T
Thorolfr
Guest
Then we’ll have even better roads, bridges and airports (no more third world airports for us). We can just rely on the charity of billionaires to pay for our national infrastructure…
- Status
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
And there is nothing illegal or immoral in making use of the current tax code either. I suspect their AGI was affected by their donations, and well it should have been. Same for Trump, you, and me. So where’s the issue with either one?
I find the whole arguing about taxes paid, charitable donations, and the like to be such a wasteful pointless distraction in a presidential election with such diverse ideologies in play. Romney was generous with his income, but got attacked because he donated to the Mormon Church. Who cares? I don’t oppose Hillary because of her income or donations, and I doubt most people support her for that reason. It is such a banal thing to argue about in an election for CINC, IMO.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
Actually, I find the means of acquiring income and the use of it, and one’s business practices to be invaluable in ascertaining a candidate’s core values, and commitment to justice, or lack thereof.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It seems both candidates were unaware of where the IP addresses came from to do the hacking. The fat guy comment really showed this ignorance.
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
And if one candidate was demonstrably more honest or forthright than the other, maybe I would to. But this isn’t the election to argue about who is more honest.
That’s why I said it is just noise. They’d both do better to discuss the future and their policies, than to be dragged into questions of ethics. He has people questioning his business practices, and she has a history of scandals and lying. Unfortunately for Trump, he decided to answer NBCs questions that were targeted at him, while she got none of the same style. He would do better to ignore those questions going forward and say whatever he wants, as I am sure she will do. She has enough seasoning to know that.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
That it is. I’m rich enough to own a house, so I get a mortgage interest tax deduction. Because of that deduction, I can itemize and deduct real estate taxes and charitable donations. Those people who don’t have mortgages don’t usually get these deductions.
For some reason, Congress decided that it should encourage home ownership via tax policy. Not everybody is cut out to be a home owner.
Why not allow charitable deductions for those who don’t itemize?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Precisely.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This will happen when both realize most voters vote their pocketbooks and not marital fidelity or lack of it.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I think part of the problem is that people seem to think that there are only two candidates. One may argue that Trump is the lesser of two evils. One cannot come up with a reason why one should vote for Trump on his own merits.
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
Well, if you have a slight lead, as Hillary seems to, perhaps it behooves her to keep things in the irrelevant because chatter in the news cycle about Trump’s taxes doesn’t allow him to stay on message.
Not that anyone on CA should be in favor of that, but I suspect the less scrutiny she has and the fewer questions she has to answer, the more she likes it.
Like I said, both candidates should simply ignore any questions they find irrelevant and say what they want. Do so under the guise of talking to the American people directly. Reagan did it well. Just ignore lester holt when he asks something stupid and discuss your points. Same goes for Hillary if Bill’s infidelity comes up.
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
I think most here have in fact argued the former, not the latter, though I can’t speak for every one. But I find the constant discussion of ethics and integrity, especially with regards to Trump on this site, to be baffling. He’s running against a habitual liar. Surely, there are better areas to contrast him, which is why so many responses end up along the lines of “yes, well look at Hillary.” At least make a case in an area where the other is noticeably weaker.
I also find it interesting that there are 3 major camps on here. Those who support Clinton, those who support Trump, and those who don’t support either. yet for some reason, a much higher percentage of that third group spends an inordinate amount of posts criticizing Trump and staying silent on Clinton, despite claiming to not support her.
You’d think the “I can’t vote for either crowd” would be much more evenly split. Without questioning specific posters, it is very noticeable, and I can only assume in some cases, they really do support Clinton, and don’t want to admit it. Why, I can’t fathom, beause she has plenty of proud vocal supporters on here.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Some commentators have pointed out that Mr. Trump will probably do even worse in the second debate on October 9 than he did in the first. The second debate will be in the town hall format and Clinton has a reputation for being very good in that kind of debate, even better than she is in the last kind of debate. In his rallies, Trump rarely gets closer to voters than the distance between the first row and the podium whereas Clinton has a lot of practice with campaign events with small groups where she interacts with people one-to-one.
T
tomarin
Guest
But he does excel at rallies, he thrives off of winding up large crowds. Would that not be in his favor in the town hall format?
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
I suspect it was one commentator who suggested this, and he is probably hoping more than suggesting.
Town Halls favor people with a likeable persona. Bush Jr always did well. Gore and Kerry seemed stiff. Hillary is of the same mode - she has always been labled fake and wooden. Trump is a wild card to an extent, though I think speaking directly to people versus answering a wildly inaccurate moderator can only be a good thing.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
The town hall format is not about winding up a crowd. It’s about answering an individual voter’s question. As was reported in the Washington Post by Paul Waldman, “What you may not realize is that while Hillary Clinton gets a lot of criticism for not being a natural performer and not being good at delivering a speech, this kind of exchange — between her and one voter, where she can make a connection with that person and relate their particular question to broader concerns — is something she’s really, really good at.”
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
In my opinion, I could never vote for Hillary, so what could I really say about her? If Trump didn’t have so many ethical issues, then perhaps I could vote for him. But he does not support family values, he does not support transparency. He seems to be basically out for himself, which is his right. I also have the right to criticize him and not support him.
T
tomarin
Guest
My problem with Trump is that he’s not a true conservative but a populist demagogue-in-training masquerading as a sort-of conservative. In other words, a fraud.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
That may very well be,so what does that make Hillary?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
A centrist liberal?
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
I’ am in the third group, and I am “guilty” of your criticism/observation. I think it is a function of most posters here being for Trump,to varying degrees. HRC’s faults are well-covered by the pro-Trump posters. Also, her faults are those most people have come to expect of politicians: mainly dishonesty and self-dealing. So they aren’t as shocking, at least not to my generation. On the other hand, I and many people I converse with didn’t think we’d ever see a major presidential candidate as inarticulate and crass and emotionally vulnerable as Trump. I hope I don’t get reported for making uncharitable comments, but that is my honest opinion of him. Now maybe eloquence and aplomb are overrated qualities in a politician from a Christian pov, you can argue that and I might agree. But it is hard to picture Trump as a competent president. That doesn’t necessarily mean I’m going to vote for HRC.
- Status