Donald Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Usige said:
I suspect the same thing. It will likely come down to how many people show up to vote against Clinton or Trump. I suspect it will depend on how much people are moved from dislike to disgust with a given candidate. I personally don’t know of anyone who is voting for someone, but rather is voting so X doesn’t become president. Pretty bad when most people don’t vote for what a candidate might do, but rather vote against what the other candidate would potentially do.
Click to expand...
I think if enough Latino and black Americans come out to give HC a win in FL, assuming they are given a chance to vote and their votes are counted of course, and she wins VA, it will be very difficult for Trump to prevail in the Electoral College.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I think if enough Latino and black Americans come out to give HC a win in FL, assuming they are given a chance to vote and their votes are counted of course, and she wins VA, it will be very difficult for Trump to prevail in the Electoral College.
Click to expand...
Again pftttttttt…:rolleyes:
 
Vanny said:
I did not support Trump during the primaries. I so much wanted CRuz to be the nominee.
However, I will be voting for Trump for POTUS. I will never cast a vote for HRC.
Trump has promised to appoint conservative SC justices.
He has promised to defend the 2nd amendment.
he has promised to help preserve religious liberty.
Now he may well break those promises. I hope not.
But we KNOW what HRC will do should she be elected POTUS.
We KNOW what kind of SC justices she’ll appoint.
We KNOW how radical she is on abortion.
Now granted, no, Trump has not been proven to be the most pro-life of candidates.
But the fact that he chose Mike Pence for VP and has promised to support groups like the little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby I find encouraging. we KNOW where HRC stands on religious liberty issues. Abortion on Demand and PP all the way, baby.
For me, the choice is clear. It also goes beyond the next 4 or 8 years, as well.
Because the next President will be appointing at least one, likely more, SC justices.
As Trump has promised to appoint conservatives, I will take him at his word.
Click to expand...
Trump has promised to help veterans … and already has done so. Trump has stated that veterans should get benefits at least as generous as illegal aliens.

Trump has promised to reduce tax rates because the U.S. tax rates are the highest in the developed world. Clinton has promised to RAISE tax rates.

There is about $2 TRILLION in money belonging to U.S. corporations that is stranded overseas. Under present tax law, the corporations would need to pay some high rate … ?35%? … to repatriatate that money. Trump says he can get it back here and will propose to Congress a low tax rate to encourage that.

One of Trump’s secrets is that he is a closet philanthropist. He helps people anonymously.
Whereas Clinton demands payoffs.

Clinton has collected tens of millions in payoffs from foreign governments. Read “Clinton Cash”. In fact, she collected $145 MILLION from “brokering” a deal. Russia got 50% of our uranium and some Canadians paid her $145 million. They figured by going through third parties, no one would find out.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Trump has promised to help veterans … and already has done so. Trump has stated that veterans should get benefits at least as generous as illegal aliens.

Trump has promised to reduce tax rates because the U.S. tax rates are the highest in the developed world. Clinton has promised to RAISE tax rates.

There is about $2 TRILLION in money belonging to U.S. corporations that is stranded overseas. Under present tax law, the corporations would need to pay some high rate … ?35%? … to repatriatate that money. Trump says he can get it back here and will propose to Congress a low tax rate to encourage that.

One of Trump’s secrets is that he is a closet philanthropist. He helps people anonymously.
Whereas Clinton demands payoffs.

Clinton has collected tens of millions in payoffs from foreign governments. Read “Clinton Cash”. In fact, she collected $145 MILLION from “brokering” a deal. Russia got 50% of our uranium and some Canadians paid her $145 million. They figured by going through third parties, no one would find out.
Click to expand...
The guy who wrote that book says he has no evidence.
 
Padres1969 said:
Maybe if the only place in the developed world you’ve ever been to is the US. :ehh:

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/11/among-developed-nations-americans-tax-bills-are-below-average/
Click to expand...
taxfoundation.org/article/2015-international-tax-competitiveness-index

The United States provides a good example of an uncompetitive tax code. The last major change to the U.S. tax code occurred 29 years ago as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, when Congress reduced the top marginal corporate income tax rate from 46 percent to 34 percent in an attempt to make U.S. corporations more competitive domestically and overseas. Since then, member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have followed suit, reducing the OECD average corporate tax rate from 47.5 percent in the early 1980s to around 25 percent today. In 1993, the U.S. government moved in the opposite direction, raising its top marginal corporate rate to 35 percent. The result: the United States now has the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world.

While the corporate income tax rate is a very important determinant of economic growth and competitiveness, it is not the only thing that matters. Several factors determine the competitiveness of a tax code; the structure and rate of corporate taxes, cost recovery of business investment, property taxes, income taxes, and tax rules for foreign earnings are some of the factors that determine whether a country’s tax code is competitive.

Many countries have been working hard to improve their tax codes. New Zealand is a good example of one of those countries. In a 2010 presentation, the chief economist of the New Zealand Treasury stated, “Global trends in corporate and personal taxes are making New Zealand’s system less internationally competitive.”[1] In response to these global trends, New Zealand cut its top marginal individual income tax rate from 38 percent to 33 percent, shifted to a greater reliance on the goods and services tax, and cut its corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 30 percent. This followed a shift to a territorial tax system in 2009. New Zealand added these changes to a tax system that already had multiple competitive features, including no inheritance tax, no general capital gains tax, and no payroll taxes.[2]
In a world where businesses, people, and money can move with relative ease, having a competitive tax code has become even more important to economic success. The example set by New Zealand and other reformist countries shows the many ways countries can improve their uncompetitive tax codes.[3]
 
Sy_Noe said:
Ya think? Go ahead and even give him to turn OH, PA, CO, NH, IA and let him keep NC, and Hillary keep FL and VA, and Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.

