and find the charity and principle of consistency in his actions. yeah, he's self centered, but his principles are mostly, if not always consistent. his charity is consistent, those he supports fall directly where you would expect according to his worldview, and much more. it's fine to not like him, but please look fairly. hillary? think about her, look at her policies and actions, who she has defended, who she has targeted, those whose deaths are related to looking into her business, the stories cut off by the media relating to her, the bias in her favor from the media, that ignores all idea of fair coverage, the flaws in her health:

that has a strange silence surrounding it from reporters across the board. there's a lot to this election that i simply don't like. and much of it is based upon what we don't see in the background.

 

but it's election day. we'll see today, on the polls, who wins. and regardless of the end result, i'm willing to take it fairly. because it'll be the will of those who vote. so happy election day folks

 

 

EDIT: last thing before roosting, only read halfway through so far, but have to say, so far, it's just more side proof of my top claim: practically everything you can say negative about the man is also applicable to hillary, many times on a larger scope, and the reverse is by no means true. 

 

 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/28014 put extremely simply, you all know some of the tax loopholes that trump is pretty much confirmed as using? yeah, they were established by clinton during his first presidential term, before he things blew up in his face, so yeah, she'd essentially be covering the actions of her husband by closing some of said loops. that would be interesting, to say the least, if she follows through on closing such loops because she'd essentially be helping close the same circle her husband opened. 

[Sunshine Jesse]

but it's election day. we'll see today, on the polls, who wins. and regardless of the end result, i'm willing to take it fairly. because it'll be the will of those who vote. so happy election day folks.

Wow, you're actually not ridiculous.

Props.

[Dad]

Reminder.  After the official results of the election, this thread will be C L O S E D indefinitely.  A new thread will begin regarding the elected President and their term that follows.

 

Non-negotiable.

[VCR_CAT]

nearly everything negative you can say about trump, could (with bare minimum modification so as to fit the context of politics) apply to hillary,

 

I don't understand how much you're reading my posts, or most of our posts for that matter, but you'll find that at no point have I even attempted to defend Hillary, or said anything about her being better than Trump in terms of being an "honest" and "ethical" person. Yeah, the same stuff can be said about Hillary, because fun fact: they're both horrible people. It's almost like I said that blatantly in my last post or something. The point of me elaborating on Trump being terrible and not as much on Hillary is more-so because we're pretty much all in agreement towards Hillary being a terrible person.

 

Really, I know you're not directing this solely at me, but seriously take the time to actually read what any one of us are saying before you point the finger and shout "HYPOCRISY" as if it isn't a flaw in logic. Yes, we (or at least, I) understand that Hillary is deplorable and awful; but the fact that what can be said about Trump can also be said about Hillary makes those characteristics about Trump no less terrible, and nothing is being accomplished nor argued.

 

 

A lot of what I'm getting from this is more or less a statement of "We don't know enough" re: the individual cases of inadequate payments. A practice, mind you, that I don't agree with regarding what it means for him as a boss and what it means for an employee, but that's really another discussion for another day. I'll admit here that yeah, we could stand to know the bigger picture of what's going on with those instances. However, this isn't me saying "Yeah okay he's a good guy despite all this"; no. As for paying off one's mortgage, yes those are good things that a person can do, and to flip things over for the sake of discussion, the same can be said about Hillary. NOW AGAIN: HILLARY IS STILL AN AWFUL PERSON, but that's the point of saying this; seeing a person as awful isn't to see them as incapable of ever doing good things. And finally, yeah sure he may be consistent in attitude and behavior, but it's a form of integrity I'd rather see put towards a different kind of personality.

 

 

 

How is this relevant to the discussion? I watched through, and I couldn't find anything re: how either candidate reacted to this incident.

 

 

Taxes are what keep a country moving; to see them as "business" is in regards to a loss of money that can be mitigated, is a poor view towards it. Especially regarding someone with the income that Trump is making, the taxes he should be paying are going to be fairly substantial; and that's money that should be going towards the building up of the nation. In a perfect world, that money's going towards schools and hospitals if you guys didn't think healthcare needed to be influenced by capitalism; and of course governments put disproportionate amounts of that money towards things it maybe should not have been spent on. Etc. etc. Not paying those taxes for those reasons ends up being a form of boycotting the government and expressing disapproval of these practices.

 

However, that's not the reason in this case. This reason is more-so to do with personal gain. Now yeah sure, it wasn't strictly illegal to avoid paying those taxes; but I'm arguing that a citizen and/or company has an obligation to pay these taxes because of what it means towards the development of the nation and the people within it.

 

Also, protip: maybe don't cite Fox News. I'm not doubting that the Clintons don't pay rightful taxes because, really, they're rich individuals and pretty much anyone with money in this western world isn't going to pay the taxes they should, which sucks.

 

ALSO LAST MINUTE ADDITION: There's a lot of reasons for why Trump wouldn't have paid those taxes, AS I'M LEARNING. These reasons mostly have to do with his business doing very poorly in the 90's and government exemptions granted for failing businesses. Now, my opinion re: not avoiding taxes for loophole/personal gain crap; stuff that isn't as cut-and-dry as that could be, but I will retract my call-outs on Trump re: Taxes as more of a "more information needed" dealeo.

 

 

Like I said a couple times: They're both pretty bad. I don't think any one of us should be compromising and rooting for one as a "lesser of two evils" just to have something to root for. What this election is going to show is that, as my friend put it so well, that bad feelings aren't arguments for good governance (Hillary), and that brash/tactless mongering is no substitute for discussion (Trump). Neither of these candidates are good, and I feel like more people should be expressing this instead of working towards finding a lesser of two evils.

 

Absolutely, Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy, and even a lot of her more blatant policies I'm in stark disagreement with (she has a planned policy re: churches being forced to accept homosexuality regardless of religious views that, while good in intentions, goes against religious freedoms, especially if no laws are being broken), yet Trump is irresponsible and often times very irrational. When I see either of them talking or expressing policies, I don't see anything that illustrates someone that makes a good presidential candidate (as Cow put it).

 

Honestly, it comes back to what I observed at the first debate. Seeing candidates answer serious questions regarding policies or situations by first taking any opportunity they can to fire a shot at the opposition doesn't speak anything good to me. To me, it shows petty and childish behavior that doesn't belong to someone that should be rational and open minded in a position of such power. At the end of the first debate, when Hillary just outright said "Anyone who's complaining about the mic is having a bad time", it left a very sour taste in my mouth. Can I trust someone who can't respect their competition to respect people that disagree with them, including other nations? This goes towards either of them, and I honestly do not envy the awful choice you guys need to make.