First Presidential Debate 9/26/16 Thread

[Thorolfr]

Meanwhile, I’m too busy looking at serious ideology differences and policy changes I’d expect to care much about their charitable donations. But do continue. And do so while defending Clinton from doing the same thing the last Republican nominee did.

So lets look at what people think about some of Mr. Trump’s proposed energy policies, for example. There’s a new article on this in the Guardian, ‘Trump’s promises are empty’: energy experts lay waste to proposals: From making coal great again to ‘cancelling’ the Paris accord, industry analysts say his ideas are farfetched and his talk of climate change as a ‘hoax’ is dangerous"

Donald Trump’s energy agenda – which includes pledges of “complete energy independence”, making coal great again and ditching the Paris climate deal – is drawing bipartisan fire from industry analysts, former members of Congress, and even one coal mogul.

All of them, to varying degrees, fault the billionaire’s basic premises and call his promises farfetched and at times contradictory.

They say the Republican presidential candidate uses faulty math to tout his vision of America’s energy independence, fails to understand energy economics in his pledge to revive the coal industry, and is peddling a big myth by claiming that global warming is a hoax.

But Charles Ebinger, a senior fellow at Brookings for energy security and climate issues, told the Guardian that “coal jobs aren’t coming back and for Mr Trump to say they’re coming back is erroneous and fanciful”. Noting that cheap natural gas has been the primary driver behind years of decline for the coal industry, Ebinger added that Trump seems to be “pandering to coal miners”.

Other analysts concur. “Donald Trump’s promise to revive the US coal sector can only be realized by reining in hydraulic fracking,” said Jerry Taylor, the president of libertarian thinktank the Niskanen Center.

“That’s because low-cost natural gas (courtesy of fracking) has done far more to shut down coal-fired power plants and, correspondingly, reduce demand for US coal than has EPA regulations. Given that he promises exactly the opposite – moving heaven and earth to increase US natural gas production – Trump’s promises are empty.”

Even Trump backer and coal mogul Bob Murray, who runs Murray Energy, which has given $100,000 to a pro-Trump Super Pac, says that the coal industry won’t ever be great again. “I don’t think it will be a thriving industry ever again,” Murray told an energy publication this year. “The coal mines cannot come back to where they were or anywhere near it.”

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/29/donald-trump-energy-proposals-coal-natural-gas

So there’s Mr. Trump’s contradictory energy policy: increase coal mining while also increasing the thing that is hurting the coal industry, fracking and natural gas production.

 

[J_Peterson]

I wish there was a way for Lester Holt to bring up Jeffrey Epstein during the debate to watch both of them squirm.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Clinton giving 96% to her own charity (including last year) is still a lot better than Trump who hasn’t given to his own charity since 2008 and no evidence that he’s given much charity anywhere else since then either.

Not really. She got a tax deduction for it, so that means roughly $300,000.00 tax revenues not received.

 

[Mulligan2]

LOL Howard Fineman is hardcore left wing! I wouldn’t put much stock in his opinion

That’s your prerogative.

I’m happy to let everyone absorb what they saw at the debate and come to their own conclusions.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I read her income and what she paid in taxes, that’s all I wanted to know. Trump on the other hand bragged that not paying taxes makes him smart. Guess I’m stupid because I pay mine.

I pay some after taking mortgage interest, taxes, and charitable deductions. When my kids were younger, I also took the child tax credit. I hardly paid any taxes. Do you choose not to take advantage of these tax deductions?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not really. She got a tax deduction for it, so that means roughly $300,000.00 tax revenues not received.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about donating to a organization you happen to run - unless you think that organization does not deserve tax exempt status. If you think so, make the case for it instead of just insinuating it…

 

[Thorolfr]

Not really. She got a tax deduction for it, so that means roughly $300,000.00 tax revenues not received.

So she paid less in taxes (but still paid $3,624,455 at a tax rate of 34.2% last year) which is still better than Mr. Trump who appears from the few years we know about for sure not to have paid any taxes at all. And he didn’t contradict Mrs. Clinton when she implied he doesn’t pay taxes by saying, “That makes me smart.”

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Stop telling women, “We’re with you.”

So you are saying that if you are required to defend a rapist in the court of law, your forfeit all rights to be in favour of women’s rights?

Say an abortionist falls ill. Is the doctor who treats him automatically pro-life for doing his utmost to cure him? No, the doctor could be the most pro-choice person in the world but it is their responsibility to cure their patient no matter what they may or may not go on to do.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

And what exactly does Trump’s tentative and changed view on the Iraq War as a merely partially informed private citizen have to do with his position on the Middle East today or when he is president? You need to be applying that principle (past vis a vis present) across the board, no?

In fairness, I think people take issue with his denial of it than anything else. Like if he just said he was wrong, no one would care, because so many people made the wrong call on that one.