270towin.com/maps/qjYYm
Click to expand...
Trump cannot even hold his own party and he has alienated most minorities including women. The Republicans have handed the election to Hillary. A sad era for America.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Trump cannot even hold his own party and he has alienated most minorities including women. The Republicans have handed the election to Hillary. A sad era for America.
Click to expand...
I don’t think one can say “the Repubs” selected Trump. Certainly the party leaders didn’t. Trump was selected by the voters; probably a goodly number of them not Repubs at all.

If the Repub party failed in anything, it failed in opposing the Obama agenda and in coming up with a coordinated plan for the nation’s recovery. A lot of Repubs resented that.

So now their candidate is a non-ideologue whose claim on the office is that he can actually get some things accomplished that are not the Obama/Clinton agenda. Some of the public believe he can, and some don’t. Some think he can, but think Hillary Clinton will somehow give them a piece of the welfare state and don’t want Trump to oppose it.
 
MODERATOR REMINDER - CAMPAIGNING

Campaigning is not allowed here.

If a member is perceived as consistently attacking one or more candidates while defending another candidate, they will be considered campaigning. And their account suspended.
 
Ridgerunner said:
One might rightly critique “conservatism” in an organizational sense if one identifies “conservatism” with the Repub party. But conservatism in itself does not deserve the epithet of “dead-end ideology”. If that were so, one would have to condemn as “dead end” the social encyclicals of the Popes as well as the writings of many meritorious writers.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, RR. Trump is no conservative so you can’t really say his presence means Conservatism is a “dead-end philosophy.”
 
ringil said:
You think?

I predict Trump loses Dukakis style.
Click to expand...
I do think it will be a close election. Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate, not only because of her spotty record but because she represents the past, having been a member of Obama’s administration and, before that, the First Lady of her husband’s administration. The country is itching for change, almost any kind of change, a change not only of political party but of politics and policies.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Did you ever see West Side Story?

There is a scene where the Sharks and the Jets agree to have a fair fight, where the the strongest member of each gang have a fist fight.

The Democrats were going to pick Hillary.

So what do the republicans do when many people don’t like Hillary? And they could have won in a landslide?

They pick Trump.

McCain wasn’t good enough, too moderate. Romney, a devoted family man wasn’t good enough, too moderate.

I have voted for Republicans because of life issues. And this guy has no pro-life credentials. Oh except for a super-star acquaintance, that wasn’t aborted.

He praised planned parenthood for crying out loud. During the campaign. :confused: He’s the best that we could have come up with?

I cringe to think of the debates.
Click to expand...
This election season is an utter nightmare. There were a number of perfectly decent, well-informed candidates who wouldn’t embarrass the country. But no, we end up with Trump. When he loses to Hillary, it will be the fault of those primary voters who chose him.
 
dixieagle said:
This election season is an utter nightmare. There were a number of perfectly decent, well-informed candidates who wouldn’t embarrass the country. But no, we end up with Trump. When he loses to Hillary, it will be the fault of those primary voters who chose him.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way about the Democrats. Hillary is the best and almost only choice except for Bernie, a democratic socialist? Are there no other new and fresh Democrats across the country that the party could have chosen? Why is she entitled to be the Democratic candidate only because she should have won in 2008? Why another Clinton in the White House? Another Bush wasn’t such a great idea.
 
ringil said:
You think?

I predict Trump loses Dukakis style.
Click to expand...
I think so, too. When you look at the Republican convention attendees, you see very clearly that they simply aren’t representative of the demographics of the country. As Trump will received negligible votes from minorities and not many more from women, I think he’s sunk. I don’t see Pence lighting any fires.
 
dixieagle said:
This election season is an utter nightmare. There were a number of perfectly decent, well-informed candidates who wouldn’t embarrass the country. But no, we end up with Trump. When he loses to Hillary, it will be the fault of those primary voters who chose him.
Click to expand...
You find Trump more embarrassing than Hillary.That there are those in this country who actually want her as president is the real embarrassment,talk about circling the drain…😦
 
meltzerboy said:
I feel the same way about the Democrats. Hillary is the best and almost only choice except for Bernie, a democratic socialist? Are there no other new and fresh Democrats across the country that the party could have chosen? Why is she entitled to be the Democratic candidate only because she should have won in 2008? Why another Clinton in the White House? Another Bush wasn’t such a great idea.
Click to expand...
This election has really pulled back the curtain on party politics on both sides of the aisle. The infighting, jockeying to keep down different candidates, shutting down of roll calls… At various times both parties have looked anything but democratic.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
taxfoundation.org/article/2015-international-tax-competitiveness-index

Many countries have been working hard to improve their tax codes. New Zealand is a good example of one of those countries. In a 2010 presentation, the chief economist of the New Zealand Treasury stated, “Global trends in corporate and personal taxes are making New Zealand’s system less internationally competitive.”[1] In response to these global trends, New Zealand cut its top marginal individual income tax rate from 38 percent to 33 percent, shifted to a greater reliance on the goods and services tax, and cut its corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 30 percent. This followed a shift to a territorial tax system in 2009. New Zealand added these changes to a tax system that already had multiple competitive features, including no inheritance tax, no general capital gains tax, and no payroll taxes.[2]
In a world where businesses, people, and money can move with relative ease, having a competitive tax code has become even more important to economic success. The example set by New Zealand and other reformist countries shows the many ways countries can improve their uncompetitive tax codes.[3]
Click to expand...
:thankyou:🙂

Wanna move here? You’re welcome:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top