 

[lmachine]

Trump’s rise draws white supremacists into political mainstream: ‘I am winning,’ says David Duke

Trump’s surprise rise to become the GOP presidential nominee, built largely on a willingness to openly criticize minority groups and tap into long-simmering racial divisions, has reenergized white supremacist groups and drawn them into mainstream American politics like nothing seen in decades.

White nationalist leaders who once shunned presidential races have endorsed Trump, marking the first time some have openly supported a candidate from one of the two main parties.

…]

“Before Trump, our identity ideas, national ideas, they had no place to go,” said Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank based in Arlington, Va.

Not since Southern segregationist George Wallace’s failed presidential bids in 1968 and 1972 have white nationalists been so motivated to participate in a presidential election.

 

[kat07]

Not really. She got a tax deduction for it, so that means roughly $300,000.00 tax revenues not received.

The Clintons deducted $1,042,000 in charitable contributions last year.
Their 1 million donation to their own charity flowed back to an entity they controlled. Let’s not forget how large sums of money donated to the CFF was used.

 

[Leo2014]

It’s like a Christian, a Jew and an atheist watching The Passion of the Christ. They see three completely different movies.

I cannot completely agree.

I can see individuals not weighting in so heavily on certain issues that others find uncompromising. However, I don’t understand the “conservative paradigm”? Remember, Trump was the candidate that many found repulsive just six months ago. Yet, he managed to win the nomination of a party that was not supporting him. I have to give him credit, that was remarkable!

You know as well as I do that he is non-trust worthy. None of us should be surprise if he turns on any statement or promise with his typical cavalier attitude.

 

[J_Peterson]

I pay some after taking mortgage interest, taxes, and charitable deductions. When my kids were younger, I also took the child tax credit. I hardly paid any taxes. Do you choose not to take advantage of these tax deductions?

I take whatever deductions the program I’m using tells me I’m eligible for. I don’t have a problem with that. Our household income is less than $100,000 but we ended up paying something into the system. The rules that allow you to not pay anything do not apply to simple working people.

Personally I have a problem with someone who supposedly made hundreds of millions of dollars not paying a penny in taxes. I also have a problem with a presidential candidate who thinks those who don’t pay taxes are smart.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Clintons deducted $1,042,000 in charitable contributions last year.
Their 1 million donation to their own charity flowed back to an entity they controlled. Let’s not forget how large sums of money donated to the CFF was used.

If you are implying that the Clinton Foundation is not entitled to a tax deduction, then prove it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There is nothing illegal or immoral about donating to a organization you happen to run - unless you think that organization does not deserve tax exempt status. If you think so, make the case for it instead of just insinuating it…

I take whatever deductions the program I’m using tells me I’m eligible for. I don’t have a problem with that. Our household income is less than $100,000 but we ended up paying something into the system. The rules that allow you to not pay anything do not apply to simple working people.

Personally I have a problem with someone who supposedly made hundreds of millions of dollars not paying a penny in taxes. I also have a problem with a presidential candidate who thinks those who don’t pay taxes are smart.

Our tax system needs a major overhaul. And the IRS needs to clean house big time.

 

[qui_est_ce]

If you are implying that the Clinton Foundation is not entitled to a tax deduction, then prove it.

That’s up to the IRS. We already know they cherry-pick.

Where is Lois Lerner?

John A. Koskinen under investigation.

 

[kat07]

The Clintons earned $10,745,378, looks like they would be in 38% tax bracket. Clinton Foundation only gives 9% of it’s money to “charity”. On 1 mil on top of everything else the Clintons actually made $270,000 profit by donating all the money to themselves. Yet Hillary isn’t “sophisticated” enough to understand the “nuances” of handling classified material. No smidgeon of corruption can be seen by Democrats anywhere…I got to get me a Foundation.

 

[ProVobis]

I think that discrepancy you point out comes into focus when he makes policy suggestions that might make sense for a company but make no sense for a nation, like his proposal to refinance U.S. debt.

Exactly.

 

[ProVobis]

Our tax system needs a major overhaul. And the IRS needs to clean house big time.

The income tax needs to be abolished altogether, according to libertarians.

Otherwise it is used as a social engineering tool, according to Gingrich.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Mr. Trump has to show why he is better for women than Hillary. He should point out the rape case of a 12 year old, where Hillary said it was the fault of the 12 year old. Is that more favorable to female rape victims or to monster criminal rapists? Why did Hillary blame the girl who was a child victim for this horrible crime?

You forgot to mention that Hillary Clinton was a public defender for the accused rapist. The job of a public defender is to (surprise, surprise) defend their client. In fact, they have an ethical obligation to do so, by any means short of fraud on the court. That is our justice system, like it or not.